TH!NK post

Sri Lanka future energy security lacks a vision with sustainability

Published 30th October 2010 - 0 comments - 1092 views -

Minister of power and energy from Sri Lanka Mr. Champika Ranawaka had told the 54th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which held in Vienna, that Sri Lanka will explore the possibility of incorporating nuclear power to address the growing energy demand. As a person who was proven to be effective in changing things during the time he held the ministry of environment and natural resources that is the worst possible solution for a country like ours. He just like many others before him falling in to the huge misleading pro nuclear propaganda by the countries that manufacture reactors and related services, has decided to take the country towards disaster.

Nuclear energy has long posed a dilemma for energy specialists. As a self proclaimed cheap, clean source of power that does not use fossil fuels or add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it offers an appealing alternative to power from traditional coal-fired plants. Yet nuclear energy is associated with troubling safety and sustainability issues, including the problem of radioactive waste disposal. The by-product of nuclear energy—nuclear waste—has created one of the greatest problems of the 20th century.

The majority of high level radioactive waste produced comes from the fuel in the core of nuclear power reactors. Irradiated fuel is the most radioactive fuel on the planet and accounts for some 95% of radioactivity generated in the last 50 years from all sources, including nuclear weapons production. Once removed from the core, irradiated fuel is stored in cooling pools on the nuclear reactor site. Each 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant produces about 500 pounds of plutonium a year and about 30 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste.
Given the health environmental, economical and generation issues associated with nuclear technology and given that uranium supplies are rapidly diminishing. The combined effects mean that nuclear power will not be able to supply the long-term needs of the national energy demands. So the question is Why Minister Champika Ranawaka is pushing this forward! Is it to attract more and more votes from the urban middle class for his political movement?

It is learned that Sri Lankan government seeks the help of Russian technology to build a new type of Thorium base reactor which intend to use local Thorium reserves as the main source of nuclear fuel. According to the sources Russians are expected to assist Sri Lankan Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) to establish Thorium reactors which they them self’s are new in to. Sri lanka’s AEA is currently being upgraded to facilitate technological needs to host such a process to establish reactors. 
Carbon emissions:
While electricity generated from nuclear power does not directly emit carbon dioxide (CO2), the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium/Thorium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows because of new electricity generation and new plant construction, CO2 levels will also rise.

In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases 4-5 times {how can a process that yield no carbon dioxide yield more, an explanation is need—jk} more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
Health
It has been scientifically established that low-level radiation damages tissues, cells, DNA and other vital molecules. Effects of low-level radiation doses cause cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukaemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders. This can be clearly note in the Chernobyl affected areas in the Ukraine. 

Nuclear Safety

There have been repetitive problems with security, safety and environment impact in the nuclear industry. Radioactive contamination does not discriminate between national borders and nuclear power plants threaten the health and well-being of all surrounding environments.

Nuclear Sustainability

Nuclear power plants produce extremely toxic radioactive wastes that are long-lived and have no safe means of disposal. Disposal is neither scientifically credible nor is there any sustainable options for interim storage. Producing long-lived radioactive wastes with no solution for its disposal will leave serious and irreversible environmental damage and degradation for generations to come, which is contrary to the principles of sustainability.
An Endless Source of Energy?
There have been several failures in breeder reactor programs. The Monju fast breeder reactor in Japan was closed in 1995 until recently because of a serious accident. The French and UK breeder reactor programs have also been permanently closed. {Knowing politicians by their actions, we conclude that the only modest energy for breeder reactors is driven by oil and coal industry, the uranium mining industry, and the weapons industry, all of whom would be big losers if breeder reactors replaced the current types—California Skeptics.} There is also no foreseeable commercial development of fusion reactors.

Additionally, uranium supplies are rapidly diminishing. The combined effects mean that nuclear power will not be able to supply the long-term needs of the world’s energy demands.

Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970. Its initial duration was 25 years. In 1995 it was extended indefinitely, with a review conference to be held every five years. At the heart of the NPT is a central bargain in which the Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) agreed to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. In exchange the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) pledged to end the nuclear arms race and to negotiate nuclear disarmament (Article VI). As an incentive, the NNWS were promised assistance with research, production and use of nuclear energy for “peaceful” purposes (Article IV). Each NNWS also agreed to accept “safeguards” under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These safeguards do not apply to the NWS. The treaty defined a NWS as one that had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967. However, any country with a nuclear reactor can in theory produce a nuclear weapon. Including Sri Lanka if we make reactors.

Category: Alternative Energies, | Tags:



Comments

    • Remember my personal information

    Notify me of follow-up comments?

    --- Let's see if you are human ---

    Mel Gibson, is he a car mechanic or an actor? Add a questionmark to your answer. (6 character(s) required)