Can nuclear power save the planet?

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has over the last two years repeatedly stressed the role nuclear power could play in bringing down emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2

"The twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda. These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations...back on the agenda with a vengeance," said Blair earlier this year.

Increasingly clear hints that nuclear energy ought to be used to fight global warming were followed this month with a British energy review proposing a new generation of nuclear power plants (see below), claiming the move would reduce carbon emissions.

Finland four years ago approved the construction of the first new nuclear plant in Europe for over a decade, on similar climate-change grounds. Earlier agreements to phase out nuclear energy production in Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands have come to seem increasingly unlikely, and even staunchly anti-nuclear Germany has shown signs that its opposition is wavering, as governments come under pressure to meet emission reduction targets.

But touting nuclear power as a climate-friendly energy source has put environmentalists in a difficult position. With energy from hydrocarbons off the green agenda because of the pollution and emissions they involve and traditional renewable energy sources such as solar and wind struggling to make up 6% of the EU energy market, nuclear energy can easily start to look like the only viable way to save the earth.

But the problem of what to do with deadly nuclear waste, together with fears about leaks, have for many environmentalists made this option unacceptable.

Friends of the Earth, the conservation group, even questions the assumption that a shift to nuclear would automatically bring down CO2 emissions. A statement timed to appear just before the UK energy review reminded Europe not to ignore the climate impact of building new nuclear power stations. Even when a station is up and running, according to Friends of the Earth, the emissions are far from negligible.

"Nuclear power cannot be considered to be carbon-neutral," said the statement. "Fossil fuels are burnt in the mining, milling, transport and enrichment of uranium, in the making of fuel rods and in the removal and reprocessing, storage and/or disposal of spent fuel."

Even supposing that a new generation of nuclear power plants was built with the minimum possible environmental disturbance, and efficient techn-ologies then used to generate power, Friends of the Earth predicts a shortage of high- grade, easily exploitable uranium will quickly set emissions soaring.

Uranium is the basic raw material needed to generate nuclear power. The sooner the world switches to nuclear, say critics, the sooner it will have to put huge amounts of energy into converting low-grade uranium to fuel.

The nuclear industry claims that environmentalists are underestimating its potential. Sami Tulonen of industry group Foratom said studies by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed emissions involved in generating nuclear power were comparable to those produced by renewable power.

"Nuclear is in the same ballpark as wind - in most cases it even involves lower emissions than renewable energy. Never in any case are nuclear emissions higher."

Looking at the whole life cycle of different energy source power plants, the OECD report found biomass, hydro and solar power generation produced more CO2 than nuclear.

Tulonen also dismissed the claim that uranium shortages would cause problems in the near future. Only 3% of uranium is used up in the process of generating nuclear power, he explained, leaving plenty available for reprocessing even before the hunt for new uranium starts.

If reprocessing, plus new 'breeder' technologies capable of producing more fuel than they consume, are taken into account, nuclear power remains a very attractive energy source, said Tulonen.

"We have proven uranium reserves for several hundred, if not thousands, of years, even with a major expansion in the use of nuclear power."

"The beauty of uranium is that it can't be used for anything else; it is only used for nuclear power - unlike fossil fuels which are also needed by the chemicals and plastics industries among others."

Energy reviews - the UK fails to convince critics

Alistair Darling, UK trade minister, trumpeted the importance of his country's energy review this month.

"This is a critical moment to make informed choices to safeguard our quality of life for the coming decades," said the minister. "Today's proposals will set out a framework within which the energy market will operate for the coming 30 to 40 years," he added.

Elsewhere the UK's plan has been greeted less enthusiastically. Attention has focused on the government's decision to encourage a new generation of nuclear power plants. Other measures proposed on 11 July include:

• Increasing the use of carbon capture and storage technologies;

• Making the most of remaining North Sea oil and gas reserves;

Increasing investment in renewable energy - particularly wind, wave and tidal power;

• Setting up a new coal forum to safeguard the future of British coal;

• Getting the European Commission to include road transport in the CO2 emission trading scheme (ETS);

• Phasing out inefficient household appliances;

• Offering hotels and supermarkets incentives to cut CO2 emissions.

The government says its package of measures could reduce UK CO2 emissions by 25 million tonnes by 2020.

But critics complain that the review contains few targets and that very little concrete action is proposed. Energy companies say they will need long-term price guarantees before putting up the money needed for new power plants. And green groups, as well as bewailing the return to nuclear power, say more attention should have been given to renewables and the energy used by transport and industry.

...But Germany will continue nuclear phase-out

Germany is planning to announce its energy strategy for 2020 in the second half of next year, following Berlin's six-month presidencies of the EU and of the G8 club of wealthy industrialised nations.

Chancellor Angela Merkel held the first meeting of a high-level group of energy industry experts in Berlin in April, involving representatives of energy producing companies, large industrial consumers, energy research institutes and trade unions. The review will focus on the familiar nexus of inter-related issues including the increasing reliance on energy suppliers, rising energy prices and climate change. But the issue which will be followed most closely is whether Merkel's centre-right/centre-left coalition will stick to the deal struck by previous Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder with his coalition partners in the Green party to phase out Germany's nuclear power stations by 2020. CDU/CSU members of Merkel's government, generally seen to be more pro-business than their SPD/Green predecessors, are believed to be sympathetic to delaying the target date for a nuclear phase-out although it seems unlikely that they would reverse the commitment to ending the use of nuclear power.

A key issue will be the ability to replace the energy generation capacity lost by closing nuclear power stations.

In any event, the government is expected to put major emphasis on increasing energy efficiency, especially through lower energy consumption by buildings, and greater use of renewables such as wind power.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has over the last two years repeatedly stressed the role nuclear power could play in bringing down emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2