Yes

by George Ivanov

Created on: January 09, 2008

Earth's climate is always changing. It has warmed up and cooled down many times in its history, far before humans even walked the Earth. The last significant episode of global warming was the end of the last Ice Age, when massive amounts of frozen water were released by rising temperatures, simultaneously opening up oceans, land, and leading to higher sea and ocean levels.

The argument that humans cause global warming alone, is not a serious one. While carbon dioxide is emitted by transportation, industry and power plants, naturally it is thrown up by forest fires, volcanos and underwater vents. We should be more concerned about the effects on the health of people from mining and burning fossil fuels, rather than what that is doing to the planet.

Nature always seeks to find an equilibrant position. If the climate changes, it is because it's entering another cycle of warming and cooling, as it has done many times in the past. That, however, will not be comprehended properly for a very long time, because the climate cycles would last hundreds, if not thousands of years, and our meteorological records are still too small and cover a very short amount of time in the geological record, to permit us to grasp the full concept.

Back on the issue of power, however, nuclear power can help offset the effects of global warming. It is an efficient power source, able to operate safely for decades, and produce electricity cheaply and reliably. Russia, has, in fact launched a project to produce floating nuclear power stations. A novel undertaking, this initiative can be employed in a variety of environments: from powering Antarctic research facilities, to desalinating water supplies in the Third World.

Nuclear energy is also very efficient. A small country can use a single nuclear power plant to meet half, if not more, of its electricity needs. An example would be the Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria. It is a 3760 MW station, built in the 1970's, and still operating today, despite having nearly half its output slashed, because of political reasons. Still, it provides approximately 40% of the electricity needs and even produces enough power for export.

I will emphasize one reason, which is politically motivated, of why some countries, organizations and people oppose nuclear power. Economic competition in the energy sector is fierce. Thousands of people are employed in the fossil fuel industries, from the mining to power plant operations. An emphasis on nuclear power would place thousands out of work, make ghost-towns out of vibrant communities, and demand for workers and specialists in the nuclear field would outstrip the supply. Billions, perhaps trillions of dollars need to be invested in project work, such as choosing appropriate sites, building storage cold-water facilities, enrichment factories, meeting safety regulations, building the NPP itself, and establishing a much more complex world body to tackle the mammoth task of managing thousands of reactors, as well as watch for a much higher probability of developing weapon-grade nuclear materials. Terrorism will become a more prominent treat, especially with the process of globalization. In short, it will cause massive losses for companies, before the investment can be returned. After all, business organizations, would they be state or private controlled, are concerned with the bottom line.

Global warming, however, is a fact, or at least the measurements show an increased trend in the rise of the average global temperature. Humans can do little to influence natural processes, but it is not completely undeniable that our activities do contribute to the process. The transition to nuclear power, therefore, will be a long term initiative. On the forefront, France has the latest, and best quality of reactors, already developing fifth generation versions. The main rival is Russia, despite the Chernobyl accident, which was human, rather than machine, error. Companies from both countries are actively engaged in constructing new reactors in the Far East, Eastern Europe, and currently, Britain, Germany, Italy, the United States and the Scandinavian countries are investigating the feasibility of constructing new plants, despite their positions of distancing themselves from nuclear power. There is talk of a nuclear renaissance, because such a power source has advantages that don't help only against global warming, but also in better resource management, as ecological footprints can be reduced worldwide, and so, indirectly influence climate change in a positive way.

As for the economic impacts, building a new NPP typically involves thousands of workers, from welders, to nuclear engineers. People that lose their jobs in the fossil fuel sector will gradually be re-absorbed in the nuclear power sector, with a change of qualification and a new career prospect. Others will take on the duties of ensuring the safety of designs, as well as the safe exploitation of the reactors. Already, extensive means exist on operating reactors to prevent leakage of radioactive material, and containment, should any problems of a significant scale occur. Safety is of the utmost concern for designers, and rightly so. The IAEA is the world agency, responsible for managing nuclear assets, and it will have to expand its scope of operation with increased emphasis on nuclear power, thus offering many more employment opportunities.

Companies, involved in fossil fuels, will also begin to transition. In the future, the emphasis placed on renewable and nuclear will lead them to invest in the exploration and development of uranium deposits, as well as research into reusing spent nuclear fuel, and ultimately develop more powerful and efficient nuclear reactors. The next step, in fact, focuses around thermonuclear reactions, with six nations contributing several billion dollars towards a research facility in the south of France. To put it in the language of the average person, such a reactor is many times more efficient than a nuclear one, with the capability of producing not 1000, but, for example, 1 000 000 MW of power from the same size of reactor. There are hopes that a commercially viable first generation of such a reactor will be available around the year 2050.

In conclusion, nuclear power is the most efficient and clean means of producing large amounts of electricity cheaply, reliably, efficiently, and safely. For now, it is the only alternative, because producing an equivalent amount of power from renewable resources, such as solar cells or wind generators, requires much more materials, land and resources, and because they are currently largely inefficient at producing electricity (Solar panels demonstrate 20% of input energy turned into useful electricity), nuclear power deserves a second look, and more effort to implement it throughout the world, in order to ensure a more sustainable, clean future.

Learn more about this author, George Ivanov.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.