Revision as of 15:47, 19 August 2005 editMale1979 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,009 editsm →Further Readings: +ja← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:01, 20 August 2005 edit undoBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits →Energy Balance: pollution dumping on the poorNext edit → | ||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
==== Energy Balance ==== | ==== Energy Balance ==== | ||
It is also claimed that nuclear power is in fact no "power" at all, since the complete process, from fuel mining to fission, would consume more energy than it produces. The power plant would in this way produce less energy than the energy needed to power the mining operations, the ] purification and the ] enrichment. A country buying fissile fuel from another country would, in practice, buy the energy the first country put in fuel extraction and refining, using the fuel as an energy carrier. | It is also claimed that nuclear power is in fact no "power" at all, since the complete process, from fuel mining to fission, would consume more energy than it produces. The power plant would in this way produce less energy than the energy needed to power the mining operations, the ] purification and the ] enrichment. A country buying fissile fuel from another country would, in practice, buy the energy the first country put in fuel extraction and refining, using the fuel as an energy carrier. Because the initial energy is often dirty fuels such as coal, which causes some 30,000 deaths a year, the effect is to move the pollution caused by the consumption of the rich and to dump it on the poor - an example of social injustice. | ||
It is acknowledged that the validity of this argument is strongly dependent on the initial purity of the mineral ore. | It is acknowledged that the validity of this argument is strongly dependent on the initial purity of the mineral ore. |
Revision as of 05:01, 20 August 2005
A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production. It includes the closing down of nuclear power plants. It was introduced in Sweden (1980), in Italy (1987), in Belgium (1999), and in Germany (2000) and has been discussed in several other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations.
Concerns about nuclear energy are of environmental, social and political nature. Often connected with phase-outs is the idea to force a shift to alternative energy.
Introduction
Several countries, especially European countries have abandoned the use of nuclear energy since 1987. Countries that have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions comprise Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Norway. Poland stopped the construction of a plant . Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy.
Many countries are currently building new nuclear power plants.
If countries shut down nuclear power plants they have to find alternatives for energy generation if they don't want to become dependent on imports. Therefore, the discussion of a future for nuclear energy is intertwined with a discussion of renewable energy development. The most discussed alternatives to nuclear power include hydroelectricity, fossil energy, solar energy, and biomass. (see also alternative energy)
Countries that have initiated a phase out or have discussed it
(See also Nuclear energy policy)
Belgium
Belgium's nuclear phase-out legislation was agreed in July 1999 by the Flemish Liberals and Democrats-led Government including Groen!, the Belgian Greens party. The phase-out law calls for each of Belgium's seven reactors to close after 40 years of operation with no new reactors built subsequently. When the law was being passed, it was speculated it would be overturned again as soon as an administration without the Greens was in power. , pdf)
In 2003, a new government was elected without the Greens. However, as of 2005, there is no indication the current Government will revoke the phase-out law after the incident at Tihange in November 22, 2002 turned public opinion against nuclear power .
In July 2005, the National Planning Bureau published a new report, which states that oil and other fossil fuels generate 90 percent of Belgian energy use, while nuclear power accounts for 9 percent and renewable energy for 1 percent. It is projected that within 25 years renewable energy will increase to at most 5 percent of the energy use, because of high costs. The current plan of the Government arranges for all nuclear power stations to shut down by 2025. The report raises concerns about greenhouse gases and sustainability.
In August 2005, the French Suez Group offered to buy the Belgian Electrabel, which runs nuclear power stations .
Germany
In 2000, the German government, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. Jürgen Trittin (from the German Greens) as the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020. This was enacted as the Nuclear Exit Law. Based on the calculation of 32 years as the usual time of operation for a nuclear power plant, the agreement precisely tells how much energy a power plant is allowed to produce before being closed down.
The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off (November 14th, 2003) and May 11th, 2005) - their dismantling is scheduled to start in 2007. ()
Anti-nuclear activists criticize the agreement: they think of it rather as a guarantee of operation than a nuclear power phase-out. They argued also the time limit for phase-out was too long and criticized the ban on building new commercially used nuclear power plants did not apply to scientifically used plants, which since had been put into operation (e.g. München II) and also not to stations for enrichment of uranium, and the enrichment station in Gronau has had its permission to operate extended since. Further, nuclear fuel reprocessing was not immediately forbidden, but allowed instead until the middle of 2005.
Although, the reactors in Obrigheim had been shut down, the dismantling of the plant will only begin in 2007. Therefore, it might be possible to put them back in operation after the next federal election in September (which has been considered by the now-opposition CDU).
It has been argued the German government has been supporting of nuclear power by providing financial guarantees for energy providers. Also it has been pointed out, there were, as yet, no plans for the final storage of nuclear waste. Anti-nuclear activists stated that by tightening safety regulations increasing taxation, a faster end to nuclear power could have been forced. A gradual closing down of nuclear power plants has come along with concessions in questions of safety for the population with transports of nuclear waste throughout Germany (). This latter point has been disagreed with by the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety ().
Because of increasing prices for fossil fuels, arguments for a phase-out of the phase-out were again being discussed. In the federal election in 2002 the candidate for chancellor of the CDU/CSU, Edmund Stoiber, promised, in the event he wins, to cancel the phase-out (). As of 2005, the CDU is predicted to win the German federal election, 2005 with candidate Angela Merkel . She has announced to negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations .
An Renewable Energy Sources Act provided for a tax in support of renewable energy. The German government, declaring climate protection as a key policy issue, announced a carbon dioxide reduction target by the year 2005 compared to 1990 by 25 percent (, pdf). In 1998, the use of renewables in Germany reached 284 PJ of primary energy demand, which corresponds to 5 percent of the total electricity demand. By 2010 the German Government wants to reach ten percent.
Critics of a phase-out in Germany argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for, and predict an energy crisis, or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously (with the use of oil and fossils) and/or in energy imports either ironically of nuclear power from France or of natural gas from Russia, which is still not perceived as a safe partner.
Italy
Italy held a referendum the year after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, and it was decided to shut down the country's four nuclear power plants and, following a moratorium on nuclear energy, plants were closed down, the last of which in 1990. The moratorium was in effect until 1993 but has since been extended indefinitely. Italy imports about 85 percent of its energy (e.g. from France and Switzerland).
The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, in 1994, the Dutch parliament voted to phase out after a discussion of nuclear waste management. The power station at Dodewaard was shut down in 1997. In 1997 the government decided to end Borssele's operating license, at the end of 2003. In 2003 the shut down was postponed by a conservative government to 2013 . In 2005 the decision was reversed and research ín expending nuclear power has been initiated. Reversal was preceded by the publication of the Christian Democratic Alliance's report on sustainable energy . Other parties then conceded.
Philippines
In the Philippines, in 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo outlined her energy policy. She wants to increase indigenous oil and gas reserves through exploration, develop alternative energy resources, enforce the development of natural gas as a fuel and coco diesel as alternative fuel, and build partnerships with Saudi Arabia, Asiann countries, China and Russia. She also made plans public to convert the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in a gas-fired facility.
Sweden
After the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (USA) in 1979, there was a referendum in Sweden that was condemned as flawed by some observers because people could only vote "NO to nuclear" although there were 3 solutions that were basically harder or softer "NO". After that the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, the question of security of nuclear energy was again called into question. In 1997 the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, decided to shut down one of the reactors at Barsebäck by July 1, 1998 and the second before July 1, 2001, although under the condition that their energy production would be compensated. The next conservative government tried to cancel the phase-out, but, after protests, didn't cancel it but instead decided to extend the time limit to 2010. At Barsebäck, block 1 was shut down on November 30th, 1999, block 2 on June 1, 2005.
The nuclear energy phase-out is controversial in Sweden. It is feared that Sweden will lose its international competititiveness. The energy production of the remaining nuclear power plants has been considerably increased in recent years to compensate for the turn off of Barsebäck. In 1998, the government decided to build no further hydropower plants in order to protect national water resources. In spite of extensive efforts to create alternatives to nuclear power, e.g., fossil fuels, it is not likely that Sweden can complete the nuclear power phase-out by 2010. It has been estimated that nuclear power plants in operation will stay in operation until 2050.
In March 2005, an opinion poll with 1027 persons asked, showed 83 percent support for maintaining or increasing nuclear power . Another poll in May that polled residents that lived around Barsebäck found that 94% wanted it to stay. Despite the fact that reports about limited radioactive leakage of cesium, that were below safe level, at a nuclear waste storage for low and medium waste in Forsmark, Sweden have been published at June 29, 2005 there has been no major change in opinion polls .
Switzerland
In Switzerland there have been many referenda on the topic of nuclear energy, beginning in 1979 with a citizens' initiative for nuclear safety, which was rejected. In 1984, there was a vote on an initiative "for a future without further nuclear power stations" with the result being a 55-45% vote against. On September 23, 1990 Switzerland had two more referenda about nuclear power. The initiative "stop the construction of nuclear power stations," which proposed a ten-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, was passed with 54.5% to 45.5%. The initiative for a phase-out was rejected with by 53% to 47.1%. In 2000 there was a vote on a Green Tax for support of solar energy. It was rejected by 67-31%. On May 18, 2003, there were two referenda: "Electricity without Nuclear," asking for a decision on a nuclear power phase-out, and "Moratorium Plus," for an extension of the earlier decided moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Both were turned down. The results were: Moratorium Plus: 41.6 % Yes, 58.4 % No; Electricity without Nuclear: 33.7 % Yes, 66.3 % No .
The program of the "Electricity without Nuclear" petition was to shut down all nuclear power stations until 2033, starting with Unit 1 and 2 of Beznau nuclear power stations, Mühleberg in 2005, Gösgen in 2009, and Leibstadt in 2014. "Moratorium Plus" was for an extension of the moratorium for another 10 years, and additionally a condition to stop the present reactors after 40 years of operation. In order to extend the 40 years by 10 more years another referendum would have to be held (at high administrative costs). The rejection of the Moratorium Plus had come to surprise to many, as opinion polls before the referendum have showed acceptance. Reasons for the rejections in both cases were seen in the worsened economical situation.
As of 2005, Switzerland has four nuclear reactors at Beznau (Beznau 1), Gösgen, Leibstadt, and Mühleberg, and around 40 percent of its electricity is generated by nuclear power. Another 60 percent comes from hydroelectricity. .
In 2004 and 2005 the station in Leibstadt had to be shut down twice after technical difficulties.
Other countries
(See also Nuclear energy policy and List of nuclear reactors)
Europe including Russia
In Spain a moratorium has been enacted by the socialist government in 1983 (, ) and plans for a phase-out are being discussed anew .
In Ireland, a nuclear power plant was first proposed in 1968. It was to be built during the 1970s at Carnsore Point in County Wexford. The plan called for first one, then ultimately four plants to be built at the site, but it was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained without nuclear power since.
On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy. .
An opinion poll in Britain in 2003 on behalf of Greenpeace showed large support for wind energy and a majority for putting an end to nuclear energy .
Slovenia will close down its only nuclear plant in Krško by 2023.
Russia has made plans to increase the number of reactors in operation from twenty nine to fifty nine, financed with the help of loans from the European Union. Old reactors will be maintained and upgradet, including RBMK units similar to the reactor in Chernobyl.
Oceania
New Zealand enacted the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act of 1987 which prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This Act of Parliament, however, does not prevent the construction of nuclear power plants.
In Australia there are no nuclear power plants. Australia has very extensive, low-cost coal reserves and substantial natural gas and majority political opinion is still opposed to domestic nuclear power on both environmental and economic grounds. However, a number of prominent politicians have begun to advocate nuclear power as a means to affordably reduce greenhouse emissions and perhaps allow for large-scale de-salination plants.
Asia
China and India are currently building new nuclear power plants.
In Taiwan, Oil accounts for 48 percent of the total energy consumption. Coal comes next with 34 percent, followed by nuclear power with 9 percent, natural gas with 8 percent, and hydropower (below 2 percent). Nuclear energy is controversial and the privatization of the energy market (with Taipower that is owned by the state), originally planned in 2001, has been postponed 2006. As of 2002, Taipower had an installed capacity of 31,915 MW, of which 69 percent was thermal, 16 percent was nuclear, and 14 percent was hydropower. The Democratic Progressive Party Government was elected in early 2000 promising to approve only Liquefied natural gas power projects in the future, and to increase the share of Liquefied natural gas of Taiwan's power generation to roughly by one-third by 2010. It was tried to stop the 2,700-MW Kungliao nuclear power plant, currently under construction, but a court has ruled the construction could not be aborted.
In Japan, as of 2005, 55 reactors generate 30 percent of its electricity. 80 percent of its energy is being imported. Since 1973 nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority (e.g. http://www.japannuclear.com/ ).
As of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004. Renewable energy, mainly hydropower, is slowly gaining share.
North America
In the US, there are plans for new nuclear plants. The Nuclear Power 2010 Program coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants and the Energy Policy Act makes great provisions for nuclear and oil industries.
South America
This South America–related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
Africa
This Africa-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
Pros and cons of the phase-out
Arguments for the phase-out
Environment
Anti-nuclear politicians state environmental concerns with nuclear power as arguments for a phase-out. A main concern against the use of nuclear power for energy production is safety of the environment and people. Nuclear accidents in the past, including some at civilian power plants, have released radioactive contamination. The biggest, at Chernobyl, killed 41 and hurt many people and rendered large amounts of land unusable for the next few centuries. Some fear that more accidents will happen.
Environmental groups criticize the environmental aspects of radiation. They criticize mining, enrichment and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear waste. Groups warn of radioactive contamination and demand a strict adherence to the precautionary principle where technologies are rejected unless they can be proven to not cause significant harm to the health of living things or the biosphere. ()
Plutonium, which is contained in the fuel rods, is extracted in La Hague (France) and Sellafield (Great Britain). In this process great amounts of radioactive waste have in the past been dumped in the sea. The practice of ocean floor disposal is now banned ().
Economy
Some scholars claim that nuclear energy is economically disadvantageous, and the enormous capital costs of building a plant cannot be compensated by the energy production. Paine stated that Analysis suggests that even under the most optimistic conditions (where costs are cut considerably and revenues climb substantially), the current generation of the nuclear option over its lifetime may at best be economically marginal.
The main points in his argument are:
- Construction cost are unlikely to be recovered by operating the plant, with expected lifetime and revenue;
- Costs of competing sources of energy, as oil, natural gas and coal should increase unrealistically for nuclear power to be competitive;
- The plant fleet seldom operates at full power capacity, but only at a fraction (Paine reports 58% as typical), since some plants must periodically stop for safety controls. Increasing this percentage would therefore pose an inherent risk.
- Summing up the numbers, nuclear power would be a marginally successful investment only in the most optimistic scenarios (maximum lifetime, technology improvement, uptime and energy prices).
Paine does not discuss environmental issues as waste disposal. He also laments that precise data on the economic viability of nuclear power is not made available to the public.
Energy Balance
It is also claimed that nuclear power is in fact no "power" at all, since the complete process, from fuel mining to fission, would consume more energy than it produces. The power plant would in this way produce less energy than the energy needed to power the mining operations, the chemical purification and the isotopic enrichment. A country buying fissile fuel from another country would, in practice, buy the energy the first country put in fuel extraction and refining, using the fuel as an energy carrier. Because the initial energy is often dirty fuels such as coal, which causes some 30,000 deaths a year, the effect is to move the pollution caused by the consumption of the rich and to dump it on the poor - an example of social injustice.
It is acknowledged that the validity of this argument is strongly dependent on the initial purity of the mineral ore.
Insurance
Nuclear power plants cannot be insured solely by private insurers, because of the possible high costs in case of a severe accident: no insurance company, for example, would have the liquidity to refund the damages for an event like Chernobyl. For this reason governments must back the insurance (see for example the US's Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act). This practice is similar to that for banks, which are also backed with government guarantees.
Security
Nuclear power plants have also frequently been speculated to be possible targets for terrorist attacks (e.g. in Germany ).
Waste Management
It has not been decided in some countries who should pay for the supervision of areas where nuclear waste is stored. At the moment it seems likely, at least in Germany, that the state will pay for the costs caused by direct waste (burned rods), contaminated materials from power plants and from the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as well as other nuclear waste, and costs for storage of contaminated waste, because the industry has insufficient resources. In the US, utility companies pay a fixed fee per kilowatt-hour into a disposal fund administered by the Department of Energy.
Nuclear Proliferation
Another argument against nuclear energy is the potential for close connection of civil and military usage (which in most countries are kept strictly separate). In manufacturing nuclear fuel rods, the fraction of the fissile uranium isotope 235 has to be (except in CANDU reactors) increased from the natural fraction of 0.7 percent to up to 5 percent in order to be able to create a chain reaction. A station for the enrichment of uranium (e.g. the German station at Gronau) could—with extreme difficulty—increase the amount of U-235 to above 80 percent so it could be used in a weapon. Therefore, some of the techniques of uranium enrichment are kept secret (e.g. gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuge, AVLIS and nuclear reprocessing).
Opponents of nuclear power argue that it is not possible to discriminate between civil and military usage, and therefore that nuclear power contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons). Plutonium in high concentration can be used for building nuclear weapons, but in practice it has been used again in nuclear power plants in MOX fuel rods.
Arguments against the phase-out
Greenhouse Gases
There has recently been a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to dwindling oil reserves and global warming because electricity demand is increasing and nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases, in contrast to common alternatives such as coal. It has been argued for nuclear power as a solution to the greenhouse effect (e.g. "nukes are green" NYT editorial and , ). This has been disputed by several environmentalist organizations (e.g. ).
Germany has combined the phase-out with an initiative for renewable energy and wants to increase the efficiency of fossil power plants in an effort to reduce the reliance on coal. According to the German Minister Jürgen Trittin, in 2020, this will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the efforts to fulfill the Kyoto protocol. Critics of the German policy have called it a contradiction to abandon nuclear power and build up renewable energy as both have very low CO2 emissions.
Energy Independence
In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an energy crisis or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union ( , pdf).
Economics
An argument for proponents of nuclear power is energy economics. They state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. Also, the cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up power sources due to their intermittent nature. It has been calculated that wind power, one of the major hopes for proponents of the phase-out, costs three times as much as average electricity in Germany.
Safety Standards
Proponents of nuclear energy state nuclear plants are safe and protected against attacks. Containment buildings are strongly reinforced and highly guarded (see and ).
They also believe that the Chernobyl accident was unique and occured only because of a combination of poor design and unauthorized tests. They point out that no such accidents have occurred in Western reactors, which are now by far the most common design. A commonly cited example is the Three Mile Island accident, which did not release significant amounts of radioactive particles despite a nuclear meltdown comparable in magnitude to Chernobyl; this is attributed to better design and containment at Three Mile Island.
See also
- Nuclear power - has an extensive discussion of risks and costs.
- Future energy development - further discussion.
- Renewable energy development - on energy alternatives.
- Green tax shift - fiscal policy supportive of green energy and sustainable consumption.
- List of energy topics - for many other related articles
References
- Netherlands: Court case on closure date Borssele NPP, article from anti-nuclear organization (WISE), dated June 29, 2001.
- Nuclear Power in the World Energy Outlook, by the Uranium Institute, 1999. Note that Norway has two research reactors, at Kjeller and Halden, producing an insignificant amount of power.
- Anti-nuclear resolution of the Austrian Parliament, as summarised by an anti-nuclear organisation (WISE).
- Nuclear news from Poland, article from the Web site of the European Nuclear Society, April 2005.
- Germany Starts Nuclear Energy Phase-Out, article from Deutsche Welle, November 14 2003.
- Jeffrey R. Paine, "Will Nuclear Power Pay for Itself?", The Social Science Journal, volume 33, number 4, pages 459–473, 1996.
- An Essential Programme to Underpin Government Policy on Nuclear Power. By the "Nuclear Task Force." July 2003 (pdf)
- About the nuclear power phase-out in Sweden German)
External links
- Mechanical Engineering Magazine Online: the high price of nuclear phaseout
- Campaign for nuclear phaseout in Canada with many resources
- UIC - Uranium and Nuclear Power Information Centre. Also many resources
- Greenpeace statement on nuclear power
- WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor: Status of nuclear in EU member states
- Research paper detailing perspectives for energy politics in the UK (pdf)
- Time Europe: The Energy Crunch - Soaring fuel prices set off protests and raise questions about Europe's sources of power
- Greenpeace: Referenda and nuclear power plants
- Nei.org: Study that Nuclear Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gases (pdf)
Germany
- Germany split over green energy
- Grist magazine: Germany says auf Wiedersehen to nuclear power, guten Tag to renewables
- The German federal ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor safety about the phase-out
Further Readings
- William D. Nordhaus, The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma - Energy and the Environment. 1997. Hardcover, ISBN 0-915707-84-5