As global warming looms around the corner, there is an urgent need to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. As one of the largest contributors, the global energy sector needs to shift to more environmentally efficient production in order for the goals in the Paris climate accord to be upheld. Solar, wind, hydro and wave power are some of the most discussed alternatives, but current global rates of implementation remain quite low, due to high production costs or geographical constraints. Although not renewable, nuclear power offers low life cycle carbon emissions, stable energy production, as well as low production costs (1.76 US cents in 2007) (Paul L Joskow, 2010) and might therefore constitute a valid substitute to today’s more coal, gas and oil focused energy production. The aim of this essay is to discuss nuclear energy and its place in the developing world.
In order for nuclear power to be a sensible option for a country, there are a number of factors to consider the most major ones: 1 Is the country able to afford/fund the high initial capital costs of construction. 2 Would the country’s power grid be able to handle the extra supply without additional capital investment? 3 How cheap would nuclear power be relative to other energy sources? 4 Is purchase/obtainment of the necessary equipment politically feasible/what are the political risks? 5 What is the public opinion of nuclear energy? These questions will be discussed below as to be able to give a picture of the feasibility of nuclear power in different areas in the world.
In 2009 around 50 developing countries had reported their interest into acquiring one or several nuclear reactors to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), indicating that there is global demand for the technology (Jose Goldemberg, 2009). However, as Goldemberg points out in his report, it is unlikely that poorer countries would be able afford the associated multi billion dollar startup costs. He estimates that a country with a GDP of less than 50 billion USD, is unlikely to be able to acquire the necessary equipment, which decreases the number of possible applicants significantly. He then also states that of the remaining possible countries (who do not already have a nuclear reactor), only 16 have a large enough power grid to support a nuclear power plant without further investment. All 16 have abundant access to cheap fossil fuels, possibly making nuclear energy less economically competitive. Given that the nuclear reactors are to be used for peaceful purposes and that the governments of most developing countries are not as concerned with decreased greenhouse gas emissions as developed countries, the cheapest option is likely to be chosen, creating further problems for the nuclear energy in the developing world (Ahmed Abdulla, M. Granger Morgan, 2015). Hence in most of these countries, the economics of the nuclear energy does not look to promising.
When taking political and “soft” risks and issues into consideration, the feasibility of nuclear power in most candidate countries continues to decline. Due to the fact that enriched uranium can be used to create nuclear weapons, there are tight restrictions on trade with both the fuel itself and equipment that can be used to enrich it. For example a German Brazilian trade deal was stopped by the USA as a result of proliferation issues (Jose Goldemberg, 2009). Political security of supply is another big issue as the sellers of reactor grade uranium are few. If a country is reliant on nuclear power for their energy supply, the suppliers could use their oligopolistic market powers to blackmail governments to enforce their political agenda, and might refuse sale in the first place on the basis of political differences. A further problem is that public understanding of nuclear technology tends to be quite poor. Recent accidents such as that in Fukushima and anti nuclear campaigning, have made the public fear nuclear power. The threat of another disaster combined with the memories of the likes of Chernobyl might make it hard to push for nuclear energy solutions in a democratic system. All in all it seems like quite a difficult process to install nuclear power in the developing world, but it is happening. Around 70 nuclear reactors are currently under construction worldwide (Ahmed Abdulla, M. Granger Morgan, 2015). However, more than half are being built in just three countries- Russia, China and India. Why does nuclear work so well for them, when it seem so difficult for others?
One of the most obvious reasons is due to their (current) lower exposure to political risk. Neither Russia nor China are democracies, so public opinion is not a main concern and in India the public tends to be in favor of the expansion of nuclear power (Aditi Malhotra, 2016). Russia is self sufficient regarding uranium, whilst China and India, through a combination of domestic production and trade with allies or trade partners, can sustainably source enough uranium to supply their reactors (Nuclear World Association, 2018) (Aswin Pradeep, 2018).
The fact that they already are nuclear powers also ensures that they do not have to go through the political hassle of buying the technology from others. This also helps with the economic side of the argument as they do not have to pay extra for the technology. Their access to inexpensive uranium, strong need for increased power supply as a result of rapid economic growth, and relative wealth, put the economic arguments in their favour as well. So what then is the best course of action if the goal is to increase global nuclear power usage?
Some basic policy suggestions are as follows- 1 Subsidize or help secure investment for nuclear energy production globally, such that it becomes the cheapest available alternative, keeping in mind that this will likely be cheaper than subsidizing for example wind power. 2 Introduce an international carbon tax that incentivizes the adoption of carbon efficient technologies. 3 Introduce further checks to ensure that any buyers of uranium only intend to use it for peaceful purposes. 4 Finally educate citizens about the pros and cons of nuclear power relative other energy sources, such that they can make an informed decision about the issue.
If the energy crisis and global warming are to be tackled, it is paramount that a switch is made towards more carbon efficient energy sources. Whether or not one of those will be nuclear power will depend on the actions of the international community.
REFERENCES:
The giant amazing report
https://www.amacad.org/publication/nuclear-energy-developing-countries
Talks about lack of interest
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/nuclear-power-in-developing-countries-lets-talk-about-it/
Talks about small reactors and factory development, liabilities and such.
Good source for quick stats of nuclear production, slighlty old data though
https://economics.mit.edu/files/5394
Indian public opinion on nuclear power
China uranium
India Uranium
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-India-buying-uranium-from-Australia-when-we-have-possibly-the-worlds-largest-uranium-reserve-in-Tummalapalle-AP
