José Goldemberg, Estado de São Paulo, 16 May 2011

There are technologies that solve important problems and that are here to stay. Others go through a “Golden Age”, lose importance or even disappear. Automobiles, for example, developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, change the face of civilization as we know it. And even if the world oil reserves run off, technical solutions will be founded to keep them running.

Other promising technologies faced problems and were abandoned. A good example is the zeppelins, huge balloons full of hydrogen that lead the way in intercontinental flights in the 1930 decade, time when commercial aviation was still developing. But the Hindenburg accident, the German zeppelin that caught on fire in New Jersey (USA), in 1937, was enough to seal the destiny of such technology.

Nuclear energy seems to be in one of those critical moments: it had a “Golden Age” during 1970 and 1980, when nearly 30 new nuclear reactors where built every year. After the nuclear accident in Three Mile Island, in the United States, in 1979, and in Chernobyl, in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, in 1986, the enthusiasm for that technology decreased considerably and since then barely 2 or 3 reactors started operating each year. There was a stagnation of the expansion of the use of that energy.

The causes of such stagnation are complex: on one hand, the resistance of the public, concerned about the risks of nuclear energy; and, on the other hand, more pragmatic reasons, like its elevated cost.

In spite of these problems, the nuclear energy production does not result in gases responsible for the heating of the Earth, which is the case when electrical energy is produced with fossil fuels, like coal or natural gas. The concerns about the greenhouse effect lead some environmentalist to support a “nuclear renaissance”.

But the Fukushima disaster happened, with a severity comparable with that of Chernobyl, directly affecting millions of people and backing uncertainties on the effect of nuclear radiation on a vast area of Japan and neighboring countries.

The nuclear establishment has tried to minimize the seriousness of the accident in Japan, conveying it to extremely rare events, such as a high intensity earthquake followed by a tsunami, which would hardly occur in other places. That is a wrong strategy, which might satisfy nuclear engineers, but would not satisfy more educated areas of the population and governments of many countries.

Nuclear reactors hold inside of them a huge amount of radioactivity and the problem always is to avoid that it spreads, like it was put in evidence in Chernobyl. It happens that it is not necessary an earthquake and a tsunami for that to occur. All that is necessary are mechanical failures and human mistakes, like it happened in Three Mile Island. Total safety does not exist.

It is possible to improve the performance of the reactors and turn them safer, but that will carry along higher costs, which would turn nuclear energy even less competitive than it already is in relation with other forms of electricity generation. Besides that, the great majority of nuclear reactors currently functioning started operating 30 or 40 years ago and will forcefully be “retired” shortly – Fukushima’s were operating from over 40 years ago.

The reduction of the life-span of the reactors will certainly diminish its economic competitiveness.

Nonetheless, it will be necessary to solve once it for all the problem of the permanent stockpiling of the nuclear wastes, which has been dragged for years. Up to now the spent fuel elements, that are highly radioactive, are deposited in pools located on the side of the reactors – and one of the problems in Fukushima was the radioactivity released when the water level of the pool decreased. Only in the United States there exist 104 of those pools next to all the reactors existing there. In Angra dos Reis the situation is the same.

Finally, there exists the problem of who would pay for the compensations for the affected population of the nuclear accidents. The limits established by the governments to cover those damages are currently very low and should be increased a lot.

As a result of these concerns and uncertainties, a reevaluation is on course, in a great number of countries, on the future of the “nuclear renaissance” and of the survival of the very option of the use of nuclear reactors for the production of electricity. Some countries already adopted what it is call an “exit strategy”, for which new reactors will not be built.

Belgium and Switzerland have already adopted this policy, as well as Chile and Germany. China suspended the authorization for the construction of more reactors until a new complete study is conducted on their safety conditions.

In the United States, the project for building 2 reactors in the State of Texas has just been abandoned, the first ones to be set in motion after more than 30 years of nuclear moratorium.

Other countries, probably, will follow the same road, especially those which enjoy other cheaper and less dangerous options for the production of electrical energy. This clearly is the Brazilian case, where a vast hydro-electrical potential to be explore exists, as well as a co-production of electricity in the sugar and alcohol generators, and also wind energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency reduced its projections for new nuclear reactors in the world for 2035 by 50%.

Some countries, like France, where almost 75% of the electricity is nuclear, and even Japan, which do not have many natural resources, will increase their use of gas, which, consequently, will increase carbon emissions. There will be, in this case, difficult choices. But global warming will happen in an extended time horizon and preventing new nuclear accidents is an urgent task.

Back