Demystification of Nuclear Energy - or A Blast of the Past? - 2011

Nuclear Power Industry

Diesendorf reported in 2011 for the past decade journalists and the general public have been bombarded with claims that nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance. This alleged renaissance is in turn driven by the claim that nuclear energy is free of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore must become an important part of the solution to the climate change crisis.

Furthermore, we are told that, unlike nuclear energy, renewable energy cannot supply base-load (24-hour) supply. Therefore, since coal with carbon capture and storage is unlikely to be commercially available before 2030, nuclear energy is the only commercially available solution for carbon-free base-load electricity until renewable energy is ready to take over.

Those who are worried about the hazards are reassured by nuclear proponents that there are new generations of nuclear power stations that will be much safer and much cheaper than the old; that even old nuclear power has been responsible for very few deaths; that nuclear weapons cannot be made from the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle; and that nuclear wastes are tiny in quantity and can be managed easily.

[In the light of 2022, all of the above have turned out to be true. Diesendorf's discussion are filled with misinformation, exaggerations and and downright untruths. In addition, also note how Diesendorf conflates nuclear power with nuclear bombs, which introduces fear to the reader.]

This article aims to demystify nuclear energy, while explaining why all the above claims are untrue. Because space is limited, the article cites several non-technical supporting references that address key issues. For more detail on the whole of nuclear energy, see Diesendorf (2007, chapter 12) and the website
www.energyscience.org.au, [This is a notorious anti-mining and anti-nuclear power group in Australia. It is worthwhile to observe the methods and misconceptions used by such groups 10 years ago. Many of their complaints have since been revealed as false claims, unfounded, and usually funded by opposing energy companies]

Global status of nuclear energy

As of 1 April 2011 there were 437 nuclear power stations operating in 30 countries, eight fewer than in 2002, supplying in total about 13% of global electricity. The percentage contribution has been declining steadily through the 2000s as new construction has been balanced by retirements and electricity demand has been growing. The only countries where there is significant growth in nuclear energy are China, with 27 new generating units 1 under construction [Now 25 under construction], Russia (11), India (6) and South Korea (5). Many existing reactors around the world are coming up for retirement, so it is debatable whether there will be any future global growth in nuclear power (Schneider 2011). [But many of theses have been renewed for an additional 20 years]

Almost all operating nuclear power stations are classified as Generation II, the types that proliferated in numbers in the 1970s. Several so-called Generation III reactors are under construction in China and two in Europe, but none of these has operated yet. These are actually slightly improved versions of Generation II with almost all the same hazards discussed below.

The author concluded that we do not have to choose between coal or nuclear, that is, between BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto on one hand and BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto on the other. The real choice is between dirty and dangerous technologies (coal and nuclear) and genuinely clean technologies (energy efficiency and renewable energy)....[See the current views on renewable energy [here]).

Existing types of nuclear power station are not a long-term solution to climate change because they are potentially as dangerous as climate change, by increasing the risk of nuclear war, and because of their increasing CO₂ emissions from uranium mining and milling as high-grade uranium ore depletes. They are not a short-term solution because they are too slow to build. Some types of the proposed future generation reactors avoid the problem of CO₂ emissions while introducing others. Not one is proliferation-proof. [These claims have now proven to be false]

Nuclear energy is a dangerous and expensive diversion from real solutions to climate crises and energy security....[Fear pandering....]

[Nuclear is still expanding and building:

In late 2022, nuclear power standard plants coming on strong:

• California lawmakers vote to keep Diablo Canyon online.
• Draft Korean energy policy reflects expansion of nuclear.
• 'Historic' California vote hailed as the right choice.
• Kishida calls for Japanese expansion of nuclear energy use.
• Nuclear right choice for sustainable development, conference told.
• Poland amends laws to speed investment in nuclear energy.
• Presidential approval for nuclear in Ghana.
• Two German plants to be held in reserve temporarily.
• UK government funding for advanced reactor development.

And there is more to come (here)].