 |
 |
 |
 |
Should Latin America expand nuclear energy?
Yes: Nils Diaz; No: Marcelo Furtado
Should Latin America continue to expand nuclear power in its energy matrix? Yes
Clean, abundant and well-distributed electricity generation is critically important for Latin America. In the twenty-first century, energy policies must be affordable over the long term, and they must be sustainable and oriented toward pursuing a diverse mixture of clean technologies that will reduce carbon emissions.
Nuclear power is a reliable, clean and predictable electricity producer that today is ready to fit the economic, environmental and national security needs of Latin American countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. And with small, modular reactors expected to be available on the market in less than 20 years, nuclear power will be able to service the entire region. Multiple independent studies, including work by the United Nations, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and others, have shown that nuclear-generated electricity has the same life cycle environmental impact as wind and solar.
Nuclear power is the largest contributor to carbon-free electricity generation in the world, accounting for roughly three-quarters of the world’s carbon-free power. The economics of nuclear energy generation depend on its capacity to produce enormous and uninterrupted amounts of electricity over long periods, with affordable and stable electricity costs. Nuclear generating plants can operate for 60 years or more. For example, a single 1,000 megawatt electrical (MWe) nuclear power station runs about 90 percent of the time at full power, generating close to 8 million megawatt-hours (MWh) annually. Conversely, 1,000 windmills of 1 MWe capacity (each one running at the high end of capacity, typically less than 30 percent) would generate less than 2.5 million MWh annually.
Nuclear power generation satisfies the need for predictable and economic base-loaded electrical systems—those that run most of the time and do not go up and down in power during the day cycle. However, getting there isn’t easy: it requires a very large initial investment. Nevertheless, once a plant is built, it is relatively economical to maintain—similar to hydropower. The cost for new nuclear plants ranges from $4,000 to $7,000 per kilowatt-electrical (kWe), which is about the same as hydropower, slightly more than coal plants without carbon reduction equipment, more than twice as much as natural gas plants without carbon capture, and less than wind and solar. Nuclear is competitive because the other cost factors (fuel, operation and maintenance and capital improvements) are significantly less for nuclear (about $0.023 per kWh) than for gas (about $0.05 per kWh), and less than coal.
The need for dependable nuclear infrastructure currently favors nuclear deployment by countries that already have operating units and/or have urgent needs for diversification. But this should change as small reactor technologies with lower initial capital costs become a reality. For countries with political stability, an appropriate regulatory system, and a commitment to environmental protection and to fuel diversification using carbon-free generation, a nuclear-inclusive energy strategy is the best option.
The economic and environmental benefits of nuclear power are clear. But following the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, the safety of nuclear power is undergoing intense scrutiny after 25 years of accident-free operation. Though a legitimate concern, the safety of nuclear energy should not be defined by one occurrence; the two previous accidents occurred in plants with old or inferior technology. The dominant reactor technology in use and planned worldwide is based on light-water cooled reactors (LWRs). In over 50 years of operation, no serious public injury or death has been attributed to the operation of LWRs.
The Fukushima Daiichi reactors were the world’s first to experience core degradation and release significant radioactivity off-site as a result of a catastrophic external event. The earthquake and tsunami combination caused complete loss of the power needed for cooling. However, nuclear plants have endured major earthquakes (e.g., in Armenia, Japan, California) and have taken direct hits from Category 5 hurricanes (Andrew at Miami’s Turkey Point). Nuclear units have suffered multiple devastating tornadoes, survived tsunamis of lesser magnitude than at Fukushima (approximately 14 meters above normal), and been battered by floods and a combination of events in multiple locations. None of those cases resulted in radioactive releases affecting health.
We can build nuclear power plant structures and emergency systems to withstand the maximum credible natural disaster for a specific region. Nevertheless, like other major industrial complexes with hazardous materials, the system’s location and its emergency support structure are critically important. The new LWRs being deployed have design enhancements that focus on increased plant safety, simplicity and standardization, ensuring improvements to core cooling and containment integrity. Furthermore, they have a two-order-of-magnitude improvement in the capacity to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potentially hazardous offsite radiation doses, including the capability of cooling reactors under complete loss of power.
Improvements are needed in both nuclear proliferation and the permanent disposition of used fuel. The historical reality is that nuclear power plants have been regarded as a security risk because fuel from civilian nuclear installations can be diverted for military purposes without proper oversight. However, no fuel has ever been diverted from a nuclear power plant. The same is true of used fuel. The current Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Additional Protocol requirements have significantly improved safeguards and have limited access by violators to the nuclear user group.
The Fukushima accidents will serve to develop even safer and more affordable nuclear-generated electricity. The review of what occurred in Fukushima and the lessons drawn from the disaster will further help prevent accidents. Latin American countries with suitable political and economic conditions should view clean nuclear energy as a catalyst of growth and development and a clear asset to their energy portfolio. Nuclear energy remains a large source of electricity with predictable and affordable prices, fuel diversity and strategic security—a necessity in a region that is rapidly becoming a global player.
Should Latin America continue to expand nuclear power in its energy matrix? No
The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan is a reminder to Latin America and the rest of the world of the urgency of ending our reliance on nuclear power. Japan is already taking a second look: Prime Minister Naoto Kan recently announced plans to postpone construction of 14 new reactors until 2030 and invest in renewable energy sources. (A not-insignificant decision given that 30 percent of Japan’s electricity is produced by nuclear power.)
Other countries are following suit. China put on hold the construction of 25 new reactors. Italy passed a referendum blocking new facilities. Switzerland decided to abandon the construction of new plants, and Germany will phase out all nuclear reactors by 2022. Meanwhile, Venezuela scrapped its plans to build a 1,200-MW plant in cooperation with Russia, and Ukraine reported that it will cost more than $2 billion to fix the cracks on the sarcophagus built over Chernobyl´s defunct reactor.
The share of nuclear power in the Latin American electricity grid is small to begin with. There are only six reactors distributed across the region: two each in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. They generate less than 4 percent of the electricity in each country. Why build more?
Nuclear energy is dangerous, expensive and unsustainable, with issues that range from the mining of uranium and ensuring the security of power generation plants to the intractable problem of storing radioactive waste, such as plutonium, that will remain hazardous for thousands of years. It also carries big risks associated with arms proliferation.
Finally, nuclear energy is certainly not an answer to the climate crisis. The emissions associated with mining and enriching of uranium, building and decommissioning plants, and storing radioactive waste for centuries surpasses the emissions of any renewable source, perhaps reaching those of a gas-fueled plant.1 The cost is also higher than most modern renewable sources such as wind, small hydro, biomass, and solar energy (photovoltaic) generation, due to operational decommissioning and waste storage costs.
Let’s start with the security issue about proliferation and dangers associated with sensitive materials. There has always been a close connection between civil nuclear programs for electricity generation and military nuclear programs.
Civilian nuclear power provides both the technological capability and the fissile material for nuclear weapons production. Why should we run the risk of creating more nuclear weapons? In 1990, Brazilian President Fernando Collor de Mello revealed the existence of a facility in the Amazon that had been built secretly during the military regime to test nuclear devices. In 2008, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and French President Nicholas Sarkozy revived the Brazilian nuclear program with an agreement on a technology transfer to build the first Brazilian nuclear submarine, provide uranium enrichment, and secure financing to build the Angra 3 reactor.
More troubling, the agreement triggered similar announcements elsewhere in the region. Argentina announced it would expand its own civilian nuclear program and Venezuela said it would build a nuclear reactor.
Besides proliferation, there are also concerns about the capacity of Latin American governments to protect nuclear plants and prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. The struggle against the illegal arms and drugs trades already serves as a good indication of how unprepared the region is to deal with theft, leakage or gang attacks. The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency Illicit Trafficking Database registered 1,995 incidents between 1993 and 2010 involving the use, theft, loss, and illegal trade of weapons-
usable nuclear material and nuclear or radioactive sources.
The Fukushima crisis reminded the world that nuclear power is an extremely unforgiving technology. Even a well-organized and well-
resourced country was absolutely unprepared to handle melting reactors. What guarantees do we have that a major disaster won’t happen again?
Instead of looking into the rearview mirror of power generation, Latin America should leapfrog to a clean and sustainable electricity matrix by investing its limited resources on clean energy that will generate lower emissions and more jobs, with a decentralized and diversified portfolio of wind, small hydro, biomass, geothermal, and solar.
In early May, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the Special Report on Renewable Sources.2 The report indicates that 80 percent of the world energy supply can be met by renewable sources by 2050—avoiding emissions equivalent to 560 Gigatonnes of CO2. Most of the 160 reviewed scenarios estimate that renewables will contribute more to a low-carbon energy supply by 2050 than nuclear power or fossil fuels using carbon capture and storage technologies.
According to the 2010 report “Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable Latin America Energy Outlook,” by the German space agency, by 2050 the installed capacity of renewable energy in Latin America will increase sixfold, up to 840 gigawatt, and could represent over 98 percent of the electricity grid.3 Until 2020, this growth will be based on the expansion of biomass and wind energy. After 2020, small hydro, geothermal, photovoltaic, and solar thermal energy will complement electricity generation.
For instance, a solar farm in a 25 square kilometer area in the Sonora or Chihuahua desert with an average of 5 kWh/m2 per day could theoretically replace the entire electricity generation from Laguna Verde nuclear power plant in Mexico, assuming an efficiency of 15 percent. In the Brazilian case, both wind power in the south and the northeast coast, and biomass—specifically electricity from sugarcane bagasse—in the southeast are able to complement the energy deficit of hydro plants in the dry season, providing base load power to the country and eliminating the need for nuclear plants.
The introduction of renewable energy into the electricity grid will reduce its future costs. Due to the lower CO2 intensity of the renewable portfolio, by 2050 the renewable energy portfolio should cost 4 cents/kWh less than an electricity matrix based on nuclear power and fossil fuels (factoring in a carbon tax of approximately $50 per metric tonne), by some estimates.4
In the Brazilian electricity market, for example, wind power is commercialized at $80/MWh, while the estimated cost of nuclear energy is at least twice that.5 According to Ildo Sauer of the University of São Paulo, there is a wide range of renewable energy technologies that can be applied to replace nuclear power at half the cost of the Brazilian nuclear program—saving over $13 billion to address the country’s energy needs.
Latin American countries should make the energy revolution a reality and phase out nuclear energy and fossil fuels for a fair, renewable and green future.
ENDNOTES:
1. http://www.stormsmith.nl/
2. http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4
3. http://www.energyblueprint.info/1151.0.html
4. de Carvalho, J.F., Sauer, I.L., Does Brazil need new nuclear power plants? Energy Policy (2009), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.020
5. de Camargo Furtado Marcelo, Avaliação das oportunidades de comercialização de novas fontes de energias renováveis no Brasil, Dissertação apresentada à Escola Politécnica da Universidade de SãoPaulo para obtenção do título de Mestre em Engenharia.São Paulo, 2010
 |
 |
 |
 |
AQ's coverage and post-trip analysis of the President's May 2-4 visit.
