Power struggle: pros and cons of nuclear energy

Date: 20/02/03

By Martin Banks

It accounts for more than 33% of EU power and employs hundreds of thousands of people, but the jury is still out on nuclear power.

THE nuclear industry is facing a threat to its long-term viability on two fronts: from the renewables sector, offering a clean, green energy alternative, and a challenge it can do little about - globalised terror.

Nuclear is an industry which generates more than one third of the EU's energy uptake and employs more than 400,000 people.

But, with at least three member states opting for a nuclear phase-out, it's also an industry which faces an increasingly uphill struggle to maintain its position in the energy mix.

Current anxiety about Iraq and other "rogue states" has only served to increase public concern about the ability of member states to safeguard nuclear installations.

In this age of globalised terror, how exactly do you protect a nuclear plant against a fuel-filled jumbo jet crashing into it?

A forthcoming report from the influential left-of-centre UK think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), argues that, in Britain at least, neither the industry nor the government has done enough to counter the risk of a terrorist attack on its nuclear power stations.

"Britain's nuclear installations represent a crucial vulnerability within the energy system," the report states.

It claims that the private nuclear sector has calculated that a plane flown into the massive Sellafield plant in north-west England would result in 30,000 deaths within two days.

By contrast, the impact of a successful attack on a three megawatt wind turbine would be minuscule.

The IPPR suggests that a decentralised energy system, in which no single power generator is too large, may be the best way to protect energy supply from terrorist attack.

Such concerns merely add to the pressure on an industry which is already having to maximise production and minimise costs to offset the effect of increased liberalisation in energy markets.

There are two conflicting views about nuclear power. One is that it is a dangerous energy source and a drain on taxpayers; the other is that, in a world of unstable resources, it guarantees energy supplies and helps cut greenhouse gases.

Its detractors - and there are many - have been highly successful in gaining positive media coverage for their case.

But the industry still has some powerful friends.

Nuclear generates 75% of France's energy, and President Jacques Chirac is said to be a strong supporter of the sector. Across the Channel, Tony Blair is also a reputed enthusiast for all things nuclear.

Loyola de Palacio, the commissioner responsible for energy, is also an advocate, although she told European Voice that the industry needs to do an awful lot more to win over a doubting public. "Our surveys tell us the public think the nuclear option should remain if the waste can be safely managed," she said.

"I accept there is a lot of public concern about nuclear energy but I think a lot of this is down to a lack of informed information. What the industry needs to do is get its message across more effectively so that nuclear energy is more acceptable for our citizens."

On 18 March, France will take a lead in Palacio's hoped-for "charm offensive" when it launches its first ever national energy debate.

Nicole Fontaine, the former MEP and now French industry minister, said the debate is a response to a "strong demand" from citizens: it is estimated that 70% are little or poorly informed over energy questions.

As part of the debate, which runs until the end of May, six forums will be held throughout France, covering such themes as "energy and enterprise" (Rennes), "the daily use of energy" (Strasbourg), "fossil fuels" (Bordeaux) and "other energy resources" (Nice).

Fontaine said: "We must soon make important choices and define the energy mix for the next 30 years, both at a European and global level. This will include thought as to the role of nuclear and renewables in the production of electricity."

Meanwhile, industry leaders are convinced that public confidence can be restored.

They point to Finland, where the public has been "educated" to appreciate the benefits of nuclear. The construction of a new nuclear station and waste disposal facility went ahead in the country, with virtually no protests.

Foratom, the Brussels-based trade organisation for the European nuclear industry, claims that recent opinion polls point to a bright future.

Just over two-thirds of those polled in France, for example, viewed nuclear as an "important" factor for the security of French energy supply, while 77% of Swedes opposed the premature closure of the country's nuclear plants.

A poll last June in the Czech Republic - one of the ten countries set to join the EU in May 2004 - showed that 69% of its citizens continue to support the commissioning of the controversial Temelin nuclear power plant.

Dr Peter Haug, secretary-general of Foratom, admitsthat, despite all the current media debate about the topic, energy does not necessarily register highly on many people's radars.

He said: "Figures consistently indicate that theuse of nuclear power doesn't come high on the list of most people's worries. Their main concerns focus on other issues, such as crime and financial problems."

UK MEP Gordon Adam argues that people are tired of the "incessant propaganda" against nuclear power. "Concerns over plant safety, health impact of radiation and disposal of radioactive waste are endlessly recited to instill fear into the minds of our citizens," yet "nuclearelectricity is by far the safest of the power industries".

Earlier this month, the European Commission hoped to go some way towards allaying safety fears when it adopted a set of proposals which would give it unprecedented powers to supervise the safety of nuclear installations.

The EU executive's "nuclear package" - which it hopes will be approved by energy ministers later this year - introduces common standards and monitoring mechanisms ahead of the biggest enlargement in the EU's history.

The plans came under attack, however, from a predictable quarter, with Luxembourg's Green MEP Claude Turmes leading the attack.

He said: "The only purpose of the package is to revitalise the nuclear industry in an enlarged EU."

Arjette Stevens, EU advisor for Greenpeace, agrees, claiming that the package will be used to subsidise a "decaying, dying" industry.

"Instead of planning for the revival of a dying industry, the Commission should engage its considerable resources to research, develop and promote a 100% clean renewable energy future in an enlarged EU," she said.

Her comments were echoed by Mark Johnson, Friends of the Earth Europe's nuclear campaigner, who says the Commission is committed to saving the industry "at any cost".

They view Loyola de Palacio as "public enemy number one" for her staunch support of nuclear power.

However, the Commission's vice-president rejects the idea that she sees nuclear as the only solution to Europe's energy needs, pointing out that the EU is constantly exploring other possible sources of energy.

The Commission recently announced its plans to spend €750 million researching nuclear fusion - the energy that powers the sun - over the next few years.

And, next month, a group of 19 experts, including scientists and nuclear industry representatives, will present a joint report with the Commission detailing all aspects of hydrogen energy.

The nuclear industry generates more than one third of the EU's energy uptake and employs more than 400,000 people. But, with at least three Member States opting for a nuclear phase-out, it's also an industry which faces an increasingly uphill struggle to maintain its position in the energy mix.