The nuclear conundrum
What is it about nuclear fission that provokes such passions and so much disinformation?
On the weaponry side of things there is an easy explanation: the potential is there for massive destruction and the snuffing out of tens of thousands or even millions of lives. A nuclear war is almost unthinkable - and fortunately now relatively unlikely, though the potential still exists for a brief but disastrous exchange in the Middle East or on the Indian subcontinent - but one single bomb, perhaps in the hands of terrorists, would be bad enough.
So it's no wonder the USA and others are getting het up about the possibility that the unstable (= not under US control) regime in Tehran might be preparing to develop nuclear weapons. Or is it? They weren't bothered when Israel got them. They are only slightly bothered that India and Pakistan have them, except when relations deteriorate and a possible war looms. "It's against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty!", they cry - but that treaty also enjoins the existing nuclear powers to start decommissioning their weapons and not to acquire any new ones, yet the Blair government is intent on replacing Trident when it comes to the end of its life. Why? Who on earth would it be defending us against? Terrorists aren't going to be deterred by nuclear retaliation - there are no targets, and they would happily accept the martyrdom if there were. Meanwhile the US as always ploughs its own furrow (and anybody else's it feels like), ignoring or tearing up any treaty that is inconvenient. As is often the case, such selfish policy is probably counter-productive: Iran knows that the only way to be safe from America is the North Korean method: carry a big enough stick to make them think twice. They might not have developed nuclear weapons left to themselves, but they will now, as quickly as possible.
Then there's nuclear power. That's almost as confused and confusing. It's proponents argue that it is the only way to combat climate change, because it is carbon-free - but it's not. The production of uranium is an energy-intensive process that produces lots of carbon. My understanding is that, given high-grade ore, over the complete life-cycle nuclear power produces about one third as much carbon, Kwh for Kwh, as oil- or gas-based electricity, but there is only enough of such ores to last the world about four or five years if all energy production was nuclear. As lower-grade ores have to be brought into use the energy consumption for extraction goes up and the saving in CO2 vis-a-vis oil and gas goes dowm. Before long you get to the point that more energy is going into the extraction process than comes out the other end when the uranium is used as fuel.
So nuclear energy is at best a stop-gap while we scale up the renewables, and certainly not something where we can lead the world down the right path. It will need to be implemented fast too, relatively speaking, as the timescales for planning and building nuclear power stations are so long, otherwise the lights will start to go out. That means riding roughshod over planning laws and safety considerations. And even at speed they won't be ready in time to have an effect on climate change before it's too late.
Can we afford to go for both nuclear and renewables at the same time? Theoretically I imagine the answer is yes, but when it comes to practical politics the answer will surely be no. Money will be poured down the nuclear drain because the politicians - sorry, one politician, has staked his reputation on it, and renewables will get the crumbs they have always got.
Then of course there are those dratted terrorists again. A nuclear power station must be a tempting target for them, specially if they don't have to plan to get out alive. One successfully hijacked plane and bang goes Suffolk or Cumbria.
And I haven't even got to the problem of the waste yet....
Click here for a scholarly study of the comparative CO2 emissions and production costs of nuclear versus oil/gas.
Comments