IAEA Statement on Nuclear Power/Climate Change

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Radsafers,

The following may be viewed on the Web at URL:

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/inforesource/pressrelease/prn4097.html

This is a nice counterpoint to Helen Caldicott's recent article
"Our deadliest export:  America must stop selling nuclear power
to the world."

----------

8 December 1997
PR 97/40

                   Kyoto Climate Conference:
     IAEA Statement Highlights Environmental Benefit of
                         Nuclear Power

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today made the
following presentation at the third session of the Conference of
the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change in Kyoto:

"With projections of sharply rising energy use and continuing
global dependence on fossil sources, environmental pollution and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could cause severe damage. The
global challenge is to develop strategies that foster a
sustainable energy future less dependent on fossil sources.

Nuclear power, with its low environmental impact and huge uranium
reserves for fuel, can contribute substantially to meeting the
sustainable energy challenge. Nuclear power is a mature, virtually
non-GHG emitting technology that already supplies 17% of the
world's electricity and avoids the emission of more than 600
million tonnes of carbon (or 2,300 million tonnes of CO2) annually.

However, unless procedures and lead times are universally reduced
to less than 6 years (as has been the case for recent installations
in Japan, Korea and China), it is an open question whether nuclear
power can do more than maintain its present annual avoidance of 8
percent of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. But the fact
remains it is the only readily and commercially available "no
carbon" electricity generating option other than hydropower that
makes - and will be able to go on making - a positive contribution
of this magnitude for the foreseeable future. It cannot,
therefore, be ignored.

Meeting an emission target for the year 2010 must clearly be part
of a continuing process. In this context, an accelerated
introduction of nuclear power, where feasible, could allow
significant GHG-emission reductions for the years and decades
after 2020, especially when capacity construction started during
the first decade of the 21st century is connected to the electric
grid.

While nuclear power is witnessing a rapid expansion in Asia for
economic, energy independence and environmental reasons, its
expansion has been hampered by public opinion opposed to its use
in other parts of the world. Operating safety, final disposal of
high level radioactive waste and possible weapons proliferation of
fissile materials are often seen as "unresolved issues". These
issues, regardless of whether they are perceived or real, need to
be addressed if nuclear power is to help meet rising electricity
demand and contribute simultaneously to GHG mitigation.

Safety is a dynamic concept continuously evolving as innovation
progresses. New reactors are equipped with a pre-stressed concrete
containment that would prevent the release of fission products
even in the highly unlikely event of a severe accident. The
industry is continuously striving to develop advanced reactor
designs that make safety less dependent on technology components
and human performance but rather based on natural laws of physics.
In addition, during the 1990s a global nuclear safety culture has
evolved around binding international agreements, codes of
practice, agreed standards, international peer reviews and
advisory services. Meanwhile, the safety of older generation
reactors is being steadily upgraded.

The final disposal of high level radioactive waste is technically
feasible but still needs to be demonstrated convincingly to the
public. That this has not been done is largely attributable to
public scepticism or opposition and lack of the necessary
political support. Therefore, presently, high level wastes are
being stored above or below ground, awaiting policy decisions on
their long-term disposal. Once nuclear wastes are placed in a
long-term repository, nuclear will offer benefits from the
relatively small volumes of such wastes compared to those of coal
which are dispersed in the atmosphere or on the earth's surface.

There is public concern that the use of nuclear power might foster
the further spread of nuclear weapons or the acquisition of weapon
useable material by subnational groups. However, it is worth
recalling that nuclear weapons development consistently
preceded - and did not follow from - the introduction of nuclear
power reactors. Moreover, in order to ensure that nuclear energy
is used exclusively for peaceful purposes, more that 180 states
have accepted to subject their nuclear activities to IAEA
safeguards. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the IAEA safeguards
system has been strengthened with a view to covering both declared
and undeclared activities. The production of viable weapons from
spent fuel would require large-scale, technology-intensive efforts
as well as the weaponization capability which, while within the
potential reach of a handful of Governments, are virtually
impossible for terrorists.

In conclusion, if it is fair to assume that numerous countries
will meet their increased electricity needs by burning coal, then
it is legitimate to compare this with base-load nuclear generating
costs which are similar to those of coal in many parts of the
world. Hence, GHG mitigation by way of nuclear power may be
achievable, at zero or minimum cost, a finding also reported in
the IPCC Second Assessment Report. To that extent, nuclear power
represents an ideal "least-regret cost" strategy to help combat
climate change: if climate degradation predictions prove to be
overstated, no economic resources would have been lost by seeking
to insure against their coming true. Nuclear power, if chosen,
would not have increased the costs of electricity services and
would simultaneously, almost as a cost-free by-product, have
curtailed if not eliminated many imminent local air quality and
regional acidification problems already afflicting a growing
number of countries."

The statement was made by Dr. Hans Holger Rogner, Head of Planning
and Economic Studies in the IAEA Secretariat's Division of Nuclear
Power and the Fuel Cycle.