A characteristic of bien pensants*, usually found in the leafier suburbs and the halls of academe, is their capacity for holding two opposing views at once. They can be against abortion and in favour of the death penalty, or support abortion but be against the death penalty.
They do not like the contradictions being pointed out. Nor do they like being reminded that while they oppose nuclear power stations that do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2), they also believe that CO2 emitted by coal-fired power stations is about to make the world uninhabitable.
Faced with this inconvenient fact, Greenpeace went ballistic, insisting that the world was doomed anyway unless fossil fuels were abandoned. Nuclear power was but a drop in the bucket when it came to the CO2 emissions. However, such anti-nuclear protests, however loud, however large the headlines and with references to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima, have fallen on deaf ears.
There are more nuclear power stations in operation, more under construction, and in an advanced state of planning, than at any time since the early days of the Cold War, when there was a demand for enriched uranium to make bombs.
Add to this the number of existing nuclear power stations that are being upgraded to a greater capacity and it looks like the anti-nuclear lobby has compressively lost the argument.
While going nuclear is costly, this has not slowed the rush to build because most countries know that without sufficient power, a modern economy cannot exist. They have also been given a propaganda point on a plate – no CO2 emissions from a completed and operational nuclear power station.
The anti-nuclear lobby has been, as they say, hoist with its own petard. How high up the petard has blown them is evident from figures put out this year by the World Nuclear Association (WNA), an unashamed promoter of nuclear power stations that now uses the CO2 arguments of the global warmists, much to the chagrin of the latter.
Desired status
As of May, more than 60 reactors were under construction in 15 countries. Most are in Asian countries driven to emulate China and reach the desired status of a developed economy and satisfy a restless young population impatient to share the delights of development, as seen on television and cinema.
The 60-plus new reactors will add to the 437 already operating worldwide, but this is still only slightly more than 11 percent of the electricity produced worldwide.
New reactors are concentrated in China (46 percent). India, Korea, and Russia make up a third, with the rest in the US. This leaves the EU polishing its Green marble with Germany leading in shunning nuclear power, and one suspects, regretting its hasty decision taken after Fukushima, which, by the way was a Tsunami disaster that led to a nuclear one – not the other way round.
This new drive for nuclear power is not a victory salute to Green considerations. Rather it is a realisation of the benefits of nuclear power, its reliability foremost, but also because it is cleaner than coal power. China, particularly, is anxious to clean up the smog that envelops its major cities. Those without their own petroleum resources wish to be independent of crude oil prices that everyone knows are likely to bounce back from low levels, as they have in the past.
The rate at which new reactors are coming on stream is remarkable, even faster than the heyday of the 1950s when they averaged one every two weeks. Some estimates predict it will soon be one 1 000-megawatt (MW) unit every week.
Existing nuclear power stations in dozens of countries are being upgraded – even Germany is quietly doing so according to the WNA. In the US 140 have been upgraded over the years as electricity demand rose in that country.
Technical advances
Many countries with existing nuclear power programs have plans for new reactors to produce power by 2020 in addition to those already under construction. More than 300 are planned worldwide. Russia plans to have enough reactors to provide it with half its electricity by 2030.
It is hard to find any developing country that is not getting into nuclear powered electricity production or considering it. Even Kazakhstan is doing so. It has opted for a new small Russian reactor of 300MW.
What is generally unknown or not recognised by environmental correspondents in the mainstream media is that the often-quoted lifespan of existing nuclear reactors of 40 years is now a possible 60 years, thanks to technical advances in control systems, among others.
Ironically, it is the hassle involved in countries like the US or those in the EU that has made this option feasible. Of course, a number of older nuclear power stations have been closed down. Others will follow. Most of them are small.
What is the moral situation? Environmental alarmism and exaggeration for propaganda effect can backfire. Not only are modern nuclear reactors better designed and safer than in the past, nuclear power generation has not been abandoned. Scare stories based on dubious computer models that claim CO2 is a threat to the planet have made a case for more nuclear power, not less.
There is another effect of crying “Wolf!” When a real wolf appears, no one will heed the call. The same goes for the chicken running around the farmyard screaming, “The sky is falling in!”, because a small hailstone hit it on its head.
* Right-thinking or orthodox people. The modern equivalent would be “ the politically correct”.
** Keith Bryer is a retired communications consultant.
*** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Media.
BUSINESS REPORT