f i nancial r e a l i t i e s So what’s driving this passion for nuclear power? The industry pushes its carbon-free credentials (although Dr Ian Fairlie, a radiationrisk consultant, points out that the energyintensive mining, milling and transport of uranium ore, fuel enrichment, fuel reprocessing and storage, radioactive waste treatment and eventual waste disposal result in considerable CO2 emissions) but its attraction is less to do with altruism and more to with financial realities. ‘Support for nuclear power is all to do with energy security and economics,’ says Malcolm Grimston, a senior research fellow at London-based think tank Chatham House. ‘As long as you can build a nuclear power plant in reasonable time and to cost, nuclear should be the most economical option.’

Russia’s belligerent behaviour has also focused minds, according to Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the WNA. ‘To a greater or lesser degree, countries around the world are buying into nuclear for three reasons: basic economics, energy security and constraining carbon emissions. We’ve all noticed how [Russian president Vladimir] Putin turned the gas taps off in Ukraine, and we can see those long pipelines feeding Europe from Russia and Africa, and the US army’s fuel supplies are essentially dependent on the Middle East.’

Others are more circumspect in their assessment of nuclear’s momentum. ‘It’s too early to say that the world is definitely experiencing a nuclear renaissance,’ says Dr Mervyn O’Driscoll, a senior lecturer in history at University College Cork and an expert in nuclear energy, history and strategy. ‘Rather, what we are seeing now is a re-evaluation of the wider utility of nuclear power, and there are several factors that lead to a more positive assessment of nuclear energy in the energy mix of some key countries. Both energy security and climate change are playing a large role in the decisions of states and regional organisations.’

Environmental groups remain sceptical of these geopolitical arguments. ‘The nuclear industry has done a really good job of lobbying governments around the world, and the public – reinventing itself as a sensible option,’ says Ben Ayliffe, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace. ‘We’re seeing a natural reaction to that from governments – they’re between a rock and a hard place; they have to be seen to be doing something about climate change while keeping the lights on at the same time.’

Greenpeace is also uneasy about the impact that nuclear power might have on alternative forms of energy. ‘The danger is that we will miss the boat with renewables,’ says Ayliffe. ‘We’re at a crossroads. Either we can revolutionise the way in which we produce energy, with smart

Nuclear share of total electricity production

(%; 2009) Lithuania: 76.2

France: 75.2 Belgium: 51.7 Ukraine: 48.6 Bulgaria: 35.9 Sweden: 34.7

Japan: 28.9 Germany: 26.1

Finland: 22.0

USA: 20.2 UK: 17.9 Russia: 17.8 Spain: 17.5 Canada: 14.8 Argentina: 7.0 South Africa: 4.8

Brazil: 3.0 India: 2.2 Pakistan: 1.7

grids, renewables and combined heat and power, or we can look to the past and stick with an incredibly inefficient energy system. Nuclear will lock us into this antiquated system for the next 40 or 50 years. If we do that, we will miss the opportunity to really reap the benefits of renewable technologies.

‘Nuclear is too little, too late,’ he continues. ‘It’s not practical as a key pillar of energy strategy. We have very limited time to make the cuts required – nuclear won’t do it for us. For every dollar you spend on energy-efficiency technologies, you get seven times the return you would for nuclear power.’

Yet others argue that to push for renewable energy at the expense of nuclear is to miss the point. ‘Renewables and nuclear don’t compete,’ says Grimston. ‘Renewables are not suited to the base-load [24-hour] energy approach that nuclear provides. They’re more intermittent. You can’t replace nuclear with renewables – you can only replace it with coal or gas. It’s economically illiterate to say that if you improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent, then you get a 20 per cent cut in energy use.’

s a f e t y i s sues Safety, and what on Earth to do with nuclear waste, stand at the heart of the nuclear debate. Environmentalists warn of the risks of proliferation or of material being obtained by

TERS

i/REU

icc ind

Br

Marcos

44 www.geographical.co.uk february 2011