The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, Japan in 2011, in which an earthquake triggered
meltdown at a major nuclear power plant, reignited the debate about nuclear energy.
Prior to that, the world appeared to be marching slowly towards the greater use of
nuclear power, but that progress is now somewhat in doubt. Fukushima caused five
deaths; however, it is hard to estimate the precise number of deaths, as many are likely
to occur in subsequent years from radiation increasing the risk of cancer.What seems
certain is that it will not be comparable to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which killed
6,000 people directly, and anywhere between 27,000 and 985,000 indirectly.
| PROS | CONS |
The world needs energy, and nuclear
power is the only way to get it. Fossil fuels
will run out soon, and the truth is that
‘renewable energy’ is simply not ready
yet to provide the level of power that we
require. Nuclear energy is cheap and efficient,
and the technology is certain,which
makes it a much better choice than speculative
renewables development.
|
Nuclear energy is not a viable alternative
to renewables. First of all, it can take
20–30 years to build a nuclear power
plant, and it is hugely expensive. Second,
many existing nuclear power plants are in
fact about to be decommissioned. This
means that the existing network will also
have to be replaced, which makes such a
project unreasonably expensive.
|
Nuclear power is safe. Far from revealing
that it is not safe, Fukushima showed
just how safe it is. In literally the worst
possible combination of circumstances, a
40-year-old power plant, on a tectonic
fault, was hit by an earthquake, and still
there are currently fewer than 100 deaths.
Technology has improved immeasurably
since Chernobyl, and that makes it substantially
safer.
|
Nuclear power is far from safe. As
Fukushima showed, the potential consequences
of a nuclear power disaster are
catastrophic. We were very lucky that
Fukushima’s meltdown did not spread,but
even so, it is highly likely that large
numbers of deaths will result. Moreover,
the consequences of such a meltdown
are so catastrophic as to outweigh any
potential benefits.
|
Nuclear power is safe. Far from revealing
that it is not safe, Fukushima showed
just how safe it is. In literally the worst
possible combination of circumstances, a
40-year-old power plant, on a tectonic
fault, was hit by an earthquake, and still
there are currently fewer than 100 deaths.
Technology has improved immeasurably
since Chernobyl, and that makes it substantially
safer.
|
Renewable energy is the only truly
secure form of energy, because it is almost
all domestic. Solar, wind,wave and hydroelectric
power are all created in-country,
and so do not suffer from the risks of
international conflict or discord.
|
Sources of uranium are mainly stable
countries with open trading relations,
which are traditional allies of the Western
world.Australia controls 30 per cent of the
world’s uranium reserves, and Canada a
further 9 per cent. Moreover, they are
diversely located, with 12 per cent of
reserves in Kazakhstan, and 6 per cent in
South Africa, while Brazil and Namibia
each have 5 per cent.This means that most
countries would have access to a secure
supply, and in the event of political
difficulties with a supplier, could switch
readily to another.This is in contrast to oil
and gas,where energy needs can influence
foreign policy and providers are able to
hold importers to ransom.
|
Nuclear energy may be greener than
fossil fuels in the short term, but that
ignores the problem of nuclear waste.We
could be storing up a catastrophe for
generations who come after us.
|
Nuclear energy is green and clean.
Many environmental charities such as
Greenpeace are now supporting nuclear
energy as they see it as the best way quickly
to reduce the burning of emissionproducing
fossil fuels.
|
In the 1950s, we were promised that
nuclear energy would be so cheap that it
would be uneconomic to meter electricity.
Today, nuclear energy is still subsidised
by the taxpayer. Old power stations
require decommissioning; that will take
100 years and cost billions.
|
The problems of the nuclear energy
programme have been a result of bureaucracy
and obsessive secrecy resulting from
nuclear energy’s roots in military research.
These are problems of the past. In the
future,we can improve on even this – the
development of nuclear fusion in the next
30 years will provide a virtually limitless
energy source with no pollution.
|