Nuclear power is one of the most
contentious contemporary issue’s in our current time. Perform a simple web search and you will be
met by a wave of polarized opinion covering political, socio-economic and
environmental spheres. In support there are those who see it as a carbon free
alternative producing more energy and jobs per sq acre than any other energy
source (NEI, 2013), rescuing the planet from climate change and forging the way
for industrialisation in parts of Africa and Asia. In stark contrast those
against argue that it is unsafe, expensive and a non-renewable store damaging
the environment.
 |
|
For Nuclear: John Kerry talking to
Vietnam’s prime minister, Nguyen Tan Dung at the East Asia Summit, this week
the US and Vietnam signed a pact allowing the transfer of nuclear technology,
allowing US investment in the Asian country growing nuclear industry Source: Guardian (2013)
|
Permeating through much of the debate is
the questionable safety of nuclear energy weighed against the threat posed by
future climate change. This blog will seek to measure and forecast the dangers
of both should we choose to adopt nuclear power with open arms or reject it
completely.
 |
| Greenpeace Protesters on the reactor dome of the Unterweser Nuclear plant, in this case exposing the lack of security in the event of a plane crash or terrorist attack Source:Greenpeace (2009) |
This is my first blogging ‘experience’ and
whilst I am familiar with global weather phenomena, recent climate projections,
and have some idea about how a nuclear reactor works; I have rarely put two and
two together and considered the implications of nuclear energy in the context
of climate change. I therefore sit on the fence as far as nuclear power is concerned.
To make a critical assessment I hope to take
a journey through the past, present and future of nuclear energy. I will discuss
how far we have come since the events of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in
terms of safety and legislation; and look at the effect these incidents have
had on any long-term nuclear ambition.
 |
|
A Swimming pool in the city of Pripyat which lies
within the 30km exclusion zone following the
Chernobyl disaster in 1984 Source: wikimedia(2009)
|
I will examine the current state of affairs in the wake of Fukushima and the latest findings of the fifth IPCC report. I will evaluate what the future
holds: the new nuclear technologies for reducing waste and limiting hazards, and the
implications of possible nuclear development in the third world.
Comparison will also be made between the merits of nuclear power and renewables (e.g. wind power) as a mitigation against dwindling fossil fuel supplies and warming into the
late 21st century; asking the question is a nuclear world inevitable?
Thank you for reading!
References
Greenpeace, 22.06.09, Greenpeace exposes lack of security on top of the reactor dome of Unterweser nuclear power station, greenpeace.cc/cop15/ Accessed Date 11/10/13
Guardian, 10.10.13, US signs nuclear technology deal with Vietnam, www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/ Accessed Date:11/10/13
Nuclear Energy Institute, 05.08.13,
Economic Benefits of New Nuclear Facilities, ww.nci.org/Issues-policy/ Accessed
Date: 11/10/13
Wikimedia, 26.03.2009, Swimming Pool Hall Pripyat, commons.wikimedia.com Accessed Date:11/10/13
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for an interesting first post, it'll be good to see what else you come up with! I've been reading a lot on nuclear power and other possible sustainable energy sources, and some of it might be useful to you. Mark Lynas' book "The God species: How Humans Can Really Save the Planet." It discusses nuclear power in regards to climate change, in a very realistic way. Also, and you might already know this one, is the absolutely fantastic book (which you can download as a PDF) by David MacKay "Sustainable Energy with the Hot Air."
Finally, because of your Germany specific picture, what do you think of Merkel's policy towards nuclear power plants - i.e. closing all 22 of them down but being France's largest export partner of electricity, generated by nuclear power plants?
Hey Larissa
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question, I've been looking at Chernobyl this week and as a result have come across quite a lot of German literature on Nuclear power. I understand the debate is quite highly charged in Germany, given the country's history i.e. the cold war and proximity to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which from reading seemed to cause a lot of hysteria in the country.
Merkel's reaction to phase out nuclear power seems to have come as a direct result of Fukishima, which seemed to heighten an already strong anti-nuclear movement in the country. However I don't believe she herself is vehemently anti nuclear, following Fukishima her initial reaction was opposed to shutting down nuclear power on the basis that it would have to rely on more energy from elsewhere, but she has been forced to act given the public reaction to events in Japan.
As for the imported energy from France's nuclear power plants, at face value it looks like the German government is adopting an out of sight out of mind strategy to maintain popularity but still reap the reward of cheap nuclear energy. That said the investment in renewables in Germany looks to be huge and on the up, in the short term they may rely on France’s nuclear power but in the long term it certainly looks likely to fall. Germany has a huge influence on the rest of Europe so if its pursuit of renewables is successful, countries exporting to Germany may adopt nuclear free energy strategies also.
Thanks for the advice on reading much appreciated and I’ll definitely take a look.