Nuclear power: the security dimension Dr Stuart Parkinson .

Nuclear power: the security dimension

Dr Stuart Parkinson

www.sgr.org.uk

Some context…

• Climate change– By 2100, potentially more rapid change than at any time in

human history – Major threat to water, food, health, shelter…– At least 61 states at risk of armed conflict related to climate

change– Most vulnerable are least responsible for the problem

• Nuclear non-proliferation treaty– Current deadlock over disarmament – Without progress, global regulation of nuclear power will suffer

• Rising religious fundamentalism– Can affect both terrorist groups and some governments

In a world such as this, should we expand or phase out

nuclear power?

Nuclear weapons proliferation

• Many overlaps between civilian and military nuclear technologies/ materials/ skills, for example:– Uranium enrichment

• Civilian use: 3-5% U-235• Military use: ~90% U-235

– Plutonium from reprocessing nuclear waste

• Proliferation risk is greater from plutonium– On average ~300kg plutonium produced per modern

power station per year – reprocessing would yield enough to make up to 40 nuclear bombs

Nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki

• 9 August, 1945

• ~6 kg of plutonium– equivalent to 21,000,000 kg of TNT

• Heat, blast and radiation killed at least 70,000 people– from population of 200,000

• Almost all buildings within 1½ miles of ‘ground zero’ destroyed

NW proliferation: risks

• More civilian nuclear facilities increases potential for diversion to weapons– Determined states which have access to civilian

nuclear programme are hard to stop going military– Terrorists interested in stealing fissile material

• International Atomic Energy Agency (Regulator)– complaints of lack of resources – also has a role promoting nuclear power

• Will the nuclear non-proliferation treaty hold?

NW proliferation: examples

• Diversion of civilian nuclear know-how to create Pakistan’s nuclear weapons

• Current concerns over Iran’s nuclear power programme

The role of the UK

• UK is very influential country – Member of UN Security Council, G8, EU,

Head of Commonwealth

• UK plans to retain its nuclear weapons• UK go-ahead for new nuclear power sends

strong message on climate, energy and security strategy

• Also, can the UK keep its own plutonium secure for next 100+ years?

Plutonium-MOX economy?

• Use of MOX fuel (part plutonium) in nuclear reactors to prolong uranium supplies– presence of plutonium leads to increased risk

of proliferation

• Potential for move to ‘Generation IV’ reactors completely fuelled by plutonium– even greater proliferation risk

Security & safety of nuclear facilities

• Risk of major nuclear ‘incident’ is very low, but…– Terrorist groups consider nuclear facilities as

potential targets– ‘Successful’ attack on high-level waste/

plutonium store could be worse than Chernobyl

– Even a ‘failed’ attack could cause major disruption

Labour’s think-tank

• “Not only does more civil nuclear activity mean more nuclear weapons related materials being available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states worldwide, but reactors, waste sites and reprocessing plants themselves are also possible terrorist targets which, if hit, could lead to massive loss of life and economic disruption”

Are the climate benefits of nuclear good enough to offset

the security concerns?

Nuclear power and carbon emissions

• Nuclear fuel cycle– uranium mining + milling

– UF6 conversion

– U-235 fuel enrichment– nuclear fuel fabrication– fuel transportation– reactor operation– waste encapsulation– waste transportation– future waste disposal

CO2 emissions especially depend on

• uranium ore grade– as grade declines, energy consumption/ carbon

emissions rise

• uranium ore type• U-235 enrichment method • future nuclear waste plans

– eg underground repository

• also– construction of power station

Estimated Nuclear CO2 Emissions

Study grams of CO2

per kWh

British Energy, EdF, British Nuclear Energy Society, Nuclear Industry Assoc

~5

International Atomic Energy Agency 9-21

Öko Institut, Germany 33

CRIEPI, Japan/ IEA, France 30-60

van Leeuwen and Smith, Netherlands 70-120

Wind (onshore/offshore) ~20

Source: House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2006)

Even if low carbon…

Sustainable Development Commission: • Replacement nuclear programme would only

lead to 4% cut in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels

• Not realised until at least 2024• “A new nuclear power programme could divert

public funding away from more sustainable technologies that will be needed regardless, hampering other long term efforts to move to a low carbon economy with diverse energy sources”

What are the alternatives?

• Renewable energy– Wind– Bioenergy– Solar– Hydro– Wave– Tidal– Geothermal

• Energy efficiency– Combined heat &

power (CHP)– Building insulation– Efficient lighting– Efficient appliances– Efficient vehicles

• Controlling demand– Behaviour change

• Carbon capture and storage– ‘burial’ of carbon from

fossil fuels

Energy efficiency

• 30% of UK’s overall energy supply dumped as waste heat/ hot water from power stations– more than 10 times energy produced by

nuclear power

• Combined heat & power (CHP)– UK: 7% of electricity– Netherlands: 30%– Denmark: 50%

Case 1 - Tyndall Centre study• Non-nuclear path to reduce UK carbon emissions by ~85% by 2050

• Energy consumption down by ~40% by 2050 due to efficiency technologies & behaviour change (driven by economic reform)

• Strong support for R&D of renewables, carbon capture & storage, hydrogen fuel cells

UK primary fuel mix 2004

oil

coal

gas

nuclear

biofuel

other renewables

UK primary fuel mix 2050

oil

coal

gas

biofuel

other renew ables

Case 2 – CAT study

• Non-nuclear path to reduce UK carbon emissions by ~100% by 2027

• Energy consumption down by ~50% by 2027 due to efficiency technologies & behaviour change – including wide use of Tradable Carbon Quotas

• Strong support for R&D of renewables & energy storage (but reliance on expanding existing and near-term technologies)

The role of R&D

• To realise the scale of emissions reduction necessary to tackle climate change, we need serious funding of non-nuclear energy R&D – especially renewable energy

Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1975-1999)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

year

mil

lio

n d

oll

ars

renewables

nuclear fission

Source: IEA (2001)

Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1992-2005)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

year

mil

lio

n U

S d

oll

ars

renewables

nuclear fission

Source: IEA (2006)

Conclusions

• Nuclear power creates serious security problems• Major factors affecting global security over

coming decades are likely to greatly increase these problems

• Low-carbon benefits of nuclear are not great enough to outweigh drawbacks

• Alternatives have great potential to reduce carbon emissions without nuclear security risks

References