By Jim Green
The nuclear power industry is experiencing "a meltdown of historic proportions", according to a recent report from the Worldwatch Institute.
After growing more than 700% in the 1970s, and 140% in the 1980s, nuclear power capacity has increased less than 5% during the 1990s. In 1998, world nuclear generating capacity fell by 175 megawatts — only the third annual decline since 1960. Nuclear power accounts for just 5% of power-generating capacity under construction.
Nuclear power developed as an outgrowth of the nuclear weapons programs during and after World War II. Even today, about 60% of all nuclear power reactors are in the eight countries which possess nuclear weapons.
Nuclear power was seen as a way of cashing in on technologies developed for nuclear weapons and to provide the technical expertise to underpin weapons programs. It was meant to facilitate industrial growth by generating electricity "too cheap to meter".
Private corporations and capitalist governments were attracted to nuclear power because power generation based on fuels such as coal and gas were more labour intensive and more vulnerable during trade union campaigns.
Nuclear power experienced a surge in the late 1960s. In the early to mid-1970s, uncertainty over oil supplies maintained the momentum of nuclear power's growth. The US, France, Japan, the UK, West Germany, Canada and Sweden developed substantial nuclear power programs. The Soviet Union also developed a major nuclear industry for both power and the weapons program, and a few Eastern European countries built or bought nuclear power plants.
By the mid-1970s, the market was beginning to wane. Global recession had set in and electricity demand was checked. Financing nuclear projects became far more difficult as high inflation and interest rates jeopardised the viability of existing plants, as well as the private corporations involved.
The global economic stagnation persists and nuclear power is increasingly unable to compete economically with other energy sources.
Double-edged sword
While nuclear power owed its existence to the nuclear weapons programs, this link proved to be a double-edged sword. India's first nuclear weapons test in 1974 used plutonium from a Canadian-supplied "research" reactor. As a result, more stringent export controls were enforced, by the US in particular.
This had contradictory effects. Countries reliant on US materials or technology took steps to make their nuclear fuel cycle more independent. Some countries — such as Argentina, South Korea and India — developed capabilities that allowed them to become modest exporters of nuclear technologies. With more exporters operating in a stagnant market, the temptation to sell nuclear technology to countries that may have an interest in nuclear weapons production has been irresistible.
Major accidents, most notably at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, increased public opposition and forced governments to impose tougher safety standards. Increased regulation resulted in delays and cost blow-outs, compounding the economic problems.
Last but not least among the industry's problems has been the failure to find a safe and permanent method to dispose of the radioactive waste left behind by nuclear power generation.
Nuclear power plants generate about 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel each year. The current stockpile amounts to 160,000 tonnes. With ocean dumping banned, and efforts to establish domestic dumps running up against insurmountable political opposition, most radioactive waste is stored on site at power plants.
As of December, 1998, 429 nuclear reactors were operating in 32 countries, providing just under 17% of the world's electricity. Both of these figures will probably be close to the all-time peaks. The current global capacity of 345,000 megawatts is less than 10% of the capacity that the International Atomic Energy Agency predicted in 1974.
Nuclear power output is stagnant or in decline in North America, western and eastern Europe, and Russia. There remains the possibility of modest expansion in France and Canada, but this will not alter the global picture.
Nuclear power has never had — and is not likely to have — more than a minimal presence in South America, Africa and the Middle East. In the Third World, the expertise and industrial infrastructure is generally lacking, electricity grids are not suited for the large plants favoured in the advanced capitalist countries, and financing is a big obstacle. Third World countries account for just 6% of global nuclear energy output.
In Asia, efforts to develop nuclear industries in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam have been abandoned in the last few years. There are plans for expansion in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India and China. Always overambitious, projections are being revised downwards due to the worsening economic situation. Public opposition is also becoming a major obstacle in countries such as Japan and South Korea.
A moribund industry
Although global nuclear power capacity is likely to rise for another year or two, it will almost certainly decline in the following years as construction dries up and the closure of older, uneconomic or unsafe reactors accelerates. By 2010, about 70% of nuclear power reactors will be more than 25 years old and be candidates for closure.
The Worldwatch Institute predicts that global nuclear capacity will begin a sustained decline by 2002. The US Department of Energy projects that it will fall by half in the next two decades. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency — notorious for its over-projections — acknowledges the possibility of a sustained downturn.
Nuclear power appears to be a moribund industry. However, private corporations and government agencies have invested a great deal of capital in the industry over the past 50 years. They will not give it up without a fight.
The industry does not lack state support. The US House of Representatives budgeted US$228 million for nuclear energy research and development for 1999. The United Nations provides political and financial support for just one energy source — nuclear power.
Because of the difficulties involved in building new plants, it has extended the life and increased the capacity of existing reactors. This can only be a short-term fix. Technical innovation proceeds at a snail's pace. The new generation of "passively safe" reactors are not safe and are not based on fundamentally new designs.
The industry has just one public relations argument: the replacement of fossil fuel power with nuclear power can address the problems of greenhouse gases and climate change. However, two wrongs don't make a right: replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power is no solution considering the safety problems associated with nuclear power, the radioactive waste and nuclear power's links with military nuclear technologies and programs.
While it is true that nuclear power plants generate few greenhouse gases, to operate them requires uranium mining, milling and enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste management. All these activities are energy intensive and generate greenhouse gases.
Several overseas and Australian studies show that improving energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest and cleanest way of substantially reducing greenhouse gases. Greater efficiency, combined with further development of renewable energy systems, is the way out of the fossil/nuclear impasse.
The viability and profitability of Australia's uranium export industry is directly dependent on the future of nuclear power. The sliding fortunes of nuclear power also impact on the proposed replacement of the Lucas Heights nuclear research reactor. Reasons given for the new reactor include keeping abreast of, and profiting from, the expansion of nuclear industries in Asia. That expansion looks increasingly shallow.