North-South nuclear solidarity Viewpoints Beating global warming with nuclear power? Christine Laurent, French journalist specializing in environmental issues. An energy-saving lamp reveals the most promising scenario: reduce consumption and cut pollution. Workers enter the dome of the Angra 2 nuclear reactor in Brazil. North-South nuclear solidarity The defenders and detractors of nuclear power are now arguing about sustainable development on a planetary level. Among the different alternatives currently being discussed to help the rich countries meet Kyoto's objectives, the clean development mechanism is the only one that involves north-south cooperation. It aims to cut pollution in the poorest countries by encouraging the transfer of clean technologies that discharge low amounts of greenhouse gases. A developing country could receive investment aid, while a developed country could deduct some of the gains achieved from the amount of CO2 it is allowed to emit. For instance, if the Chinese government asked a consortium of European companies to build a nuclear plant instead of a coal plant, the resultant cut in CO2 emissions could benefit the consortium’s various members and enter into the national reduction objectives. Nuclear power could contribute to the fight against the greenhouse effect, but is it appropriate for sustainable development? At The Hague, non-governmental organizations proposed drawing up a list of technologies acceptable to all the parties. Nuclear power was omitted because it was too controversial. The president of the conference, Jan Pronk, took up the NGOs’ suggestion to exclude nuclear energy as a solution for developing countries but, paradoxically, agreed that investments in nuclear power in Eastern Europe could help bargaining over reducing CO2 emissions. Investing important sums in nuclear energy means earmarking less for exploring alternative energy sources Armenians set up shop at the doorstep of a local nuclear plant. A few tenths of a kilowatt-hour of savings on a refrigerator represents, on a worldwide scale, the output of several dozen nuclear power plants The nuclear power industry claims it holds the keys to reducing the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. Opponents are striking back with their own arsenal of facts and figures For several years, the nuclear energy industry has attempted to cloak itself in different ecological robes. Its credo: nuclear energy is a formidable asset in the battle against global warming because it emits very small amounts of greenhouse gases. This stance, first presented in the late 1980s when the extent of the phenomenon was still the subject of controversy, is now at the heart of policy debates over how to avoid droughts, downpours and floods. Today, few would deny the existence of global warming and the fact that we have to do something about it. The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in November 2000, revised its own predictions upwards, forecasting that temperatures will rise between 1.5 and 4.5°C by the end of the century. Human activity obviously shares part of the blame for global warming, starting in wealthy countries where industrial development began in the mid-19th century. It is estimated that in these countries, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions increased by 70 percent and 145 percent respectively in 150 years. Gathered in Kyoto (Japan) in 1997, representatives of 38 industrialized countries signed a protocol under which they agreed to cut their overall CO2 emissions by 5.2 percent of the 1990 level by 2012. The European Union is to account for 8 percent of the cuts, the United States 7 percent, Japan and Canada 6 percent. Russia was let off the hook because its economy collapsed after 1990. The effort should not be scorned. Studies show that if the trends of the past decade continue, these countries will emit 20 percent more CO2 instead of 5.2 percent less by 2012. But what’s the best way of reaching these goals? The solutions range from using more nuclear power, developing renewable energy sources, encouraging mass-transit, implementing stricter energy-saving measures and planting forests. “There are all kinds of ways to cut CO2 emissions,” says Antoine Bonduelle, founder of the Climate Action Network, which includes 320 non-governmental organizations worldwide. “The negotiations become extremely complex if all of these options are discussed at once.” So much so that during a conference in The Hague in November 2000, the 180 countries failed to reach a consensus on how to apply the Kyoto protocol. Improve living standards without suffocating the planet The main focus in the battle to cut greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce energy consumption, which accounts for approximately 80 percent of the discharges. The primary culprits are coal and oil burned by electrical power plants, heating installations and cars. The battle is all the fiercer because in the developing countries–which emit an average of 0.4 tonnes of carbon per inhabitant per year compared with three tonnes in the OECD–growth requirements will lead to a rapid increase in emissions. A recent report by Georges Charpak, winner of the 1992 Nobel prize for physics, warns that “if China pursues its current rate of industrial growth, by 2050 it will emit eight times more carbon dioxide than the entire industrialized world does today.” Seeking to avoid a situation where badly needed improvements in living standards go hand-in-hand with rising greenhouse gas emissions, rich countries agreed at the Kyoto summit to transfer more environmentally friendly and efficient technology (see box). In this context, nuclear power seems like a simple, efficient solution that is all the more attractive because it does not call into question our societies’ energy intensive development patterns. The world’s seven richest countries, which include the nations with the highest number of nuclear power plants, advocated this solution way back in 1989 at a G7 summit. “We recognize that nuclear energy plays an important role in cutting greenhouse gases,” they proclaimed. After the Kyoto summit, the European Union published in 1999 a study called “Dilemma”, a title that speaks for itself. European experts sketched three different scenarios on CO2 reduction, with nuclear power accounting for varying shares of total energy output. They concluded that the EU has no chance of delivering on its promise unless Europe boosts its nuclear power capacity by the equivalent of 80 percent of its current capacity. The European Atomic Forum, a nuclear industry trade group, claims that “in a single year, nuclear power has helped to avoid emitting 1.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in the world, which, for Europe, is equivalent to the emissions of 200 million cars.” Meanwhile, the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency published a report in 1999 based on the hypothesis of tripling nuclear capacity by 2050. If that were to happen, CO2 emissions would drop by 6.3 billion tonnes a year according to its calculations. At first sight, the figure sounds convincing enough to sweep aside any protest from the anti-nuclear camp. But emissions from human sources are increasing by 22 billion tonnes a year and despite planned restrictions in developed countries, they are projected to rise by 60 percent globally between now and 2020! This would bring them to 35 billion tonnes. While an annual reduction of 6.3 billion tonnes 30 years down the road should not be shunned, it’s not enough to convince anti- nuclear advocates that this source of energy is the miracle solution to global warming. Beyond expert circles, scenarios giving nuclear energy a new lease on life are running into mounting opposition from society at large, shaken by the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe and growing concern over how to manage nuclear waste. Almost all developed countries have put their nuclear programmes on hold. In 2000, not a single reactor was under construction, on order or planned in North America or Western Europe. Today, the staunchest advocates of nuclear power are in Asia–Japan, Korea and, to a lesser extent, China and India–and in Eastern Europe. At the end of 1999, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency counted 38 reactors in the planning or construction stages in 14 countries. Many of them are unlikely to be commissioned because of the economic slump in the countries that have ordered them. Anti-nuclear advocates also argue that the abundance of energy allowed by nuclear power plants discourages energy-saving measures. Furthermore, investing important sums in nuclear energy means earmarking less for exploring alternative energy sources. A report by the World Wildlife Foundation notes that nuclear energy does not necessarily lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions. “The United States accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population, over 25 percent of CO2 emissions and 29.4 percent of nuclear-generated electricity. Conversely, China accounts for 21.5, 13.5 and 0.6 percent, respectively. A closer look at the trends between 1980 and 1997 reveals that the penetration of non-fossil power sources [especially hydraulic] in China during this period allowed that country to cut back on only 10 million tonnes of carbon, compared with 430 million tonnes had Beijing adopted energy-efficiency measures.” The World Energy Council also argues that the best way to reduce consumption is to improve energy efficiency. The potential is tremendous. Estimates suggest that savings could reach 30 to 50 percent in Europe, and 30 to 70 percent in the United States. This thinking, advocated by non-governmental organizations for a long time, is gradually winning support from political leaders, including in France (which obtains 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants), where the government has just adopted a national plan to improve energy efficiency. “For three years, we’ve been working on translating the political commitments made at Kyoto into specific measures,” said French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet after The Hague conference, where she led the European delegation. “To achieve that goal, consumer patterns in the rich countries will have to change and more efficient power sources will have to be offered to developing countries. But it will be difficult.” Co-generation is a new technology being adopted in the United States and Europe, and could show the way. A coal- or oil-fired electric power plant is made to produce heat and electricity at the same time, recuperating up to 90 percent of the energy produced instead of an average 45 percent with conventional plants. Combined-cycle technology (a gas turbine combined with a steam turbine) has made tremendous strides and offers an energy efficiency rate of 60 percent, while remaining cheaper than a classic fuel-burning plant. Individual consumers can also make a difference. Lighting manufacturers have calculated that the use of low-consumption bulbs each year saves electricity equivalent to the output of several nuclear reactors. In the same vein, household appliance and electronics manufacturers are designing products that guzzle less energy. A few tenths of a kilowatt-hour of savings on a refrigerator represents, on a worldwide scale, the output of several dozen nuclear power plants. Lastly, in addition to energy-saving appliances, research suggests that renewable energy sources such as hydrogen, solar and wind power are bound to acquire a new dimension in the 21st century. Today, Germany’s windmills generate as much electricity as four nuclear power plants. According to the Danish BTM-Consult, windmills could soon supply over 10 percent of the world’s electricity–half the current nuclear output. The debate is far from cooling. Finally, the anti-nuclear camp has taken another feather out of its cap. Mycle Schneider, head of the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), points out that the nuclear sector’s CO2 emissions are far from negligible when the whole production chain is looked at, not just the plants themselves. This includes construction, extraction, treatment, conversion, transport and the stocking of waste. Taking this into account, WISE calculates that for France, the nuclear chain’s share of total emissions ranges from 1.6 to 9.1 percent. More importantly, Schneider stresses that nuclear plants only produce electricity, whereas our societies also have significant heating needs. Emissions by plants that produce both electricity and heat would be higher than those obtained with more efficient gas plants… The nuclear industry’s response is being anxiously awaited. VIEWPOINTS “Replacing the plague with cholera” Corinne Veithen, Global 2000, h.D in Biology; head of the climate change campaign for the Global 2000 association (Friends of the Earth, Austria). The anti-nuclear movement has spawned many environmental organizations. The hazards of radioactive waste, passed down to future generations, and the risks of proliferation or accidents, fuel our opposition. The greenhouse effect does not after our position. Solving the problem of climate change with nuclear energy is like replacing the plague with cholera. In the framework of the Kyoto protocol, the discussions do not focus on nuclear power as such, but on how appropriate it is to include it in the flexibility mechanisms intended for Eastern Europe or the developing countries. Is a wealthy country that invests in nuclear energy in another nation entitled to CO2 “credits” that could count towards its reduction objectives or be sold on the open market? Our answer is no, because nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source and therefore cannot be encouraged by the Kyoto protocol. Countries that have agreed to cut CO2 emissions plan to combine “internal” efforts [in their own countries] with external ones [in developing countries or eastern Europe]. They could store up CO2 credits by building a few reactors in the poorest countries, to the detriment of renewable energy sources, which are harder to put in place. In Eastern Europe, all they would have to do in order to acquire CO2 credits is patch up an already-operating nuclear power plant and keep it functioning for ten years. We believe that nuclear power has received enough subsidies over the past 40 years. Now a chance must be given to other energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Flexibility mechanisms must encourage the growth of energy sources that everyone considers sustainable. “Small reactors are a solution” Christian Stoffaës, director of International Prospecting at Electricité de France. Nuclear power is coal’s only real alternative to make massive cuts in CO2 emissions, but the environmental movement is turning a deaf ear to this reality. Several countries in Europe, including Germany, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland and Spain, have signed a moratorium on new plants. In those countries, the need for new reactors will not be felt for another 20 years. On the other hand, there is a major potential in the emerging countries, where the demand for electricity is rising 3 to 6 percent a year. In the fight against the greenhouse effect, sustainable energy sources have a role to play in rural areas. But it is impossible to imagine them powering megalopolises of 20 million people in China, India and Southeast Asia. In those places, the choice is between coal, gas and nuclear power. We want to promote a different kind of nuclear power, with international safety monitoring managed by an inter-governmental agency and the development of smaller, safer, 100 to 200-megawatt reactors between [compared with an average capacity of 1,000 megawatts today]. It is also necessary to set up an international system to monitor nuclear materials and to outlaw plutonium, which is a byproduct of recycling military waste. Today, the UN must consider inscribing nuclear power in flexibility mechanisms.