 |
|
|
Nuclear Energy Reborn |
|
By By Diego Cevallos*
Argentina,
Brazil and Mexico have announced construction of new atomic reactors
for generating electricity. Environmentalists warn about safety
risks.
MEXICO CITY, Oct 2 (IPS/IFEJ) - Just 3.1 percent
of Latin America's electricity comes from nuclear sources, but if
expansion plans in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico succeed, that proportion
could more than double in a decade -- much to the annoyance of environmentalists.
Carried by the global wave towards nuclear energy, pushed by high
petroleum prices, Brazil is proposing construction of the country's
third reactor, while Argentina and Mexico will go from two to four
nuclear energy plants.
Brazil, one of the nine countries worldwide that enriches uranium
-- the essential input for nuclear energy --, is trying to make
expanded production viable. And Argentina is picking up enrichment
efforts begun in the 1980s, but halted in 1992.
The nuclear plants in operation, with second-generation technology,
had an estimated useful life of 15 to 20 years in the case of Mexico,
and 30 to 40 years in Argentina and Brazil. But the plans imply
prolonging their operation up to 60 years in some cases.
The criticisms from ecologists, led by the environmental watchdog
Greenpeace, point to the danger of accidents, the inevitable accumulation
of toxic waste, and the lack of transparency that usually surrounds
any nuclear activity.
There is no effort to conceal, but "because it involves strategic
industries with national security issues, there is information that
is not appropriate to be made available to the public," Mexico's
under-secretary for electricity, José Acevedo, said in an interview.
The Mexican government announced in early September a plan to build
two reactors, which would begin operating in 2010, and opened bidding
for expanding the capacity of the two that have been in operation
since the 1990s, at the Laguna Verde plant, 290 kilometers northeast
of the capital. Five percent of Mexico's electricity is supplied
by those nuclear reactors.
In August, the Argentine government launched a similar plan, which
includes completing construction of an unfinished nuclear power
plant, studying the feasibility of opening a new one, and also producing
enriched uranium.
The two plants in Argentina supply seven percent of that country's
electrical consumption: Atucha I, 100 km from Buenos Aires, and
Embalse, in the north-central province of Córdoba.
Built in 1974, Atucha I was the first nuclear-electrical plant in
Latin America. Its productive life was originally set at 32 years,
but government authorities plan to extend it to 42.
Embalse began production 1984 and its operating license expires
in 2014. The government's plan is to invest 600 million dollars
to complete Atucha II, on which construction began in 1981 but was
abandoned in the 1990s.
Brazil, with the sixth largest reserve of uranium in the world,
wants to become a major producer of this strategic nuclear fuel.
Two nuclear reactors operate in Brazil, on the beach of Itaorna,
in Angra dos Reis, 130 km west of Rio de Janeiro. Angra I, inaugurated
in 1985, and Angra II, in 2000. Together they provide about four
percent of the electricity consumed in Brazil. Equipment for Angra
III has already been purchased.
The nuclear power plants are second generation, with an original
useful life of 40 years, but new studies have prolonged it to 60
years. They are safer than the world's first nuclear reactors, and
will be surpassed by the third generation, which the United State
will begin building in the next few years, says Aquilino Senra,
nuclear engineering professor at the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro.
Nuclear scientist Juan Luis Francois, of the Autonomous National
University of Mexico, sees this as good news.
"There are currently 435 reactors in the world functioning safely
and efficiently, despite statements like those from Greenpeace,
a group that handles information in a way that is quite tendentious
and not very clean," commented the expert.
But Guilherme Leonardi, coordinator of Greenpeace-Brazil's climate
and energy campaign, maintains that faults and accidents are "inherent
to nuclear technology."
Embalse and Atucha I in Argentina have suffered imperfections and
accidents over the years. Mexico's Laguna Verde plant has seen administrative
and security mistakes, as well as some fissures in the plant itself,
according to reports from the World Association of Nuclear Operators,
cited by Greenpeace.
But the government says they were minor observations and have already
been corrected.
The waste from nuclear power plants will always be a problem, with
the risk of accidents or theft, which in Leonardi's opinion defines
the industry as "dirty, dangerous, and surpassed by alternative
sources like wind and solar," and furthermore, "very expensive".
In the three Latin American countries, the waste is accumulating
in storage sites at the plants themselves, and their final disposal
has yet to be determined, because the governments assure that they
have the capacity for storage for several decades.
But the case of Laguna Verde in Mexico is one of "a very unsafe
plant," where storage sites are full, says Arturo Moreno of Greenpeace-Mexico.
Mexico's electricity under-secretary Acevedo assured that "around
the world the waste is kept in storage adjacent to the plants until
a definitive policy is developed," which does not exist "anywhere
in the world," he said.
Francois mentioned "very advanced" studies about transmuting the
waste (reducing and even eliminating its radioactivity) with technologies
that could be available in 15 to 20 years.
But that doesn't convince the environmentalists. Juan Casavelos,
coordinator of Greenpeace-Argentina's energy campaign, maintains
that "in the nuclear arena, everything is cause for worry."
There is a lack of transparency in official information, and the
evidence of errors and accidents at the nuclear plants is hidden,
he said.
Furthermore, say activists, in addition to the inevitable link with
its use in weapons, nuclear development fell out of favor in 1986,
when a reactor collapsed at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, causing
the worst accident in the industry's history, leaving thousands
of victims and contaminating the water and soil across a broad area.
Since then, environmental activism closed ranks against atomic energy.
But now, that movement itself has developed some fissures.
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, and the late Hugh
Montefiore, who was trustee of the international network Friends
of the Earth, spoke out in recent years in favor of nuclear energy
as an alternative to fossil fuels because it does not produce climate
changing greenhouse gases.
The International Energy Agency, made up of wealthy countries and
major petroleum consumers, will propose ending the virtual global
suspension of nuclear development in its annual report in November,
say sources close to that organization.
Several European countries and the United States have returned to
nuclear energy in reaction to the high costs of fossil fuels and
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an argument also wielded in
Latin America by Chile, whose President Michelle Bachelet called
for studying the feasibility of nuclear power.
Worldwide, 16 percent of electricity comes from nuclear sources,
while the six reactors operating in Latin America supply 3.1 percent
for the region, according to the Latin American Energy Organization.
In the opinion of Francisco Carlos Rey, vice-president of Argentina's
National Atomic Energy Commission, the negative responses are the
result of myths, fueled in part by the Chernobyl incident.
The degree of safety at nuclear power plants today is 100 percent,
he said.
* Diego Cevallos is an IPS correspondent.
Additional reporting by Maricel Drazer in Argentina and Mario Osava
in Brazil. This story is part of a series of features on sustainable
development by IPS - Inter Press Service and IFEJ - International
Federation of Environmental Journalists. |
