NPT News in Review, Vol. 19, No. 5

Editorial: Renewable Not Radioactive
31 July 2024

By Ray Acheson

This place is a message...and part of a
system of messages...pay attention to it!

Sending this message was important to us.
We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.

This place is not a place of honor...no
highly esteemed deed is commemorated here
...nothing valued is here.

What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This message is a warning about danger.

The danger is in a particular location…
it increases towards a center...the
center of danger is here...of a
particular size and shape, and below us.

The danger is still present, in your time, as
it was in ours.

The danger is to the body, and it can kill.

The form of the danger is an emanation
of energy.

The danger is unleashed only if you
substantially disturb this place physically.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

This text was developed by an expert panel commissioned by Sandia National Laboratories. The panel considered what kinds of messages would be necessary to prevent humans from disturbing radioactive waste sites in the future. It was written for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA, a deep geological repository licensed to store radioactive waste for 10,000 years. (This site, it should be noted, has already experienced an explosion and the release of radiological material.)

Some experts argue that nuclear waste needs to be stored safely for up to one million years; existing and planned waste sites are set up to last for 10,000 or 100,000 years. The challenge of creating a message that can be read by humans so far into the future has been realised as so complex that it has resulted in its own field of study, nuclear semiotics. The language suggested by nuclear semiotics experts in the text above should give NPT delegates pause. If a material is so toxic that it must be decribed as “dangerous” and “repulsive,” as “nothing of value,” as something that must be “shunned,” perhaps you shouldn’t be promoting its proliferation?

Yet throughout Cluster Three discussions, many delegations once again espoused the alleged values of nuclear energy, including its purported ability to solve the climate crisis and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Several governments outlined their interest in developing or expanding their nuclear power production, with Poland even proclaiming, “The future of Poland is nuclear.”

The arguments about nuclear energy being a solution to climate change and “development” are particularly insidious and dangerous. The nuclear industry argues that nuclear power does not rely on fossil fuel extraction or emit carbon dioxide, and that small modular reactors will provide cheap energy. Each of these claims, however, is false.

Radioactive racism

Nuclear energy is not carbon-neutral—all the processes to generate nuclear power use other sources of energy and consume vast amounts of water. Emissions from nuclear are lower than fossil fuels but much higher than renewables when life cycle and opportunity cost emissions are considered. And while nuclear energy might not entail as much fossil fuel extraction, it instead involves uranium extraction and processing, which cause environmental and human harms. The Indigenous Environmental Network in the United States has opposed efforts to build up nuclear power generation in the country, arguing that nuclear energy “perpetuates the continuation of nuclear-radioactive colonialism that has caused a legacy of doom and death to Native families in the uranium corridor of New Mexico.”

From uranium mining to fuel processing to radioactive waste storage, each link in the nuclear chain produce radioactivity, which, as the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has stated clearly, is by its very nature harmful to life. At low doses, radiation can start off chains of events that lead to cancer or genetic damage. At high doses, it can kill cells, damage organs, and cause rapid death. “Radiation doses have to reach a certain level to produce acute injury—but not to cause cancer or genetic damage,” explains the UNEP. “In theory, at least, just the smallest dose can be sufficient. So, no level of exposure to radiation can be described as safe.”

Each of the radioactive links in the nuclear chain have waged unconscionable damage to human health, the environment, social and cultural lives, and economic well-being. As communities affected by various aspects of the nuclear industry said in a joint statement to the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in November 2023, “From the mining of uranium to … the everlasting radioactive waste, our planet carries the scars of so many nuclear sacrifice zones. Nuclear colonialism has disproportionately impacted Indigenous Peoples and marginalised communities.” This reality highlights again the importance of the news from Australia last week that the Mirarr Traditional Owners have successfully blocked uranium mining from ever occurring at Jabiluka in the Northern Territory.

False solution to the climate crisis

As for claims about affordability and reliability, nuclear power is, in reality, one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity—and costs continue to rise. In an recent article, scholars M.V. Ramana and Jixiang Wang note that “electricity from nuclear reactors is costly and does not provide affordable energy, especially when compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy.” Cost overruns and project delays are common with nuclear power projects. “Around the world, 92 nuclear projects have been cancelled or suspended, usually after hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent,” they highlight.

While some NPT delegations claim that small modular reactors (SMRs) will solve the problems of affordibility, Ramana and other nuclear physcists have shown that this is false. Ramana and Arjun Makhijani, for example, have calculated that the lower outputs of these reactors will likely result in higher costs in comparison to large nuclear reactors. They argue that mass manufacture of SMRs “is unlikely to reduce costs adequately and might itself become a source of problems, including the possibility of recalls.” Ramana and Wang highlighted that in the United States, the latest nuclear power project cancelled was “a project involving a small modular reactor from NuScale that the company advertised as ‘smaller, safer, and cheaper’. Cheaper, it certainly wasn’t, with a final cost estimate that was around 250 percent more than the initial per megawatt cost.”

Makhijani and Ramana also note that SMRs do not address the environmental challenges of nuclear power, such as those associated uranium mining or radioactive waste described below. And they do not help address climate change. In a submission to the Canadian House of Commons, Ramana argued that SMRs will in fact set back efforts to mitigate climate change, because money that is invested in developing SMRs “would save far more carbon dioxide if it were invested in renewables and associated technologies,” and because no SMR will be constructed for at least another decade, which “compounds the problem of the economic opportunity cost, in that the reduction in emissions from alternative investments would not only be greater, but also quicker.”

As hundreds of civil society groups said to the UN Climate Conference (COP26), “Every dollar invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse by diverting investment from renewable energy technology.” In this context, nuclear power is “a dangerous distraction from the real movement on the climate policies and actions that we urgently need.”

Austria made similar remarks during Cluster Three discussions, calling on states not to be short sighted in an attempt to mitigate climate change. Nuclear power is not the answer to this pressing problem, said the Austrian delegation. From the lack of safe disposal for spent nuclear fuel, to the limited supply of uranium, to the risk of severe accidents releasing toxic radioactivity, to its unreliability and its financial cost, Austria argued, “Nuclear power is not compatible with the concept of sustainable development” and is “neither a viable nor cost-efficient option to combat climate change.”

Cascading catastrophe

In addition to the harms and costs of nuclear energy, nuclear power facilities also carry inherent risks of accident and malfunction. As was seen from the meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the impacts of nuclear reactor failure are catastrophic. While these have been the two worst and well-known incidents, there have been many more accidents over the years of nuclear energy production. As Ramana explains, the history of small and large accidents at nuclear reactors shows “that accidents occur in most, if not all, countries, involving various reactor designs, initiated by internal and external events, and with different patterns of progressions.”

Nuclear power stations are also extremely vulnerable in situations of armed conflict. In 2022, Russian forces seized the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power facilities in Ukraine and there has been fighting at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), risking a radioactive catastrophe. There are a number of dangers posed by armed violence around a nuclear power station; in addition to power outages, the cooling tanks or reactors themselves could be damaged, leading to leaks of radiation or even explosions. Throughout this NPT review cycle, many delegations have expressed grave concern with the situation at the ZNPP—yet simultaneously continue to call for the building of even more nuclear reactors.

Proliferating propaganda

This points to a key contradiction in the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the dangers of the propaganda about nuclear power. In their article, Ramana and Wang argue that while IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has been lauded for his work to prevent a nuclear accident at the ZNPP, he has “simultaneously been increasing the risk of accidents, albeit inadvertently, by calling for building more nuclear reactors.”

The IAEA’s push to expand nuclear power to more and more countries exposes a fundamental tension in its mandate. It is tasked with two separate objectives: “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world” and to “ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” Former nuclear weapon designer Theodore B. Taylor has pointed out that these mandates mean that “the IAEA simultaneously plays two possibly conflicting roles—one of encouraging latent proliferation and the other of discouraging active proliferation.” It also means the IAEA is both working to reduce risks of nuclear power while actively constructing the demand and interest in nuclear power. This contradiction cannot be sustained.

Renewable not radioactive

Within the NPT context, nuclear energy is upheld by most states as an “inalienable right”. This means that most states parties laud its perceived benefits and promote its expansion, regardless of the risks to people, the planet, and proliferation. However, since 1945, many scientists, activists, and government officials have pointed out that nuclear material, technology, and facilities are dangerous whether they are in weapons form or for “peaceful uses”.

In May 2011, after the catastrophe at Fukushima, the governments of Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, and Portugal declared that “the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits.” Among other things, these governments argued that nuclear power is not compatible with the concept of sustainable development and called for energy conservation and a switch to renewable sources of energy world-wide.

Abolishing both nuclear power and nuclear weapons is the only way to ensure against catastrophe. A few states parties recognise the inherent risks of nuclear power and have chosen not to pursue or have opted to phase out nuclear power as part of their energy mixes. The more states parties that follow this path, the better for us all.

Phasing out nuclear power and pursuing ecologically protective and justice-oriented renewable energy projects—coupled with degrowth policies to reduce the consumption of energy, particularly in the Global North—is the only way to adequately address the climate crisis and provide for the well-being of people and planet.

[PDF] ()