title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products As the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5 This is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6. Similarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety. [5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013. [6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006. | |
If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice. | |
Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy Intellectual property law is split into copyright, design protection, patents, and trademarks. All areas can be easily infringed by 3D printing.13 There is no meaningful way of sustaining these laws against individuals who choose to use 3D printers to benefit from the hard work of others. Much in the same way one can steal music online, blueprints for products can be decoded or stolen and subsequently reproduced at almost no expense. It may be impossible to determine where this has been done.14 This is unjust in itself, but it also creates a large deterrent from innovating by removing the profit incentive. Corporations and individuals will be pushed away from creating high quality innovative products if they know their blueprints can be pirated and spread online for free or for less than they themselves charge, making their effort in creating them worthless. [13] Gehl, Mary. “The Implications of 3D Printing”, Technology, Koinonia House. September 2012. [14] Lawrence, Jon. “3D Printing: legal and regulatory issues”, Economic Frontiers Australia. 8 August 2013. | |
3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism While 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification. On one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing. | |
Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people. | |
For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy. Under this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15 [15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase. | |
This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world. Even in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12. [10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones [11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011. [12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011. | |
Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods: however, normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances. Without proper regulations, standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk. Such is the case in China, where consumer protection regulations are inefficient.7 Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem. Any company, real or fake, can sell products online without them having been approved. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable, and thus legally unaccountable, companies. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers, who have significantly less information, is a threat to consumers’ health and safety. [7] “China again heads EU’s dangerous products list”, EUbusiness. 16 April 2010. | |
Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies All nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest. If demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating. 3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World. [8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009. [9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011. | |
The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production. [19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013. | |
There is still a need for expertise: although they make manufacturing easier, 3D printers require knowledge that most people do not have. Most people will still be unable to create most products from scratch (and it may be dangerous to try). Individuals will therefore still have to rely on companies for their everyday needs. It is also untrue that they will never have to leave their home, since they will also need to purchase and transport printing materials. | |
Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation Right now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17 [16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013. [17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013. | |
The state should refrain from imposing bans In Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others. Therefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one. | |
3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society Industrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies. [20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013. [21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries. | |
Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming The more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more. [18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011. | |
The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households. | |
Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom Individuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home. | |
A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them. | |
Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible. Thirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive. | |
Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past. The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further [1] . Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan [2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming. [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13 [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20 | |
Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands [1] . If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created [2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to [3] . In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future. [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013 [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013 [3] Ibid | |
GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13 | |
The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities [1] . If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project. [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013 | |
While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity. [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013 | |
Environmental Benefits of the GERD GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13 | |
A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] . [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13 [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010 | |
The colonial era agreement is outdated and does not apply to the modern world. Ethiopia’s population has now exceeded 90 million, which is more than Egypt’s 83 million, and yet it only has a small claim to the river. Many upstream countries, like Uganda, feel that the downstream countries have constrained and damaged them by denying access to majority of the Nile’s water [1] . These states have created a new agreement the Cooperative Framework Agreement in which there is a “principle of equitable… utilization” and each “state has the right to use within its territory”. [2] The upstream countries argue supersedes the old colonial treaty if it ever had any validity. [3] The Ethiopian government has assured Egypt and Sudan that they will receive enough water to live off comfortably. Sudan has been satisfied by the rearrangements [4] which implies that Ethiopia will not deprive downstream countries of access to the Nile. [1] Schwartzstein, Water Wars [2] ‘Article 3’, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, International Water Law, 2010 [3] Ibrahim, ‘The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement’, p.302 [4] Peppeh,K. ‘Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt meet again to discuss GERD’ Zegabi 8 December 2013 | |
Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam Ethiopia’s decision to become an energy hub has led to the construction of unnecessary dams in the face of viable alternatives. Ethiopia has already constructed nine dams which produce more energy than the country consumes [1] . A significant disadvantage of these dams is that droughts can lower their energy output which, combined with lower river levels for nine months of the year, results in the dams being ineffective [2] . The Ethiopian government has already announced plans for a geothermal plant being built for 2018 to offset the disadvantages of the current dams [3] . The geothermal plant costs $0.7 billion less than the hydroelectric dam, and the company constructing it claim it will produce twice as much energy as the hydroelectric dam when the latter is at its peak [4] . It would be more viable, therefore, to invest in thermal energy rather than another hydroelectric project. [1] US Energy Information Administration ‘Ethiopia’ 30 April 2013 [2] International Rivers ‘Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts say’ 5 September 2013 [3] Wikipedia ‘Energy in Ethiopia’ data accessed 11/12/13 [4] Maasho,A. ‘Ethiopia to get $4billion investment for leap into geothermal power’, Reuters, 24 October 2013 | |
Natural Flow Theory Natural Flow Theory (NTF) is the concept that every riparian user (land touching the water) has a right to the water unaltered and undiminished [1] . Dams tend not to disrupt water flow directly, however water use and evaporation from the large reservoir upstream from the dam could reduce the flow of the Blue Nile. In turn, this could affect downstream countries. Evaporation from the Aswan dam in Ethiopia amounts to around 14 billion cubic metres [2] . The GERD will face similar problems, meaning that the downstream countries will have a reduced water flow. The reservoir will also become a tempting target for large agricultural businesses as well. These companies, many of them foreign, have taken part in ’land grabbing’ to secure water before for large irrigation projects [3] and could potentially tap in to the large reservoir. A similar example is the Colorado River, where dams and irrigation projects have reduced the flow of the river and impacted heavily on the river delta [4] . These threats to the Blue Nile’s river flow demonstrate the likelihood of decreased access to water in the downstream countries, violating the major principle of NTF. [1] Smolen,M., Mittelstet,A. & Harjo,B. ‘Whose Water is it anyway?’ Southern Region Water Program August 2012 [2] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13 [3] Fisher,S. ‘Africa for Sale’ International Rivers September 2011 [4] Wikipedia ‘Colorado River’ date accessed 12/12/13 | |
Egypt and Sudan will have their legal rights infringed The two downstream countries have a combined claim to a majority of the River Nile’s water. Through the Nile Waters Agreement, an old colonial treaty, Egypt and Sudan are owed 48 billion m³ and 4 billion m³ of water from the Nile respectively [1] . Each country also has a veto on any upriver activity. Both of these rights are known but ignored by the Ethiopian government, in violation of an internationally recognised treaty. This has led Egypt to be particularly prominent in claiming that their rights are being abused as 70 billion m³ of water from the Blue Nile (which they are dependent on) is used by the Ethiopians. This is a violation of the Nile Rivers Agreement and demonstrates Ethiopia’s poor position to justify the GERD construction. [1] Azikiwe,A. Water and the Geopolitics of the Nile Valley: Egypt confronts Ethiopia, GlobalResearch.ca | |
Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] . [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12 | |
Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. | |
Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy In 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity. [1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal. [2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years [3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take. [1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010 [2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source. [3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003 | |
As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002 [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003 | |
Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons. | |
Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary | |
Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1] [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage. | |
Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above. | |
Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1] [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002 | |
Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems Large dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’. [1] [1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008 | |
Hydroelectric dams destroy communities What applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3] [1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009 [2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003 [3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007 | |
Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1] [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005 | |
Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible. [1] [1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. | |
Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays. | |
The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic. Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms [i] . The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs [ii] . Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year [iii] . [i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012. [ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006. [iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”. | |
This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme. | |
Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue. If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else. Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] . [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012, [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012. [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012, [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011. | |
It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets. | |
The necessary research alone will take time and should be a priority There are significant research challenges that need to be addressed in terms of envisaging what an adaptation regime would look like. For example how adaptation would tie into to other types of change – social, economic, demographic, etc. Answering these questions, alone, will take time but are a necessary precursor to building a realistic adaptation routine [i] . The urgency here comes from the fact that it will take time to establish new systems to work on this at an international level. One of the difficulties demonstrated by the experience of initial studies of climate change was that it needed to be conducted on a global scale, frequently involving complex and expensive modeling systems. There are several backstages to establishing this and the majority of relevant academics are currently working on prevention models rather than designing an entire new framework of prediction. Developing such frameworks will require the focus of governments, in terms of research funding policies and agreeing enforcement and delivery models. Given the choice between building a framework that can work and focussing on one that hasn’t, the choice seems to be fairly obvious [ii] . [i] National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility website. [ii] See also the UN site here | |
Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies. | |
Opposition concedes that adaptations will happen as individuals respond to climate change, it is only fair and sensible that governments should make sure those changes happen in a managed fashion. To take one, small example; the increasing unwillingness of insurers to accept the risks of flooding for homes and businesses in some parts of the world requires a governmental response; many of those who bought homes that may be affected by flooding bought that property before they would have known about climate change. | |
The focus on prevention should not be diluted It has taken three decades to drag most polluting business and many governments – and some are not yet there – to this stage of accepting that mitigation is necessary. Many remain unwilling to accept reality and are only making those grudging efforts they have undertaken because of the full force of global public opinion and the efforts of some governments and international bodies. Moving that focus simply allows those who weren’t happy about the challenges of carbon reduction to go back to the bad, old days. Equally it allows industries such as coal off the hook at the very point when the pressure is really starting to count [i] . Some of the myths about clean coal or the supposedly environmental sensitivity of uranium mining are now sinking into the public consciousness – saying ‘let’s do this instead’ would run the risk of a return to business as usual. [i] Michael McCarthy. UK to push for global Green accounting system. The Independent. 10 February 2012. | |
Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations Pollution is a global problem, with the greenhouse gas emissions of richer nations impacting on their poorer neighbours. Adaptation would most likely take place on a predominantly national basis, allowing those with the resources – built on their historical use of carbon energy – to find ways to adapt to some of the problems caused by Climate Change, while poorer nations are left without the capacity to do so. Only a global focus on combating the basic causes of climate change will tackle the problem in a fair and equitable way, as richer nations cut back on their carbon-enriched lifestyles while developments in technologies offer benefits to the world as a whole rather than those who are already carbon rich as a result of geological or historical accident [i] . [i] See the Jamaica Declaration 1994. | |
Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity. | |
Some of the required adaptations are impossible In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] . As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality. Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention. [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012. | |
Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses. | |
The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality. | |
Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1] . The focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables' [2] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 | |
Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1. [3] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006 | |
Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, | |
Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost Nuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2. Wind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight. "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."3 1 'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam', 2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007, 3"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: | |
Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists | |
There is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit with sufficient investment; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions. Any given country can in principle become self-sufficient in terms of renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. Kazakhstan became the world's number one supplier of uranium in 2009, and other major producers such as Russia, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan may not be reliable1. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. 1 'Kazakhstan plans to become global leader in uranium production by 2009', Silk Road Intelligencer, 23rd July 2008, | |
Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] . It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] ) [1] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia. | |
Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency In addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency. The European Union is a net importer for energy, and as such is reliant on Russia and Norway, predominantly, for oil and gas supplies. Events such as the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies demonstrated that the EU's energy can easily be disrupted by political situations outside its control1. It also means that the EU could be drawn into disputes between Russia and neighbouring countries because it has a vested interest in the region. This could set a dangerous precedent, where the EU could be intimidated by Russia, because the EU relies so heavily on Russian gas. Building more nuclear power stations would ensure a more secure supply of energy, thereby avoiding the potential for energy supply to become a politically charged issue on an international scale. 1 'Russia-Ukraine gas dispute', Wikipedia | |
We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1. This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on. 1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5., | |
For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009, | |
Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings important security benefits. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran whose membership fluctuates), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology1. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful rather than selling their skills to the highest rogue bidder. The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities. This ensures that facilities cannot surreptitiously be used to facilitate the creation of nuclear weapons. 1 'Nuclear weapons not appealing to all countries' by Renee Montagne, npr, 17th April 2006, | |
Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. "The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year"2. Further, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us? 1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", Washington Post, 4/16/06" | |
The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: "There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of." This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1 1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also: | |
Nuclear power is very expensive For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009, | |
The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record and it is haunted by the constant risk of meltdown or explosion. "No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack"1. Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima plant has shown the world what happens when cooling systems fail. The effects on the local people and the environment are devastating. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not completely safe. It is not worth the risk. The dumping of nuclear waste also presents a host of problems. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry; it is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. According to Agenda 2000: "The problem of nuclear safety in some candidate countries causes serious concerns to the EU... and should be urgently and effectively addressed. It is imperative that solutions, including closure where required, be found to these issues in accordance with the Community nuclear acquis and a "nuclear safety culture" as established in the western world as soon as possible"2. 1"End the nuclear age." Greenpeace. October 2008 2 European Nuclear Threats Old and New, Nuclear Monitor, November 2003, pp.3-5, | |
Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons. 1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997, | |
While Africa may not have the resources now to pay for adaptation costs of $50billion or more after another fifty years of economic growth it may do. Africa could afford the current $7-15billion if it were considered necessary. | |
Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion. [1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion. [2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility. [1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013 , p.xi [2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics, , ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank, | |
For most of the time they were emitting the west did not have any idea of the consequences. The developed world therefore cannot be held responsible for emissions before the 1980s. On the other hand knowledge of the effects has not prevented developing countries from immensely increasing their emissions. Clearly the developed world is still responsible for more emissions but they are also responsible for developing technologies to reduce emissions such as renewable power. | |
The developed world has the necessary skills Many of the areas of adaptation are areas where the west has the relevant expertise; seasonal forecasting, adjusting farming – perhaps by engineering hardier plants, weather insurance etc. Africa does not have experience or experts in many of the relevant areas, for example Africa lags behind in bioscience, [1] so it makes sense for the west to provide these experts. And while they do so the west might as well also pay the cost of these expertise and also provide the necessary skills education and training to overcome these problems. [1] Wafula, Kevin, ‘Africa still lags behind on bioscience capacities, says Scientist’, Africa Science News, 2011, | |
Climate change is already costing lives Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year. [1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people. [2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear. [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013, | |
Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is. | |
The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms. [1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves. [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009, | |
Why should developed countries pay because Africa happens to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change? Western countries have nothing to do with Africa’s geography and climate change vulnerability. | |
The developed world has the responsibility to help others The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise. [1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much. [2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, | |
Africa will be among the hardest hit The IPCC starts its chapter on Africa “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability”. [1] It is also the poorest continent in the world so least able to cope. In the GAIN index by the Global Adaptation Institute which measures vulnerability and readiness for climate change eight of the bottom ten are African states. [2] The changes to Africa could be dramatic; 40% of wildlife habitats could disappear, crop yields fall by 5% despite already being the lowest in the world and 70 million are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise. [3] If anywhere needs help from developed countries in adaptation it is Africa. [1] Boko, Michel, et al., ‘Africa’, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, IPCC, 2007, , p.435 [2] Gain Index, 2011, [3] Bloomfield, Steve, ‘Africa ‘will be worst hit by climate change’’, The Independent, 6 November 2006, | |
Aid programs are already dealing with most of ‘the low hanging fruit’ in terms of preventing deaths and will continue to do so. However providing aid to other areas does not absolve the west of the need to provide funds for adaptation when they have created the change in the first place. | |
While countries like Australia are going to be hit by Climate Change they at least have the resources to carry out adaptation on their own. Poor countries don’t have the money so there will not be any adaptation. The result will be more natural disasters and deaths through disease both things that are seen as worthy of providing aid. I would be much better to help prevent these disasters being too severe than waiting until they occur to provide aid. | |
Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival [1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment. [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012, | |
Adaptation won’t work Adaptation is simply working to reduce the effects of climate change, it will not prevent it from causing damage. Take hurricanes; adaptation would dictate that the buildings should have been made out of stronger materials and sea walls built to stop storm surges. Yet as with any other form of disaster management there is a sensible amount to adapt if building a 10foot sea wall will stop 95% of storm surges is it really worth building one of 20foot for twice the price to stop 99%? Many forms of adaptation are directly contrary to demographic trends on the continent. Yes hardier crops can be introduced to mitigate the problems of drought but will these also feed a growing population? Yes people can migrate from those areas that will be worst hit but can their neighbours take in the extra people? For example climate change is one cause of drought in the Sahel, [1] to the south rainfall and flooding may actually increase in southern Nigeria though it will be unpredictable. [2] The obvious solution then would be migration from the Sahel south but the UN projects Niger’s population to grow to almost 70million by 2050 and Nigeria’s to 440million, [3] could Nigeria really take the extra population from its northern neighbour as well as its own growth? [1] Thomas, Alice, ‘Sahel villagers fleeing climate change must not be ignored’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013, [2] Uyigue, E., and Agho, M., ‘Coping with Climate Change and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria’, Community Research and Development Centre, 2007, [3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision’, esa.un.org, (using medium variant) | |
There are other more urgent things to be spending money on Money should be spent where it can make most difference. The cost of many methods of adapting to climate change is high compared to the gain. The developed world should focus aid on areas that can do most good rather than on adaptation. Even those who argue that climate change will be very costly and deadly implicitly agree that there are more worthwhile things. In Climate Vulnerability Monitor’s estimates of deaths the vast majority, 3.1million, are due to indoor smoke. [1] This however is something that is not solved through adaptation to climate change but through mitigation; by providing $25 cooking stoves. [2] [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010, | |
Each country should tackle its own problems Every country is going to be affected by climate change in one way or another developed countries included. Australia has often been singled out as being a country that is “anti-climate” [1] but Australia is already being hit by bigger bushfires and sudden floods and the cost on Australian infrastructure is estimated to rise to $9billion per year by 2020 and continue rising, [2] and this is only one small slice of the costs such as crop failures due to drought, health problems – there have already been increases in dengue fever and malaria in Australia. [3] Developed countries which are also going to be severely affected by climate change have a responsibility to their own people first and should not be paying for other countries to adapt. [1] Readfearn, Graham, ‘Australia slides down to bottom on climate change performance index’, theguardian.com, 18 November 2013, [2] The Climate Institute, ‘Coming Ready or Not: Can Australia's infrastructure handle climate change?’, 29 October 2012, [3] Buckley, Ralf et al., ‘Climate response Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia.’, Griffith University, 2007, , p.24 | |
Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane. [1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change. [1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013, | |
In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences. [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, | |
First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants. Furthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations [1] [2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources. [1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012, [2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68 | |
Nuclear energy goes against Green World In order not to harm environment, not to cause climate changes, renewable power plants (wind, water, solar) should be used. However, these do not work together with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants – giant very hot machines – are designed to operate at full speed (85%) all the time. They are not designed to change the output quickly. Since they are very expensive to build, they are not economic unless operated at full speed (also turning off and on is expensive). Solar and wind power plants are not stable (output varies because of natural factors) and thus need a backup, called a baseload. Nuclear plants are not a good backup for renewables. We need nimble plants in order to support wind and solar plants. Nuclear power stations do not work with solar, wind and water power stations, because they are running at full speed all the time (because of economic and technical reasons). Instead gas plants that can be powered up and down as required are needed to balance power generation. If we want to move towards Green World – nuclear energy does not help us to do so. [1] It is generally agreed that we want more renewable power generation in Europe even if there are disagreements about where plants should be situated or how much must come from renewable sources. The European Union aims to have 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. [2] And if it is to meet CO2 reduction targets far more will be needed in following decades. Nuclear is also not as helpful as renewables in meeting these CO2 reduction targets. It is estimated that renewables produce 10-40g of CO2 pre kWh of electricity produced, but nuclear is currently much higher at 90-140g/kWh, though still only a tenth of coal. And as mining becomes more difficult it is estimated that this could double making nuclear no better for reducing CO2 than gas power. [3] [1] Nelder, Chris, ‘Why baseload power is doomed’, smartplanet, 28 March 2012, [2] European Commission, ‘Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’, Europa.eu, 17 October 2012, [3] ‘CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations’, Time for change, May 2012, | |
The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources. | |
Nuclear energy is non-renewable source While nuclear power it is often proclaimed as clean this does not mean it is a renewable resource like wind, wave, or solar power. Nuclear power plants use uranium to produce energy, which, of course, needs to be mined. Currently only 2.3% of uranium used in reactors in EU is mined in the EU [1] . Moreover, the world’s main uranium deposits are located outside the EU. The use of nuclear energy thus undermines energy self-sufficiency of the EU. This may pose a serious threat to the future. Natural (and other) resources are usually used as the first intermediates of diplomatic disputes. When a country wants to exert diplomatic pressure on another country (or bloc of countries like EU), trade bans or embargos are widely used. For example in 2009 Russia stopped gas supply to Ukraine due to trade dispute between their two national gas companies. Therefore, the supply of uranium may be susceptible to diplomatic and trade relations (which are often volatile) and consequently nuclear power may not be reliable. Is it one of the aims of the EU to become less dependent on imported material needed for energy production. [2] As a non renewable resource we also need to think about the possibility of supplies running out. The concept of ‘peak uranium’ is sometimes overblown but there is only a 230 years supply of uranium at current consumption rates. If the price gets high enough then there are other options for production, including from seawater, but this would clearly mean a big increase in cost and concerns that producers will try to keep cheaper uranium to themselves and export for much higher prices. [3] Thus over longer term the nuclear energy may become far more expensive, or even unavailable due to lack of fuel. [1] Euratom, ‘Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2012’, European Commission, 2013, [2] European Commission, ‘Renewable energy’, Europa.eu, 2013, [3] Fetter, Steve, ‘How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?’, Scientific American, 26 January 2009, | |
The main source, or fuel, for production of nuclear energy does not have to be uranium, thorium can be used. While the number of reactors may increase the consumption of uranium may well actually go down as the next generation of reactors will get more energy from the uranium they use. More specifically fourth generation reactors would reuse the uranium multiple times up to the point where they may be more than a hundred times more fuel efficient than current reactors. [1] Furthermore, uranium is not mined only in one specific country, but in variety of countries (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, United States). As we can see, these countries differ from each other in any way – political situation, regime, relationships with other countries etc. Therefore, even in the case of war with one or few countries from where uranium is obtained, the supply can be established from other sources, other countries. Therefore, there is a very little possibility of diplomatic pressure, since uranium can be obtained from variety of sources. Together with thorium, which can be obtained from countries like India, Turkey, Brazil, EU can be considered as independent from any one source of uranium or thorium. [1] Hansen, Dr. James, ‘4th Generation Nuclear Power’, OSS, 18 January 2009, | |
Nuclear energy in Europe is currently considered to be dangerous In the response to Fukushima accident European Commission carried out a series of stress tests on nuclear power plants in the EU to minimise the risk of such an accident occurring in the EU. The results were disturbing. According to the report European power plants are not well prepared for an emergency situation. Some of the power plants would have less than hour to restore safety systems in case of electric blackout. [1] Currently more than 100,000 citizens live in proximity (30 km) of 111 reactors. Should anything go wrong, many lives would be endangered. The problems could be resolved by dramatic investments into the safety measures. However, these investments would require approximately €25 bn [2] . This is a sum indebted European Union cannot afford. Therefore shutdown and substitution of these hazardous plants would be a much better idea. [1] European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities’, Europa.eu, 4 October 2012, [2] Paterson, Tony, ‘Europe’s ‘dangerous’ nuclear plants need €25bn safety refit’, The Independent, 18 November 2013, | |
The phase out of the nuclear power stations may be costly; however, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Nuclear stations are constantly phased out and new, more advanced plants are built in their place. Old plants require constant investment in safety measures. The costs are thus inevitable. Abandoning nuclear power in many cases need only involve committing to not build more nuclear plants. However, even if the costs of phasing out were higher than costs of sustaining network of nuclear plants, the gain from more safe, more environmental friendly energy would outweigh the harms. Concerning the social costs, workers in nuclear power plants could find jobs in broader energy production market, since the technical requirements for jobs are not that different in different power plants and there would still be demand for jobs in the energy sector. | |
Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2] [1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, [2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, | |
Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.