Nuclear energy is back on Davos agenda
DAVOS, Switzerland: Few subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum’s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well-intentioned who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort.
And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda here and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe’s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland.
At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb emissions of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: Unlike coal, oil, natural gas or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings.
“It has put nuclear back into the mix,” said Daniel Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. “We’re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits.”
But being in the mix does not mean nuclear energy will shove aside fossil fuels any time soon.
Renewable energy, while growing steadily, has limitations: Windmills don’t turn when the wind isn’t blowing, geothermal energy is not yet economical enough, and hydroelectric dams can be disruptive themselves.
That leaves nuclear power as a “clean” alternative to fossil fuels. It already generates one-sixth of the world’s electricity, but it fell out of favor in the West two decades ago after accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The previous German government, in fact, pledged to shut down its last nuclear power station by 2022.
But now Germany has also committed itself to deep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decade, and its new chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently rekindled the debate over nuclear energy when she said, “We should consider what consequences it will have if we shut off our nuclear power plants.”
That comment was a reference to Europe’s increasing vulnerability as an importer of foreign fossil fuels. Just as the United States worries about disruptions in the supply of Middle East oil, Europe worries about Russia’s penchant for using its gas and oil pipelines as a political weapon.
Even in the United States, which has not ordered cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there are more voices in favor of building nuclear plants.
Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction.
Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries.
They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country’s reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks. And there is the nuclear fuel cycle: North Korea and other countries are already suspected of diverting enriched uranium to try to make nuclear weapons. Those dangers would only multiply with an increase in the global demand for nuclear power.
John Holdren, the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that if current economic predictions held, nuclear energy would have to generate one-third of the world’s electricity by 2100 if it were used to curb the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. That would require a tenfold increase in the number of plants, to more than 3,000.
To manage such a risk, Holdren said, the world would need a radically new regime for policing nuclear technology. One option would be international supervision of all nuclear plants. But is that realistic? Could all countries be treated equally?
The United Nations is now demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium to forestall the possibility that it might be used for weapons. It would be, at the least, awkward for European countries to plunge back into nuclear energy at the same time that European diplomats are demanding that the Iranians scale back their nuclear ambitions.
Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on.
