The media coverage surrounding nuclear power has recently been increased by the current discussion about the reduction of greenhouse gases, and of the industrialised nations' dependence on oil and gas imports. After a period of many years characterised by silence and amnesia, which followed the Chernobyl catastrophe, voices are now to be heard which advocate nuclear power as a solution to the looming crises regarding climate change and resource shortages.

Numerous dimensions of nuclear power need to be considered in order to comprehensively analyse and evaluate the technology, if we wish to be able to make conclusive statements about the sustainability of this technology, and about its importance for the development of sustainable energy and social systems. The fundamental questions which arise in this context have been thoroughly reviewed in this study:

• Can the use of nuclear energy be extended quickly enough to allow it to make a relevant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?
• How economically viable is the use of nuclear power in the long term?
• How much longer will the uranium reserves last?
• Has the problem of the permanent disposal of radioactive waste been solved?
• How are the safety risks linked to the use of nuclear power to be seen today?
• Can any of the cost risks of nuclear power stations be covered?
• How should the democratic relevance be assessed?
• Is the new generation of nuclear power stations different?
• Are the human capacities (experts, engineers) necessary for the expansion of nuclear power use available?

Conclusions

Can we call the current situation the renaissance of nuclear power?

It is not possible to call the current situation the ‘renaissance of nuclear power'. The current construction of new nuclear power stations does not even suffice in the medium term to replace the plants which have been decommissioned due to age. In the face of such a situation, the atomic industry is taking pains to repudiate the image of a technology which is becoming obsolete. Its argumentation includes contemporary issues, such as climate protection. On closer inspection, however, this argument is untenable. On the one hand, nuclear power is by no means carbon-neutral, and on the other, the slow diffusion of the technology prevents effective climate protection. In democracies acting within the market economy, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a new nuclear power station is built. Due to the exorbitant capital requirements, the cost structure of nuclear power stations is incompatible with the ancillary conditions of liberalised energy markets. Conversely, extending the lifetime of plants which have been written off is appealing from a market economy perspective. This, however, does not only bring large profits for the operators, but, due to the operation of antiquated plants, carries a heightened risk for society. Because of international liability limitations, without which nuclear power would not be possible, the risk arising from nuclear power stations must be borne by society. The risk is multi-faceted: the release of nuclear radiation in the course of the regular operation of plants (uranium mining, reprocessing, temporary storage and permanent disposal), and as a result of catastrophic accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island in 1979, and Chernobyl in 1986); and the threat to plant locations in the event of terror attacks or war.

Nuclear power projects only become appealing when a large part of the costs is borne by the taxpayer. This starts with governmental propaganda aiming to ‘shape public opinion', which is necessary for the execution of the respective projects and is made possible by government-funded loans, governmental liability in the event of plant failure, industry dumping, and making the public liable should an accident occur. Not least, the problems and costs related to the disposal of nuclear waste, which will affect thousands of future generations, are ignored.

The motivation of countries which are still committed to nuclear power can, after all economic, maintenance-related, and ecological aspects have been taken into account, only lie in: strategic military interests; the demonstration of power; or a lack of alternative modes of energy production. In special cases, for instance France, which has a large number of power stations and an influential industry lobby, many mechanisms are in place which maintain the system and prevent the abandonment of nuclear power at the present time.

As with the use of fossil fuels, the use of nuclear power is tied to a lack of available resources (uranium ore). If these resources continue to be consumed at the present rate, it is estimated that they will last between 60 and 70 years. Should nuclear power be expanded, these resources will last for a proportionally shorter time. Breeder technology, which should allow resources to be exploited more effectively, has not yet been able to assert itself and, due to the related plutonium economy, harbours a high risk to society.

In terms of the development of sustainable energy and social systems, the use of nuclear power is not an option. On the contrary. The use of nuclear power ties up large amounts of capital which would be desperately needed for the further development of sustainable energy sources and energy efficiency. Additionally, the mere daily non-military operation of reactors and the accumulation of atomic waste are creating a monstrous legacy. As such, the use of nuclear power is incompatible with the demands for sustainable energy and social systems, and must be repudiated as a sustainable approach to the problem of energy production.

Dr. Peter Biermayr
Vienna University of Technology
Energy Economics Group
Gusshausstr. 27-29/373-2
A-1040 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: +43 (0)1-58801-37358
Fax: +43 (0)1-58801-37397
e-mail: biermayr@eeg.tuwien.ac.at
web: www.eeg.tuwien.ac.at