Climate change:
Is nuclear power the solution?
The G8 Summit has been billed as being around the twin global issues
of climate change and world poverty.
Yet environmental issues were conspicuous by their absence from the
campaigns of the main parties in the recent general election.
But hey, it’s only the future of the planet at stake! Obviously not
a ‘sexy’ enough subject! BILL GORDON looks at the real issues.
EVERY DAY there are new scientific reports about the growing crisis
of the environment, particularly climate change. Global warming is the
rise in the Earth’s temperature caused by increasing levels of carbon
dioxide and other ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere as a result of
burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
A recent study of the Greenland glaciers by NASA scientists warned
that global warming is a reality and that the rate of temperature
increase and melting of the ice is increasing. This would have
devastating consequences. Dramatically rising sea levels would submerge
large land areas.
This would force mass population migrations, the loss of
food-producing areas and spread disease. Weather conditions would become
increasingly severe, with possibly a new ice age.
Correctly, Sir David King, the government’s chief scientist, has said
that climate change poses a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.
The ranks of those who deny the link between climate change and human
activity are shrinking like the ice itself – with the exception of Bush,
the likes of the US oil multinationals, a section of scientists, as well
as the increasingly oddball David Bellamy.
It recently emerged that an official in the White House, Philip
Cooney, changed scientists’ reports on climate change to downplay links
between emissions and global warming. The US National Academy of
Sciences is calling on Bush and Co to recognise the ‘clear and
increasing’ threat posed by climate change.
The arguments of the climate change sceptics are clearly answered in
Pete Dickenson’s article ‘Climate
Change- Answering the sceptics’ in Socialism Today, April 2005.
Blair worried
Unlike Bush and Co, Blair and much of the establishment are worried
about the threat of global warming. They know that something must be
done.
The upcoming G8 Summit has been billed around the twin global issues
of climate change and world poverty. Unfortunately we are not likely to
get anything more than the usual empty words, and "fiddling while
Rome burns".
Despite all the "greenspeak" the embarrassingly fact
for New Labour is that their pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
by 20% by 2010 is not likely to be met, by a long way. In both of the
last two years they have risen.
Very expensive… and very dangerous
Against this background there has been much speculation that New
Labour is planning a massive turn to nuclear power, using the fact that
it does not produce the greenhouse gases that fossil fuels do as
justification. Nuclear’s supporters are attempting to paint it as a
clean, green and viable alternative.
Others argue that a new generation of nuclear power stations is
necessary as a short-term answer until renewables are developed to the
level where they are ready to assume the mantle of mass energy
production. They argue that the alternative and renewable energy forms
are inefficient, and currently only provide 3% of our electricity.
It is reported that David King shares this worry that an "energy
gap" will open up if/when fossil fuel forms are shut down, and that
he insists "one generation only" of new nuclear plants. At
present, nuclear power provides 20-25% of our electricity.
The current plants are ageing; all but one (Sizewell B on the Suffolk
coast) of the twelve are scheduled to be decommissioned between now and
2023. So this could be a crucial juncture in energy policy decision
making.
Nuclear power is very big business. And very expensive. A new
generation of reactors would take about a decade to bring on line and
cost roughly £2 billion each. These costs and the associated risks are
far too high for the private sector. So the nuclear industry is coming
cap in hand for government money.
Radicalisation
However, such a decision would be highly controversial and would
generate enormous opposition. It would also give further impetus to the
‘anti-capitalist’ movement and the radicalisation of young people. There
are splits and disagreements at top levels on the issue, which is why
nothing concrete has been announced yet.
The Socialist Party would also oppose such a decision. There should
be no more nuclear reactors built, and existing ones should be
decommissioned as soon as is practicable. Any workers in the industry
not needed for the decommissioning process should be redeployed to other
industries where their skills would be valuable. This should be overseen
by the workers’ trade union organisations.
The money that would be required for a new nuclear programme could be
better used elsewhere. As a form of energy nuclear power is far too
dangerous.
Recently a big leak of highly radioactive uranium and plutonium
forced the temporary closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant at
Sellafield. This is a timely reminder of the inherent risks. There is
the ever-present danger of catastrophic accidents such as at Three Mile
Island in the USA in 1979, and Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986.
Transporting nuclear materials also carries the same risks.
Probably the biggest black hole in the arguments of the nuclear lobby
is the question of the toxic waste which is an inevitable by-product of
nuclear power generation. The (possibly insurmountable) problems of the
toxic nuclear waste remain, with no solution in sight.
No safe disposal
Uranium and plutonium remain radioactive for 100,000 years. Who can
envisage a safe method of disposal that would be secure in the (very)
long term? Some scientists have talked of burying it under land or sea.
But what storage medium could be guaranteed for the necessary period?
Could it not be compromised and the material released by earthquakes,
undersea volcanic activity and the like?
We witnessed the power of such forces with the Boxing Day tsunami. It
would be irresponsible in the extreme to add to these problems.
Another factor that should surely be taken into consideration in
these times of heightened ‘danger’ is the threat of terrorist attack and
theft of nuclear material. In fact, government guidelines use these very
fears as justification to allow the concealing from the public of
information about nuclear power stations, including safety issues and
potential hazards.
Under their 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act it is an
offence to disclose information with the intention of prejudicing or
being reckless with "nuclear security". Given the record of
cover-ups and shadiness by the nuclear industry it is not difficult to
see how this will be used against opposition.
A socialist energy policy
So, what should be done? When addressing the issue of energy needs
and environmental sustainability there is a need for a holistic
approach. Fundamentally this is incompatible with a system, capitalism,
that takes as its first and last word the insatiable drive for profits.
There must also be a recognition that there are no "magic
bullets" and that there are many difficult decisions to be made.
An integrated energy policy is essential. That requires democratic
planning. The major energy firms must be taken into public ownership to
enable this. The priorities of society need to be re-ordered to provide
massive investment around all of the different possibilities, both
existing and future.
All the existing expertise that currently often works against one
another to generate profits for capitalist paymasters should be pooled,
and best practice shared. The huge funding (time, money and scientists)
for the military, and research and development for military projects
could be switched to environmental and alternative energy sources.
The aim should be to phase out the use of fossil fuels and nuclear
power and adopt a new mix, based on a combination of
renewable/alternative energy forms and energy efficiency measures.
Technology
Much technology is already in existence but too often they are
isolated and piecemeal. They need to be drawn together, and research and
development needs to be massively and rapidly increased. In the meantime
existing and developing "clean coal" technology such as carbon
sequestration should be introduced, as coal currently supplies 30% of
our electricity.
Mention should also be made of nuclear fusion. For decades scientists
have looked into the ‘promised land’ of possibly developing nuclear
fusion (as opposed to fission) as an energy source, with the potential
to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power with no pollution.
The basis of the technology is to try to harness the vast amount of
energy that is released when atoms are fused together, which unlike
splitting the atom, does not produce toxic radioactive waste. However,
no decisive breakthrough has been made or is on the horizon. Squabbling
between different teams of scientists has not aided the research.
The environment is far too important to be left to the vested
interests and anarchy of the so-called free market. The necessary
changes are huge and expensive and would threaten the profits of the
big-business corporations that dominate society. Any good intentions
some world leaders may profess will be sacrificed on the altar of the
‘market’, especially in times of economic crisis. They are hamstrung by
the capitalist system that they ultimately represent.
With the environment it is axiomatic that international co-operation
is vital. A world of competing capitalist nation states runs contrary to
this. A world of warring capitalist nation states runs even more
contrary to this.
To be quite blunt (and not forgetting that the advanced industrial
nations, including Britain, have been the chief culprits in
environmental destruction so far) it would be no good only one country,
such as Britain, ‘going green’ if the likes of USA, China and India do
not.
If capitalism cannot afford the necessary changes for an
environmentally sustainable society, then we certainly cannot afford the
capitalist system and the price it will make us all pay if allowed to
continue its lemming-like rush to environmental destruction. Another
world is certainly possible, but a socialist world is absolutely
necessary.
Alternative energy
This list summarises the main forms of renewable and alternative
energy sources. It shows that a lot of the technology already exists and
that, with more investment and development, they could provide viable
alternatives to the existing sources.
Wind
Wind power is the most advanced renewable in Britain. A big increase
is planned. The Government has a target of 10% of electricity to be
produced by renewable energy. It is reckoned that by 2020 wind should be
the cheapest form of electricity generation in Britain. At present there
are around 1,230 turbines. The initial target would need another 2,000
with 1,500 offshore.
On the negative side, windfarms have generated some local opposition
for blotting the landscape. There is currently an ongoing public inquiry
into these issues with the Whinash wind farm in Cumbria.
Critics also say that it is intermittent and requires back-up power.
However, supporters counter that turbines can be quickly removed if
necessary, and that the impact on the landscape is as nothing compared
to the problems of climate change.
There are quite a few new wind schemes in the pipeline. Addressing a
conference in Aberdeen on 25 May, the new energy minister Malcolm Wicks
announced approval for a 26-turbine wind farm at Scout Moor, Greater
Manchester, which could supply 30,000 homes. On 8 June plans were
publicised for a huge windfarm in the Thames Estuary which was claimed
would be able to supply fully one quarter of the energy needs of London.
Wave
Wave and tidal power are potentially huge sources of energy, but the
least developed, certainly in Britain. There are some examples of the
existing technology though. A wave powered generator ‘Limpet’ is
operating on rocks on the Scottish island of Islay but only produces
about 500 kilowatts of energy.
The Department for Trade and Industry has commissioned the UK
Renewable Energy Atlas to spatially map the wave and tidal resource
potential. On 25 May, £2.68 million government funding was promised for
a prototype tidal energy scheme TidEl in Orkney Islands.
For years the big tidal power station at La Rance on the Normandy
coast has been producing 240 megawatts of energy with its 24 turbines. A
Scottish company Ocean Power Delivery is to install three wave power
machines in the Atlantic Ocean, three miles off the coast of northern
Portugal, near Povoa de Varzim.
Solar
In the news recently was a plan to build the world’s biggest solar
energy power station in Portugal. It would cover 250 hectares and supply
130,000 households. A spokesman claimed it would be visible from space.
Solar power uses silicon photovoltaic cells (PV) which generate power
whenever light falls on them. A British company Solarcentury says that:
"If we covered a small fraction of the Sahara desert with PV, we
could generate all the world’s electricity requirements."
Biomass
Uses renewable biomass resources – like fast-growing plant material –
to produce various energy products. Currently there is 10 gigawatts of
installed biomass power capacity in USA.
Hydrogen fuel cells
Currently being developed to power passenger vehicles, homes,
commercial buildings, mobiles and laptops. However, it takes more energy
to produce it than the hydrogen itself will yield and the resultant
carbon dioxide emissions would cancel any potential environmental
advantages of hydrogen cells. Of course, if the hydrogen that drives
them was produced with renewable energy, fuel cells could potentially be
a useful green alternative. [See Socialism Today, no 75, June 2003.]
Geothermal
Geothermal energy technologies generate power from the heat of the
earth.
Combined heat and power generators
These generate electricity and heat together. Current CHP achieve a
30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared with coal-fired power
stations, and the newest ones achieve over 50%.
Energy efficiency measures
- An environmental audit of every process, industrial and process,
using the maxim of ‘reduce, re-use, re-cycle’. - The average wastage of energy from properties in this country is
30%. Simple measures (such as cavity wall insulation, loft
insulation, condensing boilers, energy-saving lightbulbs) could have
a significant effect in reducing energy use. The enforcement of
existing building regulations from 1999, the "Standard
Assessment Procedures" would increase efficiency. - Greenpeace estimate that our outdated electricity grid system
wastes two-thirds of the energy put into it. - If energy utilities were taken back into public control, together
with the large building firms, we could plan and ensure high
standards of energy efficiency in the generation, transfer and usage
of energy. - There should be massive investment in a publicly owned integrated
public transport system to reduce vehicle use. This could make a
substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. - Democratic town and country planning could make communities more
efficient in energy use and reduce the amount of unnecessary
journeys people have to make (eg restore local services) as well as
being better places to live. Think a modern ‘Garden City’ movement . - Capitalism is a very wasteful system, with built-in obsolescence
of appliances, the duplication of production, and the unnecessary
packaging etc that is part of it. On the basis of a different kind
of society it would be possible to eliminate much of that waste.
