Nuclear power in firing-line over safe energy production

Date: 06/11/1997

By Simon Coss

WHILE the atomic energy industry argues that phasing out Europe's nuclear power stations will lead to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions, public concern over reactor safety has led a number of governments to wind down their national nuclear power programmes.

In Brussels last month, representatives from the nuclear power sector gathered to discuss Sweden's plans to close down all its atomic power stations and adopt a more sustainable energy policy.

At present, around half of the country's electricity is generated by atomic installations.

Participants argued that the only way to replace this level of power would be to reintroduce power stations which burn either coal, gas or ore emulsion (a substance halfway between coal and crude oil). All of these sources of energy have been identified as major producers of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

The nuclear industry argues that it, on the other hand, produces no greenhouse gases and that once a power station is up and running it provides inexpensive power.

"We are in favour of renewable energy resources, but they will always have limited applications. It will not be possible to run an aluminium smelting works using wind power for example," explained one expert attending the conference.

The industry insists that the Union will find it difficult to stick to promises it intends to make in Kyoto if it continues down the decommissioning route. The EU has said it will cut emissions of greenhouse gases to 15% below 1990 levels by the year 2010 if other industrialised nations follow suit.

Across the member states there are currently 140 nuclear power stations which, on average, produce around a third of the EU's energy needs.

But this power is not evenly distributed. France, for example, operates 56 atomic installations and relies on this energy for almost 80% of its electricity, while Italy has no nuclear plants.

But the big concern for all Europeans when it comes to nuclear power is the safety issue.

An atomic plant may well produce cheap, clean electricity when it is operating smoothly, but if things go wrong - as the Chernobyl disaster demonstrated only too graphically - the environmental consequences can be devastating. In addition to this, many people remain unhappy at the procedures used for storing spent nuclear fuel.

"The management of nuclear energy, including the issues of spent fuel, waste disposal and decommissioning are the priority objectives of the regulatory authorities, the nuclear industry and other organisations concerned," argued the European Commission in a recent report on the EU's nuclear industry.

Environmental campaigners argue that discussions about how to replace the amount of power generated by a decommissioned nuclear plant are somewhat missing the point.

Irish Green MEP Nuala Ahern insists that rather than working out how to power an aluminium smelting plant, the issue which should be addressed is whether the plant in question is really necessary.

"We need to rethink totally the way we use energy within the EU and for that we need a European energy policy," she argued.

Ahern also hotly contests the nuclear industry's claim that it produces cheap power. "Nothing is more expensive than nuclear power. The hidden subsidies to the sector have been absolutely enormous," she said.