Issue 153

Waterfront Debate: For Nuclear Power

26th February 2007

As controversial today as it was in 1945, when it was used to effectively end the Second World War, the uses of nuclear energy have come under the scrutiny of people across the globe.

Lewis Strauss, chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, predicted in the mid-1950s that the electricity produced through nuclear power would soon be "too cheap to meter." The fifty years that followed did not fulfil his promise, nuclear power has never accounted for more than 20% of the total electrical use in the US - less than 10% of the total needs. However, the US situation is not universal.

Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity.

The largest users are France and Lithuania, dependent on nuclear energy for around 75% of their power; Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine are dependent for 33% or more; Japan, Germany and Finland for more than 25%; and even the US for 20%.

Critics of the use of nuclear power as an energy source have highlighted the possibility of countries with such a nuclear ability using it as a means for developing a nuclear weapons capacity.

However, it should be pointed out that whilst there are eight countries with a confirmed nuclear weapons capability, there are 56 which operate civil research reactors and 30 have 435 commercial nuclear power reactors.

Nuclear power ability does not go hand in hand with nuclear weapon capability. Nuclear generated energy can be regarded as efficient and clean under the correct circumstances. As long as the power plants are well constructed, they will be extremely clean and will release less radioactive material into the atmosphere than coal fired power plants.

The use of radioactive materials also produces a great deal more energy than the use of the equivalent amount of fossil fuels. One nuclear fuel pellet about two centimetres long produces the same amount of electricity as one and a half tonnes of coal.

However, a large number of the nuclear power stations are too old to operate efficiently and are being closed down - the idea being that alternative renewable resources will replace nuclear power and allow a movement away from the use of fossil fuels.

The British government has been advised that the alternative renewable resources are not an option; increased use of nuclear power is the only way in which to meet emission targets. Recent developments, however, have led to a High Court judge overruling the Government in favour of Greenpeace, that the government's nuclear dealings have been unlawful.

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, has told BBC Radio 4's 'The World at One' that "the thing that concerns [him] more than anything else is that we are in a race against time... climate change is a major problem for us, we cannot become overly dependent on oil and gas for generating our energy."

Other countries remain active in developing nuclear power, proving their confidence in the future of nuclear power. Finland has recently approved the construction of a new nuclear power plant station, which will be the first to be built in Western Europe since 1991, and it was announced on September 22, 2005, that two sites in the US had been selected to receive new power reactors.

Despite accidents, such as Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl disaster in 1986, it seems that the EFN's often quoted view - that nuclear energy is "the only ecological solution" is being reexamined in depth. EFN, Environmentalists for Nuclear Power, is a not-forprofit organisation and is a founding member of the World Nuclear Association. It seems even the opposition to nuclear power can change its mind. Not only Governments, but environmentalists also, are giving their support.

Melissa Cathcart