‘‘One may suppose how radium could become very dangerous in criminal hands and here we might ask ourselves if it is to mankind’s advantage to know the secrets of nature, if we are mature enough to profit from them or if that knowledge will harm us’’.158

hThe CEGB had claimed that funds for decommissioning were being set aside and that when decommissioning was to start the appropriate technology would be in place. However, it tran­spired that such funds were just a ‘‘bookkeeping exercise’’ with the money having been given back to HM Treasury, with no obvious mechanism for their return to fund decommissioning.155

Concerns over the potential malevolent use of nuclear materials have been on-going since the discovery of radiation over 100 years ago. In the present day, potential threats from malfunctions in nuclear reactors and/or from nuclear waste pale in comparison to the threats posed by the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. The series of threats never vanished with the end of the Cold War but continues to haunt us today, if not with more urgency than during the cold war itself. Nuclear weapons proliferation has been a concern since the birth of nuclear energy, given that the very purpose of the first nuclear reactors was to extract plutonium from the spent fuel for nuclear weapons. By contrast, today the objective is to minimize the proliferation risks of nuclear fuel cycle operation.159

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into effect in 1968. It stated that those states that already possessed nuclear weapons should not transfer atomic weapons to ‘‘non nuclear weapons states’’. The NPT also sought to invoke the discourse of human rights and development to justify nuclear energy, such that it was ‘‘the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to… use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’’.lu Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, labels the enrichment and reprocessing cap­abilities of countries the ‘‘Achilles’ heel’’ of the non-proliferation regime,160 given that countries which possess such technologies have a virtual weapons programme. llu This is increasingly a problem as countries adapt or express an interest in developing Fast Breeder Reactors. The shortcomings of the NPT have led some observers to question the logic of a worldwide nuclear renais­sance. Why is the expansion of nuclear energy a potential problem? The PUREX method of extracting plutonium from spent fuel is well known and easily accessible. At present there is 1000 tonnes of plutonium worldwide.

Countries which adopt PUREX/MOX may neither have the infrastructure or funds to control its spread. That said, there are real, though not insur­mountable challenges for ‘‘rogue states’’ once they have acquired weapons grade material to actually develop weapons technology, which is much more of a technical challenge than commonly assumed162 One solution is for the USA and other nuclear supplier group countries to lease fuel to countries with small nuclear programmes. A recent overview of the functioning of the NPT con­cluded that:

“The somewhat frayed non-proliferation regime will require serious re­examination and strengthening to face the challenge of the global growth scenario, recognizing that fuel cycle associated proliferation would greatly reduce the attraction ofexpanded nuclear power as an option for addressing global energy and environmental challenges’’.163

lnThe NPT is seen to have three pillars: (1) non proliferation, (2) disarmament, and (3) the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

lmThe NPT is seen by some to encapsulate a ‘‘nuclear orientalism’’ in which ‘‘nuclear weapons are represented so that theirs are a problem whereas ours are not’’.161

We have seen through the birth, expansion, decline and renaissance of nuclear power, a number of claims that have sustained interest in the technology: from being too cheap to meter, to being means of securing energy independence and energy security, and as a solution to climate change. However, each of these claims has also had to deal with the challenges posed by the relatively high cost of building nuclear plants; persistent concerns over its safety to the perennial problem of finding a solution and site for the disposal of nuclear waste; as well as concerns over the proliferation risks inherent in the fuel cycle.

Part of the appeal of nuclear power today is the need to develop and foster low carbon energy sources in order to help mitigate climate change, coupled with this is the realisation that renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are not coming online quickly enough to enable a straightforward transition from a carbon dominated energy regime to a low carbon energy regime. As a result countries have either opted for a new nuclear build programme, sometimes after years of stagnation, or have opted to extend the lifetime of existing reactors. Whilst there has been relative stagnation in Europe and North America, a number of developing countries are embracing nuclear power not just for environmental reasons but as an integral part of their industrialisation process, to cope with the extraordinary growth in demand for electricity, a problem acutely facing China and India. The case for nuclear power also increases in parallel to arguments for the electrification of the transport and home/business heating sectors, again to mitigate climate change through development of a low carbon transport system. With technological develop­ments such as the electric-powered car and bus becoming central to dec­arbonising the transport sector, carbon-free sources of electricity production will be privileged, with renewables (primarily wind) and nuclear power heading the list of sources. There are other non-economic factors at work in the desire for nuclear power, namely national status and prestige. Nuclear power becomes a means of political and social policy, strengthening the political legitimacy of the state in developing nations in particular.164

Given the overall resource limits and challenges we have identified, however, nuclear fission may only be able to play a short — to medium-term role in meeting these environmental and economic needs, as an enabling technology with a so — called ‘‘bridging role’’.165 Even then, nuclear energy will face some significant problems as identified above, many of which have not yet been adequately addressed. Policymakers have designed a host of measures to try and address the more pressing concerns, such as creating loan guarantees, tax breaks and arti­ficially raising the cost of carbon, all in an attempt to make nuclear more competitive in comparison with fossil fuels. We have shown that from its inception, nuclear energy has needed state support either directly through state funds or indirectly by intervening to structure markets in their favour.

A range of economic, technical and social challenges continue to plague the industry. Waste disposal is a prime example. Only in Finland is a deep geolo­gical facility under construction after years of discussion and debate with local

communities, here public acceptance and trust is vital, with trust being more of a scarce commodity in some countries than others. The US waste disposal policy is in considerable disarray with profound disagreements among residents in Nevada, the proposed site of the storage facility. The problem of waste and spent fuel disposal is linked to the additional concern of proliferation. Given the weaknesses of the non-proliferation treaty, the expansion of nuclear power, particularly to countries with no history of nuclear energy, and the ability of states to use the PUREX process to extract plutonium, this is particularly wor­risome. There are legitimate concerns that the expansion of nuclear power may also raise the risk of a serious accident in the core of a reactor, risks which are lessened given the improved design of the current generation of LWRs being built. However as we discussed above such risks are still too high and additional design changes to the LWR as well as alternative reactor designs must be developed to reduce the risk still further to within acceptable levels.

As the recent disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant illustrates it is not just reactor design that needs to be improved but also regulatory oversight and senior management practises. We have seen at Fukushima how neglect of maintenance and safety rules can contribute to prolonging and intensifying the consequences of a natural disaster. Such consequences have been exacerbated by the failures of regulation in an age of privatization and the downsizing of government, as well as the inevitable, prosaic failure of organizations.172 The building of new nuclear plants that are currently underway is unevenly geo­graphically distributed but the challenges that states and corporations face are similar, the speed and scale at which the ‘‘nuclear renaissance’’ will occur depends on whether new reactors can demonstrate ‘‘better economics, improved safety, successful waste management, and low proliferation risk, and if public policies place a significant value on electricity production that does not produce CO2’’.166