Sam Garman
WASHINGTON, Nov 11 2005 (IPS) – It is sometimes a hero, and more often a villain, but there is little doubt that nuclear power has become a star of the global warming debate.
The burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil contributes to the warming of the Earth s atmosphere, which in turn contributes to stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, more frequent forest fires, and agricultural catastrophes.
And many experts believe that nuclear power, which produces fewer of the emissions that contribute to global warming, could offer a partial solution.
As the international community seeks alternative energy policies, the nuclear power industry is moving to cast itself as one of those alternatives. But the industry is not promoting itself alone. Arguments in favour of nuclear power are coming from many places, some of them quite unexpected.
Patrick Moore, who in the 1970s helped found the environmental group Greenpeace, argues that decreased use of the fossil fuels can only work if coupled with increased use of nuclear power.
Six billion people wake up every morning on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials, Moore said at a recent conference in Virginia that drew several dozen experts in environmental and energy policy to discuss the role nuclear power might play in the world s collective effort to solve the problem of global warming.
Related IPS Articles
The modern environmental movement, according to Moore, is out of touch with these real needs.
In the U.S., people tend to be against nearly everything, he told IPS, noting that the opposition of Western environmental groups has derailed several hydroelectric projects that could aid the developing world.
Moore does not see nuclear power as the only solution to the world s energy needs, but he does see it as part of the solution, along with hydroelectric power and other renewable energy resources.
Powerful members of the United States Congress agree. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a likely 2008 presidential candidate, inserted a provision into his recent global warming bill that would offer government loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants.
But nuclear power s traditional opponents have reacted to its renewed prospects with dismay.
Dr. Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the organiser of the Nov. 7-8 conference, believes that nuclear power s cumulative detrimental effects on public health and safety are too great a cost to bear. Because of the use of unsafe nuclear technology, every male in the Northern Hemisphere has plutonium in his testicles, she noted with characteristic bluntness.
Many experts in energy policy have come to the same conclusion as Caldicott, but for economic reasons. Nuclear is getting walloped in the marketplace, Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which advocates market-based solutions to environmental problems, said at the meeting.
David Freeman, a former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, recounted how he inherited 14 nuclear power plants when assuming that post, and immediately had to shut down eight of them as hopelessly uneconomical.
I have never seen a technology fail as horribly as nuclear power has failed, he said. Moreover, notes Freeman, Public opposition to nuclear power is a fact, and this fact must be included in any cost-benefit considerations surrounding the construction of new nuclear power plants.
McCain s bill, called the Climate Stewardship Act, once enjoyed the support of many environmentalists. But the loan guarantees for nuclear power plants, which environmentalists and free market advocates see as a giveaway to a deadly, dying industry, have dampened enthusiasm dramatically.
As Angelina Galiteva, chairperson of the World Council for Renewable Energy, put it, No other power source brings forth fear the way nuclear power does.
Even nuclear power insiders recognise the depth and breadth of public concern over an industry that was born in the violence of World War II, and which, by its very existence, creates waste notable even among industrial outputs both for its toxicity and the longevity of that toxicity.
Gregory Jaczko, a titular member of the government Nuclear Regulatory Commission, readily admitted: We still have a long way to go to convince the public that the NRC is an effective, independent regulator.
Many people who oppose nuclear power are also strong advocates of active energy conservation.
Lovins, who advises large corporations on energy efficiency, sees great opportunity for increased energy availability through more efficient energy use. It is cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel, he said, noting that companies like DuPont and Texas Instruments have increased profits through increasing efficiency.
Others see the problem of global warming as an opportunity for entrepreneurial adventures in the field of renewable energy technology.
Phil Connor, of the Australian solar power company Sunengy, is currently in the United States promoting his Liquid Solar Array technology, which would use harbour-protected floating plastic solar reflectors as a means of generating power on a massive, industrial scale.
Connor says his technology would work best in North Africa, West and Central Asia, South America and his native Australia in other words, the places where the sun shines a lot. He has come to the United States not as an idealist, but as a businessman, looking to fill a need in the marketplace and to make money doing it.
All I need, he told IPS, is a smart capitalist.