Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy
April 25, 2006
Introduction
Twenty years after the explosion at Chernobyl in northern Ukraine, nuclear power is enjoying a revival in much of the world. This is partly due to rising energy demands, renewed efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels, and a rethinking by some green activists over nuclear power's relatively benign impact on climate change. These activists say atomic power is a more environmentally friendly and economical alternative to coal-burning plants. Hence, sixty new plants are slated to go online by 2020—a 65 percent increase in global output. European leaders are reconsidering nuclear phase-outs, while new plants are in development across Asia to meet surging local energy demands, particularly in India and China.
But concerns remain. No new plant has been ordered in the United States since the 1979 nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island;a few applications for plants have been submitted recently. After 9/11, ensuring plant security took on a new importance. Safeguarding and storing spent fuel also remain an unaddressed concern. Some question nuclear power's economic viability. Nuclear plants are more capital intensive than most other energy sources and if the price of oil or natural gas were to drop, nuclear power might lose its competitive advantage. Then there is the obvious threat that a country's nuclear program, such as Iran's, could be upgraded and used for offensive purposes, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation or nuclear weaponry falling into the hands of a terrorist group.
What was Chernobyl’s impact on the nuclear industry?
Devastating, experts say. When reactor number four at Chernobyl spewed radiation levels 100 times as strong as Hiroshima's fallout, plans for new plants were shelved across the globe and many politicians, particularly those in Europe, pushed to phase out nuclear power. Chernobyl was decommissioned, but the health impact—at least 4,000 deaths from radiation-related illnesses, the UN Chernobyl Forum estimates, not including mental illnesses stemming from displacement, high divorce rates, and depression—remains a serious concern twenty years later. Greenpeace, in a new report, disputes the UN figures and puts the number of people who may die from Chernobyl-related illnesses as high as 90,000.
But Chernobyl served as a wakeup call within the nuclear industry, experts say. The World Association of Nuclear Operators was established shortly afterward to serve as the industry's self-policing watchdog and to write confidential safety reviews on nuclear plants. The United States and other Western countries have also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the safety of the dozens of other Chernobyl-era reactors in the former Soviet Union.
What explains nuclear power’s resurgence in Europe?
Across Europe, some politicians are rethinking plans to phase out nuclear-power plants. They are motivated by the following factors:
- Need to diversify energy sources. Most European countries are dependent on imports for their energy needs. With natural-gas supplies from the North Sea soon to run dry, and after a January spat over natural-gas supplies between Russia and Ukraine threatened to choke off gas exports to the region, renewed emphasis has been placed on rethinking phase-outs of nuclear power. A study commissioned by the European Union found that Europe's vulnerability to disruptions of gas supplies is growing because "of the high dependence on a single source, Russia, of the new member states." In Germany, the largest importer of Russian gas, plans to phase out all nineteen of its nuclear plants by 2020 are being reconsidered. As are plans in Great Britain over whether to phase out its Chernobyl-era plants, which many experts say are unsafe, and replace them with newer, technologically advanced, but costlier plants. The first European country in over a decade to authorize construction of a nuclear reactor is Finland.
- Rising energy costs. Double-digit hikes in heating bills and escalating prices at the pump have prompted some European policymakers to rethink nuclear power. The oil shocks of the 1970s spurred France to undertake a major nuclear program, which today continues to provide around 75 percent of its electricity. Renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power, in addition to clean-coal technologies, are other ways for Europe to keep its energy costs low, some experts say.
Are Asia’s growing economies embracing nuclear power?
Yes, experts say. China alone is investing $50 billion in capital spending toward nuclear power, as it looks to expand on its current nine nuclear facilities to commission thirty more, boosting its output from 6,600 megawatts of power to 40,000 megawatts. India has eight nuclear stations currently under construction—the most of any nation—bringing its total, once the stations are completed, up to twenty-three. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are also considering future nuclear-power options. Unlike Europe or the United States, experts say Asians countries do not hold the same doubts about the potential dangers posed by nuclear power.
Why do some environmentalists now support nuclear energy?
In recent years, an alliance of sorts has emerged between some prominent environmentalists and the nuclear industry. To reduce global warming, a growing number of "green" advocates argue that nuclear power may be the best alternative to reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. One of the first greens to switch over to the nuclear camp was James Lovelock, the British-born environmentalist who developed the Gaia theory, which describes the earth as a self-regulating system. These dissident greens point out that, as the Nuclear Energy Institute reports, without nuclear power, the United States would release around 190 million more metric tons of carbon than it already does via its coal-fired plants. These carbon emissions adversely affect climate change, acid rain, respiratory sicknesses, and mercury poisoning. On the contrary, "[n]o one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program," wrote Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
What are some disadvantages of nuclear power?
- Shaky economics. Nuclear power has enormously high capital and start-up costs, in addition to the added costs of decommissioning plants and disposing of nuclear waste, say economists. They often point to the British government's repeated bailout of British Energy. Also, nuclear power's cost competitiveness depends on the global price of oil and gas, which fluctuates unpredictably. And for countries with ample supplies of coal, including the United States and China, it is far cheaper—but less environmentally friendly—to run coal-run plants than nuclear-power stations, experts say. But some nuclear advocates say advances in technology will make the cost of nuclear power, already down to less than two cents per kilowatt hour, more competitive with coal in the future. Carbon taxes, emissions-trading schemes, and government subsidies—which in America could reach $6 billion, if Bush's latest energy bill passes—may also enhance nuclear energy's competitiveness.
- Waste disposal. "No country has yet to solve this problem," says Charles Ferguson, a CFR fellow for science and technology. "Who wants a long-term nuclear waste depository in their backyard or home state?" Spent fuel, if not disposed of properly, could contaminate water supplies or, worse, be used by terrorists to create a dirty bomb. Efforts in Britain to reprocess nuclear waste proved too expensive. Yet a growing number of countries—including Japan, France, and Russia—have begun costly projects to recycle used nuclear fuel in burner reactors for future energy purposes. The Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, announced in February, includes a $120 million plan to remove radioactive material with long half lives, such as plutonium, via chemical processing in favor of storing nuclear fuel with shorter half-lives, which as Ferguson points out, "may only need a few hundred years before it decays to relatively safe levels," as opposed to tens of thousands of years. Some experts say for such a plan to be effective it may require between $100 billion and $200 billion over the next twenty to thirty years.
- Plant insecurity. After 9/11, concerns arose over the security of the United States' 103 nuclear plants, particularly Indian Point, located thirty miles north of New York City. According to a 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an attack on the plant could kill up to 44,000 people. But some nuclear experts say the threat posed by terrorists may be exaggerated. "Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode," wrote Greenpeace's Moore, referring to nuclear plants' six-feet-thick exteriors. Ferguson does not see nuclear plants as likely targets. "We don't see a lot of serious interest on the part of most terrorist groups to attack nuclear targets," he says. "They tend to favor softer targets," like office buildings or embassies.
- Repeat of Chernobyl-like meltdown. A dozen or so other Chernobyl-era nuclear plants with aging equipment are still operating—and expected to continue to operate for the next thirty years—within the former Soviet Union. Although their design flaws have for the most part been addressed, some experts fear human error makes a future meltdown, however remote, still a possibility. Elsewhere, Chernobyl-like meltdowns are becoming unlikely, thanks mainly to developments in technology, IAEA Deputy Director Tomihiro Taniguchi told the Associated Press. Others point to advanced technologies like pebble-bed reactors, which use graphite pebbles and gases like helium as a coolant, and are safer, cheaper, and more efficient but leave greater waste than traditional nuclear power plants. Plans for these kinds of reactors are in place in South Africa and the United States.
How might the reemergence of nuclear power affect U.S. foreign policy?
Some experts say the revival of nuclear power may improve America's energy security and reduce its dependency on countries like Saudi Arabia for its energy needs. But Ferguson says that any new nuclear plants built, while reducing the United States' use of coal, would constitute "a drop in the bucket" in terms of affecting its overall supply, and would have little effect on reducing its addiction to overseas oil. "Nuclear power is not going to lessen our need for oil unless we do something to improve the efficiency of trucks and other automobiles," he says. The growing use of nuclear power abroad, however, may affect U.S. foreign policy because of its role in alleviating global warming and curbing greenhouse gases. It may also affect the U.S. relationship with Russia and other post-Soviet states like Ukraine, as countries in the region seek sources of energy outside of the Kremlin's control, and increasingly look to Washington to help finance their nuclear ambitions. Then, of course, there is the threat posed by civilian nuclear-power programs evolving into offensive nuclear-arms programs, something U.S. policymakers say is happening in Iran and North Korea.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Email
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
After two decades of liberalization, many countries around the world are adopting new restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) that could retard continued progress. The authors make recommendations for correcting this protectionist drift by proposing guidelines for how countries can better regulate FDI yet still reap its economic benefits.
In this Council Special Report, the authors make a strong case that the Bush administration’s policy of diplomatic isolation of Syria is not serving U.S. interests, and offer informed history and thoughtful analysis of the country and its external behavior.
