NPT News in Review, Vol. 18, No. 5

Editorial: Beyond Visions of Hell
9 August 2023

Ray Acheson

In the cluster three discussions on Tuesday, most participating NPT states parties embarked on their annual ritual of promoting nuclear power propaganda. Particularly egregiously, several delegations reiterated the myth that nuclear power offers a solution to the climate crisis. Fortunately, a few governments spoke out strongly about the risks and dangers posed by nuclear power for people and the planet. Their perspectives were reinforced by the key topics of discussion during this year’s meetings, including plans by Japan to dump radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean, and Russia’s war against Ukraine threatening catastrophe at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.

As Austria, Germany, and others highlighted, nuclear power causes harm through its production and contains inherent risks in its use. Phasing out nuclear power and pursuing ecologically protective and justice-oriented renewable energy projects, coupled with degrowth policies to reduce the consumption of energy, particularly in the Global North, is the only way to adequately address the climate crisis and provide for the well-being of people and planet.

Illusory solutions to climate change

A number of delegations argued that nuclear power provides a “clean” alternative to fossil fuel-based energy sources, or that it can help combat or mitigate climate change. France, for example, raved that nuclear power is “one of the most decarbonised sources of electricity.”

The hype around nuclear technology as a solution to the climate crisis is devoid of reality. Nuclear technology is not carbon neutral. When all the aspects of nuclear power production are taken into account, from uranium mining to power plant construction to dealing with nuclear waste, it cannot compare to wind or solar in terms of carbon minimisation. Furthermore, as the Austrian delegation pointed out, “The comparatively low CO2 emissions of nuclear power do not compensate for disadvantages inevitably connected to nuclear power.” It argued that the “reliance on nuclear power is neither a viable nor a cost-efficient option to combat climate change. Both the polluter-pays principle and the precautionary principle are grossly violated in nuclear power use.”

The German delegation likewise highlighted that nuclear power “cannot be an appropriate strategy to combat climate change and to achieve our shared objectives under the Paris Agreement.” From the mining of the uranium to the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, Germany argued, the nuclear production cycle “is neither CO2-neutral nor sustainable given the adverse environmental effects over the entire life cycle of nuclear power generation.” Furthermore, it pointed out, “Nuclear is far more expensive than renewable energy, nuclear power projects are lengthy and will not contribute effectively to achieving our climate goals soon.” As over 300 civil society groups said to the 26th UN Climate Conference, nuclear power is “a dangerous distraction from the real movement on the climate policies and actions that we urgently need.”

Myths of stability and affordability

Beyond its alleged climate solutions, France also asserted that nuclear power is “stable and controllable”. Though as reported last month, high temperatures could reduce France’s nuclear power production this year. Ali Ahmad, Andrei Covatariu, and M.V. Ramana outlined in a recent article the climate change-related disruptions on nuclear power plant operations and the financial implications of addressing these disruptions. They argue, “The financial impacts of these measures make the role of nuclear even more precarious than it already is, due to the high costs and the combination of safety and financial risks.”

Nuclear power generation is already extraordinarily expensive, even before these added costs. In attempt to address this reality, some governments are now pushing small modular reactors (SMRs) as a cheaper and more accessible technology. But as Arjun Makhijani and M.V. Ramana point out, the lower outputs of these reactors will likely result in higher costs in comparison to large nuclear reactors. They argue that mass manufacture of SMRs “is unlikely to reduce costs adequately and might itself become a source of problems, including the possibility of recalls.”

Makhijani and Ramana also note that SMRs do not address the environmental challenges of nuclear power, such as those associated uranium mining or radioactive waste described below. And they do not help address climate change. In a submission to the Canadian House of Commons, M.V. Ramana argued that SMRs will in fact set back efforts to mitigate climate change, because money that is invested in developing SMRs “would save far more carbon dioxide if it were invested in renewables and associated technologies,” and because no SMR will be constructed for at least another decade, which “compounds the problem of the economic opportunity cost, in that the reduction in emissions from alternative investments would not only be greater, but also quicker.”

Catastrophic conflicts and accidents

Beyond the financial and opportunity costs of nuclear power, there are also the devastating humanitarian and environmental costs from nuclear accidents. Austria highlighted the risks of “severe accidents from nuclear power plants involving large and early releases of radionuclides with significant adverse consequences, including contamination even on the territory of other countries.” Italy, which ended its nuclear power production after a referendum in the 1980s, highlighted the essential nature of emergency preparedness and response to deal with nuclear and radiological emergencies initiated by nuclear accidents.

For states like Italy and others that have chosen not to use nuclear power, the need for emergency planning is perhaps even more frustrating. Such plans would not be necessary if all states made the choice to phase out nuclear from their energy mixes. Unlike plans to deal with other kinds of disasters, nuclear and radiological emergency plans are only necessary because of the choice of certain governments to put their own populations, as well as the people of other countries and the planet as a whole, at risk.

The humanitarian and environmental consequences of a nuclear power accident, like those of nuclear weapons, know no borders. As with nuclear weapons, the ionizing radiation disproportionately harms women and girls. Along with the immediate deaths and health impacts, and the often permanent displacement of local populations, radioactive fallout causes intergenerational harms.

This is why countless delegations have, during this PrepCom, condemned Russia’s military activities at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and other nuclear facilities in Ukraine. Canada expressed concern that Russia’s aggression, “including attacks against operating nuclear power plants, continues to pose significant nuclear safety and security risks and has significantly increased the risk of a nuclear incident or accident.” Austria highlighted that reports of military equipment and explosives being placed within the plant perimeter at ZNPP and direct shelling are extremely worrying. “Nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand armed conflicts,” noted Austria. “The attack on nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities can have complex humanitarian consequences, rendering these acts illegitimate under international humanitarian law.”

The risks of disaster at ZNPP are extreme, as the consequences would be. But as has been seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power disasters also happen outside of situations of armed conflict. And the problems and costs from such accidents persist for a long time.

Planetary contamination

On 11 March 2011, one of Japan’s oldest nuclear power stations was wrecked by an earthquake and tsunami. Explosions, meltdowns, and the release of radioactive materials into the soil, water, and air followed. More than a decade later, the Japanese government is planning to release treated, but still radioactively contaminated water, into the Pacific Ocean. The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report last month saying the plan was “consistent with international safety standards,” but representatives of many countries have voiced strong concerns, including during this NPT PrepCom. Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs have severely criticised the plan, as has the US National Association of Marine Laboratories and other regional and international health and environmental civil society organisations.

The UN Special Rapporteurs argued, “The release of one million tonnes of contaminated water into the marine environment imposes considerable risks to the full enjoyment of human rights of concerned populations in and beyond the borders of Japan.” While Japan has asserted that the treated water is no longer contaminated, the Rapporteurs point out that the treatment process “failed to completely remove radioactive concentrations in most of the contaminated water,” and warned that it “may contain quantities of radioactive carbon-14, as well as other radioactive isotopes including strontium-90 and tritium.”

An authoritative independent scientific assessment of the planned discharge was conducted by a five-member independent international scientific panel appointed by the Pacific Islands Forum. In their conclusions and recommendations, they unanimously said the planned release should not take place. As Tilman Ruff of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has argued, the plan to dump the contaminated water is a “cheap and dirty approach” that reflects an “out of sight out mind” and “dilution is the solution to pollution” mindset that “belongs in a past century.

Coloniality of uranium mining

Ruff also argued that “Australia bears a particular responsibility in relation to the aftermath of the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster, since fuel fabricated with uranium from Australia was in each of the Fukushima reactors which exploded.” Yet during the NPT PrepCom, the Australian government described itself as a “responsible uranium supplier”.

But as the Australian Greens point out, “The burden of Australia’s nuclear supply chain and proposed waste storage is disproportionately borne by First Nations peoples. It significantly and negatively impacts on their culture, connection to country, well-being, and their right to manage land, natural resources, and water.” Uranium mining, the Australian Conservation Foundation notes, pollutes the air, water, and soil. “It can damage the genetic and reproductive systems of plants, animals and people.” All of Australia’s operating uranium mines have a history of leaks, spills, and accidents, none of which has been properly rehabilitated.

Uranium mining is not just an Australian problem, of course. The settler colonial governments of Canada and the United States likewise imposed uranium mines on Indigenous land and have not redressed the harms to workers or local communities. Belgium previously operated a uranium mine in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, exposing workers and the environment to horrendous impacts. These are just a few examples of the coloniality of uranium mining—there are many more.

Burdens of waste

The colonial nature of uranium mining is also matched in questions of how to deal with nuclear waste. As Austria noted, there is no safe and permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel anywhere in the world. Even if such a repository became operational in the foreseeable future, “today's knowledge cannot guarantee the safe enclosure required for hundreds of thousands of years.” Furthermore, the proposals for radioactive waste dumps are virtually all for storage on Indigenous, remote, and poor communities in settler colonial states, rather than in the centres of power of states that have developed nuclear weapons or nuclear energy.

To return to the case of Australia, successive settler state governments have tried to impose a nuclear waste dump on Indigenous communities in South Australia. First Nations keep saying no; most recently the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation won a judicial review against the Australian government regarding the construction of a nuclear waste dump in Kimba. The Barngarla people argued that they were excluded from the community consultation process on the nuclear waste dump, and after years of fighting, the Court finally ruled that the facility can’t be built.

Moving beyond visions of hell

In short, nuclear power is the most expensive and dangerous way to boil water to turn a turbine. Nuclear power contains the inherent potential for catastrophe. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor. All aspects of the nuclear fuel chain, from mining uranium or to storing radioactive waste, are devastating for the earth and all species living upon it, and perpetuate colonialism. In addition, the spread of nuclear energy around the world since 1953 has enabled the development of nuclear weapons in several countries. As Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami said after the Fukushima disaster, “Nuclear power plants, which were supposed to be efficient, instead offer us a vision of hell.”

Yet the nuclear industry and certain governments continue to promote nuclear power as clean, safe, and reliable. This has everything to do with capitalism and nothing to do with protecting the planet or its people. For the nuclear power industry, the primary motive for operation is profit. History—and the current climate crisis and many other key societal challenges—shows us that increasing profit is often best achieved in ways that are not consistent with the lowest risk to humanity or the planet. Profit is less likely to be achieved by designing economically efficient, need-oriented, and environmentally-sound sources of energy. Scientists and activists alike have noted that nuclear power, which produces energy “in large, expensive, centralized facilities” is not useful “for solving the energy needs of the vast majority of [the world’s] population, much less so in a way that offers any net environmental gains.”

As Joshua Frank, author of Atomic Days, noted in a recent interview, many proponents of nuclear power ignore all of the externalities that come along with it. The same is true of those focusing solely on addressing the climate crisis, who “end up looking only at greenhouse gases and ignoring sentient beings and wild places and the global environment in general.” Until we embrace a true environmental ethic, he argues, one that goes beyond the climate and considers the impacts that we have on nature, we are not going to achieve a just transition “that reduces our impacts on lands, on water, on Indigenous peoples.”

This will involve listening and learning from people impacted by the projects that are proposed as solutions to climate change, and who are themselves concerned with protecting global ecosystems and human rights. “By only focusing on nuclear technologies as part of this answer, we’re missing the bigger picture,” said Joshua Frank. This bigger picture “is that we’re promoting an industry that might not have high carbon emissions in the energy process itself but which has carbon emissions all along the way, and is leaving a legacy of poison that future generations will have to deal with. And in my view, that’s no solution at all.”

[PDF] ()