This is of course highly subjective so for those of you who have counter-arguments please post them below and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
Long-term storing
In 2003 the United States had already accumulated 49 000 tons of nuclear waste. There is yet no policy regarding the final storage of this waste that will cease to pose a threat to public health and safety no sooner than after 10 000 years (United States Environmental Protection Agency). There is no way to guarantee what will happen in such a large timescale and what costs that will be inflicted upon future generations for the disposal of this waste (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf). In other words we produce radioactive waste that future generations will have to safeguard for thousands of years without being certain of the consequences on health and environment that this might involve.
Uranium
Just as coal, oil and natural gas uranium is a finite resource. According to IAEA the easily accessible uranium will be sufficient for another 40 or 50 years at the consumption rate that we are at right now. Thus, if uranium use increases the number of years that it will be available decreases.
International Security
Nuclear power plants in Sweden are required to follow numerous safety policies and are constantly inspected and kept under strict vigilance. The probability for an accident here is therefore very small even though the possibility can never be completely excluded. However, by using nuclear power ourselves we legitimize it. As long as Sweden is hosting nuclear power plants we have no right to tell other countries they cannot. These other countries might not have the political stability, the economical means or the corruption free administrative system that is required to keep the power plants in perfect condition. With fewer safety policies the risk of accidents naturally increases.
As it is now, nuclear power accidents are very unusual. However no one can say that there is not a risk and, taken into account the enormous environmental and social consequences of a possible accident, that risk is unacceptable.
Economy
“It is disquieting that a government in crisis isn’t capable of making an economically reasonable decision. According to the international energy agency a terawatt hour from nuclear is twice as expensive as a terawatt hour from wind power”.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/miljororelsen-kritisk-om-karnkraften-1.793562
It is commonly believed that nuclear is a cheap energy resource. However these positive estimations frequently contain hidden costs and fails for example to include expenses for final storage and dismantling of the reactors.
Weapons
Some people maintain that there is a link between the knowledge of nuclear technology for peaceful means and that for weapons. I am afraid that I do not know enough technical details to have an opinion on the matter but, there is no denying that states has used peaceful nuclear programs as a cover for nuclear weapon programs.
Energy efficiency
There is a large amount of energy to be gained from energy efficiency. According to a report from SWECO, commissioned by Naturskyddsföreningen, the energy consumption of Sweden could be halved by 2030. This is of course preferable to all other solutions as it favors both the economy and the environment.
http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/externa_rapporter/rapport_sweco_halvaenerginhelavalfarden.pdf (swedish).
Evidently, this is not something that is going to happen by itself. There needs to be different incentives for private persons as well as companies. Most of all the knowledge of the importance of these measures needs to be spread to all parts of society.
“To meet our carbon reduction targets, we will need much greater action to reduce energy demand. We are concerned that a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers, encouraging the impression that the challenge of climate change can be tackled by a large-scale technology fix. Greater use of decentralised, small-scale energy generating technologies helps to increase awareness of energy consumption and foster more sustainable behaviour.”
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
This is the only solution there is in the long term. If we keep using more natural resources than the environment can contend with, we are going to have to pay for it in the future.
A good example where nuclear has contributed to drastically decreasing the resources for renewables is Finland. When deciding about the construction of a new power plant about six years ago the Finnish politicians promised that this would not affect investments in energy efficiency and renewables. However, in reality investments in renewables has become fewer and the electricity consumption continues to increase…
http://www.greenpeace.org/sweden/kampanjer/karnkraft/fraagor-och-svar-om-kaernkraft
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
Here are two more philosophical comments from my side:
SvaraRaderaWaste
As you say, we already have a waste problem, so if we don't find a viable solution, we're screwed. Shutting down nuclear power today won't remove the mountain of waste we've already built up. Therefore, adding more to it won't matter. There isn't a magic threshold we're about to cross that makes the border between "acceptable amount of waste" and "unsolvable amount of waste". What we should do is keep on using nuclear power, and keep on looking for solutions that can actually cut the time needed for storage down to just hundreds of years, or better, because if we don't find the solution we're already screwed.
Accidents
Even if something would explode like Chernobyl, that wouldn't be too bad for the environment. In the area around Chernobyl, wildlife has flourished after the incident, because all the humans left. Sure, lots of animals die, but nature is very good at adapting. The main difference between animals and humans is that humans wouldn't accept that 90% of the population dies. Animals and plants don't care.
NB. These are not serious arguments. However, I believe they're interesting thoughts that should be considered before they are dismissed.
Det verkar som att kommentarfältet har problem. Jag testar just nu ifall det går att skriva kommentar ifrån denna länk: http://www.blogger.com/comment-iframe.g?blogID=5646347440221022620&postID=7090857918058314670
SvaraRaderaDen här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaFörst och främst så säger du att vi legaliserar användandet av kärnkraft genom att använda det själva. Sant. Däremot är det inte sant att vi på grund av detta inte kan förbjuda andra länder från att använda detta. Når man inte upp till de säkerhetsföreskrifter som är nödvändiga för ett kärnkraftverk borde man inte ha kärnkraftverk, det kan vi fortfarande säga.
SvaraRaderaDock håller jag med om att ett minskat användande av energi är nödvändigt. Vi börjar med en elfri timme från 28/3 20:30 (Earth Hour).
Long term storage: The US isn't the only ones developing long term such facilities. So are the Swedes, with the KBS-3 method being the most developed one. KBS-3 is designed to take the human element out of the equation and the storage will not require monitoring since it is built to be maintenance free for 100 000+ years.
SvaraRaderaKBS-3 builds on experience from the natural nuclear waste repository in Oklo. It has kept nuclear waste products from the area's nuclear reactors safe and completely immobile for 1.7 billion years.
Uranium is perhaps finite but the assumption that it will last for 40-50 years is extremely conservative, assuming we never switch to Generation III+ - IV reactors or close the fuel cycles. It assumes we never start mining uranium of lower concentration than now, but we can do that easilly. And it assumes we never switch to Thorium, which is a thrice as plentiful resource. Nuclear fission can hold us for hundreds of years should we need to. And even if it doesn't it hardly makes any sense to stop using it now because it might run out later, now does it? What are you going to save it for? Our grandkids' nuclear power?
As far as international security goes, we can most certainly tell other countries they can't have it while we do. The reason is simple: nuclear power is a privilege granted by the international community. The requirements are openness, cooperation and allowing close inspectons while accounting for all nuclear materials and equipment. We here in Sweden fulfill these requirements easilly. And from these requirements inevitably stems the secuirty we seek. So... play nice, and you get to have it. Do not, and you can't have it. It's simple.
Accidents... the argument states that nuclear accidents are widely devatsting. That claim is flat out wrong, demonstrated by both Harrisburg, and Chernobyl. Harrisburg still to this day has a zero casualty and injury count. Chernobyl has to this day less than 100 lives claimed for it.
This you can compare to other disasters, such as the Texas City disaster (567 dead, most of the city leveled), The Great Smog of London, 1952 (4 000 dead in one weekend, another 12 000 the following weeks), Bhopal (5 000 - 15 000 dead, 100 000+ injured, the lands still not santitized), Banqiao Dam (170 000 dead) or the Asian Brown Cloud (2 000 000 dead each year in India alone).
In that perspective, saying that nuclear accidents have unimaginable, unquantifiable consequences that cannot be accepted is just flat out wrong. Chernobyl was an exception due to the reactor deign being fundamentally flawed and already banned in the rest of the world long before the explosion in april 26, 1986. And not even when that is taken into concideration does the consequences even come near other risks that we accept and live with daily. So the argument simpy desn't hold water.
Economy: The argument of economy by the environmental movement is another one of those completely illogical brainfarts they come up with in this issue. Nuclear power receives no grants from the government, especially not in Sweden where for instance the Forsmark plant pays a *billion* SEK each year in penalty taxes, simply for its very existence and nothing else. So if it's so damned expensive, why would we need a ban? Let every energy source compete without government meddling, as long as they meet the environmental requirements, and let's see which one turns out to be the most economic one. If the movement is right, the industry will pick something else. They ought to be glad to allow the industry to build, because if the industry does not build them then, well then issue is solved for the nuclear opponents, isn't it?
Problem is though: they know they are not right here because wind is low quality power with no reliability, and more expensive per kWh produced. It relies on government subsidies to be able to compete with nuclear and hydro. Those versed in Swedish can read about Elforsk's report on this issue. There was also this interresting article today which looks a bit more objectively at the matter than the nuclaar-hating environmental movement, which by the way has alot of vested interrest in blindly continuing to deny that nuclear has a place in the energy mix.
Weapons: none of the major nuclear weapons power had civilian nuclear power while developing them. On the contrary, nuclear power came later all cases. Also weapons materials are not best aquired from a civilian power reactor since with such you have to enrich the plutonium to get rid of undesired plutonium isotopes that cause nuclear weapons to fizzle. It is much cheaper, simpler and easier to hide a purpose-built graphite channel reactor like those at Hanford or Windscale and make weaponsgrade plutonium with those.
Energy effectivization havn't succeeded so far because our behaviour changes when our energy costs drop, resulting in a rebound that eats up the gains. Named the Jevons Paradox by the man that first examined it, after the first clear and very noticable energy effectivization of all time: James Watt's improved steam engine. This is economic reality since at least 150 years back and shows no signs of being different today.
The problem when it comes to replacing nuclear power is that there are only three sources today that is reliable enough to be the foundation of a country's energy supply: hydropower, fossil fuel and nuclear power. Hydropower is already in full use in the western world, and hence it cannot be used to replace anything. Thus it is only fossil fuels and nuclear power that is left as options. This has led several environment activists including one of the founders of Greenpeace to argue for nuclear power to be expanded. Also, a life-cycle perspective on wind power and nuclear power shows that wind power is more expensive and not necessarly less polluting than nuclear power.
SvaraRaderaWhen it comes to Chernobyl the accident happened because they took away all feedback systems. Thus, they had almost no way to control the reactor.
Energy saving could decrease the energy use in the western world, but unless we make sure that the third world is kept in poverty the total use of energy will still increase. So how to meet the new need?
Jaså, det var det här du behövde hjälp med. Kul! Det är intressant det du skriver. Bra jobbat :)
SvaraRaderaViktor: So, there are three BIG sources that can provide enough energy for the entire world. Then, maybe, it is time to realize that we have been spoilt by oil and start to adapting an energy system which requires more than one source. We can mix different kinds of energy from sources such as wind, sun, hydropower, bioenergy and other. As you say, hydropower is in full use. But then you mean hydropower such as hydro power plants. Hydropower exists in many kinds, for example you can use the waves, the tide and so forth. We also need research and more new energy alternatives.
SvaraRaderaThe people in the north (the industrialized countries) are lazy when it comes to our comfortable way of living, but there is not much of a change we need to do.
An example for a new way of thinking:
If every house in Sweden had solar cells (about 5 m2) then you would produce 500 kWh and that is sufficient for your warm water almost all year round. If you isolate the house then it is even better. A wind power plant on the roof makes it a perfect home ;)
This does not solve all our problems but it is a start. Of course we need to do more but development comes in small steps.
The point I was trying to make is that only these three power supplies (fossil fuel, nuclear power and hydro power in its present form) are possible to use to form a foundation for the energy supply. Then of course solar power, wind power and similar sources are excellent to add the little extra power that is needed. However, unless the west/north/industrialised countries gives up some things there is no way that the whole world can live as we do. Still, whatever else we do, we need to use the energy more efficiently asap, preferably decades ago.
SvaraRaderawow, that was a lot of comments in a short time. I'm afraid it's probably going to take me some days to answer all of this. please be patient :p.
SvaraRaderaBy the way, Dagens Nyheter Debatt did just have an article concerning this debate: http://dn.se/opinion/debatt/karnkraften-blir-kvar-tills-den-kan-ersattas-1.827295
SvaraRaderaPelli:
SvaraRaderaWaste: then you could also say that we can keep poisoning the rivers in China, and we can keep dumping our toxic waste in Africa. Since some damage is already done we might as well go all the way, right? No, seriously, the smaller amount of waste that we have the smaller the problem.
Accidents: When global warming has increased the temperature on earth with two degrees and the climate is probably going to freak out for real some species will probably profit. That does not mean that it is desirable.
Michael:
KBS: According to the “stipulation act” which was passed in 1977 a proprietor of a nuclear reactor had to be able to prove that he had a complete plan for how and where the final storage would be arranged. A short time afterwards KBS-1 was presented to the government. This proposal got quite a lot of critic, mainly because such a bedrock that it requested didn’t exist. But, since the politicians in power wanted nuclear they accepted everything apart from a small part they called minor.
So was KBS-2 created. The problem of the bedrock was not yet solved and experts where sent out to take testes. Finally the SKI approved a bedrock where the experts hadn’t drilled (since no one could say it wasn’t good enough). The KBS-2 was sent out for international reviewing but since only 6 of the 23 agencies that had reviewed KBS-1 was used, the most critical voices was quieted.
In 1983 KBS-3 was presented. Despite demands from nuclear critics and environmental organizations, that all critics that reviewed the KBS-1 should be heard, even more where excluded.
This doesn’t really say anything of the quality of the KBS proposals. The fact that critical voices have been hindered to express themselves is kind of suggestive though. There is much money involved.
Uranium: sure we can use uranium of lower concentration. I’ve read that it’s questionable whether it will be economically profitable though. I’m not suggesting to save it just for the sake of it :p. only, it isn’t very smart to build more reactors for millions of dollars if there isn’t enough fuel to last for those we already have. For reactors working on thorium I don’t know much about them. I would imagine that research on them takes up a lot of money though. That money could be used to research and implementation of renewable energy technology.
International Security: Rävöra and Michael, you have a point. As we have a “UN organ” overseeing nuclear use the international community is able to judge rightfully which countries should be allowed to have nuclear power. However, there is not much to do when a country develops the ability without IAEA:s consent. As long as we don’t want to trust military aid from the US or NATO we have to rely on not always effective economic sanctions. As long as the knowledge is widespread it is not hard to come by.
Accidents: It is impossible to know the exact death toll for the Chernobyl accident. According to CNN quoting the WHO (http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nuclearexposure/a/chernob.htm) the Chernobyl accident will cause 55 000 new cases of thyroid cancer, according to Bellona quoting CNN (http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2006/Chernobyl%2020%20years%20on) the potential death toll from thyroid cancer linked to the catastrophe will be between 9000 and 98000 individuals. As can see from yourselves the numbers vary significantly.
That I do not wish a new Chernobyl doesn’t mean that I think we should blow up ammonium nitrate, that we should burn coal that’s to be trapped in the fog, that we should let methyl isocyanate leak or cause any other accident that’s going to kill people. Some accidents we can foresee and some we can’t, but for those we can I propose that we do everything in our power to avoid them.
Lithuania is currently operating two Chernobyl-style reactors (http://www.bellona.org/subjects/Power_reactors_in_the_ex-Soviet_republics).
Economy: Sweden has spent a lot of money or research on nuclear, much more than on research on renewables. It has also granted extremely favorable loans to the industry, loans that the tax payers have lost money by granting because of the high inflation at the time.
If there would be an accident in for example Barsebäck the power plant would pay up to 1,8 billion. If the damage costs is higher (Thernobyl has as to this date cost several hundred billions) the power plant will go bankrupt and the state will pay. The parent company, where the big resources are, will go free.
If the fond, that the nuclear industries pay for taking care of the waste, is not sufficient when it comes to building, the tax payers will pay the rest.
So yes, the nuclear industry doesn’t pay all of its costs. I haven’t found anyone that has actually tried to calculate how much it would costs for the industry to pay an insurance covering potential accidents themselves. Energy researcher Björn Karlsson, however, got the mission to calculate how much the society will give in subventions if we put off dismantling to 2020 instead of 2010. His answer was 40-60 billion crowns. (I have not been able to find the original rapport online).
Anyway, point is that nuclear critics claim that nuclear receives at least as much subsidies as wind.
Reliability: As to reliability I will refer you to käts post.
Weapons: "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power." Several countries have pieced together nuclear weapons from fuel from “peaceful research reactors” for example France, China and India. (http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm)
Energy effectivization: So maybe it is time to increase prices.
Ok, now I have answered all your comments as best as I could. If I am to be completely honest, the reason that I have had the opinion that I have had is that most of the environmental movement agrees on this. And if someone should do what is best for the environment without being ruled by other interests, it’s the environmental NGO:s. It is really hard to find credible arguments against nuclear though. Many of the arguments used are built upon an irrational fear that I think most of us have without really knowing the facts. Finding arguments pro nuclear is easy but most of the sources are paid by the industry, or in the case of the IAEA, paid to spread a harmless picture of nuclear. Everyone has an opinion and finding objective sources seems almost impossible. I confess that most of this is really too technically complicated for me to understand completely. If you are able to answer all the arguments above I will admit that I do not know enough to have an opinion.
Accidents: It's not like "we've stabbed him once [released some chemicals], so we could just as well continue stabbing him [release more chemicals]", but rather "We've cut his head off so we could just as well sell his organs - either he's already dead [what difference does it do if we deposit one million or two million tons of nuclear waste in the unsafe mountain?], or he is supernatural and will survive anyway [we've found a better solution, and the extra waste won't matter]. Besides we're buying a time machine with the money from his organs to go back in time and prevent his head from coming off in the first place [If we continue to use and develop nuclear power, we will probably develop the technology to destroy the waste we already have and thus leave LESS waste for future generations to worry about than we would were we to stop using nuclear power today].
SvaraRaderaAccidents: I'm claiming almost all species except humans will profit. That brings the impossible worst-case scenario (radioactive fuel or waste released into the surrounding area) down from "unacceptable" to merely "undesirable".
When it comes to Chernobyl the reason for the meltdown was that they took out all feedback systems and automatic safety systems. Then they decided to see how much power they could possibly get out of it. It is like trying to free-fall as fast as possible from a plane at 3000m up in the air by leaving the parachute in the plane. The lower air friction might give you a higher velocity, but you will be flat when you hit the ground. Hence, Chernobyl is probably not a good measure of how safe a reactor is. Also, the new generation reactors are built in a way that decreases the potential risk of a cooling failure and need of emergency shutdown while in the same time taking care of any radioactive material in case of meltdown.
SvaraRaderaThe problem with renewable sources today is that they are too unreliable and might destroy the infrastructure. Wave-power might be reliable, but it cannot be used by countries without a lot of coastline.
When it comes to environmentalist NGOs a good example is one of the co-founders of Greenpeace who has written articles in Swedish newspapers arguing that Sweden should expand the amount of nuclear power.
My conclusion is therefore that the economic and international security parts are the only ones that are really strong against nuclear power. However, at the moment the alternatives are even more expensive compared to the value. And when it comes to waste the spent nuclear fuel is not much worse than carbon dioxide, and this is the alternative. In Germany the nuclear power has been fully replaced with coal-power and Russian gas. The Russian gas is in turn a greater security problem than nuclear waste.
My more total conclusion is that nuclear power is not at all a good solution, but until ethanol or preferably methanol is cheap enough to use as a car fuel and made from wood and the solar power used to create hydrogen gas there is no chance that we can do without either fossil fuels, nuclear power or both.
SvaraRaderaWhat we need: Research on solar power to hydrogen gas; research on safe transportation methods for the same thing; cheap methanol and/or ethanol from forests and similar things; a lot of energy saving measures. Of the energy carriers the hydrogen gas is the only realistic solution for most of the world.
pelli:
SvaraRaderathis will turn into a discussion of weather we have already cut of the head or not. your reasoning has some similarities with tim:s about carbon dioxide. "if we can't find another planet to live on in time before this one dies we're already screwed so we might as well keep on releazing co2 into the atmosphere." :s
yeah, who would mind if we kill a few houndreds of humans. as long as the animals are happy, seriously :p
viktor:
No, the co-funder of Greenpeace who is pro nuclear is not a very good example. he's really an exception. greenpeace are generally very anti nuclear.
when it comes to your other argument i am still with käts. maybe it is time to realize that there is no easy energy fix but that we will have to rely on different sources and hope that all of them doesn't fail us at once.
I totally agree that we need to rely on different sources as well as cutting the energy consumption to a minimum. However, I also firmly believe that nuclear power is the least bad alternative that is realistic today. I also hope that I might somehow someday help designing a part that will be an ingredient of the solution. But until then I think that the present nuclear reactors need to be replaced with something else to give us time.
SvaraRadera