In his speech at the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia in mid-October, John Ritch, director-general of the World Nuclear Association set the cat amongst the pigeons by intimating that without additional nuclear power, the world is facing an environmental apocalypse. Naturally, this was vehemently opposed by the environmentalist organisations.
Widely reported on in the international Press, Ritch said that up to twenty times more than the existing nuclear power availability throughout the world would be necessary if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy plants that threaten to accelerate global warming. (See separate chart on World Nuclear Power Reactors in this section)
Ritch said his statement was based on the growing demand for energy in rapidly developing economies like China and India. Over the next 4-5 decades these countries would require far more energy than they do now and consequently would contribute even higher and more dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Ritch told the Conference, "At least 8 880 reactors will be needed to cope with voracious power demand from fast-developing countries such as India and China by mid-century."
Currently, one-fifth of the world's total population (around 1,4 billion people) uses about 80% of the energy produced in oil- and coal-fired power plants. "If we want to prevent a future scenario that is quite literally apocalyptic then we would need 20 times more nuclear reactors than the 440 that are currently being used," Ritch said, implying that the developing countries could outstrip the West in greenhouse emissions.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are blamed for increasing global temperatures which in turn disrupt weather cycles, cause floods, droughts, reduction in arctic sea-ice mass and outbreaks of diseases.
If global temperatures continue to rise at their current rate, in about five decades they could reach devastating levels. Ritch warned that that could mean death of not just millions, but billions of people, and the destruction of much of civilisation on all continents.
At the same Conference, Greenpeace's Australian chief Steve Shallhorn said that at least one out of three countries that had nuclear power industries was using these resources covertly to develop weapons.
"The uranium and nuclear power industries pose unacceptable risks of contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Shallhorn said. "North Korea is the latest example that developing nuclear power for 'peaceful purposes' just cannot be guaranteed."
More than 20 of the 60 countries that have nuclear power or research centres have used those facilities for covert weapons research, and the environmental benefits from uranium and nuclear power industries were insignificant compared to the risks they posed by contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation, Shallhorn said.
The proponents of nuclear power say it is a cleaner alternative than burning coal or natural gas because it produces fewer greenhouse gases. Other environmentalists believe energy efficiency measures would help minimise the risks. They also recommend that renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, be tapped and explored for long-term solutions to global warming.
Scientists predict an average increase in global temperatures of just two degrees Centigrade could cause increasingly severe weather patterns, droughts, flooding, species extinction, rising sea levels, widespread disease and famine.
However, at the recent Summit meeting of the Group of Eight (G8) countries in Russia, nuclear power was endorsed as an energy source, much to the consternation of the environmentalist organisations.
This new stance was particularly surprising, given that both Germany and the UK reversed their previous policies of opposing the acknowledgement of nuclear reactors as a legitimate energy source, although France, Japan, Canada and Russia had been pushing this view for some time.
In a statement issued at the Summit, the G8 Group stated, "Those of us who have or are considering plans relating to the use of safe and secure nuclear energy believe that its development will contribute to global energy security."
Germany's turn-around on this issue could have been forecast from the statement on 17 September by the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who proposed setting up uranium enrichment centres under UN control to end nuclear disputes like the one over Iran.
Steinmeier said such centres could be used by several nations and placed under control of the UN's nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Interested countries like Iran could in this way obtain nuclear fuel for civilian use under strict control," he said, "and it could be financed by countries that claim the right to buy nuclear fuel."
"We need to have an international supply of nuclear fuel to stop countries feeling the need to build their own installations," he said. The Vienna-based IAEA had the right to build and run nuclear installations, he added.
