home > by publication type > backgrounders > Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy
Email
| Author: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
April 25, 2006
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.
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.
Across Europe, some politicians are rethinking plans to phase out nuclear-power plants. They are motivated by the following factors:
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.
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.
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.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.