Nuclear Power Plants could be built in Developing Countries through Carbon Credits.
It has emerged recently that world nations are considering building nuclear power stations in developing nations as part of carbon credit or carbon offsetting schemes. This would mean that when carbon credits are bought by companies and individuals, it would be legitimate under international climate change agreements that the money from the carbon credits bought could be used in the building of nuclear power stations in developing countries in order to offset carbon emissions created in developed nations. This practice is currently not allowed under the current Kyoto Agreement but is being contemplated in the run up to the next UN world summit on climate change in December in Copenhagen.
Nuclear Power Plants Could be Given Carbon Credits
If the practice was introduced it would give nuclear power stations carbon credits and could lead to rapid expansion of the building of new nuclear power stations, especially in developing nations. If nations do agree to introduce the idea, it is likely to bring a number of benefits and potential drawbacks.
Advantages
When carbon credits are purchased and the money is invested into nuclear power in developing nations this is likely to bring social and economic benefits to those countries, improving the quality of life for the people in those nations, and also bringing economic benefits to those countries. Building nuclear power stations in developing nations also brings opportunities of developing low carbon energy generation in those country’s rather than traditional fossil fuel methods. This will enable developing nations to grow economically without growth being inhibited by internationally set limits on carbon emissions. The proposed action would also enable internationally set climate targets to be met easier.
Disadvantages
The proposed idea has a number of potential disadvantages and has drawn criticism from pressure groups such as Greenpeace. Shaun Burnie, a former Greenpeace campaigner and now nuclear energy consultant was quoted in The New Scientist as saying the proposed scheme was “a survival strategy for the nuclear industry not the planet”.
Nuclear power, though low on carbon emissions, brings with it a great deal of other environmental disadvantages. What to do with the depleted uranium once it is used is a huge problem still, as there is no environmentally safe solution of how to dispose of nuclear waste as yet, making it non-eco friendly. There are also still issues around the safety of nuclear power overall and also security issues of power stations being potential terrorist targets and nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.
There is also the problem of whether any carbon will actually be offset through these methods. If new power plants are being built in developing nations that would not have necessarily been built without the capital investment from carbon offsets bought, then no carbon is actually being offset at all.
There is also the possibility of political conflicts arising. Nations like Iran are currently claiming they enriching uranium for peaceful energy generation, an act which has been widely criticised by the international community. The building of nuclear power by western nations and companies in developing nations could potentially spark conflict with countries like Iran, who claim they have a right to nuclear power as much as any other nation. How would the international community or carbon offsetting companies therefore choose which countries were ‘safe’ or eligible?
The idea will be great for the nuclear power industry, cutting the monetary cost of building nuclear power stations by 40%. But the question is whether this really should be the long term climate change strategy of the international community. There is criticism that the proposed action is cutting corners and trying to hit targets using quick fix methods like nuclear power to lower carbon emissions. Nuclear power is no match for the truly green credentials of renewable energy technologies, which should really be the only long term goal. This action may endanger this long term goal, and could damage the renewable energy industry through a lack of investment and installation of new renewable technologies like solar power, wind power and hydro power.
What will finally be decided is yet to be seen, but what is certain is that watered down measures and corner cutting in order to lower carbon emissions will only lead to more environmental and ecological problems in the future for us and the planet as a whole.
