Nuclear power is cleaner

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20070613.E02&irec=1
Opinion June 13, 2007

Otto Soemarwoto, Bandung

The government's recent announcement that it plans to revive its nuclear power program has renewed the controversy over the long-standing issue. Those in support of the program claim that the price of nuclear-generated electricity is competitive compared to that produced by conventional means and that nuclear power is safe. A study has shown that deaths resulting from every tetrawatt of electricity generated from hydropower are 885, coal 342, gas 85 and nuclear power 8.

In addition, thousands of people are annually killed by air pollution resulting from the burning of coal.

Nuclear power's critics counter that safety statistics should also be compared with wind, solar, microhydro and biofuel alternatives, which are known to be safe.

Energy conservation, such as the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving ones and by turning off TVs instead of setting them to "standby" and turning them off and on with a remote control, should also be included in the comparison. Energy conservation is very safe. The death rate should be 0 per TWy saved.

Furthermore, energy saving reduces air pollution, and hence, pollution-related illnesses and deaths. Renewable energy is a luxury in that it can be developed in isolated villages and small islands to accelerate development in those areas.

In other words, it is well suited for pro-poor development. Small islands have the further bonus that those located at the outermost parts of the country determine the boundaries of the country's sovereignty and exclusive economic zones. To do the same with electricity generated from nuclear power would entail exorbitant costs, because of the requirement for an expensive distribution system.

With respect to global warming as a result of the emission of CO2, nuclear power plants are cleaner than gas fired ones. Also on the basis of a life cycle analysis from the mining of uranium and its processing to become fuel and to the operation of the plants, CO2 emissions are lower from nuclear plants than from conventional ones.

Therefore, nuclear power plants are effective in reducing the threat of global warming, which is now a major environmental concern. While the critics agree with it, they also say that it is only correct when the uranium comes from high grade uranium ores of 1 percent or higher. With lower grades the CO2 emission increases and at lower than 0.15 percent emissions exceed those from a gas-fired power plant.

Most known ores are of lower grades. When demand for nuclear fuel increases, lower grade ores will subsequently be mined which inevitably will result in more CO2 emissions. The Oxford Research Group in a 2005 report to the British House of Commons also stated that depending on the grade of the uranium ore the CO2 emissions ranged from 20 percent to 120 percent.

Hence, there is no assurance that nuclear plants will help in the fight against global warming. In this respect nuclear power is not a sustainable energy form, because nuclear fuel is not a renewable energy. The critics conclude that nuclear power should be considered the last alternative, when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

We can foresee that the controversy will escalate as the plan for the nuclear power plant progresses. Demonstration after demonstration can be expected. We should remember that at the height of the previous nuclear controversy Gus Dur said that he would sleep at the site of the plant to obstruct its construction.

Comparing the benefits and risks of alternatives, which include tangible as well as intangible issues, is a very common method in risk management. The higher the benefit/risk ratio, the higher the acceptability of the alternative and vice versa. The supporters of nuclear power perceive that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Their perception is that the benefit/risk ratio is high. They enthusiastically support nuclear power development. On the other hand the critics perceive that the benefit/risk ratio of nuclear power plants is low. They reject nuclear power development. If the alternatives of renewable energy and energy conservation proceed well, the electricity crisis, which we are facing now, would be eased.

This would further reduce the benefit/risk ratio of power plants and would stiffen the resistance for its development. More people would line up with the critics in rejecting nuclear power development.

Perceptions of the benefit/risk ratio are subjective, but real and not abstract. It has to be dealt with seriously. However, its management is not a matter of mathematics and technical issues, but of social attitudes.

It lies in the domain of social psychology, which is unfamiliar ground for nuclear plant engineers. The imperative is that social psychologists should be consulted, not to seduce the people to justify nuclear power development, but to manage the controversy in a wise manner.

The writer is professor emeritus of the environment at Padjadjaran University, Bandung. He can be reached at ottosoe@attglobal.net.