(November 21, 1997) At the Kyoto COP-3 conference the nuclear industry will try to reach an official recognition that nuclear energy is a way to fight the Greenhouse effect. It is therefore important to make clear that this is not the case. In the next article, using the Netherlands as an example, it is shown that nuclear energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions, not to mention all the problems related to nuclear energy itself.
(481.4777) Laka Foundation -Over the last few years, nuclear energy has been offered as solution in the battle against the threat of the greenhouse effect. This is because no CO2, the most prominent of gases causing the greenhouse effect, is said to be expelled in the production of atomic power. The Dutch Van Middelkoop Commission's 'Parliamentary Report on Climatic Changes,' issued on September 11, 1996, cites nuclear power to be 'such an effective energy source, when solely evaluated on the aspect of carbon dioxide substitution'.
In this article the Laka Foundation reaffirms that nuclear power is no solution.
- There are ample possibilities (for example in the area of energy savings) that are for the greater part more efficient than extra investment in new (nuclear) capacities.
- There are definite aspects of CO2 emission that can be related to nuclear power, i.e, indirect emissions. These are to be found in the area of building nuclear power stations, transportation and the mining and processing of uranium. These contributions will only grow, due to the 'impoverishment' of future uranium sources which will lead to a gradual increase in the amount of energy used to produce the same amount of usable uranium. The total CO2 exhaust that may be related to nuclear power from these poorer uranium ores is comparable to a gas-fuelled Combined Heat & Power (CHP) installation.
- -Examined are the available world supplies of uranium. With the currently known or expected supplies, nuclear energy has a short lease on life. This leads to the conclusion that investment in nuclear power in order to counter the effects of global warming gases, is at best limited and therefore of only marginal importance. With the current use of nuclear power worldwide, the threat of a uranium shortage is already imminent. Supplies of ores less rich will have to be dug to meet the current demands. With a large increase in production of nuclear energy the supplies of uranium could run out in about twenty years. Only breeder reactor technology could, in theory, solve this problem.
- The future of the fastbreeder technology, however, doesn't look bright, to put it mildly. A brief acount of the developements surrounding this technology is given.
- Due to long preparation time and building requirements, nuclear power is not a solution for the short term either.
1- Nuclear power is not efficient
The possibilities to reduce the CO2 emissions in the production of electricity are limited. In the Netherlands the increase of the greenhouse effect through the burning of fossile fuel is confined to 24,8 % creditable to electrical power production. The remainder is spent on fuel for cars and aeroplanes, residential heating and, for instance, cooking. Nuclear power stations can only be utilized for the production of electricity.
The substitution by nuclear power of energy exponents with a high CO2 emissionfactor is inefficient. There are many other possibilities in the area of supply and demand. The studies of the Centre for Energy Conservation and Clean Technology in Delft, the Netherlands1 and of the German Öko Institute2, the costs of some of these options have been calculated and compared. The aim was to see the amount of money it would take to avoid the emission of one ton (1000kg) of CO2. These studies show that nuclear power is the least effective option, save one. For the results see chart 1.
| Measure | Costs |
| Thriftier housekeeping (household) | -200 |
| Replacement electrical boilers (household) | -175 |
| Electricity conservation metal industries | -70 |
| Energy-saving utensical appliances (household) | -50 |
| Supasave lamps (households) | -40 |
| Industrial CHP large | -35 |
| Electricity conservation chemical industrie (bulk) | 20 |
| Electricity conservation poly hothouse farming | 25 |
| Supasave lamps (utility buildings) | 70 |
| Hydropower | 60 |
| Biomass | 60 |
| Windpower | 120 |
| Nuclear power | 130 |
| Solar cells | 250 |
As we can see in chart 1 the possibilities of CO2 reductions mostly lie in reduction schemes. Wind and solar power are effective, but at this moment less efficient in terms of cost. This might be explained as due to the low penetration level and thus higher costs. Investments in the appliance of the mentioned alternatives are inadequete. From the Dutch goverment's expenditure on energy research, 23% is nuclear against 10% on research into renewable sources (see chart 2).
| Goverment | Companies | Total | |
| Energy conservation | 91.2 | 150.8 | 242.0 |
| Oil and gas | 19.4 | 20.1 | 39.5 |
| Coal | 12.2 | 14.1 | 27.3 |
| Renewable energy | 33.7 | 16.9 | 50.6 |
| Nuclear power | 72.5 | 47.5 | 120.0 |
| Electricity | 67.7 | 209.0 | 276.7 |
| Systemanalysis | 14.1 | 3.2 | 17.3 |
| Total | 310.8 | 462.6 | 773.4 |
2- Nuclear power is not effective
While the efficiency criteria (CO2 reduction per invested guilder) absolutely renders nuclear power void, the effectiveness (possibilities for CO2-reduction in comparison to other production techniques) is less than the Van Middelkoop Commission suggests. In order to come to this assessment, it is neccesary to ascertain what the CO2 emission factor of nuclear power is. Ir. Wouter Biesiot of the University of Groningen (Netherlands) has calculated how much CO2 may be indirectly related to nuclear energy5. In his study Biesiot ascertains that indirect CO2 exhaust is mainly caused by the mining and processing of uranium ore. His report concludes that with ore containing 0,01% of uranium, the indirect emissions may run up to 140 grams/KWh. This emission is comparable to that of a gas-fuelled Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant (150 grams/kWh).
There is only a limited supply of rich uranium ore. At this moment most of the ore in the proven supplies holds an average of 0.065 % uranium. In 2005 this will have decreased to 0.057. A number of ores have high concentrations: a quarter contains more than 5 kg uranium per 1000kg (0.5%), some ores even much more. These ores are being mined now, with the result that by the year 2005, the ore actually won will contain 0.125% uranium. That is still more than the average of all ores6. The result here is that shortly after 2005 the majority of the ore mined will contain significantly less then the average of 0.057%. This is a steadfast march in the direction of 0.01% per 1000 kg and therefore in the direction of an emission factor of 140 gram/ kWh, comparable to that of a gas-fuelled CHP of 150 g/kWh. In the case of 0.004 percent uranium, the CO2 emission would amount to 230 grams/kWh. The CO2 emission per KiloWatt/h is related in chart 3 for the major energy exponents.
| Fuel | Emmission |
| Coal | 924 |
| Procured Mineral Gas | 800 |
| Natural Gas | 448 |
| Heat & Power (gas) | 150 |
| Uranium | 73-230 |
The conclusion is that the CO2 emission factor of nuclear energy (particularily with the future of 'poorer ores') is comparable to that of a gas-fuelled CHP plant. A technique which, as opposed to nuclear energy, is cheap and quickly applicable, even on a small scale.
3- World uranium supply
A massive increase in the use of nuclear power is, due to the limited supplies of uranium, hardly possible. The Van Middelkoop Commission applies in its report a wildly optimistic estimate of resources: '6 to 30 million tons' The estimates vary greatly in source and investigation. To stay on the safe side, this article is based on estimates from the industry itself. The Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (recently renamed Forschungszentrum Technik und Umwelt) in Germany estimates the worldwide uranium supply to be 6.4 million tons8. Other organisations, closely affiliated to the nuclear industrie, maintain even lower estimates. The 1995 'Red Book,' for instance, estimates the actual supplies to be 3.8 million tons, and the speculative supplies to be 11 million tons9.
If nuclear power, in the frame of global warming politics, would take care of 70% of the electricity need, as is the case in France, there would be 6.2 million tons of uranium needed until 2015. From 2015 this would - in the case of continuing nuclear output- be 0.5 million ton anually. The known resources of 6.4 million ton would therefore run out in 2016-2018.
The demand for uranium currently is much greater then the availability. Industry prognosis reveals that in 13 years, by 2010, the production will provide only half the demand10. The international organisations explicity point out that there is an imminent chance of large shortages. It is difficult to accelerate production. One reason is the approximately eight year stretch it takes for the new uranium mines to be put into production. Another is the existing mines are grappling with ever tightening environmental rules, which is hampering a higher production pace. The data in the 'Red Book' point to insufficient production capacity now and in the future. This destabilizes the market, resulting in price raises.
4- The endless source of energy myth
or: How the Netherlands invested over one billion guilders in an amusement park.
Nuclear power will take its final curtain call around 2020, unless the use of fast breeder reactors takes effect on a grand scale. The current developments does not point in this direction. The technology that had been developed to steer away nuclear power from its dependancy on uranium availability is the breeder reactor. Breeding was seen as a possibility to transform the enormous supplies of non-fissionable uranium into fissionable plutonium. This plutonium would then be made to serve as fuel. But breeders are a technical and economic failure. The complex meant to be a fastbreeder in Germany's Kalkar (a German, Belgium, Dutch cooperation) has become an holiday and amusement park: the Netherlands invested about one billion guilders (US$0.53 billion) in it. The French Superphenix is closed and will almost certainly not be reopend again, and the Scottish breeder reactor in Dounreay was closed a number of years ago. The Japanese Monju breeder has been inactive since a serious accident in December 1995 which caused a severe disruption in the Japanese breeder reactor programme. In Europe the European Fastbreeder Reactor (EFR) programme disintegrated in the early nineties when a number of the larger participating countries lessened or completely diminished their contributions.
5- Diminishing significance of nuclear power
Suppose that the political choice was made to offer a greater significance to the role of nuclear energy where generating electricity is concerned, and new nuclear power station would have to be built. For a scenario where 70% of electricity would come from nuclear power (supposing there is also a rise in energy demand), an increase of an average of 115 nuclear power stations of 1000 Megawatts each, or 192 of 600 Megawatt would have to be constructed annually. The average construction time of a nuclear power plant is now ten years.
Since 1986, according to the IAEA, three nuclear power stations have been ordered annually: The building of two nuclear power stations commenced in 1991, four in 1992, six in 1993, two in 1994, none in 1995 and three in 1996 11. The total production capacity of the nuclear industry, according to the German Öko-Institute, is eighteen nuclear power stations a year12.
6- Conclusions
- - Nuclear power offers, due to long planning and building terms, no possibilities to serve the short-term aims for CO2 reductions.
- Nuclear power is no efficient means to reduce CO2 emissions. There are many other production techniques and electricity saving options available that offer a much larger reduction in CO2 exhaust per invested guilder than nuclear power.
- Nuclear power is no effective way to reduce CO2 exhaust. With the supplies of poorer qualities of ore that will have to be utilized in future the indirect CO2 emissions are comparable or even higher than combined heat and power.
- Nuclear power cannot play a part in the reduction of the gases causing the greenhouse effect in the longer term either. The diminishing uranium supplies and the failure of breeder reactor technology makes nuclear power an finite source at short notice (decades).
- Fast increase of nuclear power capacity is impossible due to the limited capacity in the building of nuclear power stations.
Source: Updated summary of the October 1996 Laka Foundation report 'Nuclear energy no remedy for the greenhouse effect' (in Dutch)
Contact: Laka Foundation, Ketelhuisplein 43, 1054 RD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: +31-20-6168 294; Fax: +31-20-689 2179. E-mail: laka@antenna.nl.
COP3 Conference at Kyoto. From December 1-10 the Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change is held in Kyoto, Japan. Negotiations will take place about cutbacks in emissions of greenhouse gases in 2010. An unprecedented number of environmental ministers, government officials, journalists, lobbyists and activists are expected to gather from around the world. The Citizen's Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC), together with Friends of the Earth Japan, is organizing a counter conference: the Citizens' International Conference for Sustainable and Peaceful Energy Future on December 2. The main issues at the Citizens' Conference are: 1 climate change and nuclear energy; 2- prospects of energy efficiency and a sustainable world; 3- renewable energy and the citizens' role.
Contact: Citizens' International Conference for Sustainable and Peaceful Energy Future: Mika Ohbayashi at CNIC, Kotobuki Bldg. 3F, 1-58-15 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-Ku, Tokyo 164, Japan. Tel: +81-3-5330 9520; Fax: +81-3-5330 9530. E-mail: cnic-jp@po.iijnet.or.jp.
Japanese Government proposal for nuclear solution rejected. At a closed technical meeting during the preliminary conference for the COP-3 being held in Bonn, Germany, Japanese Government delegates proposed that expanded use of nuclear energy should be referred to in the draft policy protocol to be signed on COP-3. The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is repeatedly claiming that nuclear power is a solution to global warming. The proposal was almost immediately withdrawn due to opposing voices both from developing countries and some of the OPEC member states.
Mainichi (Japan) 29 & 30 October 1997
Lobby: properly presenting the nuclear option. Organisations promoting nuclear energy are collaborating closely to ensure that the case for nuclear is 'properly presented' at the conference in Kyoto. Among the organisations involved in the effort are Foratom, representing the interests of the European nuclear industry, the Uranium Institute (UI), with a world-wide membership engaged in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, the Nuclear Energy Institute, for the US nuclear industry, and the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, which is co-hosting a symposium on non-fossil energies during the Kyoto conference.
Nucnet Flash News, 3 November 1997
US DOE: CO2-emissions cut at no cost without nuclear. In October the US Department of Energy (DOE) released a report in which they concluded that the US could cut CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 with no net costs to the economy. To meet this goal CO2 emissions have to be reduced by 390 million tonnes per year. It requires major actions by federal and state governments and very active private sector involvement. It can be realised by increasing the use of energy efficient technologies. DOE looked at some 200 technologies for improving efficiency in four sectors of the economy: buildings; transportation; industry, and; electric utilities. Measures such as replacing coal burning power plants with gas fired plants and biofuels could reduce the US energy bill by between US$50 and US$90 billion a year. That money would be enough to finance developing and using the new technologies. Expansion of nuclear energy is not mentioned at all in the DOE report, which is remarkable as DOE has a long history of promoting nuclear energy.
Nature, 4 September & 2 October 1997
LIST OF SOURCES
- Nuclear power in The Netherlands after the elections. (In dutch). Centre for Energy Conservation and Clean Technology, Delft, May 27, 1994.
- U. Fritsche, G. Leking: End of fairytale: Nuclear power and Climate protection (in German), Darmstadt-Freiburg, April 1996.
- see 1.
- Energy-research in the Netherlands, advice to the minister of Economic Affairs (in Dutch), July 3, 1996, page 11.
- Nuclear energy: An Assessment on the Risks of Existing and Ventured Installations (in Dutch), March 1992.
- Georges Capus, Senior Market Analyst, Cogema, France, Resources Changes: a Key Factor in a New Uranium Production Economic Cycle, Twenty-First Annual Symposium Uranium Institute, London, 4-6 September 1996.
-
Gas and coal: CO2 emission factors for fuels in the Netherlands (in Dutch), Energy Research Foundation, May 1988
- CHP: Commission Van Middelkoop, Parliamentary Report on Climate Changes(in Dutch), 11 September 1996, page 98
- Uranium: Kor Dwarshuis, The costs of nuclids (in Dutch), Netherlands, August 1992
- End of Fairytale: Nuclear Power and Climate Protection (in German), Öko-Institute, Germany, April 1996
- W. Biesiot, Nuclear Energy: An Assessment of the Risks of Existing and Ventured Installations (in Dutch), Netherlands, March 1992. - Perspectives of Breeder Techniques (in German), Karlsruhe, April 1992.
- Uranium 1995: Resources, Production and Demand, Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
- see 9.
- IAEA, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, Vienna, annual publication.
- CO2 Reduction Strategies, Atomic Power versus Efficiency (in German), Freiburg, 1991.