Nuclear power: the security dimension
-
Upload
wynter-haney -
Category
Documents
-
view
28 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Nuclear power: the security dimension
Nuclear power: the security dimension
Dr Stuart Parkinson
www.sgr.org.uk
Some context…
• Climate change– By 2100, potentially more rapid change than at any time in
human history – Major threat to water, food, health, shelter…– At least 61 states at risk of armed conflict related to climate
change– Most vulnerable are least responsible for the problem
• Nuclear non-proliferation treaty– Current deadlock over disarmament – Without progress, global regulation of nuclear power will suffer
• Rising religious fundamentalism– Can affect both terrorist groups and some governments
In a world such as this, should we expand or phase out
nuclear power?
Nuclear weapons proliferation
• Many overlaps between civilian and military nuclear technologies/ materials/ skills, for example:– Uranium enrichment
• Civilian use: 3-5% U-235• Military use: ~90% U-235
– Plutonium from reprocessing nuclear waste
• Proliferation risk is greater from plutonium– On average ~300kg plutonium produced per modern
power station per year – reprocessing would yield enough to make up to 40 nuclear bombs
Nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki
• 9 August, 1945
• ~6 kg of plutonium– equivalent to 21,000,000 kg of TNT
• Heat, blast and radiation killed at least 70,000 people– from population of 200,000
• Almost all buildings within 1½ miles of ‘ground zero’ destroyed
NW proliferation: risks
• More civilian nuclear facilities increases potential for diversion to weapons– Determined states which have access to civilian
nuclear programme are hard to stop going military– Terrorists interested in stealing fissile material
• International Atomic Energy Agency (Regulator)– complaints of lack of resources – also has a role promoting nuclear power
• Will the nuclear non-proliferation treaty hold?
NW proliferation: examples
• Diversion of civilian nuclear know-how to create Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
• Current concerns over Iran’s nuclear power programme
The role of the UK
• UK is very influential country – Member of UN Security Council, G8, EU,
Head of Commonwealth
• UK plans to retain its nuclear weapons• UK go-ahead for new nuclear power sends
strong message on climate, energy and security strategy
• Also, can the UK keep its own plutonium secure for next 100+ years?
Plutonium-MOX economy?
• Use of MOX fuel (part plutonium) in nuclear reactors to prolong uranium supplies– presence of plutonium leads to increased risk
of proliferation
• Potential for move to ‘Generation IV’ reactors completely fuelled by plutonium– even greater proliferation risk
Security & safety of nuclear facilities
• Risk of major nuclear ‘incident’ is very low, but…– Terrorist groups consider nuclear facilities as
potential targets– ‘Successful’ attack on high-level waste/
plutonium store could be worse than Chernobyl
– Even a ‘failed’ attack could cause major disruption
Labour’s think-tank
• “Not only does more civil nuclear activity mean more nuclear weapons related materials being available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states worldwide, but reactors, waste sites and reprocessing plants themselves are also possible terrorist targets which, if hit, could lead to massive loss of life and economic disruption”
Are the climate benefits of nuclear good enough to offset
the security concerns?
Nuclear power and carbon emissions
• Nuclear fuel cycle– uranium mining + milling
– UF6 conversion
– U-235 fuel enrichment– nuclear fuel fabrication– fuel transportation– reactor operation– waste encapsulation– waste transportation– future waste disposal
CO2 emissions especially depend on
• uranium ore grade– as grade declines, energy consumption/ carbon
emissions rise
• uranium ore type• U-235 enrichment method • future nuclear waste plans
– eg underground repository
• also– construction of power station
Estimated Nuclear CO2 Emissions
Study grams of CO2
per kWh
British Energy, EdF, British Nuclear Energy Society, Nuclear Industry Assoc
~5
International Atomic Energy Agency 9-21
Öko Institut, Germany 33
CRIEPI, Japan/ IEA, France 30-60
van Leeuwen and Smith, Netherlands 70-120
Wind (onshore/offshore) ~20
Source: House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2006)
Even if low carbon…
Sustainable Development Commission: • Replacement nuclear programme would only
lead to 4% cut in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels
• Not realised until at least 2024• “A new nuclear power programme could divert
public funding away from more sustainable technologies that will be needed regardless, hampering other long term efforts to move to a low carbon economy with diverse energy sources”
What are the alternatives?
• Renewable energy– Wind– Bioenergy– Solar– Hydro– Wave– Tidal– Geothermal
• Energy efficiency– Combined heat &
power (CHP)– Building insulation– Efficient lighting– Efficient appliances– Efficient vehicles
• Controlling demand– Behaviour change
• Carbon capture and storage– ‘burial’ of carbon from
fossil fuels
Energy efficiency
• 30% of UK’s overall energy supply dumped as waste heat/ hot water from power stations– more than 10 times energy produced by
nuclear power
• Combined heat & power (CHP)– UK: 7% of electricity– Netherlands: 30%– Denmark: 50%
Case 1 - Tyndall Centre study• Non-nuclear path to reduce UK carbon emissions by ~85% by 2050
• Energy consumption down by ~40% by 2050 due to efficiency technologies & behaviour change (driven by economic reform)
• Strong support for R&D of renewables, carbon capture & storage, hydrogen fuel cells
UK primary fuel mix 2004
oil
coal
gas
nuclear
biofuel
other renewables
UK primary fuel mix 2050
oil
coal
gas
biofuel
other renew ables
Case 2 – CAT study
• Non-nuclear path to reduce UK carbon emissions by ~100% by 2027
• Energy consumption down by ~50% by 2027 due to efficiency technologies & behaviour change – including wide use of Tradable Carbon Quotas
• Strong support for R&D of renewables & energy storage (but reliance on expanding existing and near-term technologies)
The role of R&D
• To realise the scale of emissions reduction necessary to tackle climate change, we need serious funding of non-nuclear energy R&D – especially renewable energy
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1975-1999)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
year
mil
lio
n d
oll
ars
renewables
nuclear fission
Source: IEA (2001)
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1992-2005)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
year
mil
lio
n U
S d
oll
ars
renewables
nuclear fission
Source: IEA (2006)
Conclusions
• Nuclear power creates serious security problems• Major factors affecting global security over
coming decades are likely to greatly increase these problems
• Low-carbon benefits of nuclear are not great enough to outweigh drawbacks
• Alternatives have great potential to reduce carbon emissions without nuclear security risks
References