"A clever man solves a problem; a wise man avoids it." Einstein

uNclear-Nuclear: Exposing the myths

The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will
result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds
of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil
fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high
environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is
clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate
change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers
a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2
emissions.

Exposing the myths 1: Nuclear power is economical and cost effective

The full costs of nuclear power have been seriously underestimated by all
countries which have the technology, and it is only recently that the
true costs have begun to come to light. The hidden costs of waste
disposal, decommissioning and provision for accidents have never been
adequately accounted for, resulting in a massive drain upon economies.
This drain will continue for many years to come as the expensive and
dangerous task of nuclear decommissioning gets underway.

Privatisation and liberalisation of the market in the UK, has led to the
true costs of nuclear power being exposed. It has become clear that
nuclear power cannot exist in a competitive energy market without
significant subsidy from Government. This process is now being followed
around the world with investors being unwilling to accept the high cost
and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, if fully comprehensive
insurance was required to cover all of the risks of nuclear accidents,
the cost of electricity from nuclear power would increase many times from
the present level.

Reactor decommissioning costs also remain a major uncertainty. In the UK,
for example, the cost of dealing with the unwanted debris of the nuclear
industry is officially estimated at about US$70 billion. Of this, just
US$22 billion is covered in secure funding arrangements, with the
remaining US$48 billion (almost 70%) likely to be paid for by taxpayers.
The nuclear industry's claim that, "In most countries, the full costs of
waste management and plant decommissioning will be funded from reserves
accumulated from current revenues" [1] is clearly untrue.

Countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, are continuing to
build new nuclear plants even though it has been shown that investment in
energy efficiency measures is the quickest and safest way to tackle their
energy crises. For example, the nuclear power plants proposed to replace
the remaining reactors at Chernobyl have consistently been shown not to
be the least-cost option.

Also, in terms of cost-effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear
power fairs very poorly. In 1995, after a year-long, exhaustive review of
the case for nuclear power, the UK Government concluded that nuclear
power is one of the least cost-effective ways in which to cut CO2
emissions. In the USA improving electricity efficiency is nearly seven
times more cost effective than nuclear power for obtaining emissions
reductions [2].

Nuclear power one of the least effective and most expensive ways in which
to tackle climate change.

Table 1: CO2 abatement options, in order of cost-effectiveness (10%
discount rate) [3]
1) Fuel switching
2) Appliance efficiency improvements
3) Industrial CHP
4) Lighting efficiency improvements
5) Small-scale CHP
6) Cooking efficiency improvements
7) Service sector space heating
8) Advance Gas Turbines
9) Water heating
10) Industrial motive power
11) Domestic space heating
12) Country-wide CHP
13) Renewables
14) Process Heat
15) Industrial Space Heating
16 Nuclear
17) Advanced Coal Technology

Exposing the myths 2: Nuclear power does not produce CO2

Nuclear power is not greenhouse friendly. While electricity generated
from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel
cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant
construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial
operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to
rise as core grades decline.

According to calculations by the Öko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are
emitted per generated kWh in Germany [4]. The results from other
international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams
of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size
(1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000
million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries)
of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power
releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of
the whole fuel cycle.

Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no
short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.

Exposing the myths 3: Nuclear power is safe

Problems of security, safety and environmental impact have been perennial
issues for the nuclear industry. Many countries have decided against the
development of nuclear power on these grounds, but radioactive
contamination is no respector of national borders and nuclear power
plants threaten the health and well-being of all surrounding nations and
environments. There is also the very serious problems of nuclear
proliferation and trafficking.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view is that if
nuclear power were to be used extensively to tackle climate change, "The
security threat ... would be colossal".

Just one month after The Economist, a British magazine, had declared in
its lead article that the technology was "as safe as a chocolate factory"
(1986), there followed a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The
accident caused an immediate threat to the lives of 130,000 people living
within a 30 kilometre radius who had to be evacuated (and who have been
permanently relocated) and 300-400 million people in 15 nations were put
at risk of radiation exposure. Forecasts of additional cancer deaths
attributable to the Chernobyl accident range from 5,000 to 75,000 and
beyond. The nuclear industry argues that the problems in the former
Soviet Union are different to those in developed countries, but the
United States itself had a serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979..
Whilst the new European Pressurised Reactor and the fusion programmes are
being promoted as offering safer operation, no form of nuclear power
technology is totally without risk of a major accident. With public
opinion strongly set against nuclear power, it would be far better to
invest in renewable forms of energy which have widespread public support..
The development of new nuclear technology would mean spending huge
amounts of money going down another nuclear road, with the prospect of
finding the same type of problems and public opposition.

Recent in-depth studies in the United States challenge the claim that
exposure to low-level doses of radiation is safe. The health and safety
of employees, local communities and the contamination of the environment
are genuine risks. A recent study (completed August 1997) funded by the
US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, examined the health and mortality of
14,095 workers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The study found
"strong evidence of a positive association between low-level radiation
and cancer mortality" [5]. As of 1990, 26.9% of deaths were due to
cancer.

The exposure risk to workers in the uranium mining industry is also
great.

Exposing the myths 4: Nuclear power is sustainable

Nuclear power plants produce extremely long-lived toxic wastes, for which
there is no safe means of disposal. The only independent scrutiny of a
Government waste management safety case [NIREX in the UK] led to the
cancellation of the proposed test site for nuclear waste disposal. As
disposal is not scientifically credible, there is no option other than
interim storage of radioactive wastes. This means that the legacy of
radioactive wastes will have to be passed on to the next generation.
Producing long-lived radioactive wastes, with no solution for their
disposal, leaving a deadly legacy for many future generations to come is
contrary to the principle of sustainability, as laid out in Agenda 21 at
the Earth Summit.

In 1976 the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution warned that it
is, "irresponsible and morally wrong to commit future generations to the
consequences of fission power on a massive scale unless it has been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at least one method exists for
the safe isolation of these wastes for the indefinite future"[6]. Over
twenty years on, still no such method has been found. Nuclear waste
management policies are in disarray and there is growing public
opposition to the transport and storage of nuclear waste - as has been
demonstrated by the scenes at Gorleben, Germany.

Under no circumstances can nuclear power be considered to be sustainable..

Exposing the myths 5: Nuclear power can provide an endless source of
energy

With the virtual demise of the Fast Breeder research programme and no
foreseeable commercial development of fusion reactors, the belief that
nuclear power can supply an endless source of energy is fast
disappearing. The Japanese Monju Fast Breeder reactor has been inactive
since a serious accident in December 1995, whilst the French Superphoenix
and the breeder reactor programmes in the UK have been permanently
closed.

Diminishing uranium supplies and the failure of the breeder reactor
programmes mean that nuclear power will not be able to make a long-term
contribution to meeting the world's energy needs.

Exposing the myths 6: Nuclear power makes a vital contribution to energy
supply

The assertion by the nuclear industry that, "It is essential that nuclear
generating capacity is maintained if emissions from power generation are
to be successfully limited over the next 10 to 15 year and beyond" [7] is
fundamentally untrue. Emissions can be cut without building more nuclear
power plant. In October 1997, the US Department of Energy released a
report in which they concluded that the US could cut CO2 emissions to
1990 levels by 2010 with no net cost to the economy. Shell has forecast
that renewables could meet up to 50% of the world's energy demand by 2060
[8]. Nuclear power only supplies 17% of world electricity supply at
present.

Nuclear power is seeing its role in the world's energy mix diminish.
Since 1986, according to the IAEA, only three nuclear power stations have
been ordered annually. In Europe fourteen out of fifteen European nations
have no plans to develop nuclear power; the majority of the countries
within the European Union have, "little desire to launch, or to
re-invigorate, nuclear power programs" [9]; and nearly half of the EU
countries are nuclear free and others are planning to decrease or phase
out nuclear power completely. It is clear that the vast sums of money
being spent on research and development and on subsidising the industry
are in total disproportion to the contribution nuclear power is likely to
make to Europe's energy supply in the coming decades.

With a limited amount of funding available for research and development,
reallocation of funds from nuclear power and towards renewable energy and
energy efficiency would reduce the costs of these technologies, making
them even more competitive. However, funds are still being wasted on
nuclear power programmes, which are opposed by most people, are more
expensive than other alternatives and require a long development time.

It is a myth that "Nuclear power is the only fully developed non-fossil
fuel electricity generating option with the potential for large-scale
expansion" [7]. Nuclear power plants take 10 years to build. Over the
next 12 years the European Union is aiming for 10,000MW of wind power and
10,000MW of biomass to be developed. This is a just part of the solution
and is equivalent to about 15 nuclear power plant.

Energy policies post-Kyoto

1. Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism should not be
allowed to be used as a smoke screen for new nuclear power development.
Western governments must not be allowed to use nuclear power technology
in Eastern Europe and in developing countries to obtain greenhouse
credits in return for "reducing" future emissions in those countries.
Canada had been proposing a system of credits for low carbon-intensive
fuels including uranium and natural gas.

The World Bank has made a decision not to finance new, or the upgrading
of old, nuclear power plants based on the following rationale: i) in
almost all cases, nuclear is not the least-cost solution to the power
supply problem; ii) environmental risks are high and require specialised
agencies for their handling. [10]

2. Governments should not be fooled into believing that nuclear power is
acceptable IN ANY WAY as a technically viable, economically feasible or
publicly acceptable solution to climate change. The nuclear industry in
the developed world, particularly Western Europe and the United States is
on its last legs due to its consistent technical problems (accidents,
construction errors, unreliable operation), economic failures (cost
overruns, non-competitive with renewables in an era of increased
deregulation, rising waste storage costs) and dramatic public
disaffection (communities in the US, Western Europe and now even Japan,
are vehemently opposing the siting of a new nuclear reactors).

3. Developed nations' governments should not be encouraged to support
nuclear power construction abroad under the mask of a climate solution,
in order to support their own failing nuclear industry. There are real
fears that Central and Eastern Europe will become an electricity
generating centre for the rest of Europe, producing cheap electricity
based upon lower environmental and safety standards and lower public
opposition to highly polluting and dangerous energy infrastructure.

Further, Western corporations have targeted energy-hungry China, where
public awareness of nuclear's environmental, economic and public health
disasters is virtually non-existent, as an economic goldmine and saviour
of their dying industry. Exploiting public innocence of the Chinese
people is cruel and unusual punishment. The health and safety of the
Chinese people, as well as the ecosystems and peoples of other nuclear
industry targeted countries must not be sacrificed on the altar of a
nuclear industry bailout.

Japanese Government delegates to the preliminary conference for COP-3
climate change negotiations in Bonn proposed that expanded use of nuclear
energy should be referred to in the draft policy protocol to be signed at
COP-3. The proposal had to be withdrawn almost immediately due to
opposing voices.

4. Governments need to increase financial investments and incentives in
renewables, conservation and energy efficiency. Such measures will create
more jobs per unit of energy than traditional fossil fuel and nuclear
power industries. For example, while also being cheaper than nuclear
power, wind power provides four times as many direct jobs as nuclear
power per unit of energy produced.

Conclusions

Under no circumstances can nuclear power be considered to be a solution
to climate change:
* It is one of the most expensive ways to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.
* The nuclear industry does contribute to carbon dioxide emissions.
* No proven strategies exist for the permanent safe storage of nuclear
waste.
* Nuclear power poses a very real health risk.
* Nuclear power is uneconomic, unsustainable and unsafe.

Climate change is a serious problem which needs to be tackled in a way
which safeguards the future for generations to come. Tackling climate
change through the development of nuclear power is both expensive and
just swaps one serious problem for another. Nuclear power cannot be
considered to be a "clean source of electricity" [7].

The nuclear industry is hoping to use the Climate Change negotiations to
save itself, because the economics of nuclear power has meant a rapid
decline in the industry's fortunes. This is a desperate attempt to
generate business from the misfortune of the problems we all now face.

References

[1] Foratom and the Uranium Institute, 'The contribution of nuclear
energy to limiting potential global climate change'.

[2] Energy Policy, December 1988.

[3] Jackson, T., 'Efficiency without tears - 'No-regrets' energy policy
to combat climate change', Friends of the Earth, London, 1992.

[4] Lim Sui-San, 'Comparison of greenhouse gas emission and abatement
cost from nuclear and alternative energy resources from lifecycle
perspective', Öko-Institut, Germany, 1997.

[5] Richardson, D. and Wing, S., Department of Epidememiology, The
University of North Carolina.

[6] Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 'Sixth report: Nuclear
power and the environment', HMSO, London, 1976, p81.

[7] 'Clearing the air: nuclear power and climate change', Statement by
the international nuclear power industry to the Third Conference of the
Parties to the UNFCCC in Kyoto.

[8] Kassler, P., 'Energy for development', Shell Selected Paper, London,
1994.

[9] Office for Official Publications of the European Commission,
'European Energy to 2020 - a scenario approach', Luxembourg, 1996, p80.

[10] Letter from Achilles Adamantiades, Principle Power Engineer, The
World Bank, Washington DC, to Professor Mendelsohn, University of
Melbourne, 25th October 1996.

Nuclear was excluded from receiving "carbon credits" under the Kyoto treaty at the second part of the COP6 climate talks in Bonn. The nuclear industry was left fantasizing about alleged loopholes in the treaty.

WISE Amsterdam - Continued climate negotiations in Bonn, from 16 to 27 July, ensured exclusion of nuclear power from the list of methods eligible for "carbon credits". What this means is that Annex I countries (industrialized countries, which have fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets) cannot earn "credits" for nuclear power plants supported or operated abroad. This is a victory for the anti-nuclear movement who have been fighting attempts by the industry and pro-nuclear countries to ensure a revival of atomic power by abusing legitimate concerns about climate change (see our previous coverage of this topic in WISE News Communique numbers 526, 530, 533 and 539). The official wording decided upon by the 181 governments represented in Bonn can be found at the UNFCCC web site (see reference below).

The decision means that there will be no Joint Implementation (JI) or Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) nuclear projects. If Annex I countries cannot use "credits" resulting from nuclear projects, such credits have no value. The conclusion is that the Kyoto Protocol will not subsidize nuclear power, and that the industry's attempts to portray itself as part of the solution to climate change have suffered a serious setback.

Nucleonics Week of 2 August quoted negotiators who assert that there is a "loophole": non-Annex I countries could use nuclear projects to earn carbon credits which could then be "laundered" through a third party and sold to an Annex I country. However, projects have to be registered and carbon credits will be traceable because they have a serial number. So no loophole here.

The other hoped-for escape from the Kyoto language would be when non-Annex I countries save up (nuclear) credits and use them to meet reduction goals which may be imposed for the period after 2012. Although this could be technically possible, it is highly unlikely since developing countries are fighting the imposition of reduction commitments. If they contemplate deals now with Annex I countries for the period after 2012 it could be seen as tacit acceptance of future reduction commitments. This is exactly what the developing countries wish to avoid.

The conclusion therefore is that the claimed loopholes are no more than wishful thinking by an industry that was hoping to drum up support through the Kyoto Protocol.

The anti-nuclear movement will nevertheless have to remain vigilant as individual countries will surely keep repeating the climate argument when pushing for continued operation or new construction of nuclear power facilities domestically.

More information will soon be available on the WISE Amsterdam web site at the following address: www.antenna.nl/wise/climate

Sources: COP Decision 5/CP.6,  FCCC/CP/2001/L.7, Page 8 (on the web site www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop6secpart/l07.pdf); Nucleonics Week, 2 August 2001; Email from Ben Pearson of Greenpeace International  Contact: WISE Amsterdam

Delegates from 178 countries have reached an agreement over the 1997 Kyoto protocol after four days of tense negotiations in Bonn.

Even without the support of the USA, the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, it is now likely that Kyoto will come into force next year.

From before it started, the Bonn Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change looked doomed to fail. Japan - whose cooperation was essential for success - was wavering as a result of the US position. But, faced with a united and hard-bargaining European Union, the country was not able to extract the concessions the nuclear industry was hoping for.

Japanese industry and officials from the Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry have sharply criticised the country's eleventh-hour agreement to disqualify nuclear from the CDM. The Japanese delegation in Bonn agreed to the compromise in exchange for the use of carbon sinks to meet the bulk of its required reduction of CO2 emissions.

Under the Bonn agreement, nuclear energy projects will not be included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). The CDM allows industrialised countries to claim "carbon credits" for low emission projects in developing countries. Similarly, the JI mechanism covers green investments in transition economies. Japan, Canada and Russia were the main supporters of including nuclear power in these mechanisms.
There is still a possibility that nuclear may get back into the global accord, whereby non-developed countries could build reactors on their own territories and receive carbon credits. No agreement on this issue was reached in Bonn, leaving the decision for the next meeting, to be held in Marrakesh.

Foratom were quick to criticise the "discrimination" against nuclear. Dr Wolf-J Schmidt Küster said that Foratom are "astonished that Europe - which will rely heavily on nuclear electricity for compliance with the Kyoto protocol - is trying to prevent other nations from using this important mitigation technology." Although countries cannot claim carbon credits by exporting nuclear technology, they can use domestic nuclear energy to cut their own carbon dioxide emissions. The same state of affairs had been reached at the previous meeting held in La Hague last November, but the talks broke down when EU Green ministers refused to compromise on the use of carbon sinks. Under the Bonn compromise, credits are given for changing the way existing forests are managed, so that they absorb extra carbon. Newly planted forests can also gain credits under the CDM.

Despite the failure for nuclear to qualify for carbon credits, the pressure for industrialised nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions is still good news for the industry. But here, also, another unfavourable compromise was reached. Cuts in greenhouse gases by 37 of the world's most developed countries will now only amount to 1.8% until 2010, down from the original Kyoto target of 5.2%. Nevertheless, if this is enforced ? and increased later on ? the developed world may soon find these targets very difficult to achieve without nuclear power.

Introduction

In November 2000, the Parties to the Climate Change Convention will meet in The Hague for further negotiations on the shape of the Kyoto Protocol. Among the most important decisions that will be made is that on the rules and structure of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM is one of the Kyoto Protocol’s so-called "flexible mechanisms. It is intended to allow industrialized countries to offset their greenhouse gas reduction targets by funding projects in developing countries that lead to reduced emissions.

One of the most important issues, is what technologies and practices should be eligible for the CDM, and in particular whether nuclear power should be eligible. At the last meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) in Bonn last November, a majority of European Union (EU) members, and key developing countries such as Indonesia, ruled out nuclear power. Among the notable exceptions were Britain and France from the EU, and developing countries such as India and China. Recent reports indicate that China is waiting to see if it will receive CDM credits for new nuclear plants before deciding how many to build, and that China and India have made the inclusion of nuclear in the CDM non-negotiable. This will clearly be one of, if not the most controversial issue under negotiation in The Hague.

Softly-softly ? the nuclear industry’s stealth tactics

In contrast to its high profile lobbying of recent years, the industry is currently pursuing a softly-softly approach to getting nuclear into the CDM. In the lead-up to COP5, the industry urged supportive governments not to openly endorse nuclear for fear of a backlash, especially just after the Tokaimura accident in Japan. Their new tactic is to shape the rules of the CDM so that no technology or practice is excluded, thus allowing nuclear to gain eligibility for the mechanisms by default. Parties to the Climate Change Convention must not allow this stealth tactic to work ? nuclear power must be explicitly excluded from the CDM.

What it will mean if nuclear becomes eligible ? quantifying the threat

Developing countries are the key to the nuclear industry’s future, yet to date orders for new reactors have been scarce. The main barrier is economic. The huge capital cost of a new reactor and the long repayment period are significant deterrents. But if CDM credits were factored in, this could change.

For example, a 700MW coal fired power station emits about 4.5 million tons of CO2 a year. If a nuclear reactor was built instead, it could be claimed that it offsets this amount of CO2. Estimates of the value of CO2 per ton vary but for a CDM project an amount of approximately $10-30 a ton is likely. Thus, the carbon offset by this nuclear reactor over a 10-year period would be valued at between $450 million and $1.35 billion (less when future credits are discounted). An agreement between the western supplier of the reactor and the developing country in which it was being built to subtract the value of the carbon credits from the initial capital cost of the reactor would greatly improve the economics. A 700MW nuclear reactor costs approximately $2.5-$3 billion. The CDM credits it generates could cut the capital cost by 10-40%.

Undermining of domestic action by industrialized countries

Aside from the economic implications there is also great potential for nuclear plants to undermine domestic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If, for example, Canada were to secure another contract to build two 700MW reactors in China it could potentially claim 9 million tons of carbon reduction credits per annum? equivalent to approximately 6% of its 1998 carbon dioxide emissions.

The case of China

China’s nuclear plans graphically demonstrate the potential threat of a CDM that includes nuclear power. Its 10th five-year plan is currently being finalized by Beijing, and may include plans for up to 6 new nuclear reactors. According to a report in the industry journal Nucleonics Week, China is waiting to see if it will get CDM credits for new nuclear plant before it finalizes a decision on how many additional units to build. The final decision will be made within six months of COP6. A decision to allow nuclear power to be eligible for CDM credits at The Hague could rapidly see the mechanism become a subsidy for nuclear power in China.

Not surprisingly, the industrialized countries that are most firmly in favor of nuclear being eligible for the CDM are also those that stand to gain most from China ordering new nuclear plant. With its growing economy and rocketing energy demand, China has long been the great hope of the western nuclear industry. The French Government’s nuclear company Framatome already has built two reactors in China, at Daya Bay, and is now building two more at Yangjiang. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) is building two reactors ? Quinshan 4 and 5. Both will be frontrunners if any new units are ordered. Recent reports have also suggested that China is now seeking to develop a standardized reactor design in conjunction with western nuclear vendors, a decision that will favor Westinghouse (UK owned through British Nuclear Fuels Ltd), Japan’s Mitsubishi, and Framatome. The UK and France are blocking attempts within the European Union to exclude nuclear from the CDM, while Japan and Canada are among the strongest supporters of the nuclear case.

Win-win for nuclear; lose-lose for the environment

If nuclear power becomes eligible for the CDM, these countries and their nuclear industries stand to gain considerably. Indeed, for them it will be a win-win situation. The CDM will provide a new subsidy for their ailing nuclear industries, while the carbon reduction credits from new nuclear plants will help them meet their emission reduction targets.

But it will be a lose-lose for the environment. Not only will there be an expanded nuclear industry, with increased production of radioactive waste and the constant risk of catastrophic accidents, but every dollar spent on nuclear power will be diverted from the development of sustainable energy systems and effective measures to combat climate change. As Denmark’s environment minister, Svend Auken, said at COP5: "the CDM is about Clean Development and nuclear energy has no place here".

Nuclear proliferation is not clean development

If nuclear power is made eligible for the CDM, the Kyoto Protocol will be contributing to the threat of nuclear proliferation. All nuclear power plants produce weapons-usable plutonium. A sphere of plutonium smaller than a tennis ball can be used to make an explosive device that can kill many thousands of people. Two of the developing countries lobbying most aggressively for CDM credits for nuclear projects are China and India, both of which have active nuclear weapons programs. Other likely candidates for nuclear credits under the CDM, like South Korea, have only recently halted clandestine programs to develop a nuclear arsenal.

The threat to global security posed by nuclear proliferation is equal to that of climate change. For the Kyoto Protocol to exacerbate this threat through its mechanisms would be a truly perverse, and dangerous, outcome for the Climate Convention negotiations.

Nuclear credits will drain resources from non-nuclear developing countries

Many developing countries, particularly those in the Pacific and Africa, are concerned that investment in CDM projects will mirror current investment flows and be biased towards high-growth countries like China and South Korea. They are rightly seeking an assurance that the CDM will be structured to ensure an equitable distribution of resources among all developing countries.

Allowing nuclear power in the CDM will undermine their efforts. It will see CDM credits sucked in by nuclear mega-projects in countries like China, India and South Korea, further reducing the resources available for sustainable projects in non-nuclear developing countries.

The ‘Kyoto stamp of approval’

Allowing CDM credits for nuclear power will be seen as an endorsement of the nuclear industry’s argument that it has a role to play in combating climate change. It will be, in effect, the ‘Kyoto stamp of approval’. This could encourage developing countries to go down the nuclear road, and help those developed countries who cling to the nuclear dream justify further subsidies for their domestic nuclear power programs, extension of reactor operating lives, and even new build.

The legitimacy it would give to the nuclear industry could also jeopardize phase-out plans, legislated or de facto, in a number of countries. As a Swedish delegate at COP5 said: "If Sweden were to allow nuclear in the CDM, that would make political trouble for the nuclear phase-out at home". In short, CDM credits would help legitimize a dying industry that has no other arguments left.

The AOSIS text ? part of a simple and effective solution

The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), whose members have perhaps the most to lose from climate change, has proposed the following text: that CDM projects "Not support the use of nuclear power". If the CDM is to be an effective instrument for sustainable development, and advance the goal of greenhouse gas reductions, then support for this text from all parties to the Climate Change Convention is essential. Otherwise, a key mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol will become just another nuclear subsidy.

Positive list for a positive outcome

Ultimately, the only way to make the CDM an effective vehicle for clean development and global climate protection is to restrict CDM projects to renewable energy technologies. These technologies should be specified in a "positive" list that is made part of the rules of the CDM to be agreed at COP6. Technologies and practices that are not on this list ? such as sinks and ‘clean coal’ ? would not be eligible for CDM credits.

For more information contact:

Nuclear issues:
- [email protected]
ph. ++ 31 20 524 9563
- [email protected]
ph. ++ 31 20 523 6218
Renewable Energy issues:
[email protected]
ph. ++ 31 20 523 6291
Climate policy and the CDM:
[email protected]
ph. ++ 49 30 446 78765

To sign a petition or otherwise become more involved in this issue, contact:
- [email protected] (Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Washington, DC)
- [email protected] (World Information Service on Energy, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Through the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement created to address climate change, the nuclear industry hopes to get credit (to offset construction costs) for something it cannot deliver: clean, environmentally friendly, non-polluting, energy production.

Language in the Kyoto Protocol will allow developed nations to build power plants in other countries and get a pollution credit if the new plant leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, the country receiving the credit does not have to reduce their own greenhouse gas production. This concept is called the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM. In essence, it is a worldwide pollution trading credits scheme. The United States (Three Mile Island), Russia (Chernobyl), and Japan (Tokaimura) are among the nations eligible for CDM credits. Each of these countries has a poor nuclear technology record and a history of sacrificing democratic principles, such as public participation, for nuclear industry profit.

Decisions on policies and enforcement for the Kyoto agreement happen at annual meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Climate Change Convention. This year is the sixth meeting (COP 6). It will be held in The Hague, Netherlands from November 13-24, 2000. Decisions on the CDM may be made, however, at an interim meeting occurring September 4-15 in Lyon, France. In fact, the nuclear industry is pushing hard to give nuclear power CDM credits during LYON and is relying on the US, China and Japan to push the industry position during the negotiations.

THE U.S. MUST APPROVE LANGUAGE WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE INCLUSION OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE CDM.

One of the CDM’s primary objectives is to help developing countries achieve sustainable development by subsidizing previously unsubsidized industries. Allowing nuclear energy to receive pollution trading credits through the CDM would in effect reduce the cost of nuclear reactor construction, thereby giving nuclear power another huge, undeserved subsidy, while keeping money from sounder, proven investments like energy efficiency. Every dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in CO2 emissions reduction than that same dollar invested in nuclear power. Energy efficiency alone could account for 60% of the emissions reduction necessary in the U.S. to meet the Kyoto protocol.

Further investment in nuclear would also keep funds away from renewable energy development. This trade-off is exactly what has happened in the U.S. over the past 50 years. When comparing U.S. government subsidies for nuclear, solar, and wind, the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of $150 billion in investments since 1947; that’s $145 billion for nuclear reactors and $5 billion for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies have cost the average household a total amount of $1,411 [1998 dollars] compared to $11 for wind. The more money we spend on nuclear power, the less greenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive, while we hurt sustainable technology investment.

The U.S. claims it does not want to limit "developing" nations to certain technologies; that developing nations should decide for themselves which technologies are sustainable and which are not. While this seems to be a reasonable position on its face, implementation of the Kyoto agreement allows for very little equitable public participation. Therefore, a mechanism for ensuring that the citizens of a nation really want a certain technology does not exist. Additionally, many smaller developing nations fear nuclear power CDM credits would favor high-growth nuclear projects in developing countries over smaller, sustainable projects in non-nuclear developing nations. As an Indonesia delegate commented: "I think it is simple colonialism to push nuclear power onto developing countries, leaving them with all the burdens that come with it". Indian NGO’s have worded a letter to the U.S., Japan, and Canada stating, "[T]he undersigned Indian social and political organizations, human rights organizations, NGOs, women's rights organizations, and trade unions are writing to urge you to exclude nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol". Member nations of AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) oppose giving nuclear reactors credit for greenhouse gas reduction, asking that CDM projects "Not support the use of nuclear power". Countries of AOSIS do not support the use of nuclear power to address global climate change even though their island nations stand to lose the most from sea level rise.

Each current 1000-megawatt reactor produces 40 bomb’s worth of plutonium per year and atomic waste which will be dangerous for many thousands of years, with no proven storage technology able to last for the entire hazardous life of these radioactive wastes, natural and man-made barriers included.

Finally, nuclear reactors threaten our health. As a matter of normal operation, reactors release radioactive substances to the air and water. Many human population studies demonstrate that additional, low, constant levels of radiation can cause cancer and genetic mutations in this and future generations. Subjects of these studies, often nuclear facility workers and communities, suffer higher rates of diseases than non-nuclear communities, even with apparent normal operation of these facilities.

For more information, Contact: Cindy Folkers, Energy Future Project Coordinator, Nuclear Information and Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy, 202-328-0002 .

The overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that human-induced climate change is a real phenomenon, and that the effects are overwhelmingly negative and are likely to worsen with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Three reports, each running to 1000 pages or more, have recently been published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dealing with science and impacts of climate change, and potential solutions. (Short summaries of the first two papers are at <http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/greenhouse.html>)

The argument that only nuclear power can solve climate change is pushed very hard by ... guess who ... nuclear interests. Western Mining Corporation invests in uranium (e.g. Roxby Downs in South Australia), and as the South Australian Nuclear Information Centre noted in its August 1999 newsletter, senior employees from WMC Copper Uranium profess deep concern about climate change and insist that only the expansion of nuclear power can save the day. Western Mining also invests in fossil fuels, and company spokespeople are adamant greenhouse sceptics (see for example Hugh Morgan's opinion piece in the January 10 Age). Spot the contradiction!

One of the hot debates at the moment concerns the push by the nuclear lobby to gain huge subsidies to build nuclear power plants in Third World countries through the Clean Development Mechanism (a.k.a. 'Chernobyl Development Mechanism') of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Western nuclear companies are struggling to secure domestic contracts due to safety, environmental and cost concerns, and consequently they want to dump their unwanted and failing technology on the Third World.

The argument that we need to 'go nuclear' to prevent the adverse effects of climate change is full of holes. Here are a few basic points and some suggestions for further reading if you want to investigate more.

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nuclear power is not a viable option because of the legacy of radioactive waste, and because of the actual and potential use of 'civil' nuclear facilities and materials for nuclear weapons production.

2. Of course, if nuclear power and fossil fuels were really the only options, we would have a terrible dilemma on our hands. But they're not the only options. For power, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation offer a way out of the nuclear/fossil dilemma. For transport, greenhouse emissions (and pollution) could be reduced dramatically through serious investment in public transport as an alternative to the never-ending spiral of more-cars-more-roads.

According to the Critical Mass Energy Project (http://www.citizen.org), "Every dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than that same dollar invested in nuclear power. Energy efficiency alone could account for 60% of the emissions reduction necessary in the U.S. to meet the Kyoto protocol."

3. Attempting to 'solve' the greenhouse gas problem through the use of nuclear power is impractical. The 10/4/00 UK Guardian newspaper summarised a report commissioned by the European Commission which found that 85 nuclear power stations would have to be built in Europe over the next 20 years if targets on emissions of carbon dioxide are to be met. The report noted that it is "highly unlikely" that the public would accept new nuclear power plants being built in Europe, that nuclear power is extremely expensive, and that it has the side-effects of producing radioactive waste and large quantities of plutonium which is a security (proliferation) threat. Thankfully, there are much better ways of addressing human-induced climate change.

Moreover, to build a nuclear power station requires energy, which in Australia must come from burning fossil fuels. The station must operate to pay back this "carbon debt" before it becomes a net emissions reducer. For one station this could take about fifteen years.

4. A program of nuclear power expansion would inevitably stall progress with renewable energy. This trade-off is exactly what has happened over the past 50 years. The Critical Mass Energy Project compared U.S. government subsidies for nuclear, solar, and wind, and found that the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of US$150 billion in investments since 1947; that's US$145 billion for nuclear reactors and US$5 billion for wind and solar.

There are several alternatives to coal-fired power stations, but nuclear power is not one of them, argues JEREMY ACTON.

WE SHOULD not accept Leslie Kemeny's citing (CT, April 16) of the United States's future energy requirements and failure to adopt the Kyoto Protocol as a motivation for the rebirth of the nuclear-power industry in Australia, or the rest of the world. The US economy is presently trapped in an unsustainable growth paradigm from which there is no escape, and it is the most wasteful and polluting society on earth. Investment by the USA in energy-efficiency strategies alone would far outperform any investment in nuclear power in terms of economic benefit, environmental impact and global climate change.

It may be true that nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide but the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole is responsible for substantial CO emissions, not to mention radio- active wastes which persist for thousands of years. It is less well known that nuclear plants regularly emit Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 gases, and that these emissions have been directly linked by studies in America and Germany to increased levels of leukemia, and breast and prostate cancer in communities (particularly children) living downwind from the reactors. The huge environmental impacts of coal-fired power stations cannot be denied, but it is being shown around the world that converting them into solar-enhanced combined-cycle natural gas power stations is presently the most cost-effective fossil fuel option today and is cheaper than nuclear power. Gas-fired stations emit much less CO, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide and particulates than coal- fired stations. They are also more efficient. Leslie Kemeny claims that a reactor requires only 65 ha of land but fails to take into account the exclusion zone required around a nuclear reactor. In NSW, the Sutherland Local Council requires a minimum exclusion zone of 1.6 km radius (804 ha) around a reactor. Nuclear power proponents ignore the lost-opportunity costs of development on land affected by exclusion-zone requirements.

Kemeny's claims that the future cost per unit of energy produced by nuclear- power reactors will outperform fossil-fuel technologies are unsubstantiated. It has been shown, using estimates from Britain of existing, realistic costing factors, that nuclear power presently costs about three times more than the cheapest energy alternative. Most governments, including in Australia, are not adequately evaluating the potential of renewable energy technologies, such as solar, hydrogen, wind power, wave power, photovoltaics, fuel-efficient stoves and electromagnetic wave energy converters. When the economic, environmental and social costs are calculated, the net energy efficiency of nuclear power appears to be about 8 per cent. Some economists even suggest that when the long-term costs of nuclear power are fully accounted, its efficiency is actually about minus 2 per cent, i.e., the nuclear fuel cycle consumes more energy and finance than it produces! On the other hand, a solar water heater (cost $2500- $6000) is 50 per cent efficient and can reduce a household electricity bill by up to 60 per cent. A small wind generator on top of a house or factory operates at 55 per cent efficiency and can be easily designed to provide local energy needs and a net power surplus to the national grid.

The combined effect of these technologies applied on a national scale would make nuclear power economically unjustifiable. Using existing afford- able technologies, a house can be designed and built to produce more power than it consumes. Localised energy production using renewable energy technologies will, in the short and the long term, provide far greater energy efficiency, employment and empowerment, and a cleaner, safer environment for our investment than centralised power generation, whether nuclear or fossil fuel. Australia would also be able to export energy products (solar panels, wind generators, biogas tanks, etc) that promote ecologically responsible development and which are afford- able to developing nations.

Kemeny claims American Greens are turning from their anti-nuclear stance 'by the thousands'. At the Global Greens Conference in Canberra (April 13-16), the USA Green Party was an active participant in the adoption of a global charter which will 'oppose any expansion of nuclear power and will work to phase it out rapidly'. Scientists now acknowledge that there is no safe dose of radiation, and that workers at nuclear power plants and children within a 5km radius of a reactor are particularly at risk from cancers.

Lastly, nuclear power is fundamentally undemocratic. Radioactive wastes pose an unacceptable threat to present and future generations, and the bulk of the economic and environmental impacts of nuclear power will be passed on to future human generations.

[Jeremy Acton is an architect and environmental consultant and the national secretary of the Green Party of South Africa.]

For more information on the greenhouse/nuclear debate:

---> World Information Service on Energy <http://www.antenna.nl/wise> (search 'greenhouse'), also
www.antenna.nl/wise/climate

---> Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, 1997, "Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming", <http://ccnr.org/no_nukes_cnp.html>

---> Friends of the Earth, "Nuclear Power & Climate Change", October 2000, PDF file available at:
<http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/energy_and_climate/in_depth.html>

---> Nuclear Information & Resource Service <http://www.nirs.org/nukesandglobalwarming/nukesglobalwarminghome.html>

---> Greenpeace: <http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html>

---> Anti-Nuclear Alliance of WA: <http://www.anawa.org.au/greenhouse/index.html> and <http://www.anawa.org.au/greenhouse/climate-01-01.html>

---> on energy efficiency and a wide range of other measures to achieve a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, see the work of Professor Mark Diesendorf at <http://www.isf.uts.edu.au>. Go to the Resources (Publications) or News section to download his paper (PDF), 'Key greenhouse response strategies in energy and transport for Australia'. Go to the News section for the media release.

---> also check out some of the general greenhouse website hyperlinks at: <http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/greenhouse.html#8>