TL: COMBATING THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: NO ROLE FOR NUCLEAR POWER (GP)
SO: Leggett and Kelly, Greenpeace (GP)
DT: 1992
Keywords: nuclear power atmosphere greenhouse effect global
warming links gp reports /

GREENPEACE
30-31 Islington Green
London N1 8XE

J.K. Leggett and P.M. Kelly

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Dr Jeremy Leggett, a geologist, is Director of Science at
Greenpeace UK. Before joining Greenpeace in May this year he
spent eleven years lecturing in earth sciences at Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He has written over
fifty scientific papers and has won two major awards for his
research, including, in 1980, the President's Prize of the
Geological Society, the UK's premier award for geologists aged
30 or under. He has sat on several advisory committees for the
Natural Environment Research Council, and represented the UK for
several years on one of the three main advisory panels to the
Ocean Drilling Programme a multi-million-dollar international
research project which investigates the past history of the
oceans.

Dr Mick Kelly, an atmospheric scientist, is a Senior Research
Associate at the Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia. He has been researching the
greenhouse effect since the 1970s, and has written more than 50
scientific papers on this and other aspects of climate. He has
contributed to recent studies on the greenhouse effect for the
US Department of Energy and the Scientific Committee on Problems
of the Environment (SCOPE). 


SUMMARY

Many governments, including our own, now recognise the need for
an immediate policy response to the dangerous build up of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. One
immediate goal must be to cut substantially the amount of energy
we use. British Nuclear Fuels have recently begun an intensive
and costly advertising campaign to promote the expansion of
nuclear power as a solution to the greenhouse effect, and
government ministers have also advanced this concept in recent
statements. In this report we argue that governments must not
seek to involve nuclear power in combating global warming for
the following reasons:

1. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power
stations around the world constitutes only around 10% of the
overall greenhouse gas currently added to the atmosphere (1).
Accordingly, seeking to replace all (or a part) of coal-fired
power output with nuclear addresses only 10% (or less) of the
greenhouse problem. Seeking to portray the nuclear option as a
palliative is to promote an incorrect solution. A far more wide-
ranging set of policies, tackling the other greenhouse gases and
the large quantities of carbon dioxide which come from sources
other than coal-burning, is needed to give us a chance of
meeting the greenhouse threat.

2. Energy efficiency measures offer far more scope than nuclear,
œ-for-œ, in reducing the demand for fossil fuels. It is many
times cheaper to save a unit of energy than to generate an
additional unit.

3. To throw funds at enlarging the nuclear programme at the
expense of investment in energy efficiency measures would in
fact be to add to the greenhouse threat. The vast sums which
would have to be spent on an expanded nuclear programme would
drain the resources available for energy efficiency and other
measures.

4. The scope for the introduction of energy efficiency is
enormous. The UK Government's own advisors have indicated that
the UK's per capita energy consumption could be reduced by 40%
by the year 2025 (2). The Managing Director of BP, for example,
has recently commented on the urgent necessity for
implementation of energy efficiency across the entire range of
energy uses.

5. The enormous capital costs of nuclear power stations mean
that, even at reduced levels of energy demand, nuclear power is
not a viable option for Third World countries. These countries
already owe the developed countries more than they can afford to
pay. Studies have shown that even a moderate expansion of
nuclear power in Third World countries would cost in excess of
$50 billion per year. The total public spending on electricity
in such countries is currently only $7 billion per year (3).

6. Energy-efficiency measures can be introduced far more quickly
than can nuclear power stations. Time is of the essence in
combating the greenhouse effect. It takes a minimum of six years
to build a nuclear power station, and a matter of months to
implement energy saving measures.

7. Energy efficiency technology is proven technology. Nuclear
power technology, on the other hand, continues to present the
unacceptable risk of potentially catastrophic accidents and to
produce highly dangerous, long-lived waste. In addition, despite
30 years of operating experience, the decommissioning of
reactors has essentially yet to be addressed. The track record
of the nuclear industry involves a long history of over
ambitious appraisals of cost and reactor safety.

Because of the greenhouse effect, our current energy policies
are tantamount to a suicide pact. The arguments over the extent
of the greenhouse threat are essentially an argument over when,
not whether, that suicide pact comes to fruition - unless we
take action. Our ailing atmosphere can be compared to a patient
threatened with death as a result of cancerous tumours in
several parts of the body. Promoting nuclear power as a
palliative is like attempting a cure by concentrating on a
single tumour with an ineffective and itself inherently
dangerous technique - despite the fact that we know a cure can
be achieved using other, effective, techniques on the whole
body.

The response to the greenhouse threat must be international and
co-ordinated if it is to be effective. Hence, the industrialised
nations have no choice but to set examples for the Third World
nations. We have already set them an example of industrial
development which has been wasteful, inefficient, and
extravagant in its use of resources: an example which has given
rise to global warming. We need to drastically cut our energy
requirements (a process we began after the oil price hike of
1973, without arresting our economic growth). We need to
significantly increase our development of renewable energy
resources. We need to drastically cut the full range of our
greenhouse gas emissions, and we need to offer substantial help
and incentives to encourage the Third World nations to stem
their own releases of greenhouse gases.

This we cannot do by advocating to them the virtues of nuclear
power plants. The Third World countries cannot afford them. We
cannot in good conscience guarantee that they will work without
calamity. We cannot even demonstrate how to decommission the
reactors, or handle the wastes they produce. Worst of all. we
are encouraging the Third World countries to divert funds from
the genuine solutions. In so doing. we are effectively adding to
the greenhouse threat.

There is no room in the greenhouse for nuclear illusions.


DEALING WITH THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: NO LONGER A MATTER OF
CHOICE.

What is the problem? In fulfilling "basic needs", we have always
put short-term concerns ahead of long-term consequences. Though
we have known since the end of the last century about the
propensity of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases to
absorb infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere, we have
emitted billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide as a result of
fossil-fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution. China, and
other countries who have yet to enjoy the increase in standard-
of-living we have accrued with our profligate use of energy, are
now set to emulate us.

But, in a few brief years, it has become clear that we can no
longer avoid the consequences of our actions. A broad consensus
has developed among scientists that we are committing the
atmosphere to rates of warming which have never been seen before
during the 100,000 years Homo sapiens has inhabited the planet.

How serious is that? The consensus now envisages a rise of
global average temperature of up to 3øC by 2030 (4). Such an
increase would be catastrophic. It would involve rates of change
10-60 times faster than those experienced by ecosystems even in
the recovery from the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago (5). It is
not clear that ecosystems can survive such rates of change. Can
humanity? We would have to deal with global food shortages.
catastrophic flooding as sea levels rise, large-scale loss of
drinking water, environmental refugees, economic collapse and
heightened international tension.

Worse, the consensus predictions make little allowance for what
scientists call "positive feedback scenarios". In this context,
these are situations in which one adverse effect can set off a
chain reaction of others. One of the many examples where the
greenhouse effect is concerned is that the rise in temperature
stands to release vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas
25 times more effective than carbon dioxide, molecule-for-
molecule, so amplifying the original warming. Thousands of
billions of tonnes of methane are locked up in frozen soils and
sediments in high latitudes. For comparison, the global release
of carbon dioxide is around 20 billion tonnes per year. Positive
feedbacks could, in principle, lead to a runaway greenhouse
effect which civilisation would have no chance of surviving.
Because we can't ever be sure about positive feedback effects -
until perhaps too late - we must insure against them.


CONCENTRATING ON JUST ONE OF THE SOURCES OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL
NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Atmospheric physicists can calculate, approximately, the amount
that different greenhouse gases, from different sources,
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The range for current
contributions is believed to be approximately as follows (6):

Carbon dioxide from oil and gas combustion, including transport
and non-power stations coal combustion: 20%+

Carbon dioxide from deforestation: 20%

Methane from ruminants, rice paddies, pipe leakage, etc: 18%

Chlorofluorocarbons from aerosols, refrigerants, etc: 14% 

Tropospheric ozone from air pollution: 12% 

Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations: 10%

Nitrous oxide from fertilizer and car exhausts: 6%

Hence, the policy response to the greenhouse effect must be
multi-faceted, covering a range of energy, industry, transport
and agriculture practices. Replacing coal-fired power stations
by nuclear power can only address a small fraction of the
greenhouse threat - and even in this sector energy efficiency
represents a far more effective response.


INVESTMENT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY REDUCES THE RELEASE OF CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS MORE THAN INVESTMENT IN NUCLEAR.

A recent authoritative study by the Rocky Mountain Institute (3)
compares the efficiency strategy and the nuclear strategy for
reducing emission of carbon dioxide in the US. It finds that one
dollar buys 50 kilowatt hours (kWh) of saved electricity if
invested in efficiency measures, and 7.4 kWh if invested in
generating nuclear electricity. If that 7.4 kWh is used to
replace coal-burning, the efficiency measures prove almost 7
times more effective in doing the same job.

A similar study of the UK scene finds that each œ invested in
nuclear power can remove the need for between 5.5 and 7.2 kg of
carbon in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants,
whereas one œ invested in compact fluorescent lighting instead
of incandescent lighting displaces 27.4 kg of carbon. Hence,
investment in this particular form of energy efficiency is four
to five times more cost-effective than investment in nuclear
power (7).

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS AN INSUFFICIENTLY UTILISED RESOURCE.

"Preparing for this presentation I was struck by the importance
of energy efficiency to our future, by the convincing and
attractive assessments of what greater energy efficiency can
achieve, and by how little it figures in major debates and
policy on energy - both at the national and international
level."
(Robert Malpas, CBE, Managing Director of British Petroleum,
addressing the Fellowship of Engineering, 26th January, 1989,
ref. 8).

Some examples:

* New technology permits buildings erected today to use 75% less
energy than earlier buildings (9).

* Incandescent light bulbs typically consume - 15 watts compared
to the 18 watts of a fluorescent light bulb, which also has the
advantage of lasting 10 times as long (10).

* If all office buildings in the US were built energy-efficient
over the next 50 years, then the US could save the equivalent of
85 power plants and two Alaskan pipelines (11).

* In the US, a single year's sales of electric appliances
requires six 1 gigawatt (GW) plants to run. If only the most
efficient appliances were sold, this could be cut to 2 plants
(12).

* The EC argues that even a 10% improvement in the efficiency of
energy use up to the year 2000 would mean avoiding investment in
over 40 GW of new capacity (13).

* It has been estimated that the USA is at a $200 billion
disadvantage to Japan as a result of its poorer energy
efficiency performance (14). 

* The UK uses around twice as much energy for every œ of gross
national product than Japan. This places us at a serious
competitive disadvantage (15).

Most analyses in the energy business emphasise the supply side.
The necessity of combating the greenhouse threat means that we
must, from now on, look very closely at demand. The pressing
need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels means that we must
now seek to meet our everyday requirements using very much less
energy.

Neither must this concentration on efficiency be limited to
power generation and consumption. Because of the increase in
vehicle numbers over the last 30 years, some 15% of total global
carbon dioxide comes from cars. With the projected growth of car
sales, this problem will have to be addressed in parallel.


THE CAPITAL COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER MEAN THAT SIGNIFICANT
EXPANSION, ESPECIALLY IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, IS IMPOSSIBLE.

How much does nuclear power cost? Nuclear power plants are
expensive. Very expensive. The capital costs for a new plant are
currently about $2 billion per gigawatt (GW) in the UK (the new
UK PWR reactors are around 1 GW) and $3.2 billion per GW in the
USA. Even in France, with its huge subsidies for nuclear power,
a new plant costs around $1 billion per GW. These figures do not
include the costs of down-time, or decommissioning, or waste
disposal. In the final analysis, the full costs of nuclear power
are likely to be greatly in excess of currently quoted costs
(16).

How many reactors would be needed if nuclear plants are to
replace coal-fired plants? If one looks at the total amount of
energy that the world is using all oil, coal, gas, nuclear and
hydroelectric - and average it out, the total being used at any
one time is 10,000 GW, or 10 terawatts (TW). Today there are 398
commercial reactors in the world, generating a total of 290 GW,
or 3%, of the world's 10 TW energy use (17). The Rocky Mountain
Institute study has shown what would be required for all coal-
fired power stations in the world to be replaced by nuclear
stations by the year 2025.

If energy demand increases from its present 10 TW to 36 TW by
2025 (an annual increase of around 2%, compared to the current
rate of increase of about 3%), one new 1 GW nuclear plant would
have to be built every 1 - 2 days for the next 38 years. If all
the new reactors were 1 GW reactors, there would be more than
8,000 of them. The nuclear building programme would cost an
average of around $229 billion annually over the 38 years.

If world energy consumption reaches 21 TW by 2025 (an effective
doubling over present levels), one 1 GW plant would have to be
built every 2 - 3 days at an average cost of $151 billion
annually. In this "less ambitious" scenario, if all the reactors
were 1 GW reactors there would be more than 5,000 of them.

And this is a conservative estimate. The Rocky Mountain
Institute calculation is based on very favourable assumptions
about the cost of new nuclear plants, the time required for
their construction, their lifetime, and the amount of time the
plants are able to spend generating electricity.

Could the countries of the world afford so many reactors? The
"less ambitious" of the two scenarios involves a total world
nuclear generating capacity of 5200 GW, an 18-fold increase over
today. It must be remembered that in the USA all orders for
nuclear reactors placed in the last 16 years have been
cancelled. In the UK, the process of replacing coal-fired
stations would involve building 25 large pressurised water
reactors over 35 years (18). This is a highly unlikely
proposition, both from an economic and political point of view.

What about the Third World countries? To meet the growing demand
for energy, 2330 GW of the 5200 GW (45%) would have to be in the
Third World. For comparison, the current nuclear capacity of the
UK is around 12 GW. The total capacity of the struggling nuclear
programmes in the Third World countries today is just 15 GW. Can
we seriously expect these countries to take on a 155-fold
expansion of their nuclear programme, at a cost of $64 billion
per year? Their total public financing for all electricity (most
of it non-nuclear) was only $7 billion in 1986/87 (19). The
Third World countries currently owe the developed countries more
than $1000 billion, and are required to pay about $50 billion
per year just in interest. The conclusion is obvious. The task
is simply inconceivable, both practically and financially, both
in the industrialised countries and - particularly - in the
Third World.

An additional important consideration is that of nuclear weapons
proliferation. The opportunities for acquisition of enriched
uranium and plutonium for bomb-making (by nations, or by
terrorists) expand considerably in a world with thousands
instead of hundreds of reactors. At a time when ballistic-
missile technology is proliferating in the Third World, and when
the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is under threat
because of the reluctance of the nuclear weapons states to cease
nuclear testing, this is a dire prospect.


ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVOLVES PROVEN TECHNOLOGY.

Substantial reductions in energy intensity have already been
achieved. The OPEC oil price hike of 1973 scared the OECD
countries into initiating energy efficiency programmes. Since
that time, the energy used per unit of world economic output has
decreased by 12%. If the US economy, for example, was now as
energy intensive as it was 15 years ago it would be importing
four times as much oil and paying an extra $150 billion on its
energy bills (20).

The oil price rise had the effect of decoupling energy demand
from economic growth. Since 1973, developed countries have
achieved economic growth without substantially increasing energy
demand. In the US, energy use has remained roughly constant
since 1973, while real GNP has increased 40%. And as the
comments above show, there is room for substantial additional
saving. The sad truth is that since the collapse of the oil
price late in 1985, the perceived incentive for persevering with
energy efficiency has dissipated.


NUCLEAR POWER INVOLVES MAJOR RISKS.

"It is not secure when the development of atomic engineering is
justified by unacceptable risks ... They say that one thorn of
experience is worth more than a whole wood of instructions. For
us, Chernobyl became such a thorn."
Mikhail Gorbachev (in Pravda, 17 September 1987)

Since the days when nuclear power was believed to be "too cheap
to meter" and accidents were expected only "once in a million
reactor years" it has become ever more clear that we are paying
a high price for the few per cent of primary global energy use
which nuclear plants meet. Nuclear waste, some of which will
remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, is produced
at every stage of the nuclear power cycle. Despite there being
no environmentally acceptable solution to the nuclear waste
problem, the industry continues to produce more and more such
waste. Nobody knows what to do with it, and in the USA military
nuclear waste has already caused pollution which will require a
"clean-up" bill of between $80 and 128 billion over the next
twenty years (21). (The same sort of problems may also be
present in other countries which are more secretive about their
nuclear programmes). The first generation of reactors is coming
to the end of its life. Decommissioning of reactors that have
reached the end of their lives will exacerbate the nuclear waste
problem greatly. Whatever methods are chosen to deal with these
problems, given the long life of these wastes, the nuclear
industry cannot avoid bequeathing a dangerous and expensive
legacy to our children and their descendants.

According to the Brundtland Commission, "the generation of
nuclear power is only justifiable if there are solid solutions
to the presently unresolved problems to which it gives rise."
(22).


NUCLEAR POWER ADDS TO THE GREENHOUSE THREAT.

No nation considers itself devoid of financial constraints.
Investments in the energy field compete with agriculture,
health, environment, and a host of other worthy recipients for
investment, public or private. Within energy policy itself,
competition is stiff. Money spent on building up a nuclear
programme would undoubtedly be money that could have been spent
on energy efficiency. This effect is exacerbated by the long
lead-time required for nuclear plant construction - six years at
a minimum. If the aim is to replace coal-fired generation with
nuclear, then carbon dioxide emissions are allowed to build up
in the six years or more it takes to bring nuclear on line.

The Rocky Mountain Institute study mentioned above finds that in
the US every $100 invested in abatement of carbon dioxide by
nuclear power effectively releases an extra tonne of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. In other words, that tonne could
have been avoided had the $100 been put into investment in
efficiency.


THE NEED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

Recent statements indicate that the UK Government wishes to take
the lead in the international response to global warming. In the
light of the above, to invest in nuclear power can be construed
as an act of bad faith. We need to be putting our investments in
energy efficiency, and investing massively in renewable energy.
What is more, we need to be seen to be investing in these
things. We will never beat the greenhouse threat unless we act
as one. The industrialised countries have given rise to the
greenhouse effect, and Third World countries have the potential
to exacerbate it. The solution will not be found unless there is
a concerted effort to find practical, rather than cosmetic,
strategies.


MEANINGFUL FIRST STEPS IN COMBATING THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

The UK government, like all governments, now needs to take
positive action to halt global warming. Immediate tasks for
policy makers must include the following:

* SET TARGETS for such policies as carbon dioxide emission-
ceilings, energy efficiency, and transport regulation.

* INVEST RESOURCES in amounts which truly reflect the magnitude
of the crisis we are in. Renewable energy technologies, energy
efficiency, public transport, monitoring and research should all
be supported at far higher levels than is the case today.

* CREATE INCENTIVES which encourage both industry and the public
to cut down emissions of greenhouse gases. These must include
fiscal incentives on energy efficiency and transport.


* PROMOTE ANTI-GREENHOUSE AID PROJECTS IN THE THIRD WORLD to
help the industrialising countries develop without generating
the quantities of greenhouse gases which the developed countries
have been and are responsible for.

* PROMOTE ANTI-GREENHOUSE AGRICULTURE POLICIES which encourage
the reduction of methane emissions from ruminants and nitrous
oxide emissions from fertilizers.


Dr Kelly writes in a personal capacity. The views expressed do
not necessarily represent those of the University of East
Anglia. The authors are grateful to Dr Alan Cottey, Dr Michael
Flood, Prof Tom Kibble, and Prof Patricia Lindop for comments on
earlier drafts of this manuscript. They bear no responsibility
for material included in or left out of the final version.


REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. The International Coal Development Institute, in a report on
the greenhouse effect (K.M. Sullivan, May 1988) concludes that
the contribution that CO2 emissions from the world's coal fired
power stations makes to the greenhouse effect is 6%. The UKAEA,
in a February 1989 submission to the House of Commons Energy
Committee (Memorandum 15), calculates that the total
contribution of carbon dioxide from electricity generation is
11%.

2. B.W. Dale. "Abatement of greenhouse gases in the UK."
Unpublished report of the Chief Scientist's Group, Energy
Technology Support Unit.

3. B. Keep in and G. Kats. "Greenhouse warming: a rationale for
nuclear power?" Rocky Mountain Institute Report, December 1988.

4. The figures quoted in the final statement of the Toronto
conference on the atmosphere in June 1987, attended by 300
experts, are 1.5 - 4øC. I. Mintzer in "A matter of degrees: the
potential for controlling the greenhouse effects (Research
Report number 5, World Resources Institute, Washington DC April
1987), speaks for a large number of experts when he says that
the eventual temperature by 2030 is likely to be at the higher
end of that range.

5. Schneider, "The Greenhouse Effect: science and policy."
Science, 10 February 1989, pp 771 - 781.

6. J. Hansen et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, August
1988.

7. B. Keepin and G. Kats. Response to UKAEA and UK Department of
Energy, Submitted to House of Commons Energy Committee. 15 May
1989.


8. R. Malpas. Global forces towards greater energy efficiency.
Presentation to the Fellowship of Engineering, London, 26
January 1989. (BP Speech Reprint series).

9. C. Flavin and A. Durning. "Raising energy efficiency,." State
of the World. W.W. Norton. 1 988.

10. as note 3, p. 21.

11. A. Rosenfeld and D. Hafemeister. "Energy efficient
buildings." Scientific American 258, April 1988, 78-85.

12. as note 3, p. 23.

13. Association for the Conservation of Energy, in submission to
the House of Commons Energy Committee (Memorandum 1), February
1989. HMSO.

14. as note 12.

15. as note 3, table 2, p. 22.

16. as note 3.

17. World Resources 1988-89. World Resources Institute. Basic
Books.

18. J Skea. "Electricity for Life." Science Policy Research
Unit. October 1988.

19. as note 3.

20. as note 3, p. 22

21. See for example J. Buchan, "The nemesis of the reckless
years", Financial Times, 15 February 1989; P. Simons, "The
legacy that's too hot to handle", Guardian 17 January 1 989.

22. World Commission on Environment and Development. "Our Common
Future." Oxford University Press, 1987.