If we can’t afford oil...

Andrew Kenny debunks the myth that nuclear power is inherently dangerous or bad for the environment – and hails a surge of new nuclear construction around the world

It is essential when comparing energy technologies to look at the full energy cycle. It is not enough to look at the economic and environmental costs of a nuclear or coal power station, or a solar panel or a wind turbine. We must look at the costs of mining and processing the coal, uranium, steel and aluminium and other materials; we must consider the manufacture of power plant, the construction and decommissioning of power stations, and the disposal of waste. It is only then that the full advantages of nuclear become apparent.

Over the full energy cycle, nuclear power has by far the best safety record. In the years 1969 to 1996 the number of accidents that killed five people or more in each energy technology was as follows: Coal: 187. Oil: 334. Natural gas: 86. Hydroelectricity: 9. Nuclear: 1. The single such nuclear accident was Chernobyl, to which 56 deaths (and a possible 4,000 cancer cases) were attributed by a WHO report in 2005. Since 1996 there has been a large number of accidents in coal, oil and gas that have killed five people or more: accidents in Western Europe, China, the USA, Russia and elsewhere. There has been no such accident in nuclear, anywhere.

It is important to understand why nuclear power is so safe. The lesser reason is elaborate safety mechanisms and procedures; the major reason is inherent safety coming from the laws of nature. An atomic bomb requires uranium enriched (that is, treated so that it contains a higher proportion of the uranium-235 isotope) to over 90 per cent; power reactors have less than 10 per cent enrichment, and it is physically impossible for them to explode like a bomb. Moreover, nature allows us to exploit ‘negative feedback’ in designing a power reactor, which simply means that any deviation automatically corrects itself; if there is a sudden surge in power, the uranium fuel will become hotter and automatically slow down the reactor (the ‘Doppler Effect’).

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next page

More articles from: Andrew Kenny | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Herbert Thornton

September 24th, 2008 1:24am Report this comment

What a pleasure it is to read common sense about nuclear power. The faster this resource is expanded the better and the sooner we will be rid both of the pollution caused by petrol powered vehicles and other burners of oil products - not to mention our consumption of oil being the source of huge funding for people like Osama bin Laden and their bloodthirsty, medieval ambitions.

Post comment