Nuclear Dilemma Nuclear Dilemma

1994/02/01 Altonaga, Kepa - EHUko biologia irakaslea Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria

• Energia

A month ago I had the time to visit a nuclear power plant with several students. What has been seen and heard there has encouraged me to remember other worrying data read previously and to suggest further reflection.

Although at present the proximity to oil is high, it is approaching with lightness at the end of the period in which this non-renewable resource has been cheap and abundant. However, we cannot forget that oil is and will be an indispensable raw material for the petrochemical industry, so it will be necessary to take special measures for the gradual conservation of this resource on a large scale. On the other hand, the greenhouse effect will force to reduce the use of oil as the main fuel.

The energy problem has another very important part. Agricultural production has been growing with the area cultivated until 1950. Since then, chemical fertilizers have been the main cause of increased production (between 1950-86 the consumption of fertilisers per inhabitant and year has gone from 5 to 26 kilos on a planetary level). However, one ton of oil per ton of nitrogenous fertilizers is needed, which is also necessary in the production of herbicides and pesticides.

Thus, the increase in world food production has been based on the conversion of oil into a cereal through photosynthesis. However, the shortage of oil in the near future, or the high prices and subtracts imposed by the risk of warming of the planet, will determine the decline in agricultural production just at the time when the large population demands more food (8.5 billion people will live in 2025 according to the projections of the United Nations Organization).

Therefore, we will soon find ourselves in a critical situation when the risk of global warming forces us to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels. Sources of soft energy (solar, wind, tidal, thermal) could be used, but with the current rates of development they will not be able to replace fossil fuels: the energy of these sources will only supply 8-10% of the world's needs at the end of this century.

For years we have been concerned about the proliferation of nuclear power plants, their risks to sight and their waste, but we begin to realize that the use of oil and coal can be more laborious for society. In a situation of ecological crisis, in the urgent need for a drastic reduction of CO2 emissions and with an extremely reduced proximity of clean energy, it can be beneficial to keep the nuclear option open, even if it is a partial solution. In fact, it would be impossible to build a sufficient power plant to deal with the effects of CO2 reduction.

The impact of global warming will be especially serious in poor states, where development needs energy for agricultural, industrial and domestic needs. The terrible scenario that comes is the best illustrated by China: the industrializing effort of the most populous state will be based on coal, with large reserves. In this way, the CO2 level will increase dramatically as the world industry tries to descend. Stopping development in China, or in other peoples, is morally unjust, politically finished and in impossible practice.