‘Nuclear Energy Is Not a Solution to The Climate Crisis, but Rather a Threat’

In the second and last part of our interview with Nukleersiz.org Coordinator Pınar Demircan, Demircan explained that nuclear power plants will cause great harm to human and environmental health and the country's economy at every stage, from installation to dismantling, and that the solution to slowing down the climate crisis is to turn to wind and solar energy.

Pınar Demircan says that the negative effects of nuclear power plants, which started with the establishment, continued with the enormous risks and damage to the environment during the period of operation, and that they continued to harm both the environment and the economy after the liquidation decision. Demircan says, ‘When the unresolved waste problem of nuclear power plants is evaluated in the entire fuel cycle (uranium mining-fuel production-fuel delivery-plant construction-waste process) in addition to their extremely costly processes, nuclear energy production is 6 times more than solar energy and 3 times more compared to wind energy. It has been scientifically proven to cause higher carbon emissions.’

Nukleersiz.org and other anti-nuclear associations often emphasize that nuclear energy is not clean energy and underline the dangers it carries. What are your arguments against those who propose nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis? Can nuclear power prevent climate change?

Our claim that nuclear energy is not a solution to the climate crisis, but rather a threat, is based on the fact that nuclear is not just an energy source, because the continuity of life can only be possible with a type of energy that will not return to us in malicious forms through the destruction created in ecology. So, it shouldn’t be expensive because of the lining of the energy. As a matter of fact, it is now understood globally that the risks of coal increase emissions and coal is being abandoned. In fact, after the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, no nuclear power plant was built in Europe for 10 years. The last time the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster occurred, Germany decided to close the nuclear power plants that provide 30% of the electricity production that feeds their entire industry, and they implement this decision step by step to close all their reactors in 2022, shut down 11 reactors and have six reactors waiting to be shut down. Similarly, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland decided to shut down their nuclear power plants by 2030, in other words, to dismantle them, not to open them again. We know that Germany has also decided to close their coal-fired power plants.

At this point, I would like to remind you that for the first time in 2019, Germany produced more energy from non-hydro renewable energy sources (solar, wind and mainly biomass) than nuclear power plants. The gap widened with the significant decline in nuclear production in 2020, with renewable sources producing 16.5 percent more electricity than nuclear reactors globally. In 2020, we see that Germany produces 573 TWh of electricity, consuming 557 TWh. In Turkey, on the other hand, we see that production is 291 TWh, and consumption is 290 TWh. In other words, Germany is giving up nuclear energy production by basing their giant industry on renewable energies and taking into account the costs of closing their existing nuclear power plants.

‘Why Can’t Turkey Overtake Germany in Solar and Wind Power Generation?’

Producing and consuming half as much electricity as Germany, why can’t Turkey do this? Moreover, the time obtained from the sun in Turkey is 1000 hours longer than in Germany. While only 6% of the electricity needed in Turkey is obtained from the sun, in other words, although there is 60% less solar capacity in Germany, 46 times more than the solar energy produced in Turkey is produced. There is a similar situation with regard to wind: While 21% of the consumption is met by electricity energy obtained from wind in Germany, Turkey has three times higher wind capacity than Germany, while its production from wind energy is half of Germany’s. In addition, Germany will quit using coal in 2038, just as it quitted nuclear power in 2022. In other words, Germany does not see nuclear as a solution to the climate crisis, and quits using the coal, which must be quitted in terms of the climate crisis, until after nuclear! However, I should also mention that the employment opportunities of solar and wind are at least 3 times higher than nuclear.

‘The Dismantling and Waste Process of Nuclear Power Plants is Too Costly’

It has something to do with the fact that the cost of the 250-billion-dollar accident announced in the first days has reached 750 billion dollars today, in case of a disaster like Japan’s, behind Germany’s abandonment of nuclear energy production by learning lessons from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. It will exceed $1 trillion. Nuclear waste has to be dealt with for decades to come. In other words, even if the nuclear facility is dismantled, the problems continue, additional measures will always have to be taken and new costs will have to be incurred.

This is such a costly process that even many countries that are aware of nuclear risks avoid closing their nuclear power plants. Because the current political powers do not want to undertake these problematic and costly processes. In fact, even when Germany quits nuclear energy production, the nuclear test is not over since there are dismantling processes and waste disposal processes, and it will have to allocate human and material resources to these processes. For example, today, the country has 20 thousand tons of nuclear waste, these are wastes that no one wants in their own region or ‘backyard’. Researches on permanent storage area, which means permanent cost of millions of Euros for final nuclear waste in Germany, continue.

Including these dismantling and waste processes of nuclear power plants, the risks in terms of ecology and the continuity of life are endless, and this interview would not be enough for it. For this reason, let me invite our interested readers to the page on our website on nukleersiz.org where we have collected 100 reasons for nuclear risks and our reasons for opposition.

In addition to the general risks of nuclear, I would like to point out that a worldwide campaign called ‘Do not Nuke the Climate!’ has been launched, which is based on the fact that there is no solution to the climate crisis. As an active member of this campaign, we are trying to spread it in Turkey.

‘Even the Construction of Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant is an Enemy of Life’

The life cycle of nuclear fuel, from extraction to processing and completion, is called the ‘Nuclear Fuel Cycle’. The so-called upstream phase of the fuel cycle is the extraction of uranium from the ground for use in the reactor, where radioactive waste is generated, it consists of processing with chemicals, enrichment, and fuel production stages. Three years after the start of electricity generation, the storage processes following the removal of the fuel from the reactor and taking it into the pool, its removal from the pool and reprocessing (at this stage, overseas shipping is also in question) and finally the permanent storage/geological storage processes are the nuclear fuel cycle itself. Carbon is released at every stage of this fuel cycle. These processes are carried out by destroying nature by using gasoline and diesel. In addition, each of these processes are processes with carbon emissions. Speaking of carbon emissions, wouldn’t even the image of Akkuyu Beach in the pristine Mediterranean Sea, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant rooting out the sand lilies and destroying the habitat of the seals, show how the construction of the nuclear power plant is hostile to ecology, thus to the climate, that is, to life itself?

To sum up, when nuclear power plants’ unresolved waste problem is evaluated in the entire fuel cycle (uranium mining-fuel production-fuel delivery-plant construction-waste process), in addition to their extremely costly processes, it is seen that nuclear energy production’s carbon emission is 6 times higher than solar energy and 3 times higher than wind energy. I can also share a scientific resource for this. (Sovacool, B.K Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 8, 2008)

While countries such as Germany and Switzerland decide to close their nuclear power plants, Turkey is after establishing a new nuclear power plant. If the nuclear power plants under construction in Mersin and Sinop in Turkey are not stopped, what dangers are likely to be encountered? The thing that comes to mind most here is the possibility of accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima. But even if such accidents do not occur, what are the damages caused by nuclear power plants in their normal functioning?

Turkey should abandon the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant Project, which is currently underway in Mersin. In fact, even those who see nuclear as an energy source in Turkey and consider it as the technology of the future should oppose nuclear power plant projects in Turkey. Those who defend the general dangers and risks of nuclear power either do not know or see it as low risks to realize and will not understand without experience, but those who see and know the realities of this country must tell the ones, who does not know and do not want to see, because everyone should prevent the establishment of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant and the start of the project in Sinop. So, I’m talking about a 3-range spectrum:

• Nuclear-specific reasons (non-ecological, war technology),

• Lack of transparency and accountability, including making an international contract for the establishment of nuclear power plants and handing them over to the Russians in a build-operate-transfer system, that is, reasons specific to our country (political reasons).

Let’s add to these reasons for the collapse of the construction of the reactor foundation that took place in Akkuyu NPP in 2019, the explosion that took place last year, which caused the windows of the houses and cars to be destroyed at a distance of one square kilometer, and the fire that broke out at the Akkuyu NPP transformer a few days ago. These are not ordinary events; they are some important examples that require even those who advocate nuclear energy in this country to oppose the establishment of a nuclear power plant in Turkey.

We can categorize them as reasons that are likely to carry these two categories further with the climate crisis.

If I explain the reasons specific to nuclear, nuclear is actually a product of the nuclear industry that has knitted its networks around the world rather than an energy source, and its main purpose is production for the production of nuclear weapons or the development of nuclear technologies. In other words, it becomes the subject of political and economic negotiations. The inefficient, risky processes of this energy and costly construction processes that take a long time already show us that the main goal by establishing a nuclear power plant is not energy production. Moreover, nuclear has a production process that uses and pollutes ecologically hostile water resources. For example, I have been writing on this subject since 2017 that in the current climate crisis, there are situations such as the closure of nuclear power plants that receive their cooling water from lakes and rivers during the dry summer season and even their decommissioning in the summer months. Unfortunately, the climate crisis will increase such examples every year.

At this point, can it be called efficient for nuclear energy? Moreover, why cooling water is needed is a problem in itself. Because nuclear energy is inherently inefficient, you run a generator by cooling an overheated material with sea water and turning it into steam by generating extremely high temperature. You might think that the coal-fired power plant uses more water, and chlorine and chemicals are used to use this water, which causes the death of sea creatures. Now at this point, can a nuclear power plant be assumed to be climate-friendly just because it does not emit carbon emissions from its chimney? Moreover, it also releases another substance that will cause ecological problems. It periodically releases radioactive isotopes into the air. Sometimes this release happens over longer periods of time. Here, when a problem occurs, if this emission is made by exceeding the determined limits and this is detected by international meteorological sources, you pay compensation to the countries according to the contracts you have signed and the size of the case.

On the other hand, the society should not be deceived by lies such as the possibility of accessing cheap electricity with nuclear energy, because while we currently buy electricity for 4 dollars according to world standards, we have promised that we will buy electricity at 12.35 dollars for the first 15 years, 3-4 times more for the Akkuyu nuclear power plant. There is no guarantee that this basic price will not increase in the following years, not to mention the taxes that will be added while citizens access electricity. Moreover, there are situations that show the gravity of Turkey’s economic course, such as the fact that the dollar’s exchange rate was 2.35 TL at the time of the agreement, but today it is 10 TL.

Finally, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report was shared with the public at the end of September. Your detailed review of the report was also published in the Yeşil Gazete (Green Newspaper). What do you think were the prominent details for the future in the report? Can we say that the world is moving away from nuclear energy and approaching clean, renewable energy, and that the climate crisis –at least in the field of nuclear energy– is really being fought?

Unfortunately, we can’t. On the contrary, the world now tends to proceed in a problematic and irresponsible way, based on the claim that it does not release carbon from the climate crisis stack. In other words, at the end of the 1970s, during the Petroleum Crisis, coal was shown as an alternative energy source to oil, and nuclear power plants were established one after another during the period declared as the Nuclear Renaissance. Now, the nuclear lobby is trying to make a similar breakthrough using the climate crisis as an excuse. In this way, they intend to initiate a second nuclear renaissance, the clearest example of which we see in the nuclearization of the Middle East. New nuclear power plants undoubtedly mean new customers for the nuclear lobby. Today, a total of 415 nuclear reactors are in active operation in 31 countries.

Presenting nuclear as a solution to the climate crisis is not a new phenomenon, but every year the nuclear lobby raises its hands on this issue. For example, in the Bonn Climate Forum in 2017, they distributed bananas saying that there is radiation in bananas, look, you can eat them every day. They do this by ignoring that what is in the banana is potassium, not radiation, and such news was circulated in Turkey right after. They ignore the fact that the potassium in bananas is not the same as the industrial isotope, that industrial isotopes are the only cause of thyroid cancer in children, whereas for children, bananas are an important food source.

I can give a link to a related article on this subject here, by the way.

I write an evaluation of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report almost every year because there is a need for a truly reliable and unbiased source of information in this field.

Undoubtedly, it is pleasing that a step has been taken to stop or at least slow down the climate crisis with the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, but we see that this approach is not sincere because nuclear is presented as a solution. In other words, the resources allocated to nuclear in the climate crisis mean stepping away from the solution itself.

As a matter of fact, in the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, it is seen that nuclear energy is desired to be expanded despite the cost reductions in solar and wind production, however, when considered together with climate risks, it is also noted that the risks of the nuclear industry for the whole world have increased. With the aging of nuclear reactors around the world, maintenance and repair costs have increased, and they have become even more risky. Those who wish can take a look at the evaluation of the report here.

Because to think that the solution to the climate crisis will be given by nuclear energy requires being disconnected from reality. First of all, the world doesn’t have much time left. Even if there is a nuclear solution, the constructions that do not end before 10 years, the necessity of increasing the costs of millions of dollars do not allow quick measures. Moreover, due to the melting of glaciers in 2030, there are great risks such as rising sea levels for nuclear power plants on the seashore. One of these risks is valid for Akkuyu.

‘Turkey Is Among the Countries That Show Nuclear as a Solution to The Climate Crisis’

Unfortunately, Turkey is a country that mediates the portrayal of nuclear as a solution to the climate crisis, because taking long and costly processes for energy production creates political promises for some political powers and enables them to be used. For example, it is said that a job market will be created, it is said that the world nuclear industry market will be entered, and the arduous, long, and costly processes are presented as job cakes that politicians can promise, in line with neoliberal capitalism.

However, when the nuclear power plant becomes operational, these promises will leave their place to resentment, because nuclear power plants have certain technological standards and Russia, which has know-how, does not have a technological transfer on the Turkish side. In addition, this is a situation that concerns Russia’s own labor market. Let me give an example, we visited a nuclear power plant when I had the opportunity to go to Fukushima several times, upon the invitation of Japanese non-governmental organizations, to learn about the causes and consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and inform Turkey about it. I asked the officer there if they fired the technical staff who were nuclear power plant employees because all the nuclear power plants were closed after Fukushima. The answer was, ‘No, no one has been fired, they will be evaluated in projects abroad.’

Finally, I would like to give you an example from Armenia that nuclear is not an energy source. As you know, there is a 400-Megawatt nuclear reactor there, previously Armenia had 2 reactors built with the support of Russian experts, but it was shut down after the 7.2 magnitude Spitak earthquake in 1988, but the 2nd unit was reopened in 1995. Armenia is a country that imports 80 percent of natural gas from Russia, it is foreign-dependent for energy like Turkey. It exports half of its nuclear power to Iran. In other words, the Armenian nuclear power plant does not produce to meet its own energy needs. The power plant, which is currently in the renovation process, is planned to operate until at least 2026. When we look at the currently installed capacity and future projections in Turkey, there is no need for electricity production and Turkey is currently in the position of a foreign-dependent country in energy around 70 percent, of which 50 percent is Russia.

However, energy production, which is called ‘domestic and national’ in the rhetoric of the political power, is only possible with solar and wind, because if Germany, which predicts that it can keep its giant industry alive with half the capacity in Turkey, can turn its face completely to the sun and wind, Turkey can achieve this much more easily and in a short time. Otherwise, while Turkey consumes its human and material resources with nuclear energy, it may be late for solar and wind energy production processes, where it can employ its citizens and entrust its future with the right projects.

You can access the first part of the interview here.