William Choong, The Straits Times 28 Jan 09;
IN THE 1970s, Dr Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, campaigned against nuclear power, arguing that nuclear power plants, next to nuclear warheads, were the most dangerous devices created by man. Thirty years later, Dr Moore is singing an entirely different tune. He now argues that nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and satisfy growing global demands for power.
Dr Moore has been disowned by Greenpeace, which alleges that he has revoked his green credentials and become a 'paid representative of corporate polluters'. But Dr Moore is not alone. He has been joined by other prominent environmentalists such as British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, and the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, Mr Stewart Brand.
Amid widespread concerns about energy security and climate change, an unlikely marriage has emerged between environmentalists and advocates of nuclear power. The strongest argument for nuclear power now is that it generates virtually no greenhouse gases. And compared to other non-carbon sources of power, such as hydro and solar, nuclear power is already available, still the only viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.
Growing demand for electricity means that nuclear power will play an increasingly important role in power generation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), global electricity demand will double by 2030. Nuclear power's contribution to electricity generation is projected to grow from 16 per cent now to 18 per cent.
The IPCC projects other non-carbon sources apart from hydro contributing 12 to 17 per cent of global electricity generation by 2030. But the World Nuclear Association - an industry group - argues that if renewable sources of energy fail to grow as much as expected, nuclear power could possibly contribute about 30 per cent of global electricity demand.
The numbers tell it all. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 70 new nuclear power plants will be built in the next 15 years, with most of them being located in Asia.
One need only study developments in recent years to understand the strength of the nuclear revival. In 2006, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to build more nuclear plants to slow climate change and bolster energy security. It was the first time that the agency had backed nu-
clear power in such strong terms. And if Singapore is any indication, the revival still has some legs to run. Speaking at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that nuclear energy was out for Singapore because international standards required a 30km-wide safety zone around a nuclear plant (the island measures 40km from east to west). Last month, however, Mr Lee said that nuclear power for Singapore cannot be ruled out, given concerns about global warming and high energy prices.
Ms Sheri Ng, vice-president for strategy and marketing at Invensys Process Systems, says there is an 'amazing awakening' in Asia about nuclear power. Invensys, which supplies control systems to nuclear plants, has a big footprint in Asia. It recently won a US$250 million (S$375 million) contract to build control rooms for two nuclear reactors in China. 'Nuclear energy helps countries meet the twin challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability,' Ms Ng said in an interview.
This does not mean that the current nuclear renaissance is hitch-free.
Even with newer - and reportedly safer - nuclear power plants in the pipeline, fears about safety remain pressing. It has been only two decades since the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. Countries being able to process uranium into weapons-grade material is also a concern, if the actions of Iran and North Korea are anything to go by.
Cost overruns are another worry: In Finland, an advanced European Pressurised Reactor plant being built by Areva - the world's largest nuclear power supplier - is three years behind schedule and an estimated ¥1.5 billion (S$3 billion) over its initial budget of ¥3 billion.
More importantly, the current push towards nuclear power may be threatened if oil prices stay below US$100 per barrel - generally seen as the level where non-carbon fuel sources become viable.
Greenpeace continues to push for a non-nuclear future centred on renewable sources of energy. 'Nuclear power belongs in the dustbin of history,' it says. 'It is a target for terrorists, and a source of nuclear weapons. The future can be nuclear-free.'
Greenpeace's argument is not without merit. According to a lower-carbon scenario in the IEA's 2008 World Energy Outlook, renewable energy sources could see their contribution go up from 20 per cent currently to 30 per cent of global electricity generation in 2030. But Greenpeace's assertion that the nuclear power industry is dying is questionable, given current plans for new nuclear plants across the world.
What environmental groups like Greenpeace find hard to accept is that nuclear power - together with other renewable sources of energy - will become vital components of a concerted and global move towards a lower-carbon future.
The sooner we re-embrace the atom, the better.
