Smashing the atom

A question of sustainability
Images with this text:
Thorp (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) under construction at Sellafield.
A question of sustainability
What are the ecological implications of nuclear power? It has helped mitigate the effects of global warming. Researchers estimate that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have been 35 per cent higher in 1990 if nuclear energy had not been available.
But while nuclear power has provided a more secure energy alternative than oil and produces less carbon dioxide emissions than coal, it has caused major human and environmental damage. Radiation from accidents and meltdowns has contaminated soil, air, rivers and oceans, causing cancer and other diseases.
Furthermore, since the September 11 terrorist atrocity, the possibility that nuclear technology will be developed or obtained by unstable regimes or terrorist groups has been seen as posing a major threat to global security. Is further development of nuclear power sustainable?
Images with this text:
A coffin-shaped oak box, containing a replica nuclear fuel rod, presented to nuclear power specialist Sir Monty Finniston. Why the coffin shape? Radioactive waste is transported in special containers, known in the trade as 'coffins'.
New solutions
In 1947 the coal industry in the United Kingdom was in crisis. Years of underinvestment had meant the industry was heavily reliant on physical labour. During that winter labour shortages, combined with freezing weather, halted both the mining and the transport of coal. Without coal supplies, power generation and industry shut down, and the United Kingdom ground to a standstill.Coal was also responsible for one of the worst pollution problems facing postwar Britain: smog. After the Great Smog of December 1952, when this noxious mixture of smoke and fog led to the deaths of 4,000 Londoners from respiratory illnesses, it was clear that the continued reliance on coal as the country's principal fuel source was unsustainable. An alternative had to be developed.
In 1947 nuclear energy offered the ideal solution to these problems, promising cheap, abundant and non-polluting power. It was even believed that a nuclear reactor called a 'fast breeder' could generate more fuel than it consumed, solving at a stroke the fuel-supply problems that bedevilled coal. Did nuclear power live up to its promise?
Images with this image:
A video called 'So Long Smog'. It was made in 1975. It shows the pollution caused by burning coal. Nuclear power was expected to help eradicate this problem, along with legislation like the Clean Air Act.
A smoggy night in London, 1952. Nuclear power offered a potential solution to the atmospheric pollution caused by burning coal.
Nuclear accidents
Several accidents contributed to public concern about the safety of nuclear power.
A fire at Britain's Windscale nuclear plant in October 1957 released contaminants over Northern Europe. Fear of contamination from the fallout led to the disposal of 2 million litres of milk.
On 28 March 1979 a significant portion of a reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, melted down after overheating. This was partially due to human error. The plant only narrowly averted a major disaster. About 400,000 people fled the immediate area, and cleaning up the site took more than ten years.
In 1986 a reactor at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, exploded after accidentally reaching 100 times its normal operating power. It has been estimated that the explosion affected twenty countries and caused 40,000 deaths worldwide.
Such accidents have added weight to calls to scrap nuclear power facilities.
Images with this text:
The radioactive cloud that spread across Europe following the Chernobyl reactor explosion, as plotted by the UK Met Office. The cloud extended into the North Atlantic and almost all the way to the African continent.
Three Mile Island nuclear power station, Pennsylvania, USA.
Waste
Nuclear power has also left a legacy of radioactive waste: 77,000 tonnes in the United States alone. Sheer volume of waste isn't the only problem. Plutonium, for example, remains extremely radioactive for more than 24,000 years.
During that period, it needs to be securely stored to prevent contamination of the outside environment and to prevent its theft for terrorist purposes. As the world faces up to the terrorist threat post-September 11, the vulnerability of our nuclear facilities poses a serious risk.
While some countries, including the United States, Sweden and France, have long-term plans for dealing with nuclear waste, others (like the United Kingdom) do not.
Widespread public and political opposition to nuclear 'dumps' presents a major barrier to the resolution of this issue, even before the practical difficulties of building waste-storage facilities are addressed.
Images with this text:
Irradiated fuel store, Bruce A nuclear generating station, Canada.
The low-level radioactive waste store at Drigg, Cumbria. Low-level waste typically comprises laboratory equipment, clothing or cleaning material contaminated with small amounts of radioactive substances from the nuclear industry, hospitals, universities and other places.
Cost
Controversy also rages over the economic sustainability of nuclear power. In Britain, nuclear power stations proved to be approximately 3.5 times more expensive to build than the equivalent coal-powered station, putting to rest earlier predictions of 'electricity too cheap to meter'. Even now, every new nuclear power station built requires £2 billion of public subsidies.
A corollary of this is that most countries' fast-breeder reactor plans have been scrapped, as they have proved prohibitively expensive to build. The dream of unlimited nuclear power has proved to be economically unsustainable.
Images with this text:
Thorp (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) under construction at Sellafield.
Dounreay fast-breeder reactor, Scotland. Dounreay was at the forefront of fast reactor development, but is now being used to develop decommissioning methods.
Proliferation
That the proliferation of nuclear technology will eventually bring it into the hands of unstable governments or terrorist groups has long been a fear of many governments.
In 1964 David Dobson and Bob Selden, two American physics lecturers, were recruited by the US government to take part in the 'Nth Country Project'.
This sought to establish whether, after the USA, USSR, Britain or France, a fifth, sixth or 'Nth' country could acquire nuclear weapons by employing non-experts, with scientific skills but no access to classified information.
Dobson and Selden worked for two-and-a-half years, reporting back in 1966. Their plans were analysed by US government scientists who concluded that, starting with only the published history of the Manhattan Project, Dobson and Selden had been able to design a bomb as powerful as that dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Fears over nuclear proliferation have deepened since 1966. More countries (including warring neighbours India and Pakistan) have acquired nuclear weapons.
There is also the fear that a terrorist attack may employ 'dirty bombs', using high explosives to scatter radioactive material stolen from hospitals or food irradiation factories.
This has led the public to voice growing concern over the safety and viability of nuclear power.
Images with this text:
A copy of the front cover of the 'Nth Country Project' report, 1964-66.
Map showing the countries that have nuclear weapons programmes, and their status.
Aerial view of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, USA, where David Dobson and Bob Selden took part in the 'Nth Country Project', 1964-66.
The end?
A combination of factors has made the nuclear option less and less attractive since 1980. It is unlikely that the British government will sanction the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations as old ones are decommissioned at the end of their working lives. Is this the end for nuclear power?
Images with this text:
The Windscale Piles, at Sellafield in Cumbria, being decommissioned. Some authorities believe fully decommissioning a reactor may take up to 140 years.