New or revised pages:
(latest at top)
20 November 2009
Site history
|
|
It is very unlikely that Cyprus will benefit from nuclear energy in
the foreseeable future. This is because of three factors:
- The irrational fear of people not understanding what it means
- The fear of politicians not being re-elected if they promote an
unpopular move
- Internecine conflicts between Ministries and Departments
In reality, a decision to implement nuclear power in Cyprus would
require a long term view, over at least two decades. This does not mean that
it has no future on this island. In my opinion, it is the only rational
solution to the island's energy needs in 2030 onwards but is it possible to
overcome the inevitable resistance against the idea?
The object of this essay is to look forward and weigh up the pros and the
cons of nuclear energy, within the Cyprus context. To do this logically
requires us to look carefully at a number of inter-related factors.
Electricity supply now and in the future
1. Annual production in Cyprus
1980-2005
2. EAC projected production 2005-2015 based on 8.8%
increased demand p.a.
3. EAC projected production 2005-2015 based on annual
increase of 8.8% of 2005 production
4. Cypenv estimation of production (the 'blip' at ~2010
is because of increased desalination)
5. As 4. but showing carbon-based production only,
assuming maximal wind and solar renewable energy is
exploited
6. Maximal wind and solar production based on peak
capacity of 20% of peak demand and 20% production factor
7. As 5. but showing carbon-based emissions, assuming
waste-to-energy renewable energy, starting in 2015
8. Waste-to-energy renewable production, starting in
2015
9. Nuclear production, starting in 2020
10. Total projected carbon-based production,
assuming nuclear production starts in 2020.
|
It can be seen, in the above graph, that the EAC projected a
production increase of at about 8.8%
p.a. from 2005, without specifying whether it was exponential (2) or linear
(3). This rate of increase was not realistic, because it did not factor
in such problems as the 2008-9 'credit crunch' nor the fact that
economies of consumption are being made because of more efficient
lighting and appliances. It is understood that the 2008 increase was
less than 5%. For our estimation (4), I am assuming an increase in
demand of 5% p.a. initially, followed by a linear increase of 4.5% as more energy-efficient equipment
comes into service but it would be reasonable to assume that our expanding
economy and the desire of consumers to have more equipment would not take it
below 4.2% p.a. I have factored in a special increase in 2010 as more water
desalination capacity comes on line. The 2009 consumption translates to an average production
of 650 MW, with probable peaks to about 1200 MW in summer. To avoid power
cuts or overloads, this means that both generators and the distribution grid
must be able to cope with the peak demand, preferably with a 10% safety
margin. Taking 1300 MW as the peak capacity in 2009 and a 4.5% growth rate,
this means that we shall require a doubling of capacity every 15 years or
2,600 MW in 2025. This may seem unduly pessimistic but increased water
demand will impose more power-hungry desalination, as the population and
hygiene standards expand, predicted lower rainfall and consequent irrigation
is required. After 2025, it seems probable that the growth rate of
electricity demand may fall to the same level as in other developed
countries of 4-4.55%. In 2030, I estimate the peak capacity will need to be
about 3,500 MW, with an average production, over the year, of about 1,100 to
1,250 MW. The wider disparity between the peak and average capacity is
because the peak is largely a function of air conditioning; longer,
hotter summers are forecast for the Mediterranean basin and more
high-rise buildings will add to the load.
The EAC have placed their future plans on a mainstream generation using
mixed natural gas/steam turbines. As the proposed liquid natural gas
regasification plant is unlikely to run at full capacity before about 2015,
by which time the peak demand is expected to be about 2,000 MW, there is
likely to be a serious shortfall in supply up to that date. This may be
partly mitigated by wind and solar, as well as the construction of
waste-to-energy plants. However,
wind and solar renewable sources cannot be relied on to provide power when
it is needed, because the sun does not shine nor does the wind blow 24/7/52.
The power supply can be guaranteed only if thermal capacity, be it the
current HFO plants, future natural gas combined cycle and waste-to-energy plants and
hypothetical nuclear reactors can supply the full peak demand between them.
There is one unknown that could seriously affect the deal: the future of
private transport. If either the electric car or the plug-in hybrid becomes
mainstream, then the demand pattern for electricity will change drastically.
The battery will require charging. If 200,000 EVs are used on a hot summer's
day, the batteries will be discharged to cope with the air conditioning, as
well as the actual travelling. On reaching home base after work, they will
be plugged in to recharge, each one requiring the equivalent of 3 or 4
litres of petrol in energy demand. This is about 35 kWh, give or take an
ounce or two. Assuming the charging time to be 6 hours, as has been
suggested, this is a load of about 6 kW per car and, multiplied by 200,000
cars, we are talking about the night-time peak increasing by 1,200
MW. On a very hot, sultry, evening, people will be running their
air-conditioning, while dinner is being prepared on the electric cooker.
This could well mean that my estimated peak generating capacity of 3,500 MW
would be largely insufficient. Even worse, the urban and suburban grids
certainly would not be able to cope and would have to be doubled up, no
light task. The cost of this and the infrastructure necessary to provide
charging facilities would be enormous and this is one of the reasons why a
recent official report (in French) of the French Government on the
future of electric vehicles is very negative, except possibly for very small
plug-in hybrids for urban "runabout" use. As these would probably have an
electric autonomy of just a few kilometres, charging requirements would be
small and an ordinary 13 A plug would be sufficient for charging. Certainly,
the report sees no future of the EV as the mainstream family car and this
comes from a country with the greatest abundance of low-cost electricity.
Carbon dioxide
Variable renewable sources
Of course, fossil carbon dioxide is a great driving factor in the choice
of means for generating electricity. In order to meet our commitments, we
should reduce our emissions by 6% by 2010. In my opinion, this is an
impossible target to meet. The only possible way would be by the use of
renewable energy sources, but the electricity demand will increase by over
10% in this period, if only because of new desalination plants coming on
line. This means that we should produce 16% of our electricity from
renewables in the next 20 months, from the time of writing this essay (April
2009). Note that this is not 16% of the
capacity, but 16% of the generated electricity, approximately 910 GWh. If we
look at my essay on renewable energy, you will
see that I have optimistically given a peak figure for the production factor
of 20% for wind turbines. This means that a given source of variable
renewable energy will produce electricity at a yearly average rate of 20% of
the rated capacity of the turbine at full output (ie, for wind, when the
average continuous wind speed is between about 16 m/s and 22 m/s. For
photovoltaic systems, the figure is also about 20%, based on 2,000 hours of
sunshine/year, bearing in mind that the rating of PV panels drops above
25°C). This means that, to reach our target, we need a peak production
capacity of about 4,500 GWh or a nominal rating of 520 MW (about 175 large,
3 MW turbines: note that the first plan accounts for 82 turbines in the
Paphos District of 2 MW capacity). Remember I gave a production factor of 20%? Well, this may
be possible in the most favourable sites, such as the North of Scotland, but I think 10% maximum would be
more realistic for Cyprus, not doted with favourable winds, so we would need even more than this. However, let's look at
520 MW, for the sake of argument. This is about 40% of the total current
production and grid capacity of about 1,300 MW. Let's imagine that we have
our 175 turbines running at full capacity on a windy day in March, such as
when a depression is passing over the island. The total demand would be
average in the daytime, say, about 750 MW, so that 230 MW would be supplied
from the thermal power stations. No weather forecasting is precise enough to
say when and where the calm in the centre of the storm sufficiently well. If
the major part of the turbines suddenly stopped producing, the capacity and
grid would be unable to cope and the whole island would be blacked out, even
with reserve thermal capacity idling. This is similar to what happened when
New York and NE USA blacked out a few years ago or Italy a few months later,
although the cause was not related to variable winds in these cases. In both cases, it took
days before normal service could be restored throughout the area. Most
experts state that the variable renewable peak capacity should never exceed
about 20-22% of the peak demand to ensure grid stability. Please keep this
figure in mind as I develop my thoughts in this essay. The fossil carbon
footprint of either wind or solar renewables per GWh is almost negligible,
amortised over a typical 30-year lifetime. It is represented only by the
manufacture, transport and installation procedures. This is a major
advantage but, as it has been pointed out, these renewables may compromise
the reliability of supply, unless the full capacity is available with
thermal systems.
Fossil fuels
At this time, practically all the electricity generated in Cyprus is
from HFO. For every tonne burnt, about 3.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are
emitted. One tonne of HFO contains about 42x109
joules of chemical energy. A typical conversion efficiency from HFO to
electricity in a steam type thermal power station is 30%, so that the
output would be 12.6x109 J or 3.5
MWh per tonne. As a rough rule of thumb, this means that 1 tonne of
carbon dioxide is emitted for each MWh generated. On the basis that
current annual electricity production is about 5,700 GWh, that works out
at 5.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted each year, as at
2009, to provide Cyprus with electricity. If this figure seems high, it
ties in with total oil product imports of about 3.2 million tonnes (OECD
figures for 2005: 55,970 barrels/day), roughly half of which is used as
motor fuels, producing a total of just under 11 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide, so I am in the right ball park. Another check is that the
population of the island is estimated at 1,054,400 total of Cyprus (sum
of population in Government controlled area and Northern Cyprus,
2006-2007 data) and the annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions is
10.26 tonnes, or a total of 10.8 million tonnes.
Notwithstanding, the EAC have started on their programme of
modernisation, using turbine technology. This will reduce the
emissions slightly from my estimated 5,700 megatonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions per year. For the sake of fairness, I estimate
the current rate at about 5,070 million tonnes/year, although
exact figures are difficult to find.
Nearly all electricity produced today is from these oil-fired thermal
stations. The future plans include an increased use of mixed air/steam
turbines or similar configurations. These are expected to produce 6-7
MWh/tonne of fuel, be it oil or natural gas, roughly halving the carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions per MWh of electricity. However, these will
be brought on line as electricity demand increases, so the overall
emissions are unlikely to diminish by very much, but they should not
increase. To counter this, though, the processing and transport of
liquid natural gas will produce important carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions, mostly in the form of methane, before it even reaches Cyprus territorial waters. There is
therefore not likely to be any net improvements of greenhouse gas
emissions on the global scale, perhaps even increases.
It is difficult to see how Cyprus can really improve its carbon
emissions under these conditions, as is required under international
agreements.
Waste-to-energy
Other than the carbon dioxide emitted in the construction and
manufacturing the equipment, a waste-to-energy plant is able to generate
electricity 24/7 without emitting fossil carbon dioxide. Amortised over a
40-year lifetime, this becomes negligible per MWh. Furthermore, it reduces
the greenhouse gases otherwise emitted by landfills. On the other hand,
there is a small carbon footprint collecting and transporting the waste from
the household kerbside to the generating plant and the cinders to a
landfill. This would not be much more than collecting and transporting the
waste to a landfill and it would even be negative if the landfill methane
emission is included in the balance sheet.
Nuclear energy
Quite apart from all political or emotional considerations,
nuclear energy is mainstream in a number of countries throughout
the world, with several hundred power stations in operation. In
terms of construction, the reactor housing requires more
material than any other type of thermal power station. As a
result, its carbon dioxide balance sheet is higher but this can
be amortised in a matter of months because nuclear energy emits
no greenhouse gases. On the other hand, there is a small
greenhouse gas emission of typically 1-2% of that from an
oil-fired steam plant, representing the fuel manufacture,
transport, recycling and safe disposal of radioactive waste.
Including decommissioning, an overall figure of 25 kg of CO2e/MWh
is generous.
Carbon dioxide calculations
The following table represents the most accurate estimations
I've been able to make, based on the stated premisses. This
shows five scenarios, representing the electricity production in
2009, 2019 and 2029, with non-nuclear and nuclear for the latter
two. Knowing the speed that new technology is implemented in
Cyprus, it is very unlikely that a nuclear power plant could be
in service in 10 years, but it would not be technically
impossible, abstraction made of political delays and popular
opposition. Some explanatory notes follow the table.
|
Estimations of electricity demand and CO2 emissions |
|
Description |
Unit |
2009 |
2019 |
2029 |
|
|
Non-nuclear |
Nuclear |
Non-nuclear |
Nuclear |
Non-nuclear |
Nuclear |
| Total
peak capacity |
MW |
1300
|
|
2600
|
2600
|
4000
|
4000
|
|
Wind peak capacity
|
MW
|
0
|
|
400
|
400
|
600
|
600
|
|
Solar peak capacity
|
MW
|
1
|
|
120
|
120
|
200
|
200
|
|
Waste-to-energy
|
MW
|
0
|
|
80
|
80
|
100
|
100
|
|
Nuclear capacity
|
MW
|
0
|
|
0
|
1600
|
0
|
1600
|
|
Thermal steam
|
MW
|
1099
|
|
900
|
0
|
600
|
0
|
|
MAS turbine
|
MW
|
200
|
|
1100
|
400
|
2000
|
1100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total
generation |
GWh |
5700
|
|
11000
|
11000
|
17000
|
17000
|
|
From wind
|
GWh
|
0
|
|
525
|
525
|
790
|
790
|
|
From solar
|
GWh
|
1
|
|
155
|
155
|
260
|
260
|
|
From W-to-E
|
GWh
|
0
|
|
560
|
560
|
700
|
700
|
|
From nuclear
|
GWh
|
0
|
|
0
|
9760
|
0
|
12000
|
|
From steam
|
GWh
|
4299
|
|
2060
|
0
|
1250
|
0
|
|
From MAST
|
GWh
|
1400
|
|
7700
|
0
|
14000
|
3250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Carbon
dioxide/MWh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From wind
|
kg
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From solar
|
kg
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From W-to-E
|
kg
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From nuclear
|
kg
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From steam
|
kg
|
1000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From MAST
|
kg
|
550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Annual
CO2 emissions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From wind
|
million tonnes
|
0
|
|
5
|
5
|
8
|
8
|
|
From solar
|
million tonnes
|
0
|
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
|
From W-to-E
|
million tonnes
|
0
|
|
11
|
11
|
14
|
14
|
|
From nuclear
|
million tonnes
|
0
|
|
0
|
244
|
0
|
300
|
|
From steam
|
million tonnes
|
4299
|
|
2060
|
0
|
1250
|
0
|
|
From MAST
|
million tonnes
|
770
|
|
4235
|
0
|
7700
|
1788
|
|
Total CO2 emissions |
million
tonnes |
5069 |
|
6313 |
262 |
8975 |
2112 |
- The figures shown for 2009 are ±10%; the rest are
most probable best estimates
- No data is shown for nuclear for 2009
- The total peak capacity is based on increased
demand of 7.5% pa from 2009 to 2019 and 5% from 2019 to 2029
- The wind + solar peak capacity is based on 20% of
total peak capacity to ensure grid stability
- The balance between wind and PV solar peak
capacity is based on reasonable capital costs
- It is assumed that Waste-to-Energy plants are in
service in less than 10 years; these are essential to allow Cyprus
to meet various EU directives and they provide a steady renewable
source.
- Nuclear capacity is assumed to be provided by a
Generation IIIA EPR reactor, providing 1600 MWe
peak capacity, which would seem appropriate for the needs of the
country, used at low capacity on average until at least 2030, when
it could be ramped up to full capacity as demand increases
- The figures for carbon dioxide/MWh are estimated
on the basis that wind and solar produce no significant quantity and
this represents the amortisement of that from manufacture, transport
and installation. Waste-to-Energy does not account for the negative
figures from having no methane landfill emissions.
Carbon dioxide conclusions
Bearing in mind that our carbon dioxide emissions will certainly
increase from electricity generation over the next ten to twenty years
and these increases will generate fines from the EU plus we shall have
to trade carbon levies for the excess from our permitted levels, there
is an a priori case arguing for the planning of a nuclear power
station and fairly rapidly at that. There is no alternative in tried and
tested technologies that will allow us to do otherwise and avoid having
to pay through the nose for our electricity (assuming the cost of fines
and carbon trading is added to the cost of electricity).
Some economic considerations
I am not an economist but there are some incontrovertible facts
surrounding the non-nuclear and the nuclear debate. Apart from the fines
and carbon trading issues mentioned in the previous paragraph, the base
cost price of producing electricity from fossil fuel is typically about
€0.02/kWh to which has to be added the supplement due to the price of
HFO (and subsequently natural gas). We have seen how volatile the prices
of fossil fuels can be. Between now and 2029, the prices will rise
because of inflation and also, more importantly, the availability of
fossil fuels will diminish as fields become depleted, causing important
price increases. These will run across the board so that the cost of
natural gas per joule of energy will be more or less proportional to
that of oil, even though there is a greater abundance of gas. I don't
have a crystal ball but I would hazard a guess that the cost of
electricity from fossil fuels will probably increase tenfold over the
next two decades. Add to that the cost of fines and trading and the
Cypriot consumer will certainly be paying €1.00 to 2.00/kWh.
In the case of any type of oil-fired or natural gas generation the cost
of the fuel is, by far, the greatest part of the costs, typically 60-70%
of the total costs. This means that any volatility of fuel prices will
have a large impact on the cost of electricity to the consumer. This is
not the case with nuclear generation. The cost of the fuel per kWh is
very small, say about 2-3% of the total costs. On the other hand, fixed
costs are comparatively high, mainly because of greater 50-year
amortisation, insurance, decommissioning reserves, safety and
international controls. One of the reasons why fuel is inexpensive is
that 96% of used fuel is recycled back into mixed oxides (MOX) fuel. The
best estimated cost of electricity generated from Generation IIIa
reactors does vary according to local conditions and is currently about
€0.025-0.04/kWh. If the price of the fuel doubled, this range would
change to €0.0256 to 0.041/kWh. It is therefore easy to see that nuclear
electricity offers a great price stability and the consumer end price
should never exceed €0.10/kWh, even in 20 years' time. This could never
happen with fossil fuel electricity.
Is there an alternative to nuclear energy?
The answer is not really, at least with tested technology.
The great hope of the future is nuclear fusion, but this is still
vapourware. Research in this direction began in the 1940s. I became
slightly involved with it in the mid-1960s, in that a neighbour was a
Chief Scientist to a leading fusion research laboratory, which I was
able to visit a few times and became friendly with some of the other
staff there. Their hopes were to have a commercially viable system
available within 20 years from then. As those 20 years passed, the time
scale expanded, rather than diminished, to 25, then 30 years, and
finally 50 years at the start of this century. The current estimation is
that an internationally funded small-scale prototype will be working by
about 2045. This is far too long to wait for this country; we need our
answer now.
There is a rather vague possibility of a relatively new system of solar
energy. The first prototype was constructed in the Mojave Desert in
California but its success was rather mitigated for a number of reasons.
Another is undergoing commissioning near Seville, Spain which, if
successful, will be triplicated to provide sufficient energy for the
whole of the city. It consists of arrays of large mirrors which will
focus the suns rays onto a tower. This radiation will heat a transfer
medium, such as molten salt, to about 850°C, contained in a large,
insulated reservoir at the base of the tower. The transfer medium will
also circulate through a heat exchanger to water, which will generate
superheated steam to drive conventional turboalternators. This sounds
like a good idea, a priori. But let's look a some of the ramifications.
Considering a power output capacity equal to that of an EPR nuclear
station, 1,600 MWe, we can estimate a power efficiency similar to that
of a conventional steam plant, of about 30% from the heat transfer
medium, in round figures, 5,000 MWt. The heat transfer from the
radiation to the medium is unlikely to exceed 75%, including the losses
in the mirrors. One of the advantages of this technology is that the
heat transfer medium can store large quantities of energy, but this
requires enormous insulated reservoirs. This means that the energy can
be used to generating electricity over a period of 24 to 48 hours, even
when the sun is not shining. On an average, Cyprus has 2000 hours of
useful sunshine a year, out of a total of 8760 hours. The energy in
should therefore be 4.38 times higher in order to ensure a 24-hour
service for most of the year (obviously, over long periods of cloudy
weather, there is no way that the system can keep running). Rounding the
radiative capacity down to 30,000 MWr and assuming an average of 1
kW/m², this means we need 30 million m² of orientable mirrors. These have
to be fitted on rigid frames, able to be driven so that the radiation
from sunrise to sunset, winter to summer, can be focussed on the tower,
without shading each other. A little trigonometry will show that the
ground area necessary for each mirror will be about four times that of
the mirrors themselves, maintenance access included, assuming square mirrors of about 4 m x 4 m, so
the mirror farm will require about 120 million m² of flat or gently
sloping land. Where, on the island, can we find such a triangular plot
of free land with a base of 16 km and an apex-to-base distance of 15 km?
This would be no problem in the Mojave Desert or even in the plains
around Seville, but I can envision nowhere without a massive movement of
population, roads, etc., remembering that thermal radiation from the
tower would be significant. Maintenance, such as keeping the mirrors
clean, would be costly, too. Obviously, such an enormous project would
not be practical, in any case. It would be possible to have four smaller
projects in different parts of the island and this would have advantages
in that the grid capacity could be more evenly distributed.
Nevertheless, where can you find four sites, each of 30 square
kilometres? In the case of a nuclear reactor,
we can programme the maintenance shutdowns for periods of minimal
demand, so that conventional means can take the load; we cannot
programme the weather to do the same! It would be very risky, indeed, to
adopt this technology before we can obtain the practical results from
the Seville experiment.
Nuclear safety
To those unaware of the realities of nuclear power, safety is the issue
which is most frequently evoked. The very word nuclear evokes
thoughts of nuclear weapons and of Chernobyl. Of course, a nuclear bomb
is very different from what happens inside a nuclear reactor, in that
the chain reaction is uncontrolled whereas the latter is controlled
never to be able to reach criticality. Chernobyl was a terrible accident
which happened through a combination of poor design of a Generation I
reactor and human error which allowed the reactor to overheat beyond
control, combined with the fact that the reactor housing had no
containment. I can very confidently state that it could not happen with
a modern reactor which has:
- triplication or quadruplication of all essential instrumentation
- quadrupled emergency diesel generators with fail-safe start-up
to maintain control in the case of power failure
- automatic fail-safe on all controls
- emergency gravity drop-down of all control rods to stop the
reactor
- emergency water sprays to cool the reactor if overheated
- triple containment around the reactor, capable of withstanding
an aircraft crash or conventional bombs
- ceramic catch trays in case of melt-down
- seismic protection
- redundant control rooms
- correctly trained personnel
- etc.
There are currently some 400-odd reactors in service in the world
with a remarkable safety record. The media sometimes report incidents at
nuclear power stations, some quite serious, but these are usually remote
from the reactor, such as burst steam pipes. This kind of accident
happens all the time in fossil-fuel-fired plants with no mention by
national or international media. Recently, a major earthquake occurred
at a Japanese station, with a new fault line actually splitting the
site. When it happened, the safety features instantaneously shut down
the reactor as a precautionary measure. There was no damage to the
reactor or its containment shells and there was no risk of the escape of
highly radioactive material. However, the fuel cooling bath (like a
large, open swimming pool) did lose about a tonne of very slightly
radioactive water, with the shock wave causing a slurp. Expert
inspectors showed that this water would have evacuated to the sea and
there was no danger to the environment or to personnel.
I recommend a 4¾ minute
video that AREVA have published, which gives a further explanation
of some of these points with the EPR reactor. A second 6 minute
video gives a simple animated explanation of how a nuclear power
station works.
Political aspects
Given that any government that approved the idea of the construction
of a nuclear power plant would automatically lose their seats at the
next election, we can confidently say that the whole notion is
pie-in-the-sky! This is despite the undisputed facts that it is the
only proven way that:
- we can have an assured power supply 24/7
- Cyprus can meet its carbon dioxide commitments
- we can have reasonably-priced electricity in future decades
- we can minimise the stranglehold that fossil fuel suppliers
would have on us
This is a paradox; we'll be damned if we do and damned if we don't!
Popular aspects
There is little doubt that Cypriots are far from ready to accept the idea
of nuclear power and I doubt whether more than a minority could even be
persuaded to do so, no matter the benefits. Why? Generally, Costas and Klitos are fairly conservative guys, while Panayiota and Maria are even
more so. They are a little afraid of the unknown and they cannot
visualise how a reactor works or, worse, what could happen if something
goes wrong. The spectre of Chernobyl will always hang over our heads, no
matter how irrational it is. Notwithstanding, I was surprised at the
results of a recent small informal poll on a Cyprus Internet forum on
this subject; the 66 respondents were ordinary "persons in the street"
with no particular knowledge of the subject (I do not claim that these
results are representative of the whole population):
Would you accept nuclear energy in Cyprus?
| Unreservedly yes |
|
50% |
[ 33 ] |
| Yes, provided
electricity costs can be maintained at current levels in 2009
currency |
|
24% |
[ 16 ] |
| Maybe, no opinion or
haven't a clue |
|
10% |
[ 7 ] |
| No, even at the risk
of paying 5-10 times as much for electricity |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| Not ever, even if
electricity prices rise 100 times |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
The anti-nuclear lobby obviously exploits this irrationality to
further their arguments, but they do not look at the science and
engineering that goes into the use of radionuclides as a source of
energy. Some of the arguments they use include the development,
recycling and availability of nuclear fuel, the disposal of nuclear
waste, the transport of nuclear fuel. All these problems and others have
their safe solutions and I address these in a
separate essay in this series. In addition, I recommend the reading
of
The Salient Points.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that Cyprus must face facts. There is no way that we
can have sufficient power and maintain our commitments on carbon
emissions at a reasonable cost, with today's technology, other than
using nuclear energy. I acknowledge that this is not going to be popular
but the bullet has to be bitten, sooner or later. It would make sense to
do it sooner rather than later.
Without doubt, this will raise political objections at a high level. I
seriously doubt whether any coalition of political parties would have
the courage to even propose this thought. My proposal is therefore
probably has an effective as cutting water with a sword. On the other
hand, if I may mix my metaphors, this may be the first drop that all
start eroding the rock of opposition.
A nuclear power station could also provide the energy necessary for a
modern rail system to connect Nicosia, Larnaca, Limassol and possibly
Paphos to carry both passengers and merchandise rapidly and economically
as part of an integrated public transport system which would relieve the
pressure, pollution and carbon emissions from traffic. With vision, our
government has the means at their disposal to kill more than one bird
with a single stone. Are they up to it?
|