Rite and Reason: It is difficult to understand how the Vatican or any Christian can promote nuclear energy, writes Fr Seán McDonagh
Statements by the Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican Council for Justice and Peace, have a knack of causing environmentalists/social activists in the Catholic Church to raise their eyebrows in disbelief.
In August 2003, he wondered whether GM food would solve the problem of world hunger, the very point made by the chief executive of Monsanto, Bob Shapiro, to sell GM food. Though the cardinal rowed back on that, number 437 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the church remains ambivalent on GM food.
At a recent seminar in Rome to mark the 20th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Cardinal Martino invited the international community to support the development of nuclear energy for civil use. It is ironic he should be promoting a technology which continues to make a hell on earth in Chernobyl.
He now agrees with those who see nuclear power as the way to address both a growing shortage of petroleum and global warming. The argument runs like this: unless countries build more nuclear power stations, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise and they will be unable to fulfil commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, everyone will suffer because of drastic climate change.
Is nuclear power really "green" and "clean"? If one looks merely at the nuclear plant then it is true that little fossil fuel is used to produce electricity. However an enormous quantity of fossil fuel is needed at almost every phase of the nuclear process, beginning with uranium mining.
Uranium mining has very significant negative environmental consequences. The Olympic Dam uranium/copper mine in South Australia has produced a radioactive tailings dump of 60 million tones which is increasing by 10 million tones each year.
It is also the largest consumer of electricity in South Australia and the state's major contributor to global warming. Enriching uranium uses enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy.
Furthermore, massive amounts of fossil fuel are needed to build nuclear plants. If one adds up these three phases of the nuclear operation, it is estimated that a reactor would have to operate continuously for almost 10 years before producing a net unit of energy.
Then, at the end of their 30- or 40-year life-span, more fossil fuel will be needed to decommission the plants. The estimated cost of decommissioning in Britain alone could be £70 billion (€103 billion) which would make the nuclear industry the biggest loss-maker in British history.
Nuclear power is not cheap. Britain built its last nuclear power station, Sizewell B, in Suffok in 1995. It cost £2.733 billion-£3.7 billion (€4 billion-€5.4 billion) in 2005 figures. It took 15 years to complete and cost twice the original budget.
It would take more than six similar nuclear power plants to supply 20 per cent of Britain's electricity and these would not be completed until 2025. It has been estimated that both land-based and off-shore wind farms would supply the same amount of energy for a similar cost of about £25 billion (€36.6 billion).
Alternative energies like wind are now almost as cheap as nuclear power. While the nuclear industry claims that nuclear power can produce a kilowatt hour of electricity for 3 pence, this is disputed by experts.
A 2005 report from a London think-tank, the New Economics Foundation, estimated the cost of a kilowatt-hour electricity generated from nuclear power would cost 8.3p, once realistic construction and running costs are included.
The Royal Academy of Engineers put the cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from gas at 3.4p, 5p for coal and 7.2p for wind.
Another reason for arguing that nuclear power is not the answer to global warming is that it is used merely to generate electricity. Generating electricity is only responsible for one third of greenhouse gas emissions.
Even if there was a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050, this would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by mere 5 per cent. This is less that a tenth of what scientists at the Intergovernmental on Climate Change are seeking, to stabilise climate.
Since the events of September 11th, 2001, nuclear power stations must now also be seen as potential terrorist targets. Security reasons alone should lead to their demise.
In March 2006, the Sustainable Development Commission did a study on whether Britain should restart a nuclear power programme. It came down firmly against.
It suggested an "aggressive" expansion of energy efficiency and the promotion of alternative, green energy. It pointed out that even if Britain's current nuclear capacity were doubled, this would lead to only an 8 per cent drop in carbon dioxide output by 2035.
I find it difficult to understand how Christians can support a form of energy that is inherently dangerous and will remain lethal for tens of thousands years.
I hope that Cardinal Martino will look again and stop endorsing this death-dealing technology. Energy from alternative sources - biomass, wind, wave and tidal - is much safer and more climate-friendly.
Father Seán McDonagh is a Columban priest, author and environmental activist