Blog Layout
Atoms for Peace: Will Nuclear Energy Reshape Foreign Policy?
Olav Bing Orgland
Nov 18, 2020
Nuclear will likely play a larger role in a world looking to wean itself off fossil fuels, but the U.S and Europe might not be positioned to capitalise on this development.
On December the 8th 1953 then U.S President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed the United Nations General Assembly. The speech was both sombre in its acknowledgement of the threat posed by nuclear weapons and optimistic in its belief that the power of the atom could be used to help nations prosper. Sixty-seven years later, the idea of a U.S president addressing the U.N General Assembly to advocate for nuclear energy seems inconceivable.
In the years following Eisenhower’s speech, nuclear power enjoyed a short period of unrivalled popularity. However, in 1979 a hit anti-nuclear movie called the China Syndrome released 12 days before a partial nuclear meltdown occurred in a reactor at the power station located at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. The movie and the subsequent nuclear accident seriously undermined the trust that U.S voters had in nuclear energy.
These fears were further stoked by the infamous nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and the more recent nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan in 2011.
All these accidents have given nuclear power a poor reputation in Europe and the United States with states like Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland all planning to shut down and phase out nuclear energy by 2030.
Nuclear also faces several challenges in the U.S. Pressure from hostile environmental groups as well as increasing cheap natural gas, solar and wind all threaten the public image and profitability of nuclear energy. This has led to a decline in nuclear energy capacity in the U.S since its peak in 2007.
However, the global energy system is changing, and new developments in technology, the threat of climate change and changes in foreign policy might lead to a renaissance for nuclear energy in Europe and America.
The biggest arguments against nuclear energy are that it is more dangerous than other energy sources and that the cost of building new nuclear power plants are too high. Both arguments are used successfully by lobbyists for other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and by lobbyists working for the more traditional fossil fuel companies. Still, recent studies seem to question the validity of both points.
The dangers of nuclear energy have been well covered by the media, ranging from the hit film the China syndrome to the media coverage of nuclear accidents and the hit HBO show Chernobyl. However, western media is less equipped at covering the aftermath of a nuclear accident or the actual fallout resulting from these accidents.
The Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania has no deaths attributed to it, while the nuclear accident of Chernobyl has a death toll ranging between 4000 and 60 000 people. However, of these deaths only 31 deaths were confirmed to come from direct exposure to the radiation emanating from the reactor meltdown and the remaining deaths are attributed to the lower radiation spread from the accident to the wider population and includes many forms of cancers in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in the years following the accident. However, many scientists recently question the validity of attributing cancer deaths in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia directly to the accident, as a result, it remains exceedingly hard to quantify the effect of Chernobyl. Even so, the World Health Organization found that in 2005, 50 people had died as a direct result of radiation from the accident and that 4000 people could potentially die prematurely due to the radiation.
These accidents included relatively old reactors and do not provide a good picture of the effects of a modern nuclear accident; instead, the accident at Fukushima offers a better, more modern example.
In this nuclear accident following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, 573 people died. Only one of them from the radiation emanating from the nuclear accident itself and the rest died from the stress related to the forced evacuation of the entire region by the Japanese government, an action they have later admitted was rushed and poorly executed.
This quantitative approach to nuclear accidents is not made to make light of the deaths themselves but rather to provide a metric by which to measure the harmful effects of nuclear energy. If you look at the cumulative deaths from pollution-related to coal and other fossil fuels, you are left with a far higher number.
Again, the figures are hard to quantify as death related to pollution are hard to directly link to a specific source. Still, the WHO and other sources indicate that about 30 000 people die every year in the U.S from Coal related pollution, and the figure is a staggering 500 000 each year in China.
Other energy sources like hydro are also not free from risk. If we are to judge nuclear energy based on three nuclear accidents, then the same metric should be applied to hydro. When we do this, we find that the death toll for hydro is far higher than nuclear with the inclusion of the catastrophic Banqiao dam failure in 1975, which killed more than 175 000 people in China.
All in all, nuclear is not just one of the safest and cleanest energy sources we have available to us, but it is also not as expensive as many of its critics claim.
It is true that the construction of new nuclear power plants is very often over budget and delayed. It is also true that the cost of a nuclear power plant is relatively high compared to the creation of Solar, Wind and more traditional gas and coal power plants, especially since solar and wind have become far more affordable in the recent years.
What is not often mentioned however, is that although the initial capital cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is higher than with other green energy sources, these costs are less severe when considering the life expectancy of a nuclear power plant which is 80 years. This is far higher than the approximately 25 years for solar panels and 20-25 years for wind turbines. The cost of nuclear power plants also incorporates the cost of dealing with nuclear waste while most estimates for wind and solar do not include the waste produced into the overall cost.
The cost of building new nuclear power plants is also likely to decrease if we were to create more of them as specialised skills and materials would become more accessible.
Finally, the fluctuations inherent in solar/wind power generation directly impacts the price of electricity and causes higher prices for the consumer by creating the need to sell off power cheaply during spikes in energy production and importing energy when power generation is low. Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce power reliably, thus lowering long term costs.
All these factors do not always make nuclear the best option for generating electricity. Natural elements also make other power sources like wind, solar, gas and hydro better in specific scenarios. However, it does go to show that the cost of nuclear power is not as excessive as its opponents claim. These costs are relatively easy to quantify and understand, but there is also a hidden strategic cost for the West in rejecting nuclear.
There is little doubt that the future energy landscape will involve a lot more green and renewable energy, but this change carries with is serious geopolitical implications.
As of 2016, five of the six biggest solar companies are in China, and China produces around 70% of all the solar panels in the world. Chinese firms such as Goldwind also dominate the charts as the world’s leading producer of wind turbines. Furthermore, over 80% of the world’s lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, giving Beijing direct control over the supply.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that China dominates the production and refinement of rare earth minerals by up to 90-95%, which are essential in not only new renewable technology but also most modern technology.
History has further shown that the Chinese Communist Party have no qualms utilising these strategic resources to leverage foreign policy goals. They blocked the export of rare earth minerals to Japan in 2010 after the two countries saw rising tensions over disputed islands in the East China Sea. The CCP also made similar threats against the U.S in 2019 amidst the rising trade war between the two nations.
The West should be worried that its energy independence and green revolution hinges on the goodwill of the Chinese Communist Party. As a result, nuclear could be a far more reliable and secure alternative. Not only would investments in nuclear remove some reliance on China, but it would also create stable jobs.
Unlike solar where most of the money is spent on buying panels abroad and installing them in Europe and the U.S, nuclear requires local building companies and dedicated and well-educated personnel to operate. This does translate to higher initial costs, but it also creates stable local jobs which could be leveraged by politicians to justify those costs. Furthermore, the creation and retention of these skills is vital to avoid relying on Chinese and Russian nuclear companies. Foreign interference in domestic energy is not a mere economic decision as the recent debacle over Chinese involvement in the UK’s nuclear energy program goes to show.
Apart from securing the domestic energy supply, nuclear energy can also play a more significant role as a foreign policy tool. Eisenhower emphasised this in his speech to the U.N, where he proclaimed that the United States would help spread nuclear energy and prosperity around the world.
The changing geopolitical nature of energy combined with climate change will require several nations to develop alternative energy sources. Without the expertise and will to help other nations develop civilian nuclear energy, the U.S and Europe run the risk of driving countries closer to China and Russia.
A recent example of this is Saudi Arabia, which with the help of China has managed to construct its first facility for extracting uranium yellowcake from uranium. The facility is in a remote part of Saudi Arabia and is a far cry from an actual functioning nuclear reactor. It does, however, show the willingness of other countries to expand their civilian nuclear program and the attempted secrecy surrounding the facility should act as a wakeup call to western policymakers about the reality of nuclear energy.
Every nation has a right to develop nuclear energy for civilian uses, and many countries - some located in the Middle East - aspire to do so. Fears surrounding the potential weaponisation of nuclear energy are also justified. However, inaction from the West could potentially be more destabilising. If the U.S and Europe agreed to share its nuclear knowledge and skills to develop nuclear energy in developing nations, they would have a lot more oversight over developing countries’ respective capabilities. They would also be better placed to supervise and manage any nuclear waste more effectively.
Russia already manages a thriving nuclear export industry with over 20 planned reactors in foreign countries at an estimated value of $133 bn in late 2017. The way Russia does it is offering nuclear energy in the form of an integrated package that covers everything from fuel, training, services, infrastructure development, legal and regulatory structures and handling of waste. This is not just a good economic deal, with Rosatom the state-owned Russian nuclear company calculating that each ruble invested in foreign reactors generates two rubles to the Russian GDP, but it also helps increase Russian influence abroad.
Perhaps it is time for the West to live up to the pledge Eisenhower made in front of the U.N General Assembly in 1953:
“The United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma - to devote its entire heart and mind to finding the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”
Following several tense days, de-escalation between Israel and Iran is now a more distinct possibility.
Iran's attack against Israel on 13 April poses significant potential risks for the wider region.
Consumer activists are increasingly motivated by geopolitics, necessitating the adoption of a new strategic approach by companies.
As the world order shifts towards multipolarity and the Polar ice caps continue to melt, the Arctic could become an increasingly important geostrategic space.
A resumption of 'earthquake diplomacy' has eased tensions between Greece and Turkey since February, but can any improvements in bilateral relations be sustained?
As the influence of cyberspace on security and economic well-being continues to grow, governments like the UK are developing comprehensive strategies to secure their interests in this domain.
As cyberspace becomes increasingly vital to economics, culture, and war, a comprehensive understanding of this domain has never been more important.
The US military’s HMMWV up-armouring program is a pertinent case study showing how solving one problem may lead to another.
Deterrence is a well examined concept applied to interstate competition, particularly when nuclear weapons are concerned. Does it however, have a role to play in preventing terrorist attacks by non-state actors?
Social media has become a hotly contested space for information warfare. If state actors intend to seize the narrative, they must adopt appropriate strategies for countering misinformation.