Are our fears about nuclear power irrational?

The crisis at Japan’s Fukushima electricity plant is the world’s worst nuclear incident in 25 years, and still seems far from resolved. Four experts debate the logic of our nuclear fear.

THE CONSULTANT BEN HEARD

Until recently I was a vocal opponent of nuclear power. Understanding the scale of the climate crisis led me – reluctantly, I’ll admit – to investigate nuclear power as a solution. To my surprise, I found my fears of nuclear power were overwhelmingly irrational.

I had three main concerns. First, that nuclear power is not safe. The Energy Related Severe Accident Database set that straight. In the past 40 years, the energy chain for coal killed more than 32,000 people worldwide in severe accidents, more than 2000 of them in OECD nations. The comparative figures for nuclear? Zero in the OECD, and 43 worldwide. This includes cancer deaths from Chernobyl, a reactor with no containment building, a horrible and unique design flaw.

Advertisement: Story continues below Meanwhile, 440 reactors provide 15 per cent of global electricity, including to the world’s 16 largest economies (leaving out Australia at number 13). A tsunami hitting 40-year-old reactors has caused injuries and major issues, but not one fatality.

Nuclear power is more than safe enough, and getting safer all the time.

Second, I feared high-level nuclear waste was impossible to manage safely. Cutting a long story short, it isn’t. It’s predictable to the point of being boring: cool, encase, contain, contain again, and monitor. And the coming generation of nuclear technology will consume it as fuel. Cross that from my list.

Third, I feared proliferation. While nuclear power and weapons programs were once joined at the hip, this is no longer true. Twenty-one nations deploy nuclear power with no weapons capability. If it’s a weapon you want, there is no slower, more expensive way of creating substandard material than by using a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is not a threat to peace.

So my concerns were not rational. But they were understandable, given we are fed a diet of fear by opponents of nuclear power, mainly comprising selective facts that have been stripped of meaningful context. This finds fertile ground among well-meaning people who trust the sources.

Rationally, we should all fear climate change. It threatens our occupation of this planet within a century. This, rather than nuclear power, is what keeps me awake at night.

The biggest contributor to climate change is coal. Renewables alone cannot displace coal quickly enough. But nuclear power plus renewables can, with minuscule risk. The only rational response is to be open to the further deployment of nuclear power, in partnership with growth in renewables.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/are-our-fears-about-nuclear-power-irrational-20110402-1cs6w.html

May 12, 2012

An increasing number of countries have formulated policies to introduce renewable energy sources into their

more

May 11, 2012

In 2011, new clean energy investments rose to a record $263 billion – a 6.5

more

May 11, 2012

INTERNATIONAL companies specialising in the carbon market and low-carbon technologies are beginning to jockey for

more

May 10, 2012

FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr has volunteered Australia to give evidence on behalf of poor nations

more

May 09, 2012

THE Gillard government and the states, including NSW, will back business demands for faster environmental

more

May 08, 2012

Alternative energy has become a major industry in and of itself. When most people think

more

Go to News Page