Professor James Lovelock's Gaia theory describes the earth as working like a giant living organism. According to Lovelock, Gaia -- derived from the Greek for goddess of the earth -- is physically and chemically entwined with life on this planet.
Professor James Lovelock's Gaia theory describes the earth as working like a giant living organism. According to Lovelock, Gaia -- derived from the Greek for goddess of the earth -- is physically and chemically entwined with life on this planet.
For his work, Lovelock has been lauded as one the world's leading environmentalists. It may come as a surprise, therefore, to hear that the scientist is backing nuclear power as the energy source of the future.
Nuclear energy is far from green. While nuclear electricity generation may be emission-free, every other stage of the nuclear cycle is not, from the uranium mining and enrichment process through to fuel fabrication, plant construction and waste management.
But the professor believes a wide take-up of atomic energy is the only way to halt the inexorable rise of greenhouse gases and avert a looming climate catastrophe. "We must stop fretting about the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals and radiation," he says. "Almost a third of us will die from cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with all that pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we might die even sooner."
Lovelock is not alone in his enthusiasm for atomic energy. In Britain, the government has started laying plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations. Alan Johnson, the new energy secretary, has been told by his officials that he must make up his mind whether to go nuclear by the summer.
!ADVERTISEMENT!
In the US, President Bush has signalled that he would renew his push for increased production of "safe, clean nuclear energy". Finland is already building a new plant, the first in the West for more than a decade.
The rehabilitation of nuclear power is remarkable because the concerns that turned people off nuclear energy a generation ago -- fears of accidents, huge costs of maintaining radioactive facilities long after they have stopped producing electricity, and difficulties finding anywhere to safely store toxic waste for thousands of years -- are just as valid today. Last week it emerged that had been an extensive leak at the UK's Thorp reprocessing plant; though contained, the leak has led to the plant's temporary closure and its clean up is confounding experts.
On top of these enduring concerns, there is now the added danger of nuclear terrorism. Since the September 11 attacks, the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised its terrorist threat analysis and security warnings on nuclear facilities.
In the UK, the nuclear industry has been marred by cost overruns, public bailouts and bad management. Liberalised energy markets have made firms reluctant to invest in expensive and risky nuclear plants, especially after the near collapse of British Energy two years ago. It was privatised, went bust and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.
However, the British government has committed Britain to tough targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions under the Kyoto accord, and nuclear power may be only way to meet the country's energy needs in the 21st century while meeting the targets.
THE first time nuclear energy was used to power people's homes was in the Soviet Union in 1954. Demand for the new power source grew quickly but then came the industry's two nadirs: the 1979 partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the US and the 1986 Chernobyl explosion that killed 31 people in the immediate aftermath and poisoned thousands of others with large doses of radiation.
The disasters did not kill off the nuclear industry, however. There are now 439 nuclear power plants in 30 countries, mainly in North America, Europe and Japan. Together they provide 16 percent of the world's electricity. Nuclear power stations currently provide 20 percent of the UK's energy needs and 70 percent of France's.
But the UK's current generation of nuclear power stations is ageing. Within the next 15 years, most of the plants will have been shut down, and if no action is taken, nuclear's share of our energy supplies will have fallen to 7 percent according to government estimates.
Britain needs to plug the energy gap if it is not to be plunged into darkness. The government's energy white paper in 2003 put the emphasis on "renewables" such as wind power, which ministers ambitiously forecast will be providing 10 percent of our energy by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
At present wind farms provide less than 0.5 percent of our energy needs. It would take tens of thousands of turbines dotted around the country to get up to 10 percent, a move which would be unpopular with locals living near them. The farms would have to be substantially subsidised by the state, and additional gas-powered stations would have to be built to meet the shortfall on days when the wind was not blowing.
Gas, though cleaner than coal, also produces carbon dioxide, one of the main culprits of global warming. If we build more gas-fired power stations, we don't have a hope of meeting the Kyoto requirements.
Also the UK will this year become a net importer of gas for the first time as North Sea supplies begin to decline. By 2020, most of the gas used in British power stations will have to come from places such as Iran, Azerbaijan and Algeria. As well as the danger posed by political instability in these countries, the pipelines themselves would be vulnerable to terrorist attack. The gas supply could be cut off at any time.
This combination of security fears over gas and emissions targets has seen the government turn again to nuclear energy.
In a briefing note for incoming ministers, Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the Department of Trade and Industry, warns that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost green energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently.
The document points to the key role new nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide, would play in tackling carbon emissions. It also points to the increased risk of an electricity supply shortage after 2008, when a number of nuclear plants are due to close, and warns of a growing reliance on imported gas supplies. It continues: "Extending the lives of nuclear stations and/or new build could strengthen the generating sector's contribution to CO2 reductions, by 2020 and beyond." A decision is needed quickly, because it takes a decade to get stations operational.
PRIME minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown are broadly in favour of nuclear power but cost and the right funding mechanism will be the deciding factors.
Recent research from Oxera, first revealed by The Business, suggests that it would cost £4.4bn of public money to meet Britain's emissions targets with nuclear power and £12bn with wind.
The Nuclear Industry Association has been lobbying the government for 10 new stations to combat climate change, arguing that a large-scale building programme is the only economic way of financing them.
The government will want any new power stations to be built by the private sector. Investors would have to be prepared to finance new nuclear power plants and to foot the bill for decommissioning them.
But the British Energy debacle will still be fresh in their minds. The privatised nuclear power station operator went bust three years ago because ministers liberalised the market in electricity prices. The price of electricity dropped through the floor and the old nuclear power stations weren't making enough to cover their costs.
Electricity prices have now risen, but investors will not take on that level of risk again. The government may have to promise in long-term contracts that if the price fell dramatically, it would make up the difference.
Investors may prove hard to convince but the government may have an even tougher job gaining public acceptance for a power source widely regarded as unsafe. Dealing with nuclear waste will also be a big challenge.
Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to reprocessing nuclear fuel. The waste is divided into three categories -- high level, intermediate level and low-level. The first two types need to be isolated from human contact for up to 200,000 years.
The UK has about 100,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste in stock, stored in Sellafield and at several sites around the UK, all above ground.
The Finns are pioneering the latest method of disposal: spent fuel is put into iron castings, which are then encased in copper and dropped down a borehole, which is then filled in with a special clay. In the UK, a decision on how to get rid of waste will be made next year.
Politicians will argue that new atomic power plants will be cleaner, safer and cheaper than their predecessors, and are absolutely vital if we are to meet our global warming targets and safeguard our supply of energy. These arguments are powerful but the government will have its work cut out persuading the public that the new builds are in their interests, particularly as the designs for supposedly safe reactors are untried.
To see more of The Business, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.thebusinessonline.com.
Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
ENN Poll:
[23]
