A Nuclear Comeback? BUSINESS OF GREEN

A Nuclear Comeback? BUSINESS OF GREEN

Apr 12 - International Herald Tribune

By James Kanter

Could nuclear power ride to the rescue of a warming planet? Advocates say nuclear power causes virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions and, unlike wind or solar energy, creates vast and steady supplies in the same way as power plants fired by natural gas and coal.

Another argument often made in favor of nuclear energy is that it already works at a time when technologies meant to clean up fossil fuels - namely, those to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants - are still under development.

Decades after the U.S. nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Russian nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 scared many people away from nuclear power, public sentiment may be shifting back amid repeated warnings from scientists whose research seems to show that the gravest danger facing the planet is global warming rather than a nuclear meltdown.

John Lanchester, a contributing editor at the London Review of Books, after surveying the recent literature on climate change, wrote last month that nuclear power might be "the least worst solution to our urgent need for a carbon-free fuel source."

In Germany, where an alliance of socialists and greens ordered a shutdown of the country's reactors, politicians now are reconsidering that commitment.

In France, nuclear power is the most widespread, supplying 80 percent of electricity used in the country. A protest movement exists, called Sortir du Nucleaire, or "Get Out of Nuclear," but it has made little headway.

Green groups remain hugely skeptical. They warn of the potential for lethal accidents, and they say the buildup of long-lasting, highly radioactive waste creates safety problems for future generations.

In February, it emerged that low-level radiation leaks at a reactor north of Stockholm went undetected for three years. Although no illnesses were reported, it underlined the vulnerability of nuclear power to design faults and human error.

Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International said that another important reason to steer clear of nuclear power was its cost. Despite the industry's early promises that nuclear reactors would produce electricity too cheap to even bother metering, Townsley said that the only plants under construction in Europe were receiving public subsidies.

"Nuclear power fails the market test and the carbon test, as in many cases both renewable energy sources and energy efficiency can deliver more for less," he said.

In Romania, a unit is being completed, but only with a low-cost loan, said Townsley. In Finland, a French project is being investigated by European regulators for unlawful subsidies, he said, while in the United States much of the interest in nuclear power is because of energy legislation promising large tax breaks for new reactors.

Yet momentum is growing to create a broader mix of energy supplies - in part also to provide alternatives to Middle Eastern and Russian supplies - and green groups may be losing their battle to keep nuclear power at bay.

An upcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body, is expected to say that countries could use more nuclear power as part of a shift away from fossil fuels in order to blunt global warming, according to a report this week from Reuters.

Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher Hansen of Cambridge Energy Research Associates said that a nuclear renaissance might be under way as countries seek better energy security and utilities seek to hedge against penalties for emitting carbon.

Across the globe, 435 reactors are producing 16 percent of worldwide electricity generation, and Wang and Hansen said that many more are on the way. About 20 countries have nuclear plants either under construction or development, with more than half of the new plants likely to be built during the next two decades in China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States.

In the United States, where there have been no new orders for reactors in 28 years, several dozen reactors are in the planning process, with the first new construction expected in 2010, according to Cambridge Energy.

Even so, the nuclear lobby still could face big setbacks. An accident might eradicate hope of expanding nuclear power for decades again.

But perhaps the biggest hurdle facing the industry is the kind of global instability prevailing since the end of the Cold War. The same technology that produces fuel for carbon-free nuclear power also could be obtained by a terrorist group to produce a nuclear explosion.

"A breach of nuclear security by a nonstate actor like Al Qaeda could seriously undermine any public support for nuclear energy," Hansen, of Cambridge Energy, said. Such an event "could freeze new building in its tracks, just like Chernobyl did."

E-mail: green@iht.com