Nuclear and Biodiversity - Revisited

A comment on a previous post has encouraged me to look at the impact of nuclear on biodiversity from a different angle. This will focus on the recent paper (Deryabina 2015) and how animals populations have shifted in the exclusion zone of the Chernobyl disaster. Surprisingly the number of elk, deer and wild boar in the Belarus exclusion zone are on a similar level to that in nearby nature reserves (Vaughan 2015). This would therefore directly oppose the intuitive beliefs that the continued radioactive exposure would cause nothing by damage to faunal communities.

Abundance of mammal species following the disaster in the exclusion zone. A clear increase in the early 90s following the removal of human activity (Deryabina 2015).

What this highlights is the fact that even the most drastic nuclear explosion does not impact wildlife as much as the everyday human actions such as agriculture. The exclusion zone has removed people; therefore this perhaps supports a “fortress approach” to biodiversity conservation (Hutton 2005). Where the total removal of humanity is essential for natural conditions to recover and prosper – a process supported by lion researcher  Craig Packer (Vidal 2015). The removal of humans was the catalyst for an unintentional rewilding programme (Howard 2007), with the dominance of pine and oak forests emerging (Chernobyl [WWW] 2015).

Professor Jim Smith claims that the industrial and agricultural developments in the area before the disaster probably meant that the population sizes were lower than the sizes experienced in the exclusion aftermath. There is even evidence for some species that were previously not present to have established themselves in the exclusion zone such as the European Bison and the Lynx (Vaughan 2015) – these may have been a product of human introduction, yet it does highlight the biodiversity carrying capacity of the area to have enhanced!

Elk within the Chernobyl exclusion zone (Vaughan 2015).

It would be wrong to say that the disaster was “positive” for wildlife, with evidence displaying the incredibly high radioactive levels within the first 6 months – 1 year to drastically negatively impact on wildlife health and fecundity (Deryabina 2015). However on the long term, positive points may be promoted with no significant declines in mammal density. This highlights wildlife’s incredible resilience to radiation, as well as illustarting the magnitude of damage that general human presence and development plays on wildlife.

Therefore critics of nuclear that claim that the threats to the environment are too high to risk, could arguably be dismissed as shortsighted. Focusing solely on nuclear energy, blind to the fact that the modern capitalist society itself is causing far more damage than the construction of a power plant ever could. This study helps put the risks into perspective.

African Nuclear - Part 3

The Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa is also seen to have agreements in place with Russian companies in regards to plant management and waste control – the key component of the agreement is the construction of a 9.6GW reactor (WNA 2015) – this therefore highlights the point made in the “future” post and how partnerships on an international scale would appear to be the present and future of the nuclear expansion potential. This will look to develop from the current presence of 2 reactors in the country, providing 5% of the nation’s supply (WNA 2015). It is hoped to increase this to 13.4% by 2030, making it the 2^nd largest national producer, behind coal (WNA 2015). Coal remaining dominant may undermine the climatic benefits – yet an increase in nuclear must surely be recognised as a step in the right direction!

Current South African nuclear potential (WNA 2015).

Nigeria is the most populated nation in Africa and therefore requires vast energy supplies – yet as a net exporter of oil certain limitations are in place and the energy produced is not sufficient (CIGI 2010) for the 177.5 million population (World Bank 2014). Existing energy is weak, with the national grid having one of the largest disruption and loss rates in the world and the three hydroelectric plants suffering from inconsistent water resources, leakage and maintenance issues (CIGI 2010). The insufficient water supply is tied to climatic change and the increasing reductions in effective moisture – a process that has been replicated throughout the epoch (as seen in my upcoming dissertation)! Therefore with accessible imported uranium (perhaps from the large stores in neighboring Niger), Nigeria could use nuclear to improve the self-sufficiency of the energy supply and reduce the reliance upon both fossil fuels and the scarce water resources. This process will be aided by the support of such groups as the Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission – that looks to drive the ability for national exploitation of atomic energy, by training personnel and partnering with the private sector to streamline investment and funding for construction (NAEC 2007).

NAEC Logo (NAEC 2007).

Nuclear is expanding, even within the most impoverished region of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa, there is strong development and interest. International partnerships are driving this growth, with the support from China for example spreading into Latin America and Africa with the promise of cheap equipment and exponential levels of funding. The nuclear future is arguably already in action…

African Nuclear - Part 2

Despite the issues – the need for nuclear is clear – especially when framed in relation to energy security with only 24% of the Sub-Saharan population actually having access to electricity (World Bank 2013). Furthermore, there are issues with reliability, where loss of power occurs on average 56 days a year – which has led to firms losing between 6 and 20% of revenues (World Bank 2013) – the continual and reliable energy production from nuclear therefore could provide the greater confidence in the electricity source and consequently provide greater economic security also. The World Bank (2013) also notifies high costs, which therefore will limit the electricity access and the development potential, the stable costs provided by nuclear (WNA 2015) and the tendency to provide lower costs to consumers than the majority of fossil fuels (The Economist 2015) – may allow for the profitability within the Sub-Saharan region to be boosted.

The potential is supported by the internal uranium supplies, meaning internal economic security as there will not be a dependency upon international trade prices and accessibility. Namibia and Niger are among the nations to have vast uranium stores that can be processed into fuel (Abdulrazak 2013). There is also the potential based upon large areas of land and water available for the construction – one point in which I would argue is the water accessibility, with surficial waters sparsely located and climatic change adding to drought frequency (Freitas 2013) – water availability may be required for consumption rather than reactor construction. Another positive of the African potential is the fact that compared to other areas – most notably Japan – it is relatively tectonically stable (Abdulrazak 2013) – therefore reactors will be less prone to disaster as well as having potentially suitable, stable geology for deep storage.

Africa has relatively minimal susceptibility to seismic activity. With the exception of the East African Rift - it would appear an ideal location for               safe nuclear to be established. Data Source (NOAA 2014) - Image source (CBC News 2014).

Abdulrazak (2013) is the head for Kenya's National Council for Science and Technology, he views the need for partnerships to be required if African funding for nuclear is going to be available – he views the IMF and World Bank to be central sources. However, as if often seen with the funding from these international organisations, the autonomy of the nuclear sector may be lost. This could lead to a possible favouring of foreign investment  – particularity from China. Recent activities show Chinese state investment into the UK and Latin America – could Africa be the next Chinese nuclear project? The current evidence would suggest so!

Partnerships are already in place between China and South Africa. One of many bilateral agreements was signed recently on 12^th November 2015 between the South Africa’s National Nuclear Regulator and China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration (WNN 2015) – this agreement promotes the sharing of information on the regulation procedures they undertake. Previous agreements were already in place with nuclear fuel partnerships and training contracts. Furthermore a framework agreement was established for Chinese funding for a new South African Power Plant (WNN 2014). Another example being the Chinese Agreement for nuclear reactor construction in Kenya by 2050 (M&G Africa 2015). Targets of an initial 1000MW capacity are hoped to be expanded to 4000MW by 2033 – therefore driving nuclear energy to become a “key component of the country’s energy production” - a quote from the Kenyan Nuclear Electricity Board following the announcement of the agreement. This is the start of nuclear energy expansion in Africa beyond South Africa – which remains the only African nation with current “active” plants in place. 

The agreement was signed by Mzubanzi Bismark Tyobeka and Li Ganjie in regards to the sharing of regulation information (WNN 2015).

African Nuclear - Part 1

Nuclear energy is present in national debates on a global scale. Africa is seen to be increasingly considering nuclear in this current period of expansion and investment. This topic arose from a recent piece in the IOL Business report (Magubane 2015) and the push for nuclear energy within South Africa. The group “Nuclear Africa” is central to this ambition with desires for the national energy to be nuclear produced – yet the group also acknowledges the restraints from public opinion which were noted in one of my earlier posts. Dr Kemm the CE of the organisation looks at public exaggerations (Drottz-Sjoberg 1990) to have been driven by the media and the dramatised oppositions of groups such as Greenpeace – which I have already noted as being heavily bias and blind to the potential nuclear benefits. These environmental groups are spreading, what could be termed “propaganda” of nuclear disasters, limiting public support and consequently diminishing the scope of possibility. Despite this Africa’s nuclear growth has begun, 10 nations have projects with a further 20+ undertaking serious considerations of promoting a nuclear sector (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace nuclear protects in South Africa (Greenpeace 2015).

Greenpeace (2015), once again is a major oppositional actor, that looks to drive public disapproval and nuclear removal. They have a particular campaign for the potential expansions of nuclear within South Africa - with critiques of the R1 trillion costs and the lack of transparency. They claim secrecy is detrimental to public accountability – yet surely costs etc. are needed to be kept secret in order for the best price to be obtained by the developer? Dr.Kemm makes the same point:

“This is a bidding process. If you were building a house, you would not tell a builder how much another builder was quoting you” (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace (2015) also brings forward more general issues to the potential South African growth, by highlighting the obstacles of security risks and waste storage. Furthermore, the organisation claims energy requirements are needed now – the start-up time for nuclear construction can be decades and therefore it is not solving the energy requirement issues of today.

Interest is clear from other sub-Saharan nations such as Uganda, Nigeria and Senegal (IBT 2013); however whether such ambitions are actually attainable is another question. Many may be deterred by the failure of the first African reactor in the Democratic Republic of Congo which shut down due to overheating and the consequent safety concerns. This has led previous plans in Ghana for example to be questioned, not only due to safety – but as mentioned the exponential costs may be out of reach for many of the African nations. Kenya – has $3 million put aside for an energy planning committee, alongside planned construction sites (IBT 2013), however once again it would appear as if public and environmental group resistance is central to slowing the potential within the nation.

The closed nuclear plant in DRC, security and safety concerns are vast (Amoore 2013).

Many would argue that if the nuclear disaster was capable of occurring within the 3^rd largest global GDP of Japan (World Bank 2014), then the potential for disaster surely must be higher within the Sub-Saharan nations that have far less experience and monetary resources.

Chinese investment continues

A recent nuclear development has been the continued push of Chinese nuclear funding on an international stage.  The state owned China National Nuclear Corporation again will build and fund two nuclear reactors in Argentina (Anderlini 2015). The project is likely to cost $15 billion, with Chinese banks and private sector funding around 85% of the project, to be repaid over 18 years. This follows on from the recent Chinese investment in the Hinkley Point C project in the UK.

President of the Argentinian Nucleoeléctrica, Jose Luis Antunez and the General Manger of China National Nuclear Corporation, Quian Zhimin - signing the agreement on 17th November 2015 (Financial Times 2015).

The partnership will enable the energy capacity to double – providing additional potential to the 3 nuclear reactors that are already functioning in Argentina. Anderlini (2015) sees the project in the UK as being the catalyst for further Chinese investment opportunities – success at the centre of developed Europe will promote more countries to follow in the footsteps to obtain the Chinese support. Many areas are removed from international credit markets, such as Buenos Aires, the centre of the nuclear developments – or struggle to obtain global investment due to corruption or war for example. China in particular seen to finance areas that have such limitations (Anderlini 2015), the inability for alternate funding in such areas means that there will be a greater interest in the Chinese investment. An issue may be that the dependency on exterior funds may reduce the autonomy of the national energy sector.

The Minister of Economy, Axel Kicillof, stated that the investment in nuclear plants “will secure our energy supply in the future” (WNN 2015). The relatively cheap Chinese technology and the exponential investment levels are driving a Chinese nuclear influence on a global scale.

Uranium Supply

One aspect of nuclear energy that has been touched on, is the availability of uranium. It is all good promoting zero-carbon and economic opportunity – but how long can these benefits be expected to continue? In an earlier post, Kidd (2011) suggested uranium would be accessible for another 80 years – this post will look at other suggestions and go into the finer details behind such predictions.

Map of the proportional uranium resources on a global scale (OECD NEA 2014).

The current (2013) known resources are geographically variable (WNA 2015) – this suggests certain countries may benefit to a greater extent from the nuclear sector. For one they receive the export funds, but also the nuclear economy can remain internal. Which, as mentioned can protect them from international trade fluctuations and allow for stable costs. Despite having the largest global store, there is no current nuclear power in Australia (WNA 2015)! The favoured energy supply appears to be coal – yet with continued carbon reduction regulations being proposed on the international stage it is likely that a shift to nuclear is a probable prospect. The initial stages of the change have already been established with the South Australian Government setting up a commission this year (2015), about the potential for starting a nuclear energy project.

Known recoverable resources in 2013 (WNA 2015).

Currently known resources will have the potential to change over time – future technological changes in the extraction process as well as the sustainability of fuel use (WNA 2015), will vary the longevity of the resources. Both through improving reprocessing, as well as the introduction of new mining technologies will mean that previously unknown or unreachable resources become usable – or through the reclassification of previously unattainable resources as economically recoverable (WNA 2015). This is exemplified by uranium resources increasing 7% from 2011 to 2014 (OECD NEA 2014). However, an issue being the low economic sustainability of the process, with 36% of the uranium recovered valued less than $80/kgU, due to the higher mining costs that have been required to access this latest uranium source (OECD NEA 2014).

There is some disparity in the longevity of uranium, with 80 (Kidd 2011), 90 (WNA 2015) and 120 years (OECD NEA 2014) suggested by multiple sources. If the latter OECD value is taken then it displays uranium's ability to “out-live” other mineral energy resources. For example, coal reserves in 2014 are suggested to be capable of providing another 110 years (BP 2014) – however with the upcoming COP 21 conference, coal is unlikely to be promoted in the long-term due to the environmentally detrimental emissions. Oil has around 53 years remaining  and natural gas 54 years (BP 2014) – highlighting nuclear’s potential to be a mainstay in a longstanding progression to a cleaner energy future.

These predictions may be extended if current trends in increased exploration continue. A 23% increase in uranium exploration and mine creation spending occurred between 2010 and 2012 (OECD NEA 2014). Some areas declined – yet the overall boost was supported by vast increases in expenditure particularly within Brazil, China, Kazakhstan and Turkey to name a few (OECD NEA 2014).

Trends in exploration and development expenditure (OECD NEA 2014).

More nuclear programmes around the globe will increase the demand – this could be positive in regards to increasing investment to technology and gaining greater resource access. However, larger uranium requirements may result in the finite resource being depleted quicker than predicted. Therefore, a balance needs to be made – reprocessing and greater sustainability is likely to be the way in which a nuclear expansion can be maintained on a long-term basis.

Nuclear and Biodiversity

The link between nuclear energy and biodiversity is arguably not immediately obvious. This post will focus on Brook (2014) and the relationships between the energy choices we make and the fulfilment of biodiversity conservation goals.

Nuclear energy can detriment biodiversity due to its disruptive land use through uranium mining – yet the relatively small scale factory set up may mitigate the scope of land degradation. It has an important role in reducing pollution through the zero-carbon energy production – however this is countered by the threat of radionuclide fallout and the pollution from waste storage and transport. These threats are of greater concern due to the longevity in which it persists within the environment, in regards to the exponential half-lives of the isotopes produced. The energy options must also have greater reliability and cost-effectiveness than more damaging resources in order for the biodiversity benefits to be realised. This can be tied into previous posts about the stability of nuclear energy prices and the reduced transportation costs, to name a couple of the benefits.

These questions relate to the two greatest threats of biodiversity extinctions, habitat degradation/fragmentation and the indirect implications from an ever warming planet. Many will look at the zero-carbon nature of nuclear and try to promote its environmental merit – however emissions are not the sole environmental factor, as seen with hydroelectric dams that produce no emissions yet disrupt the hydrological cycle and fragment aquatic habitats.

Dams cause low flows which have consequently caused the mass death of fish in the Klamath River, North California (International Rivers 2015).

The literature utilises a multi-criteria decision making analysis framework which ranks the energy sectors through a variety of quantitative and qualitative variables (see Brook 2014; 707). These included CO2 emissions, electricity cost, land use, number of fatalities and waste production. This article ranks nuclear as the best, against fossil fuels, biomass, hydro, wind and solar! This is perhaps surprising, especially due to the fact that throughout this blog there have been countless examples of the negativity that surrounds nuclear and its role in causing environmental damage. Brook (2014) therefore reiterates a point that I have made throughout, that despite concerns revolving around waste and reactor explosions, the “urgency of the global environmental challenges (means) closing off our option on nuclear energy may be dangerously short-sighted (p.706). 

The development of molten salt reactors, which utilise liquid, rather than solid fuel (WNA 2015), has the potential to reduce many of the threats nuclear provides to biodiversity. For example such reactors improve sustainability due to a lack of neutron loss and an ability to reprocess fuel during the operation (Touran 2015). With higher sustainability there will be less intense mining for uranium sources, meaning less land fragmentation and degradation – as well as a reduction in the emissions used in uranium collection.

Furthermore, the molten salt reactors provide less radioactivity due to the continual reprocessing meaning more radioactive material is not needed to be continually inputted to the reactor to maintain long term energy production. Additionally, the liquid fuel is at atmospheric pressure and therefore will not be exposed to the threat of high pressure explosions as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima (Touran 2015). Both the above factors result in a reduced threat of radionuclide fallout and therefore mitigated biodiversity loss due to direct exposure and incorporation into ecosystem flows.

The figure below shows the differences in the energy storage of different fuels based upon the assumed 6.4 million kWh of energy consumed in a lifetime of a person in a developed nation. It is clear that the storage in uranium provide a far greater energy/weight ratio. An interesting point raised here is the level of land use change required in renewable energies such as solar and wind. For a start offshore wind farms require vast areas to be constructed, for example the recently proposed Navitus Bay project was going to span 153km² (NIP 2015). This has since been rejected due to mass protests in regards to the impact on the status of the Jurassic Coast, including “Durdle Door” as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Booker 2015). Furthermore, there will need to be mass land  degradation and habitat fragmentation from the mining of nickel required in the batteries that store wind/solar energy (Brook 2014). Therefore the “100% green” concepts of wind and solar – often seen in mainstream media – are arguably romanticised ideals. Emissions will also be inevitable in the construction of the turbines or solar panels – with toxic waste water another possible outcome of panel manufacture – as previously mentioned (Nunez 2011).

Comparative energy densities of different fuels (Brook 2014).

Jurassic Coast and Durdle Door - wind farm developments were prevented due to conflicts with the UNESCO status (Booker 2015).

Therefore I would agree with Brook (2014), that nuclear provides a suitable option to overcome the biodiversity crisis. Access to nuclear and the reduced dependency on international fossil fuel trade and markets can also aid wealth inequality and poverty – which are both seen to be major drivers of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Barrett 2011). Yes – risks exist but we are not in a position to be “picky” about the route we take. Species’ extinctions are up to 1000x higher than the natural background rate (IUCN 2010) – therefore we must act now to mitigate or overturn this alarming trend! Otherwise we may enter (if we have not already!) a 6^th major extinction event (see Ben’s Blog for further discussion)!

Nuclear energy support - role of Gender

One interesting interpretation is examining the different viewpoints of nuclear based on gender. Obviously, many factors will impact the perceived risks and morals such as social status, wealth (Barke 1997) and proximity to previous disasters. However, gender has been recognised as an important factor in differentiating nuclear perspectives. Brody (1984) proposes two hypotheses as to why he feels women show lessened levels of support compared to men. One being economic growth, as men are deemed to be more focused within employment and monetary access. This means they favour nuclear due to its potential to provide both financial gain and business opportunities. Arguably, this analysis is out-dated, such a hypothesis seems absurd in the modern world where female employment (ONS 2013 - UK perspective) and business connections are on the rise.

The second hypothesis (Brody 1984), which I feel perhaps contains more substance, revolves around safety. Women are maternal and “nurturers of life”, therefore they will be far more responsive to the threats of nuclear energy, compared to men. This may relate to the reproductive role of women, with past evidence showing nuclear disasters to impact pregnancies and fertility. Risks to future generations will tend to be recognised and feared highly within women. This could once again be classed as out of date, as women are no longer seen to occupy just motherly roles. However, it is likely to be related to the biology and  internal instincts to protect that are suggested to be more apparent in women.

Barke (1997) alludes to a greater opposition to new technology within female scientists. That they are less willing to adopt new practices, once again due to the fear of the consequences – that are well publicised and accessible through mainstream media. The author also argues that women have a greater consideration for the environment within the scientific realm – this opens the door for ambiguity. This could promote strong nuclear opposition with the belief that radionuclide fallout for example can detriment the natural world. However, it could also promote a positive nuclear outlook if the individual feels it can reduce emissions and aid the environment. This can be illustrated by the NGO Women in Nuclear (WIN). The vision of WIN is:

To be a forum for exchanging information and raising awareness of the benefits of nuclear and radiation applications, and of the safety measures that ensure protection of the public and the environment, thereby enhancing the quality of life (WIN 2015).

WIN "Smiling Atom" logo (WIN 2015).

This therefore highlights how a gender divide is not absolute, general trends may exist however ultimately the individual perspective will reign supreme. It is likely that despite a common theme other variables are likely to impact upon female beliefs, for example in Sweden older women are regarded as more supportive than the young. Whilst a political stance towards the right also provided a greater acknowledgement to the positives of nuclear energy (Sandstorm 2015). There is the belief that the gender divide may narrow as the influence of WIN grows (Sandstorm 2015). The support coming from a female dialogue and perspective may stimulate further female backing in the coming years.

Nuclear Terrorism and Greenpeace Discussion

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are inseparable in the minds of much of the opposition (Mirel 2009). It is likely the connection will continue to play a role in public considerations with the media depictions. From personal experience of watching the news often nuclear energy potential is commonly associated with a risk of weaponry. This fear is likely to increase with the proliferation of nuclear potential around the globe (MIT 2015), as technologies capable of separating weapons-usable plutonium and uranium become widely available then the potential for security threats increases in scope.

Map of nuclear potential on a global scale - increasing scope. Key: Yellow = under construction. Blue = planned. Orange = not operating. Green = operating. Red = shut down (Clark 2012).

As was previously mentioned President Jimmy Carter abandoned waste reprocessing plans after a nuclear weapon test in India in 1974 used plutonium from a research reactor (Gerrard 2015). The fear was that the processed material could be susceptible to theft and therefore used in nuclear weapons – consequently jeopardising US security. Therefore permanent waste storage was favoured to limit the threat (Forbes 2015). Such concerns have enhanced following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and therefore a shift to reprocessing policies is unlikely to occur, despite the potential for carbon-free energy. Not only is there a fear of weaponry, but also the concern that nuclear power stations could be targeted by terrorist attacks, due to the potential civil damage they can cause – illustrated from past case studies (WNA 2015). In the US the robust concrete structures are deemed to be able to withstand aircraft impact, with bulletproof security stations also implanted in many stations to internally protect the nuclear safety also (WNA 2015).

The dual use of nuclear for energy/research and weapon creation creates the difficulty in combating the concern (NEIS 2004). IAEA inspections are undertaken in order to assess the use of nuclear energy and to assure that they are not being misused for weapons (IAEA 2001). However, the fact nuclear can be used for peaceful purposes also means the identification of misuse may not be straight forward – immoral use may be veiled under an image of emission-reducing objectives. Add onto this the fact that countries can simply leave the agreement or not sign it (Higgin 2006), meaning the deterrent to weaponry is not substantial. There is also the contradiction within this process, with the UK, USA, China, France and Russia permitted to hold weapons (IAEA 2001) – displaying a global disparity in the rules. Perhaps highlighting how Western (and Chinese) weaponry is thought of as essential for peace and protection – compared to other nations possessing it for terrorism. Is the difference really there?!

Royal Navy's nuclear submarine - HMS Vanguard (BBC 2015).

I argue however that climate change is a far greater threat to national security than nuclear power – many may disagree with this statement (feel free to comment below). Nuclear should not be scrapped as it provides a potential security threat, as a far larger magnitude threat of climatic change is ever quickly approaching. That is why I find it strange that Greenpeace (2006), continually oppose nuclear expansions – yet a central objective of the organisation is to “stop climate change”. They list multiple issues from waste to terrorism – whilst claiming even optimistic nuclear reactor builds would be insufficient to stop climate change. However, as was seen in the future trends post rapid production is possible. I oppose to the fact that they put so much effort into opposing nuclear – failing to realise the potential it has – surely expanding even a small amount and cutting emissions is better than nothing! Surely their resources would be better used attacking the fossil fuel sector rather than nuclear?! The urgency of the climatic issue means all should be done to stop the increased atmospheric CO2 composition, nuclear has a quick start up time and can limit the magnitude – it surely has to at least be acknowledged as one of many options!

Greenpeace (2015) claim one of their targets to be "Make sure emissions peak in 2015 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards 0 after that". Surely if an objective is to achieve a speedy recovery, then all alternatives have to be engaged with at this time of proposed urgency. It is not a time to pick and choose!

Is nuclear not one of the ways to achieve the clean future? (Greenpeace 2015).

As the blog has progressed I feel my opinion swaying towards a pro-nuclear position. Before starting this blog I knew very little about the nuclear sector and therefore my opinion may simply be a product of the literature and media I have engaged with (despite trying to encounter an unbiased selection)! The threats are real and more often than not can be large – however with regulations and improved technologies it surely has to be accepted as an important energy source. Whether it expands to become the dominant global provider is another question, with many, including myself seeing large scale wind or solar as a more desirable option. However, in this period of urgency it must be utilised – stopping it all together as Greenpeace suggests is counter-productive to their organisation objectives and global desires to cut emissions and limit the magnitude of climatic damage! 

Hinkley Point C - Part 2

The GMB Union’s national secretary Gary Smith, directly opposed the claims of Amber Rudd and the positivity that Point C and the further Sussex and Essex nuclear plans would provide. He argues against the openness and strong desire for Chinese capital – claiming it was simply a push to prevent the conservatives from having debt on their balance sheets (Macalister 2015).  Furthermore, the influx of Chinese equipment and contracts will mitigate the British economic potential, despite claims that 60% of contracts will be open to UK companies, the reality is the higher costs compared to the Chinese will mitigate the benefit. Additionally Smith states (Macalister 2015), that the influx of Chinese technology may place safety at risk, especially following the claims of He Zuoxiu, a leading Chinese scientist, that China has not invested significantly in safety controls in the nuclear sector (Graham-Harrison 2015). The Post-Fukushima reactor ban has been removed but safety has not improved, for example many Chinese reactors are planned in densely populated areas where there is a water supply for reactor cooling – potentially placing millions at risk (Graham-Harrison 2015). UK safety regulations will be applied, therefore mitigating the risk – yet the technology may not be available to a sufficient standard from the Chinese source.

Another concern (Macalister 2015) is the security issue of permitting the Chinese to enter the British nuclear programme – threats to national security and the possibility of atomic warfare are continually associated with the nuclear sector. This is often a strong argument of the opposition and will be examined in a future blog post!

With this many campaigns have arisen opposing the Hinkley Point C project such as Stop Hinkley. The group wrote to the UK government, highlighting the recent Chinse chemical explosions, the continually weak health and safety record and the scandalously poor human rights as being central reasons as to why the UK-China partnership should be scrapped (Stop Hinkley 2015). The two sides of the story provide very different evaluations, from British job creation to Chinese technology putting the UK public at risk.

Logo for the Stop Hinkley campaign (Stop Hinkley 2015).

A high profile opposition campaign comes from the Austrian Government (WNA 2015), this is despite Europe having around 27% of the energy produced by nuclear sources. The dominant argument from Austria is that it desires a nuclear-free Europe, with claims that nuclear is far more expensive and environmentally damaging than alternate sources such as wind and solar. However, if nuclear was removed then the Europe’s emission reductions would be dismal, due to other sources lacking behind the current nuclear capacity. The IPCC (2007) has recently confirmed the nuclear potential in reducing global emissions, along with the fact that nuclear can provide continual energy compared to the temporal variability of wind for example (WNA2015). Therefore I would argue that the complete dismissal of nuclear by the Austrian government would hinder climate change targets and detriment European energy security. The campaign has reached a stage of potential legal action from Austria and potentially Luxembourg also (Nelsen 2015), particularly over the EU Commission allowing state aid and the impact that has on the energy market. Such lawsuits are likely to cause delays and disruptions to the Hinkley construction! The opposition from Austria is not surprising with a long history of nuclear abstinence, with evidence of prolonged disputes with the bordering Czech Republic over previous plants and proposed future constructions (Černoch2015).

Anti-nuclear demonstration in Vienna, Austria 2011 - to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (Cryptome 2011).

Despite the fears of poor Chinese health and safety, there is evidence to suggest the power station design has learnt from previous mistakes – in particular the Fukushima disaster (Raby 2015). EDF claims that all possible sea level threats, from climate change, storms, tides and tsunamis are accounted for in the sea wall defence. The site is positioned in excess of 14m above the sea level, which gives leeway to the possible increases that may be experienced in the 60 year life span (Raby 2015). Therefore, protection from the pressure-based explosions seen in Fukushima is provided through precautious planning.

Proposed sea wall at Hinkley Point C (Raby 2015).

The UK governmental assistance to the private nuclear investors in the guaranteed pricing etc. was promoted by the European Commission, despite fears that it would disturb and damage the free energy market (Černoch 2015). With this confirmation of state assistance being a legal procedure in the energy sector, Point C could be viewed as a catalyst for similar projects to expand around the EU. Obviously not all countries will have the funds available to subsidies and assist a nuclear expansion, meaning there may be a disbalance in potential between Western and Central/Eastern Europe. However, it is not impossible that such countries as Czech Republic may exploit the European Commission ruling to stimulate private investment and increased nuclear capacity (Černoch 2015). Hinkley Point C may therefore be central to stimulating an expanded nuclear future within Europe.

Hinkey Point C - Part 1

Hinkley Point C - Projected construction (Greenpeace 2015).

As mentioned in the previous posts, the future of a nuclear expansion is likely to be rooted within global alliances. Hinkley Point C in Somerset is being constructed under such an alliance with a 65.5% EDF share and 33.5% with the state owned China General Nuclear Corporation (EDF 2015). Further alliances are expected with EDF suggesting they are aiming to sell more shares in the nuclear plant construction (EDF 2015). The two current shareholders have also expressed plans for further joint projects in Essex and Suffolk, illustrating the long term, joint commitments to nuclear expansions within the UK. The Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd was quick to highlight the positives of this deal, with the ability for the power station to power 6 million homes and to provide in excess of 25,000 new jobs, boosting both financial and energy security.

The partnership is not new, with EDF and GCN collaborating for decades (EDF 2015),  the experience both companies have had in nuclear expansions, especially in France – will benefit the UK programme greatly. Allowing the growth of a modern, safe and efficient nuclear sector. Many may fear that the benefits will be experienced outside of national boarders; however it has been ensured that the majority of the service contracts will be opened to British companies allowing for British economic expansion and job creation to be a secondary benefit.

EDF and GCN sign Strategic Investment Agreement (EDF 2015).

The reactor is planned to be completed by 2025, with costs claimed to be $18 billion (EDF 2015), yet other reports (Gosden 2015) suggesting costs in excess of $24 billion. These exponential costs require sureties, which is why there is a guaranteed electricity price - £89.50/Mwh for the first 35 years - which the investors will receive. The cost is going to be greater than current fossil fuel costs, yet competitive in the renewable market (EDF 2015). It must also be realised that despite the vast construction costs, the public are not paying – with the construction costs totally covered by the private sector. Therefore the public only pay when they are receiving the electricity, which may mitigate opposition to the power station and the astronomical costs.

Point C will provide 7% of the country’s electricity generating needs (EDF 2015), a significant proportion from a single station. Along with the electricity and employment potential, the environmental benefits must also be noted, with the zero-carbon production central to the drive for a greater nuclear future. It is predicted that Point C will prevent 600 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, over its 60 year life span (EDF 2015). Allowing climatic forcing to be reduced and particulate matter risks to be mitigated (Yim 2012). Continued nuclear expansions, as have been planned, will be influential in meeting emission targets in the UK, with a desired 80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 (CCC 2008). This level of reduction will enable the 2C global temperature increase threshold to be maintained, or breached to the minimal amount. Further information on climate change targets can be found here (Curtis 2015, Wong 2015).

Observed and projected trends of global CO2 emissions and the warming consequence - under four RCP scenarios (Sanford 2014).

However, opposition questions the funding – with Greenpeace (2015) suggesting that the governmental subsidies will provide £1.1 billion public costs a year, despite the fact that the borrowing needs have drastically been reduced with further Chinese investment. Furthermore, Greenpeace highlights the fact that the fixed electricity price will mean £81 billion will be generated from electricity sales in the 35 years of the fixed cost. France and China therefore receive around £30 billion and £15 billion from the tax payer, once maintenance and construction costs are accounted for (Kahya 2015). Some would argue that this level of capital leaving the country is diabolical and will limit UK economic growth. The 25,000 UK jobs created are unlikely to compensate for this calculated monetary emigration. 

Future trends and possibilities. Part 2

The future of nuclear may not solely be within electricity (Hill 2008), with the reactors also capable of providing services such as heat generation and desalination of marine water. Therefore the future expansion may be in both capacity and number of uses!

Electricity demand is on the increase, for example the US demand is predicted to increase 30% by 2035 (Ferguson 2010) – explaining as to why there is vast nuclear investment, in order to provide a stable supply for the coming years. Especially with the increased realisation of the risk of  fossil fuel depletion! It is predicted that 7,200 GW of energy will need to be produced to keep up with the increasing global demands (IEA 2014) – this will not only be fulfilled by new power plants and renewable sources but there will also be a need for the replacement of ageing nuclear reactors (IEA 2014). Many reactors are deemed to have a 40 year life, yet extensions on this in the US have realised the potential for up to 80 (Hill 2008). This would suggest the infrastructure of today will be influential within the future of nuclear energy.

Energy consumption predicted trends - increases in demand may be fulfilled by the zero-carbon option of nuclear - in particular large increases in Asia. Predicted nuclear growth in China is likely to be a response of this increased Asian demand (IEA 2009).

The IEA (2014) have produced scenarios of future nuclear trends, with it believed an increase in capacity from 392 to 620 GW between 2013 and 2040. It is seen that the major growth will occur within areas with regulated and guaranteed prices, private investment, public subsidies or aid in attracting outside funding (IEA 2014). Predominant growth is likely to be based in China, which is predicted to account for 45% of this growth 2013-2040, with India, South Korea and Russia combining to provide a further 30% of the growth (IEA 2014). However, within this scenario the global share of nuclear energy remains steady at 12% which is below the % provided at its peak in previous years –this is presumably based on the expanding alternate renewable sources in the scenario (IEA 2014). Public opposition and safety regulations may limit the exponential growth, with favouritism towards more acceptable sources such as solar and wind. Despite the absolute capacity increasing, its significance within a global energy picture is predicted to remain small. This perhaps confirms nuclear to be rooted in position as a stable, baseline provider, incapable of breaking free of its restraints to challenge the global energy dominance of fossil fuels.

However, increased nuclear presence on a global scope can improve fuel security, removing the dependence on imports and the fluctuating international fuel prices (IEA 2014). Therefore, despite no significant percentage increase predicted by the IEA, it is seen that more countries will initiate nuclear sectors to allow for a more predictable and stable, internal economy.

There is much importance on the carbon-free nature of nuclear, with it predicted that nuclear energy has prevented 52 gigatonnes of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere since 1971 (IEA 2014). Predictions for the emission reductions under the 2040 IEA scenarios suggest South Korea could cut emission by 50% and China 8% for example. The future environment therefore would benefit from such absolute increases in nuclear production, a future of reduced air pollution and lowered radiative forcing is a possibility. It is estimated that for every 22 tonnes of uranium used in nuclear energy production, there for a prevention of 1 million tonnes of CO2 if coal is used alternatively (WNA 2015). Add onto this the economic potential of reduced emissions, with the potential to remove costs of $80/tonne of CO2 emission (IEA 2014), if an economic value is applied.

The shift from fossil fuel to nuclear can have health improvements for the future also – which may appear strange after so many health risks have been mentioned in previous case studies. However, it is predicted that 1.34 million premature deaths are caused every year through the inhaling of particulate matter (WNA 2015), for example the black carbon was predicted to have caused around 30,000 premature deaths just in the UK in 2008 (Yim 2012). These emissions are supplied by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (Koelmans 2006) – therefore shifting to nuclear energy would improve air quality and allow for countries to comply with clean air legislative requirements. These health risks may be on a lower scale than the potential nuclear damage, yet the higher frequency of particulate matter damage can be prevented in a nuclear future.

Despite all these potential opportunities and blockades, it is clear to me that there are many reasons as to why facilitating a nuclear future would be a positive move (WNA 2015):

•           Increased global population and energy demand -  As well as increasing pressure on freshwater resources may mean high energy nuclear reactors will be essential in desalination and ensuring water, as well as energy security in the future.
•          Climate change - Nuclear provides a stable and continual energy supply, with a quick set up rate and a zero carbon emission from energy production.
•           Security of supply - Nuclear allows an autonomous energy supply, removing the vulnerability to international fossil fuel prices and transportation needs.
•          Economics - In areas with carbon pricing the clear monetary value of nuclear is emphasized against fossil fuels. Furthermore, with stable costs in regards to fuel costs it will be preferential for consumers.
•           Security from future price jumps - Nuclear is moving from smaller projects to global, private sector programmes. The mass production of reactors will reduce times and costs and therefore in hand reduce the prices needed to make a return. If anything, costs may decrease with greater experience. An issue, as mentioned in the “costs” blog, is the fact that uranium sources may have to be extracted with greater difficulty and therefore wider expansions of nuclear could induce an initial increase in costs. However the positives mentioned above will likely outweigh any initial cost requirements!

Nuclear may be more beneficial for the environment, through zero-emission electricity production, than was previously thought (Cartoon Movement 2010).