Email This Author Comment On Article About The Author More Articles By This Author

The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development is meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 through September 4, 2002. Its Draft Plan of Implementation (A/CONF.199/L.1, distributed on June 26, 2002) (Draft Plan) addresses, among other important issues: (1) access, including of the poor, to “reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy services and resources, taking into account national . . . circumstances, . . . increased use of renewables, cleaner liquid and gaseous fuels,” . . . and to modern biomass technologies; (2) support of the “transition to the cleaner use of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, where considered more environmentally sound;” (3) recognition that “standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other . . . in particular developing countries;” (4) the importance of developing “awareness-raising programmes on the importance of sustainable production and consumption partners, especially among youth . . . through education, public and consumer information, advertizing and other media, taking into account local . . . values,” and of adopting “effective, transparent, verifiable, non-misleading and non-discriminatory consumer information tools;” (5) dissemination of alternative energy technologies with the aim of giving a greater share of the energy mix to renewable energies;” diversification of “supply with innovative fossil fuel and increase [of] the share of new renewables; (6) creation of a “level playing field between . . . renewable energy, energy efficiency, advanced energy technologies, including cleaner fossil fuel technologies;” (7) utilization of financial mechanisms for strengthening “environmentally sound energy, including . . . advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technologies;” (8) improvement of the “transparency and information about energy markets” and removal of “market distortions” (including taxation and subsidies); and (9) enhanced cooperation to “assist developing countries in their domestic efforts to provide reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy services.” [Emph. added]. The emphasis on renewables is appropriate, the consistent inclusion of fossil fuels without even mentioning nuclear, is questionable. Traditional renewables, mostly hydro and biomass, are expected to maintain their current percentage contribution (8%) to world energy supply for at least the next twenty years. The real promise for a low-carbon future rests, therefore, with the new forms of renewable technology being developed, such as solar power satellites, biomimetic technology, hydrogen as an energy carrier, etc., the commercial realization of which is still out on a distant and uncertain horizon. One commentator calls them “mythical”, maybe a little unfair, although the public should know of the long time frame needed until the breakthrough renewables will become, hopefully, viable and useful. Although significant strides have been made with relatively clean coal technologies (e.g., PFBCs), it is nuclear energy that has contributed most significantly to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the European Union–where 35% of electricity is generated from nuclear–the “saving in greenhouse gas emissions it represents amounts to more than 300 million tonnes of CO2 (equivalent to half of the vehicles on EU roads).” (COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT–Final report on Green Paper “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply” – COM(2002) 321final). The only known energy source that can assure security of supply with minimum impact on the environment is nuclear energy. “If existing nuclear plants were phased out and replaced with other conventional generating plants, it would become impossible to achieve Kyoto objectives.” (EU Green Paper, Annexes). The EU Green Paper, in contrast to the Draft Plan, though it lists nuclear among the “less than perfect energy options,” a “source of energy in doubt,” and although it groups nuclear together with solid fuels in the category of “undesirables,” acknowledges nuclear’s significant contribution in combating greenhouse emissions, and makes clear that, subject to a satisfactory solution of the waste issue, “[t]he European Union must retain its leading position in the field of civil nuclear technology, in order to retain the necessary expertise and develop more efficient fission reactors and enable fusion to become a reality.” The Green Paper opened up the forum for a constructive debate which led to: (i) numerous written contributions; (ii) discussions among experts; (iii) adoption of Resolutions by the European Parliament calling for promotion of an “intelligent” approach to energy use, making Europe the most energy-efficient economy in the world; (iv) the call for a Treaty for renewable energies by some Members; (v) the recommendation by the Economic and Social Committee to maintain the share of nuclear in energy supply at least at the present level in order to achieve greenhouse objectives; (vi) the recommendation by the Committee of the Regions that the contribution of nuclear be evaluated on very wide and different basis from other fuels; (vii) the Opinion by the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency that “nuclear energy presently plays and can continue to play a vital role in the sustainable production of electricity. . . [it] is the only industrially mature energy source with negligible greenhouse gas emissions which can be expanded . . . [it] should not [be] excluded from the different ‘flexibility mechanisms’, noting that the Commission itself had demonstrated that “the most effective way of achieving Kyoto emissions limits would include construction of several new nuclear plants” (COM(2000) 769); (viii) the conclusions of the EU Energy Outlook to 2020 to the effect that “the lowest carbon cost . . . is achieved with an installed nuclear capacity of 212 GWe and a production of approximately 1,500 TWh in 2030”; (ix) the (rather short-sighted) statement by the Commission that nuclear phase-out and moratoria adopted by certain Member States will not affect the Communities Kyoto commitments, “since those decisions, on current planning, will only have an effect after 2012” (Final report); (x) overall, support for a global and long term approach towards security of supply, linking energy policy decisions to education of the public, the necessity of proper interaction of energy and environmental policies, recognition of the need of a forward looking strategy leading to greater diversity of energy types and sources in touch with new developments, and general awareness raising on energy issues among the public. Vice-President Loyola De Palacio went on record stating hat the nuclear option must remain open. “Transparent, verifiable, non-misleading” consumer information–words used in the Draft Plan–require honest and unbiased discussion of what allegedly makes nuclear “socially unacceptable,” i.e., the issues surrounding safety of plant operations and fuel supply, radiation hazards, long-term storage of spent fuel and waste, competitiveness. The public: (a) has a distorted view of nuclear, “tainted by the original sin of dual usage” (Green Paper); (b) believes that plants are inherently unsafe, and does not appreciate that–at least in the western world, especially the European Union and the U.S.–the safety record of nuclear power plants has been nothing short of exemplary due to its highly advanced design technology and uncompromising operations; influenced or indoctrinated by misleading information, people often cite the 1986 Chernobyl tragedy as perfect example of what happens, on the long range, with nuclear plants; but the Chernobyl reactor was a Soviet type RBMK-1000 that would never have been licensed in the western world, and in most countries outside the former Soviet Union (besides the fact that the accident was caused by reckless behavior of maintenance operators who violated even the scant Soviet procedures in effect at the plant); some also cite, unfairly, the 1979 TMI accident, which caused no physical injury to anybody because design, construction and operation of the plant successfully contained the radiation; (c) fears that nuclear waste will haunt mankind for thousands of years to come, and seems to have little clue, if any, on how nuclear waste can be managed safely; (d) perceives nuclear electricity to be “more expensive;” the issue of competitiveness is contradictory: according to the Green Paper, nuclear is the most expensive source of energy (after wind, which does not really count), while the Euratom Advisory Committee notes that “the figures given in . . . the Green Paper could be misleading,“ that “nuclear energy is without question the most competitive source,” in a deregulated market, and that its “production cost is stable, and competitive in comparison to fossil energy sources which depend more on the volatile oil and gas markets,” considering also that “unlike most other energy sources, nuclear energy costs include all nuclear cost components;” (e) seems to ignore that nuclear is one of the environmentally cleanest energy sources; (f) overlooks the fact that, without nuclear, progress would come to a still stand because there is, presently, no acceptable alternative to fill the gap it would leave in energy generation (renewables can do little, at this time, because their contribution is still modest and will probably remain so for the next decades). It can hardly be disputed that U.S. and EU nuclear plants are inherently safe: the facts demonstrate it. The greatest apparent concern remains waste management. But there are well-defined technologies–in place or being developed–to reduce residual waste toxicity; there are secure facilities for spent fuel management and long-term waste disposal; transmutation of nuclear waste into non-radioactive or short-lived isotopes is being studied. Derek Taylor, of the European Commission (DG, Energy and Transport), noted, in a paper delivered in early 2002: “[T]he biggest issue concerning radioactive waste management is . . . actual disposal of high-level heat-generating waste. . . . It must be clear that the present situation regarding storage of high level radioactive waste in the European Union does not pose any significant environmental or radiological threat. . . . There is broad consensus on the concept of geological disposal. The necessary technologies to do it have all been tried and tested.” So, what is wrong with nuclear energy? Not much, technically speaking. The real problem is lack of courage to speak about it, to face the changed situation with intellectual honesty. Taylor summed up: “The key to progress now rests with the Public. They are concerned about radioactive wastes and do not believe a solution has been found to dispose of them. On the other hand they admit that they are poorly informed. . . . What we see here is the classic strong correlation between concern and lack of information.” People are scared: the less people know, the more they are scared. Some even fear that nuclear power plants could explode “like an atomic bomb.” A striking example of inconsiderate behavior to poor, misleading information is Italy’s nuclear ban of 1987. Italians now buy 15% of their electricity from near-by France, nuclear generated, of course, so, in case of a (highly unlikely) accident in a nuclear plant in France, Italy will have contributed to become the most likely victim to radioactive fallout. Italians do not seem to care. The public does not care of methyl isocyanate, the chemical that caused the runaway reaction in Bhopal, with thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injureds. The public does not count the thousands of casualties exacted each year by mining, extracting, processing, transporting conventional sources of energy. It is all just a question of information. We welcome that transparency, communication and involvement–coupled with the political readiness to address, and not to avoid, the issues–are the new marching orders. Information and participation of the public in the decision making process will probably overcome the public’s negative attitude. The Green Paper emphasized: “Nuclear cannot develop without a consensus that gives it a long enough period of stability, bearing in mind the economic and technological constraints of the industry. This will only be the case when the waste issue finds a satisfactory solution with maximum transparency.” Let us start transparency now, noting that (quote from Euratom Opinion) “the EU has available within its borders the complete strategic technology and capacity to provide for . . . the processing and disposal of spent fuel.” The experts have no doubt that nuclear waste can be safely disposed of today. EPRI wrote in its 1999 Roadmap: “[I]t is the commitment, not the technological means, which is missing. . . . In the next decade, a proactive dialog between the industry and the public on the issue of nuclear power in the context of a sustainable energy future is seen as essential to rebuilding the needed commitment.”