Nuclear power advocate sees change of climate

Luis Echávarri is on a perilous mission in hostile territory. The director general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency is attempting to persuade a sceptical Irish public and Government about the merits of nuclear power.

The high octane radio advertisements heralding his appearance at next week's Engineers Ireland Conference 2006 will raise eyebrows around the Cabinet table.

Environment minister Dick Roche spends a lot of his time warning of the evils of nuclear power and bashing the British for their rust-bucket nuclear site at Sellafield.

His colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey, is also singularly unimpressed with the prospect of solving Ireland's growing energy problems by "going nuclear" and has excluded it from his ongoing energy policy review.

But a recent report by Forfás urging the Government to consider nuclear energy as an option for Ireland's spiralling greenhouse gas emissions and its lack of security over energy supplies shows that "going nuclear" may not be as far-fetched as it seems.

"It is very interesting for me to see some interest in nuclear energy in Ireland," says Echávarri, who notes the presence of Irish government officials at a recent conference on nuclear energy in Brussels. "So far the interest was mostly reduced to the area of radiation protection and waste. But now there is a lot more international interest I think that Ireland wants to know more."

As head of the NEA, Echávarri helps the OECD's 28 members to develop the legal, scientific and technological base required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear power.

The obvious zeal with which he talks about the subject indicates his utter conviction of the merits of nuclear power. But why should governments listen now?

"There are two clear reasons at the moment that are high on any policymaker's priority list: security of supply and climate change," says Echávarri. "There is concern about the availability of energy resources long term and particularly the high prices of these energy supplies in the future, and there are concerns over global warming."

Nuclear power can address these two concerns, he says. Firstly, it does not emit carbon dioxide so it does not contribute to climate change and, secondly, the two main suppliers of uranium - the raw material needed for nuclear energy - are Canada and Australia, which are both OECD countries, says Echávarri, who contrasts this with the EU's list of politically volatile gas and oil suppliers such as Russia, Iraq, Iran and Algeria. Regarding climate change, many countries, particularly Britain and Germany, will find it very difficult to meet their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol without considering nuclear energy.

Nuclear represents about 20 per cent of the total electricity production in the UK and most of this is generated from old reactors that need to be replaced within 15 years. If the UK does not choose to replace these plants with new nuclear power stations, emissions of carbon dioxide will increase significantly, says Echávarri.

"It is a decision for society in countries. But it is very difficult to square the circle. Either you have nuclear power or you don't meet your carbon dioxide emissions targets."

But the environmental record of nuclear power has its own problems, emphasised by next week's 20th anniversary of Chernobyl. Echávarri admits the anniversary is a reminder to all that safety is the first priority.

He lauds the latest generation of nuclear reactors, which use improved technology. Accidents cannot be totally excluded due to the human factor - poor maintenance or inspection are potential problems - but so many containment barriers have been developed that the probability of an accident that could impact the public is much less than in any other industrial activity, he says.

The highly toxic nuclear waste produced by nuclear plants, which is cited by many green campaigners as a reason why states should avoid nuclear energy, is also less of a problem than it used to be, according to Echávarri. He cites Finland's decision to build a purpose-built underground repository as a solution to the problem of nuclear waste, which stays highly toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

Long-term high oil prices have also changed the economics of nuclear energy. "The cost issue is very important for politicians because they need to ensure that the industries in their states have an efficient source of electricity," says Echávarri, who points to a recent OECD report stating that nuclear energy is now a cheaper option than relying on oil or gas or trying to install renewable energy.

However, he says renewables also have to be a key source of energy for the future.

"We need all of the energy sources, but the proportion of each type of energy depends on the capacity of each country, whether they need to be imported and how much emissions are produced," says Echávarri, who predicts that the world's reliance on coal and natural gas will reduce over the next 20 years due to continued high prices.

The renewed interest in nuclear energy globally is underlined by research from the World Nuclear Association, which shows that there are at least 24 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide and that there are plans by states to build a further 113 reactors. Some experts fear the explosion of interest in nuclear power could make it easier for states such as North Korea to source the nuclear raw material for a bomb.

"I think this is a very important point for global security, but we have to distinguish between different countries. I am referring to the possible role of nuclear power in the OECD states, which are 100 per cent reliable from the point of view of proliferation," says Echávarri. "I don't think it is acceptable to export technology to countries that cannot guarantee that it will be used only for purely peaceful means. But I don't think other countries' denouncing nuclear power is going to diminish the chances of countries developing nuclear weapons. I think they are two different things."