Nuclear power to generate energy: Is it feasible?

Dr Mathu H Liyanage

The feasibility of preventing or at least mitigating global warming by adopting nuclear power has ignited the debate on the use of nuclear energy in the wake of Japan’s spectacular explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant caused by the ferocious earthquakes in recorded history and the three-foot tsunami wave

Global warming

*Manmade
*Release of methane gas
*Fossil fuels
*Population growth
*Deforestation

First part of this article was published on April 12

It is reported that in 1908, about 19 percent of global final energy consumption came from renewables, 13 percent from biomass (plant material) used for heating, 3.2 percent from hydroelectricity while new renewables like modern biomass, biofuels (bioethanol - an alcohol made by fermenting the sugar components of plants mostly from sugar and starch crops) and biodiesel made from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled greases, small hydro, wind, solar and geothermal - the energy is obtained by tapping the heat of the earth from the deep earth’s crust in volcanically active locations or from shallow depths via geothermal heat pumps - accounted for another 2.7 percent. Electricity generation is around 18 percent made up of 15 percent from hydroelectricity and 3 percent from new renewables.

Dramatically global wind power installations increased by 35,800 MW in 2010 bringing the total installed capacity up to 194,000 MW, an increase of 158,700 MW over 2009.

China, which accounted for nearly half of the installations at 16,500 MW, now has 42,300 MW of wind power installed. Wind power accounts for about 19 percent of electricity generated in Denmark, 9 percent in Spain and Portugal, 6 percent in Germany and the Republic of Ireland.

The annual growth rate of wind power is 30 percent with a worldwide installed capacity of 158 gig watts in 2009. It is widely used in Europe, Asia and US. Solar thermal power stations operate in US and Spain, the largest being in Mojave Desert. The world’s largest geothermal power station is the Geysers in California while Brazil has the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and providing 18 percent of the country’s automotive fuel.

Energy demand

The proponents of nuclear power, as a source of energy, argue that climate change requires 60 percent or more reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and nuclear energy could play a big role; growing energy demand is projected to increase by over 50 percent between now and 1930; renewable energy does not provide a reliable base load power and that only nuclear and the burning of fossil fuels could do so; world’s oil production will peak soon and nuclear power plants are the only potential way to provide energy to create transport fuels such as biofuels, methanol and hydrogen fuels, and electricity to battery-powered cars in the future; nuclear energy costs less; technology of nuclear power has moved significantly fast during the last couple of decades, and that a reactor like Chernobyl would never be built today; nuclear programs of Sweden and France have been very safe unlike, for instance, Australia that has burnt more coal for electricity; and nuclear power is a green solution.

Climate change

The opponents of nuclear power plants say that nuclear power is never going to be the answer for climate change and that only 32 percent of US and 35 percent of Australia greenhouse emissions come from electricity generation but in countries like Brazil and India over 50 percent of their greenhouse emissions come from non-CO 2 sources and nuclear power stations cannot reduce non-CO 2 emissions; the world wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly to avoid climate change, and that it takes a long time to build nuclear power plants unlike energy efficiency and other forms of renewable energy - wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, micro-hydro, bio-mass and wave power - which could be set up at short notice.

Renewable energy sources can provide base load electricity directly or by utilising storage, energy from renewable now accounts for a quarter of installed capacity of California, one-third of Sweden’s energy, half of Norway’s and three-quarters of Iceland’s; renewables are less expensive than nuclear power compared to alternatives including wind and solar energy sources; though nuclear technology has improved it faces new risks including indirect risk from terrorism; nuclear waste has very long life and managing waste is also very expensive - Sweden has, for instance, spent $14 billion on this account; and nuclear power plants use a great deal of water, uranium is a non-renewable source and there is significant energy and resources needed to build nuclear plants.

Chernobyl disaster

The horrendous and nerve-racking consequences of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 are bound to drive away many even at the hearing of nuclear energy power plants, not to mention explosions. It triggered the release of radiation to the atmosphere in the form of both particulates and gaseous radioisotopes. It is suggested that the radioactive contamination greatly exceeded that of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which killed about 150,000 people and Nagasaki, which killed 75,000, in 1945.

The explosion of the power station and the subsequent fires inside the remains of the reactor gave rise to a radioactive cloud that drifted not only in the most affected over Russia, Belarus and Ukraine but also over the European part of Turkey, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Estonia, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France (including Corsica), Canada and the United Kingdom.

Long-term effects

The issue of long-term effects on civilians are highly controversial though the number of those affected is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled but millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated areas.

A large pine forest killed by acute radiation was named Red Forest. The dead pines were bulldozed and buried along with livestock that were removed during human evacuations. An exhibit at the Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum showed mutations in both humans and animals.

According to the Chernobyl Forum report published in 2005, which was prepared by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies and the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the total predicted number has been put around 4,000, of which 2,200 are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators, those involved in the recovery and cleanup after the disaster.

Failure of cooling system

This death toll includes the 47 workers died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4,000 people who could die from cancer.

This number was subsequently updated to 9,000 excess cancer deaths.

According to the Union Chernobyl, the main organization of liquidators, 10 percent of the 600,000 liquidators are now dead and 165,000 disabled.

According to the report by the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW) of 2006, more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected.

In Europe, the IPPNW claims that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns with 5,000 deaths among newborn children.

It also claims that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the disaster are now sick because of radiation and tens of thousands are dead.

Despite the ‘calm chaos’ - as some described the catastrophe in Japan - the earthquake and the tsunami caused damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy power complex first by the earthquake causing reactors to shut down, and secondly by the tsunami which cut off the power supplies causing failure of the cooling system.

It is heartening news that the workers have finally halted a leak that was sending a tide of radioactive water into the Pacific and exacerbating concerns over the safety of seafood.

The workers still face challenges before the overheating reactors are stabilised and this is displayed by the action of the Tokyo Electric Power’s plan to inject nitrogen gas into one of the reactors as it can prevent highly combustible hydrogen from exploding - as this occurred three times in the early days of the crisis.

In the light of the highly dangerous and everlasting consequences of Chernobyl and the veiled disastrous long-term results of the current Japanese nuclear crisis, the issue of whether nuclear energy power has more potential and sustainability over harmless renewable sources to meet the much- needed power has almost become an enigma which, no doubt, demands serious thought and consideration.

Concluded