Socialist View (Summer 2006) - Should we go nuclear?

For the first time in a generation the British government is proposing a major expansion in the use of nuclear power. A debate has opened on the benefits and risks of nuclear power. This debate occurs against the background of general acceptance of two ideas: that global warming is a real phenomenon and is man-made, and, that the world is rapidly running out of fossil fuels such as oil and gas.

The debate in Ireland is different from that in Britain. There are no proposals at the present time to build nuclear power stations, North or South. In the 1970s it was proposed to build a nuclear power plant at Carnsore Point in Wexford but this plan was shelved in 1980 after widespread opposition. The increasing links between the electricity grids of Ireland and Britain however mean that we will use nuclear power indirectly in the future. A major concern is the proximity of the Sellafield nuclear power plant in Cumbria and reprocessing facilities to both Northern Ireland and the South.

Working people care little for Blair’s opinions but are genuinely worried about the future. Is nuclear power inherently dangerous? How quickly will oil run out? Will renewable energy sources ever meet demand?

Nothing should be ruled out

Tony Blair has announced a "national conversation" about expanding nuclear power. He has given a clear signal in doing so that this conversation is likely to be one-sided. He already knows his mind: there is no alternative but to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. According to Blair "nothing should be ruled out" when considering the solution to the looming energy crisis. Yet his obsession with the market means he has already ruled out the only viable, safe and efficient option - the public ownership, integration and planning of the entire energy sector with major investment in renewable energy. Why is Blair going down this road? At the 2005 Labour Party conference he asked rhetorically "for how much longer can countries like ours allow the security of our energy supply to be dependent on some of the most unstable parts of the world?"

Blair and the ruling class are much more concerned with strategic issues than the environment. Britain’s power network is nearing the end of its 40 year lifespan. Coal fired power stations will start to close in 2008 because of stricter pollution controls. All but one of the nuclear power stations that currently supply about one quarter of power needs will close within the next seven years. Britain’s own supplies of natural gas are running out. Gas has become absolutely vital to meeting Britain’s needs. In 1990 gas supplied only 1.7 % of Britain’s electricity. By 2002 this figure had leapt to over 30%. In two years time Britain will have to start importing gas from some of the most unstable countries of the world including Algeria, Russia, Turkmenistan, Nigeria and, not least, Iran.

Globally oil is running out. Some argue that the point at which the production of oil reaches its maximum, "peak oil" is close. Discoveries of new oil fields have been in decline for 40 years and it is unlikely that many more large fields will be found. The world is now using four times more oil than new sources are being found. The supply of oil can be extended for a decade or so from the peak based on new extraction techniques, using more difficult to reach sources, for example in the Arctic, and using tar sands. However, these take more energy to produce, so have a lower net energy gain, cost more to extract and result in significantly more environmental damage.

The approach of peak oil will push oil prices up and produce greater instability. The present high price of oil, due to rising demand, instability and fear about the future in the Middle East is likely to be here to stay. According to the Institute of Civil Engineers, Britain faces an 80% energy shortfall by 2020. There is a real energy crisis and initially Blair appeared to suggest that an expansion of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, wave and tidal power was the answer.

As recently as 2003, Blair’s government appeared to rule out nuclear power as a viable option for the future. Its White Paper on energy in that year argued that to support nuclear would guarantee "that we would not make the necessary investment in both energy efficiency and renewables". It pledged to invest in renewables but as Greenpeace has pointed out has "done nothing to encourage wave and tidal projects, has cut financial support for micro-renewables and is winding down its support programme for solar energy six years early. It has failed to give grants for the second round of off-shore wind developments, failed to alleviate the cost of connection to the National Grid and failed to aid development of combined heat and power."

Anything is preferable to planetary climatic meltdown

Now nuclear is clearly the preferred option of the ruling class and some unlikely voices have spoken up in support.

For some "greens" nuclear power must be embraced as the only way to deal with global warming. Scientist James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia hypothesis - which argues that the planet acts as one super organism-has come down in favour. He insists that we must use nuclear "now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet". Other high-profile green activists have followed Lovelock’s lead including Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Environmentalist author Mark Lynas states baldly: "If you ask me, anything is preferable to planetary climatic meltdown combined with a 1930s style collapse into political darkness. Even nuclear power".

These doom-laden predictions and sombre conclusions come from writers who can conceive of no other future but a capitalist future. If capitalism survives well into this century then the survival of the planet is indeed in doubt. This does not mean that nuclear power is the answer.

Is nuclear power the answer to global warming?

Incredibly the nuclear power industry is trying to paint itself in the colour green arguing that it holds the solution to the problem of global warming. This argument is based on the supposed low carbon dioxide emissions associated with nuclear. If nuclear is compared to renewables however, there is no contest. The Oko Institute in Germany estimated in 1997 that in a full life cycle nuclear produced twice as much carbon dioxide as wind power. Much of the carbon dioxide is produced by the mining, enrichment and transport of uranium.

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in the US has estimated that it would take 2,000 large new nuclear reactors to produce a noticeable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear is good at electricity production but cannot, for example, fuel cars. World electricity production only accounts for 16% of all pollution. The UN has estimated that 3,000 new reactors would be needed by the year 2100. If nuclear is expanded at anything close to this rate, then uranium supplies will quickly run out. If we were to replace all fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear, supplies of uranium would run out in only three or four years. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. It produces large quantities of radioactive waste and there is always the risk of accidents. In the worst accident, on 26 April, 1986, the fourth block of the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Ukraine exploded throwing 50 million curies of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. This is 500 times more than was released when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Around 3.5 million people still live in regions with high radiation levels after the accident.

There is a great deal of controversy regarding the long term effects of Chernobyl. A report issued last September by the Chernobyl Forum, which includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine claims: "A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths have been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many of whom died within months of the accident". Other agencies however, take a different view. The report "Consequences on Human Health of the Chernobyl Disaster" was compiled using the evidence of health professionals working in the region and is backed by research conducted by the Russian Academy of Science. According to their evidence over 200,000 people have died as a result of Chernobyl.

The risks are not just in the immediate area. Studies have shown a 30% increase in leukaemia in the USA for babies born in 1987 and 1988, a 260% increase in Greece and 387% increase in Scotland and Wales (12 cases with only three expected). Using conservative radiation risk estimates, the US Department of Energy predicted 17,400 excess cancer deaths over a 50 year period, 63% of these occurring outside the former USSR, mostly elsewhere in Europe. The Forum’s report excludes non-cancer deaths. It does not include deaths from suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, for example. Clearly those who live in fear that they will die prematurely because of their exposure to radiation suffer major mental health problems.

Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident to date but there have been near misses, most famously at Three Mile Island in the USA in 1979. More minor, but still significant, incidents are common. The British government is planning to privatise the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria next year. This plant has a poor safety record. Recently its operator, the British Nuclear Group, was fined after acid containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium escaped from a damaged pipe at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, Thorp, in 2005. The spillage went unnoticed for eight months. An inquiry found that the company did not ensure that safety systems were in place and adhered to.

Science and Socialism

What position should socialists take on nuclear power? Scientific technique and technology are in themselves neutral. The point is what purpose they are put to and who controls them. Opposition to nuclear power is not a question of principle, but is rather a logical position to take after weighing up the risks inherent in nuclear power and the possibilities of developing alternative, safe and renewable power sources. The current situation varies enormously from country to country. France, for example, derives 70-80% of its energy needs from nuclear power whilst Ireland derives none. Even in the circumstances of a successful socialist revolution in France it would continue to be the case for a considerable period of time that most energy needs would be met through nuclear power. Indeed it is easier to keep a nuclear power plant open until the end of its useful life than to close it because of the huge costs of decommissioning.

The key demand at the present time in countries such as France is that the nuclear power industry should be run by the working class in the interests of the working class, and that a phased switch from nuclear power to renewables should begin. In a future socialist Ireland the new workers’ government would inherit no nuclear power facilities. A determined effort to conserve energy and to rapidly develop all the possible renewable sources of energy would ensure that nuclear power would never be necessary.

In Ireland, North and South, socialists oppose the development of nuclear power as unnecessary to meet energy demands now or in the future, so long as there is sufficient investment in renewable energy sources and sufficient attention is paid to energy conservation. Socialists also oppose nuclear power on the basis that it is a threat to the environment. In Britain, socialists oppose the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants to replace those which will be decommissioned over the next ten years. Within the chaos of the market system, nuclear power can never be safe. The reactors currently contributing to the electricity network need to be safely decommissioned and the workforce provided with guaranteed jobs. They could of course be employed to research, develop and service renewable energy sources.

Time is of the essence however as renewable energy sources must be developed very rapidly, beginning now, to avoid a looming "energy gap" - the gap between the amount of energy available and the demand for energy. Governments continue to highly subsidise fossil fuels and nuclear power, and they and business continue to spend much less on research and investment into renewables. In 2004 the British government spent £3 billion propping up nuclear power firm British Energy, for example. Despite this, by 2010 renewables are expected to produce 43% more energy globally than nuclear. Wind, wave, solar power and hydrogen fuel cell technology will all be key to meeting future energy needs. New technology may allow the cleaner use of fossil fuels, in particular, fluidised bed combustion technology for burning coal. Research is needed into nuclear fusion, which could generate power by extracting heavy hydrogen isotopes from water without waste or the risk of new Chernobyls.

The private sector will not provide the necessary investment or planning. Electricity, gas, oil and coal must be taken into public ownership. An integrated energy plan should be drawn up concerned with the safe long term production of our energy needs without harming the health of the human race or the future of the planet.