The pros and cons of nuclear power
“Nuclear power – no thanks!” has been a mantra of the environmental movement for decades. Suggesting that the movement should switch to “nuclear power – yes please”, or even “nuclear power – maybe”, is enough to get you harangued and vilified, as a number of recent converts to nuclear energy, like Mark Lynas and James Lovelock, have found out.
The fact that many leading environmentalists are looking again at the potential of nuclear power may actually help to promote discussion of these issues within the trade union movement. Many of the large industrial unions, such as Unite and the GMB, have historically been “pro-nuclear”, largely the result of pressure from workers in the industry. In contrast the service and white collar unions, such as Unison, have tended to oppose nuclear power.
The GMB, for example “consider that nuclear power has an important role to play as part of a balanced energy policy.” They add that safety fears will only be dealt with if the industry is “in public hands and properly accountable to the public.” Unite (T&G section) shares this view and calls for “a transparent and accountable industry and an end to the arrogance and secrecy that has been the hallmark of the past.”
Unite’s Amicus section is more combative, and it refuses to “subscribe to the view that new nuclear stations should not be built until the treatment of radioactive waste is ‘solved’. This stricture is not applied to other energy sources. Most notably power stations using fossil fuels have continued to be built despite the fact that there is no ‘solution’ in view for climate change.” Unison disagrees. In a statement welcoming a government announcement on the need to tackle climate change, it “does not believe that new nuclear build is the right solution to the UK’s need for secure, low carbon energy . . . The union supports an energy policy based on renewables, such as wind, solar and wave power, and clean coal and carbon sequestration.”
Not surprisingly, the National Union of Mineworkers is another opponent of nuclear power. When environmentalist George Monbiot raised the possibility of nuclear power as part of the answer to climate change, Scargill suggested that he had “sold out” on his environmental credentials. We need an end to all nuclear powered electricity generation, the most dangerous and uneconomic method of producing electricity.”
It is clear that most of the trade unions in Britain are divided along sectional lines, adopting positions according to the presumed interests of their own members, rather than from the point of view of the working class as a whole and the environment which it will be living in decades to come.
On nuclear power, as with coal and aviation, vital decisions need to be made in the next few years. The workers’ and environmental movement need to make these decisions taking into account the best scientific and technological information available. They need to protect the interest of the workers in these industries but not by sacrificing the environment.
The majority of the opposition to nuclear power is based on fears about its safety. In 1976, Patrick Moore wrote that “Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created.”
Today, Arthur Scargill argues that “the incidence of cancer and leukaemia, particularly among children, is 10% higher in or around nuclear power stations, and . . . we know from experts such as Robert Gale, who treated the victims at Chernobyl in 1986, that more than 100,000 will die over a 30-year period.”
In contrast, David MacKay, a physicist from Cambridge University, considers deaths per amount of energy produced (Gigawatt-year) and concludes that in Europe, nuclear and wind power are the safest technologies (about 0.1 death per GWy), while oil, coal and biomass are the most dangerous (above 1 per GWy).
While there is disagreement about the numbers of deaths attributable to nuclear power, many opponents stress the future rather than current risks. They fear disasters or potential exposure to radiation because of inability to safely store nuclear waste.
Fear of future risks is understandable, as is the mistrust in an industry run for profit where safety is not the first consideration. We know that many coal miners die or suffer long term disability from accidents and even more from exposure to coal dust. We know that coal-related environmental pollution leads to deaths from pulmonary disease. It seems that fear of unknown future risks ranks higher in some people’s minds than fear of established risks.
There are major safety issues with nuclear power, some of them massive, including the potential for misuse of by-products such as plutonium for nuclear weapons. Newer technologies promise to deal with some of these by reducing waste through re-use to create more energy, but none of these has successfully been implemented. Fourth generation technology, or fast-breeder reactors, are much more efficient and leave less waste. They may also be able to use depleted uranium from other reactors. They do, however, produce plutonium (though not weapons grade) which has to be disposed of safely.
So why are these fourth generation reactors not being used? Some would say it is because early examples did not meet expectations, and ended up being very expensive and inefficient. Others blame the environmental movement for persuading President Clinton to halt investment in them.
At the moment the evidence suggests that existing nuclear power production is relatively safe in routine operations, but that there is the potential for major loss of life from leaks, disasters and particularly the misuse of waste products. Technologies for safer nuclear power production are promising, but have not been fully exploited and therefore we do not know how safely they could work.
A second major discussion is whether nuclear really is low carbon, if you take into account all of the processes involved from the construction of the reactors through to the disposal and storage of waste. Although opponents dispute it, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimated that CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour from nuclear were similar to those from renewable sources of energy.
Mark Lynas, George Monbiot and others who have recently been won to the need for investment in nuclear energy, argue that without it we will have to remain dependent on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Even with a massive expansion of renewable energy and energy conservation, there will still be a gap. The choice, therefore, is between more CO2 emissions and inevitable disaster from worsening climate change on the one hand, and nuclear power with its theoretical future risks on the other.
Others strongly disagree and say that we can produce sufficient power from renewable energy, particularly if it is combined with lower consumption and waste. But who are “we”? Many of the people who have written about self-sufficiency with renewables are speaking about the UK, or perhaps Europe. They may or may not be correct for the richer nations but this is a global problem, not a national one, and in the world most people have too little energy available for use.
Reduced consumption and improved efficiency through methods such as insulation and reducing waste, may help in the richest countries, but in much of China, Asia, Africa and South America there is a need for far higher levels of energy production in order to meet basic human needs. We need more energy overall, not just substitution by cleaner sources, and therefore we have to be willing to explore ALL possible options.
A major argument around nuclear power is whether it is practical. There is a long lead-in time for building new nuclear capacity, particularly if you include the research and development needed for the newest reactors. Most people talk of 15-20 years before the energy would come on line, by which time it is too late. One of the delays is the limited industrial capacity and skilled expertise, but that really is a problem of planning and investment. At the moment there are very few companies producing reactors and the various components – hardly surprising since most governments have stopped allowing new plants to be built. But when France took the decision to go nuclear, it managed to open around six reactors a year to reach 80% of electricity production within 25 years.
The answer as to how much nuclear power can be a safe, efficient and a practical part of meeting energy needs is a complex question that requires considerable input from scientists in much the same way as predictions about climate change. This does not mean that we should abstain from the discussion, nor that decisions should be left to the scientists alone, particularly as many of these may have vested interests as they work for the competing industries.
What it means is there needs to be full open scrutiny of all the available evidence by the labour movement, including scientists and other workers. We need to fight for the workers in the industry and outside it in the communities to have the right to their own inquiries, with financing to employ experts and hear witnesses in order to ensure firstly that there is a sound case for expanding nuclear power. And they need to fight for control of all elements of the industry’s functioning, health and safety and disposal of waste.
The combination of imminent climate change with continued energy poverty in much of the world means that we cannot rule out a proven and less polluting sector of the energy industry. We agree that renewables alone may not be enough. It is therefore essential that investment is poured into research and innovation to bring on stream and test the latest generation of safer nuclear plants and to seek to resolve the problem of waste storage.
But this must not be left to the private sector with the inevitable secrecy and cost-cutting resulting from a competitive industry. As one nuclear sceptic writing on Mark Lynas’s website puts it: “I think myself and many more people would have less problems with nuclear energy if it were not in the for-profit world . . . But as long as it’s in the hands of private companies who want to maximise the profits for their shareholders, I’m against.”
The energy and related supply industries must be re-nationalised under the control of the workers and users, with no compensation to the owners and share holders, and the government must undertake a massive investment in nuclear as well as carbon capture storage and renewable energy. This should include a large-scale industrial conversion programme in the midst of the global recession, transforming the legions of newly unemployed with new skills for green technology industry so as to produce the necessary turbines, solar energy equipment and armies of home insulation staff.
We need to demand that the companies open the books to inspection – determining the safety of different technologies can only be done with complete openness about the processes and costs of production and results of research. The results can then be scrutinised by trade unions, and by workers’ and community enquiries into energy safety and sustainability, including of nuclear power, which can then determine investment priorities.
Without this, nuclear power, like coal, gas and oil, is likely to be exploited for profit, with little regard to the impact on the planet, the workers in the industry or the wider community.
Thu 18, June 2009 @ 17:26
Bookmark with:
What are these?