The Open Letter
to Environmentalists produced by academics in Australia and backed by over 70
academics worldwide, calls on environmentalist to back nuclear power as a
response to climate change. Their case is based on the counterintuitive claim
that nuclear has lower environmental and health impacts than wind or solar
power. The Open Letter, and the backup paper it refers to, admits that nuclear
may not be cheaper (on-land wind is already cheaper), but says it is better in
terms of land-use, and so biodiversity impact, and also in terms of fatalities.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/
The land-use
claim is familiar enough; but calculations like this often ignore the land use
implications of uranium mining, fuel processing and waste disposal. Indeed,
Amory Lovins has calculated that, when the fuel nuclear fuel cycle is included,
the nuclear option overall may actually use more land than a renewable energy system with a similar
output: www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.pdf
Rather than using
the total area of the wind farms, this type of approach uses the much smaller
area used by the wind turbine towers and any access road: the rest of the site can still be used
for farming, or left wild. Biomass is of course land hungry and its use for
energy can have impacts of biodiversity if not done sustainably, but solar
arrays on roof-tops take no extra land, while off-shore wind projects (and wave
and tidal farms) use no land at all. Moreover, it has been claimed that solar
farm arrays protect land from other more disruptive uses and can actually
increase biodiversity: http://solar-trade.org.uk/media/140428%20STA%20BRENSC%20Biodiversity%20Gudelines%20Final.pdf
On the basis of a
/kWh comparison with nuclear, depending on how much offshore wind, wave, tidal
and roof-top solar is included, there is probably therefore not much in it,
indeed renewables may actually need less land, unless that is you want to claim
the contaminated land in the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusions zones as
wildlife havens and as adding to (possibly mutant) biodiversity
The comparisons
of health impacts can also be challenged, as being partial or limited, much
like earlier attempts to make estimates: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html and www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
Yes people do fall off roof-tops while installing PV cells and there have been
fatalities associated with wind turbine installation and maintenance- around
150 so far globally, with around 370GW of wind capacity now in place: www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf But that has to be set aside the deaths linked to leaks from
and accidents at nuclear power plants (with around 377GW in place globally at
present) and also those associated with uranium mining. Estimates vary dramatically: from a few
dozen deaths (direct operator fatalities at Chernobyl) to many tens of thousands,
when all the longer term region-wide impacts of radiation are included: www.chernobylreport.org. The
variations are in part due to different views on the impacts of low-level
radiation exposure. It is usually argued that exposure to radiation from external
sources at around background level is acceptable, but that may not hold up in
the case when radio active material is ingested- continual long term radiation from internalized sources can
have large impact even if the source is weak.
Independent radiation expert, Dr Ian Fairlie,
argues that "Contrary to the paper's (unsupported) assertions that
nuclear is less of a problem than wind or solar, over 40 epidemiology studies
worldwide indicate increases in childhood leukemias near nuclear reactors. The
large spikes in gas emissions when reactors are opened for refuelling result in
radioactive plumes which may cause high radiation doses downwind of nuclear
reactors. In addition, the authors appear unaware of the recent compelling
epidemiological evidence that radiation risks, especially from internal
emitters, are greater than currently estimated. See http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/ The new
studies have good statistical power, and are mostly from government or academic
sources - indeed some are by scientists who used to work in the nuclear
industry. Taken together, the new studies indicate that our current
understandings about radiation risks, especially in infants and children, may
be incorrect and may need to be revised upwards."
Even when we take
account of the lower load factors achieved by wind (30%)/PV(10-15%) compared
to nuclear plants (70-80%), its
hard to accept as proven that, long term,
nuclear is less hazardous/kWh of final energy supplied.
Many of the other
assessments made to buttress the Open Letter are similarly debatable, in that
they seem to ignore or downplay some serious issues with nuclear expansion. For
example we face increasingly worrying security and proliferation risks: www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2680005/nuclear_power_and_biodiversity_dont_forget_wmd_proliferation.html And sites have to be found for nuclear plants that
will be safe from flooding, sea level rise and the increased storms and tidal
surges expected due to climate change. We also have to find safe locations for
long-term disposal of increasing amounts of active wastes.
There are also
some implicit strategic issues. For example, can we really rely on fuels which
will inevitably become scare, with, as low grade uranium ores have to be mined
and processed to make nuclear fuel, using fossil fuel, carbon dioxide emissions
rising?
Overall, the Open
Letter and linked paper’s attempt to make a case for nuclear seems
unconvincing. Certainly other studies have come to very different conclusions.
For example, a global life-cycle assessment of clean energy sources by an
international team claimed that a renewable system could supply the world's
entire electricity needs by mid-century without major problems with resource
(materials) use or eco-impacts, including land use and biodiversity: www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1312753111.abstract
The EU’s Externe study estimated the extra social and
heath costs of all energy systems, and found that nuclear had the highest: http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/
A subsequent study
by Ecofys for the European Commission included estimates for climate change
costs, and put the total nuclear social and environmental costs at €18-22/MWh,
more than for any renewable: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/doc/20141013_subsidies_costs_eu_energy.pdf
In reality there
would seem no need to bother with a high cost, risky nuclear option, when there
are better and increasingly cheaper options available. Renewables already
supply twice as much electricity globally as nuclear (22% v 11%) and are expanding rapidly, while
nuclear is in decline in most places.
If for some reason nuclear is expanded, then given inevitably limited
funding and other resources, it will divert support from, and slow down the
expansion of, renewables - the only long term sustainable energy supply option
we have. Some say we can have both
renewables and nuclear, but, quite apart from direct competition for funding,
this ignores the fact that there can be operational conflicts. Nuclear plants
are usually run at full power 24/7 to recoup their high capital costs, and
their output cannot be run up and down to match variable renewables regularly
and quickly without facing safety problems - the Xenon poisoning has to be
given time to clear. So, if there
are large amounts of nuclear and renewables available on the grid, more than is needed when energy
demand is low, which plants give way? It make no more sense to curtail wind and
solar than it does to curtail nuclear. Basically they are incompatible at any
significant scale, and as we move to flexible systems of decentralised
generation using smart grid dynamic demand management and supergrid balancing, large infexible nuclear
plants just get in the way.
Some look to
small-scale possible more flexible nuclear plants, or fast breeder plants
perhaps based on thorium, which could extend the fissile fuel resource, but
they are all long off and very speculative, in terms of cost and, arguably,
safety. Even longer term, some look to fusion. But that is even more uncertain and far off. We need to deal
with climate change now, so why not use the fusion reactor we already have- the
sun. Energy demand can be tamed-
electricity use has fallen by 14% in the UK this century. And renewables can be
ramped up to supply the bulk of our energy by 2050, as Germany, Denmark and
others are planning, all without nuclear and with smart grid and supergrid
systems helping to balance locally variable supply and demands. That’s the way
forward.
