After 14 weeks of
writing a blog I do not claim to be an expert on nuclear power and there are likely
many issues I have missed out given the wide-ranging debate associated with our
energy future. I came to this blog as an impartial and fairly uneducated observer
of the nuclear power debate, what I offer here is my impression of nuclear
power after researching and writing this blog.
So to begin with the
most obvious question to ask would be do I support nuclear power? Well yes, as I outlined
in 'Can we live nuclear free?', I do not feel we can afford to completely cut all ties with
atomic energy in the face of climate change. Specifically I feel nuclear power
plants could offer added stability in the fight against climate change. It is
currently cheaper than most renewable technologies and would allow countries
where land is sparse to generate a greater proportion of carbon-free energy.
That said, moving later into the century I hope that with greater investment in
renewables and a spread in sustainable living, reliance on nuclear power could
be reduced; it Is after all a finite resource.
In accepting nuclear
power it means that I do not consider the risk and environmental damage
associated with the industry large outweighs the risk of taking
inadequate action on climate change, which I feel is possible if we solely rely
on renewables to reduce emissions globally. So how big a gamble do I perceive
nuclear power to be? Well unfortunately
there isn’t a unit of measurement to quantify risk, but the impression I got is
that most of the risk comes from extreme events. I do not feel mishaps during
day to day running are very likely, reactor designs have moved on since the
1980s and meltdown protocols have been sharpened. Where the real threat lies is
during times where normal protocol can’t be followed during earthquakes and
flood events, where the technology meets head on with the external environment.
In these circumstances the threat is not solely from the extreme event itself, as
explored in my fifth post but is exacerbated by an inherent risk in nuclear power due to the
huge amount of heat required and the long lived nature of radiation. The risk is also
magnified given that the consequences are often severe and exclusive to nuclear
accidents (see 'The Health legacy of Chernobyl').
Despite all of the
above I still believe it is a risk worth taking because the main effects of nuclear
accidents are regional and climate change threatens us globally. The environmental
costs associated with nuclear power are still ambiguous (see 'The ecological threat of Nuclear power') and
let us not forget that many renewable resources require land quantities of land,
which will no doubt affect animal habitats and human settlements.
So how far should we
go? I would advocate nuclear power in having a 20% share of global electricity
by 2050, a 7% increase from present day, and roughly a doubling
in generating capacity given the projected rise in global electricity demand. I
consider this a realistic target in light of China and India’s planned nuclear
development, and a significant proportion allowing more time for renewable
technologies to develop. The reasons for stopping at 20% is firstly the economic
cost whilst in this blog I mainly focused on the environmental aspects of
nuclear power there is uncertainty associated with the overnight costs. Secondly
I can’t help but acknowledge the inherent risk of the technology and the
consequences of previous accidents. I feel that with a more rapid global
expansion safety and legislation may fall by the wayside increasing risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment