CLIMATE CHANGE: NUCLEAR POWER; A MAJOR PROBLEM THAN A SOLUTION

One of the colossal issues facing the world right now is the risk of large-scale climate change. Scientific discovery has shown that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the consequences of continuous climate change would have severe impacts on humanity.[1] The Earth has witnessed a substantial increase in its temperature since the inception of the industrial revolution. It is also noteworthy that, preceding the Industrial Revolution era, there has been a steady increase in greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, which was 60% higher in 2014 than in 1990.[2] Between 1880 and 2015, the average global surface temperature rose by 0.9-degree  (Celsius).[3]

The core source of greenhouse gas emissions is the burning of fossil fuel, and fossil fuel provides 81% of the global energy supply, a trend that is expected to continue.[4] Higher atmospheric greenhouse gases raise the atmospheric temperature by increasing the amount of energy arriving on the Earth’s surface;[5] currently, the Earth retains 816 terawatts of excess heat per year. Evidence of this retained heat is discernible in observations that document Earth’s rising surface temperatures, warming oceans, and melting ice.[6] According to the World Health Organization report, the health sector suffers estimated direct damage of 2 to 4 billion USD each year due to global climate change.[7] Climate change by global warming has become a megatrend that will lead to significant global changes in the future.

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The assessment of the impact of climate change is a highly complex exercise with uncertainty about both the degree of future global warming and the subsequent impact on global activity.

As the Earth undergoes global warming, sea levels rise, both because increasing temperatures cause the melting of glaciers and ice fields in oceans, thus leading to an increase in the water level of the oceans. Since the year 1870, the Earth has experienced accelerated rates of global sea-level rise (GSLR) and is now about 3.5 millimetre per year.[8] Subsequent projections have revealed that by the year 2100, sea levels are to rise by up to 2 meters (6.6 feet) depending on greenhouse gas emissions and the effect of warming air and ice on ocean water.[9] Moreover, the chemistry of the oceans is changing due to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Oceans absorb about 30% of the carbon dioxide humans produce every year; the oceans are the massive single carbon sink in the world. However, carbonic acid is formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans, leading to higher acidity.[10] Acidification makes it harder for certain marine organisms, including coral, shellfish, and certain types of plankton, to build the hard outer shells they need to survive. In turn, it can have a wide range of consequences for marine ecosystems and humans who depend on the ocean for food and survival.

Global warming causes a change in average temperature and precipitation and increases the frequency of floods, droughts, heatwaves, and the intensity of typhoons and hurricanes following the change in temperature and precipitation patterns. Regarding the danger of flooding, higher sea-level rise can be detrimental to heavily populated, coastal, and island regions, where even a minor increase in sea level can inundate large land areas. Coastal areas lacking the capacity for flood protection are and will be particularly vulnerable to higher sea-level rise.[11] The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) reports that in climate-related disasters, that is climatological (e.g., drought and wildfire), meteorological (e.g., storm and extreme temperature), and hydrological (e.g., flood and landslide) events, occurred at higher numbers relative to geophysical (e.g., earthquake and volcanic activity) accounting for over 90% of all disasters occurring in 2015 and 2018.[12]

AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change disturbs the agricultural ecosystem, resulting in changes in agricultural climatic elements such as temperature, precipitation, and sunlight, while further influencing the arable, livestock, and hydrology sectors.[13] Agricultural yields are sensitive to weather conditions, and as the Earth’s climate becomes more extreme, more frequent droughts may reduce crop yields in areas where food production is vital.[14] Recent studies show that climatic changes have already affected crop suitability in many areas, resulting in changes in the production levels of the main crops in many areas around the world.[15] The impacts are projected to be most significant in tropical regions, where crops are grown closer to their thermal limits. Therefore, as the level of warming becomes even greater, food price in?ation should rise, and a large percent of the world’s consumer population would be incapable of affording agricultural food products, which would lead to the demise of food security.[16] Food security is both directly and indirectly linked with climate change. Any alteration in the climatic parameters such as temperature and humidity that govern crop growth will directly impact the quantity of food produced.[17]The indirect linkage concerns catastrophic events such as floods and drought, which are projected to increase as a result of climate change, thus eventuating to a colossal loss of crops and leaving arable land unfit for cultivation.

In the livestock sector, climate change brings about biological changes in fertilization and breeding and affects the growing pattern of pastures.[18] Climate extremes can cause changes in the physiological processes in livestock (i.e., thermal distress, sweating, and high respiratory rates), negatively affecting their growth rates and reproduction.[19]  

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The overall aggregate effect of climate change on economic growth will most likely be damaging in the long run.[20] Global warming will primarily negatively influence economic growth; it is expected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, resulting in damage to property and infrastructure, lost productivity, mass migration, and security threats.[21] Aside from people affected and lives lost, estimated total economic damages from climate-related disasters are staggering. The likes of Hurricane Sandy, which ?ooded much of New York in 2012, are prime examples of the economic damage such extreme weather events can cause. While storms and floods seem to cause most economic losses, droughts often inflict more significant losses on national economies than other types of disasters, with some cases causing damage equal to or greater than 0.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the affected countries.[22] Overall, economic losses due to extreme weather events rose by 100% from 2015 to 2018, with a loss amounting to122 US$ billion.[23]

Climate-related disasters cause direct losses of assets with a market value (e.g., property and infrastructure) and losses of assets that do not have a market value (e.g., loss of life and damage to natural and cultural assets). They also produce indirect losses, including the lost output resulting from reduced productive capital and the output that is lost as the capital when it is redirected away from more productive uses towards the reconstruction of assets that were destroyed, for example, investment in human capital, thereby affecting the country’s GDP in the long term.[24] It would translate into a downward shift in the world’s production function as each labour unit produces less output than usual. Higher global temperatures may also affect food security, promote infectious diseases and impair those working outdoors. Such factors are likely to cause greater incapacity and social unrest and, as a result, will reduce both the effectiveness (productivity) and the amount of labour available to produce output.[25]

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON EMERGING COUNTRIES

Emerging countries are likely to suffer more from the economic impacts of climate change and be the least able to adapt to new climatic conditions.[26] While natural disasters affect rich and emerging countries alike, they cause more severe destruction of life and property in the developing world due to their limited capacity to cope with such events’ economic and financial consequences. Thus, poverty and climatic stress create severe outcomes in areas not equipped with better resources for crisis management.[27] Countries with higher levels of per capita income, better institutional frameworks, higher literacy rates, greater trade openness, and more effective ex-ante disaster risk financing mechanisms find it easier to absorb the economic shocks of disasters.[28]

World agriculture faces a severe decline within this century due to global warming.[29] Overall, agricultural productivity for the entire world is projected to decline between 3 and 16 % by 2080. Developing countries, many of which have average temperatures that are already near or above crop tolerance levels, are predicted to suffer an average 10 to 25% decline in agricultural productivity by the 2080s.

THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

The energy sector is a major contributor to climate change. In the decades to come, the energy sector will be affected by global warming on multiple levels and policy responses to climate change. In the absence of solid mitigation policies, economic growth and the rising global population will subsequently continue to drive energy demand in an upward margin, thus eventuating a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.[30] As the Earth’s atmospheric temperature keeps getting warmer under climate change, there would be an increase in energy use due to the greater demand for cooling technologies. In 2010, 35% of direct greenhouse gas emissions came from energy production.[31]

Integrated energy, environmental, and economic modelling suggests that worldwide electrical energy use will increase from 2.4 terawatts today to12 terawatts in 2100. It will be challenging to provide 40% of this electrical power from combustion with carbon sequestration, as it will be challenging to provide 30% from renewable energy sources derived from natural energy flows.[32] Nuclear generation emits no greenhouse gases, and, unlike most renewable technologies, it operates at near-total capacity. Nuclear plants emit few greenhouse gases over their 40 to 60-year lifetimes and no direct carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during their operation.[33] Nuclear energy has the capacity to offset about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise be emitted. With accidents resulting from nuclear power plants, notably at Three Mile Island in 1979 and at Chernobyl in 1986, the growth of nuclear power for electricity generation was brought to a halt. Recently, however, the interest in nuclear power has revived, and several countries, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world, are considering lifetime extension of nuclear power plants, replacement of older plants by new ones, and in some cases, an increase of the installed nuclear capacity.[34] This renewed interest is partly driven by the fact that operating nuclear power plants do not cause CO2 emissions.

Nuclear power is a source of energy that provides dispatchable and clean electricity with a low carbon footprint, and it is highly predictable in terms of costs and reliability of supply.[35] Most importantly, nuclear power projects are positive examples of solid international cooperation that bring together various stakeholders and build solid long-term partnerships.[36] While conventional energy sources highly depend on fuel prices, nuclear power costs are hardly affected by fuel price fluctuations, which is crucial when energy sources are imported. This low dependency on fuel prices provides for cost predictability even in the long run and ensures energy security for more than 60 years.[37]

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace International, stated: “I believe the majority of environmental activists fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure America’s growing energy needs. These benefits far outweigh any risks. There is now a great deal of scientific data showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice”.[38] Also, James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia ecosystems theory, stated: “By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy”.[39]

Nuclear power makes a significant contribution to ensuring energy security and optimizing the cost of electricity.[40] One factor contributing to energy security is the nuclear power plant’s ability to be built on a wide range of sites and generate power regardless of climatic conditions. It overcomes the main limitation of renewable energy sources that are non-dispatchable and highly dependent on weather conditions.[41] For countries with overreliance on any particular source in the energy mix, nuclear power is a tool to diversify while meeting the growing demand for reliable electricity supply and combating the effects of climate change by cutting CO2 emissions. Nuclear power plants (NPP) benefit countries by creating jobs during NPP constructions and operations, both directly and indirectly; 1 job created at an NPP leads to 10 jobs created in other fields.[42] NPP projects lead to the creation and development of the urban environment around the nuclear power plant. By participating in NPP construction, local industries can be involved in the global value chains and international projects, which will increase their country’s investment attractiveness.[43]

In addressing climate change, nuclear energy will need to become much more widespread than it is now.  So many new nations will need to join the nuclear “club”, and indeed 61 nations without nuclear power, including developing nations around the globe such as Bolivia, Madagascar, and Yemen, have begun to explore the option of nuclear power through discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Concerning other environmental burdens, the nuclear electricity generation chain does not release gases or particles that cause acid rains, urban smog, or depletion of the ozone layer. There are some radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities, but these are regulated strictly and kept below levels at which health risks might arise.[44] About solid waste, the radioactive waste arising from nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities amount to some 500 cubic meters of intermediate and low-level waste and few tens of cubic meters of high-level waste (with reactors operated on the once-through fuel cycle) per year. These volumes are several orders of magnitude smaller than the waste from the coal chain. The significance of the small volumes of radioactive wastes is that it is possible to isolate them safely and economically from the human environment, whereas this is not possible at acceptable costs with the large volumes of wastes from the coal energy system.[45]

Extraordinary efforts will be required to decarbonize energy supplies by mid-century significantly, with all low carbon energy sources and technologies; solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, nuclear, and coal use with carbon capture and storage are likely to be needed on a large scale. In each case, formidable technological, economic, and institutional obstacles stand in the way of scale-up, and there are no guarantees that they will be overcome. If any one of these technologies, including nuclear, were to be taken off the table, the difficulty of achieving the climate stabilization target would be much more incredible still. That is the strongest argument for nuclear power.[46]

NEGATIVE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER

A thorough examination of the entire life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous, and expensive form of energy that poses severe risks to human health, national security, and taxpayers.[47]

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.” More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. The cost of nuclear reactors built between 1974 and 1996 went up, not down over time. The estimated cost for new reactors has quadrupled since the early 2000s.[48] The high capital cost of nuclear power is relatively high and limits the number of nuclear plant developers who have the assets to qualify for financing, limiting nuclear power plant construction.[49] Public concern about reactor operation has concentrated on the possibility of an accident leading to the release of a considerable amount of radioactivity to the surrounding environment.[50]

After its write-off period (usually fixed at 20-30 years), the complete dismantling of a nuclear power station will be difficult and hazardous because of radioactivity induced in the reactor structure during its operating life.[51] Bombardment by neutrons of the materials used to build a reactor produces a range of radioactive nuclides and emits highly penetrating gamma radiation that can last for several years. The environmental consequences of this operation are far from being sufficiently understood. Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process; in the U.S alone, 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste is being generated.[52] Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.[53]

At present, fuel reprocessing plants have been the primary source of radioactive environmental contamination from the nuclear industry. The spent fuel elements removed from reactors at refuelling are the most intensely radioactive material in the fuel cycle. The spent elements are removed to deep tanks of water known as cooling ponds and left there for some time. Cooling ponds are satisfactory for short-term storage, but clearly, they cannot be a permanent resting place for spent fuel. The ponds require continual surveillance and, despite the reduction in radioactivity during storage, the actinides in the spent elements will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.[54] There is at present no generally accepted means by which high-level waste can be permanently isolated from the environment and remain safe for very long periods.[55]

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by several disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most horrific examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometres of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometres of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable.[56] According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.[57] Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense due to global warming, can force the shutdown or reduction of the power output of reactors. During the 2006 heatwave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, France, Spain, and Germany were impacted. The European heatwave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.[58]

During the entire fuel cycle, including transport of nuclear material, there is the risk of nuclear materials without strict vigilance and care falling into unauthorized hands, which may use it for uncontrolled activities, leading to damaging effects on the general population or the environment. Therefore, an enormous effort is required, both nationally and internationally, to prevent any diversion of nuclear material or sabotage of nuclear installations. The system established under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the most widely applied and, in most respects, appears to be the most effective. However, the main limitations and weaknesses of the present safeguards arrangements which give cause for environmental concern can be summarised as follows: the failure of many States to become parties to the NPT, the inability of safeguards to prevent the transfer of nuclear technology from nuclear power production to the acquisition of nuclear weapons competence; the fact that many nuclear facilities are covered by no safeguards; the existence of a number of loopholes in safeguards agreements regarding their application to peaceful nuclear explosions to materials intended for non-explosive military uses, and to the re-transfer of materials to a third State, the absence of safeguards for source materials, the practical problems of maintaining adequate checks on nuclear inventories, the ease with which States can withdraw from the NPT and from most non-NPT safeguards agreements, deficiencies in accounting and warning procedures, and the absence of reliable sanctions to deter division of safeguarded material. The possibility should not be discounted of diversion of nuclear material through terrorist acts and the risk that the opportunity and the motive for nuclear blackmail will develop.

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The exact process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel can also be employed to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.[59] In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in minimal quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. As proposed as a waste solution by some nuclear proponents, repairing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted and stolen to produce nuclear weapons or radioactive dirty bombs.[60] In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a significant attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.[61]

CONCLUSION

The repercussions of climate change will be felt in various ways on all the world’s continents. Climate change will pose economic, social, and political predicaments that will challenge the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) successful implementation.[62]  Nuclear power is one of the options available for alleviating the risk of global climate change, and its potential contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be significant. It is very competitive compared to other clean energy sources regarding financial returns, generation of enormous electric power, absence of polluting gases, and low operating costs. However, when judging nuclear power on its green growth merits, one should know that there is no technology without risks and interaction with the environment.[63] Nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option.   Even if one disregards the waste problems, safety risks, and dismal economics, nuclear power is too slow to solve global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required to design, permit and construct reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming. When the grave risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism, and nuclear war is considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is misguided and highly dangerous.

Clean Energy transition should be for and about the people and environment. As the world desperately searches for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, Governments of various Nations should target their efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean, and renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the globe. The focus should be on increasing the investments geared towards continuous development of renewable energy sources to increase the utilization of renewable energy technologies, which can be achievable by making such technologies much more affordable in the market.

[1] Polina Dekhtyar, Climate change in 2018: Implications for Business (Harvard Business School 2018) 1

[2] World Bank, Turn Down the Heat: Confronting the New Climate Normal (Cm 53147, 2012) ch 2

[3] NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space, ‘Global Temperature’ (NASA,21 January 2020) <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature>  accessed 21 January 2021

[4] International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Trends: Excerpt from World Energy Balances (Cm, 2016)

[5] D. L. Chandler, ‘Explained Radiative Forcing’ (MIT, March 2010) <https://newsoffice.mit.edu> accessed 21 January 2021

[6] IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cm 9169, 2014) 151

[7] World Health Organization, ‘Climate Change and Health’ (WHO,1 February 2018) <www.who.int/news-room>accessed 23 January 2021

[8] NASA, ‘Understanding Sea Level: Empirical Projections’ (NASA, April 2021) <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level> accessed 12 April 2021

[9] Supra note 8

[10] Vally Koubi, ‘Sustainable Development Impacts of Climate Change’ (Reviews, March 2019) <www.annualreviews.org> accessed 13 February 2021

[11] Ibid

[12] The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, ‘Natural Disasters’ (Cred, April 2021) <www.cred.be> accessed 7 April 2021

[13] Chang-Gill Kim, ‘The Impact of Climate Change on the Agricultural Sector:  Implications of the Agro‐Industry for Low Carbon, Green Growth Strategy  and Roadmap for the East Asian Region’ (Unescap, 2009) <www.unescap.org> accessed 7 April 2021

[14]H.  Covington. & R.Thamotheram, ‘The Case for Forceful Stewardship: The Financial Risk from Global Warming” (Ssrn, January 2015) <https://papers.ssrn.com> accessed 7 April 2021

[15] Supra note 12

[16] Supra note 12

[17] Praveen Kampur, ‘Climate Change Consequences and Its Impact on Agriculture and Food Security’ (Academia, January 2017 <https://www.academia.edu> accessed 1 March 2021

[18] Ibid

[19] J.P. Amitha, ‘Climate Change and Cattle Production: Impact and adaptation’ (Researchgate, May 2018) <www.researchgate.net> accessed 1 March 2021

[20] International Monetary Fund, ‘The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change’ (Imf, December 2008) <www.imf.org> accessed 3 March 2021

[21] Ibid.

[22] Supra note 9

[23] Supra note 11

[24] J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F Haites, Climate Change: Economic and Social Dimensions (Cambridge University Press 1997)

[25] Ibid.

[26] Claire McGuigan; Rebecca Reynolds; Daniel Wiedmer, ‘Poverty and Climate Change: Assessing Impacts in Developing Countries and The Initiatives of The International Community’(Odi, May 2002) <https://odi.org> accessed 10 May 2021

[27] Supra note 9

[28] Supra note 22

[29] Supra note 16

[30] World Energy Council, ‘Climate Change: Implications for the Energy Sector’ (World Energy, June 2014) <www.worldenergy.org>  accessed 10 May 2021

[31] Supra note 29

[32] R.J. Goldston, ‘Climate change, Nuclear Power and Nuclear Proliferation: Magnitude matters” (Digital Library, April 2011) <https://digitallibrary.unt.edu> accessed 12 May 2021

[33] Geoffrey Rothwell, ‘The Role of Nuclear Power in Climate Change Mitigation’ (Researchgate, April 2019) <https://www.researchgate.net> accessed 14 May 2021

[34] Koen Rademaekers, ‘Investment Needs for Future Adaptation Measures in EU Nuclear Power Plants and Other Electricity Generation Technologies due to Effects of Climate Change’ (Europa, March 201) <https://ec.europa.eu> accessed 24 March

[35] World Nuclear Association, ‘Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development’ (Iaea, September 2016) <www.pub.iaea.org> accessed 15 May 2021

[36] Ibid

[37] Rosatom, ’Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development’ (Rosatom, May 2019)<www.rosatom.ru> accessed 16 May 2021

[38] Patrick Moore, ‘Natural Resource Adaptation’(Senate, February 2014) <www.epw.senate.gov> accessed 13 February 2021

[39] James Lovelock, ‘Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution’ The Independent, (UK, October 10 2011)

[40] Supra note 38

[41] Ibid

[42] NEA, ‘Measuring Employment Generated by the Nuclear Power Sector’ (Iaea, October 2018) <https://inis.iaea.org> accessed 13 March 2021

[43] IAEA, ‘Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development’ (Iaea, November 2017) <https://www.iaea.org> accessed 14 March 2021

[44] Supra note 31

[45] Supra note 31

[46] M.R. Raupach and others, ‘Global and Regional Drivers of Accelerating CO2 Emissions’ (Pnas, June 2007) <www.pnas.org> accessed 27 April 2021

[47] S. Edwin. ‘Chernobyl on the Hudson? : The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant’ (Ucsusa, September 2004) <www.ucsusa.org> accessed 17 April 2021

[48] Ibid

[49] Ibid

[50] E. E. El-Hinnawi, ‘Review of the Environmental impact of nuclear energy’ (Iaea, May 1977) <https://inis.iaea.org> accessed 1 May 2021

[51] Ibid

[52] General Accounting Office, ‘Energy Efficiency: Opportunities Exist for Federal Agencies to better inform household consumers: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate’ (Gao, June 2004) <www.gao.gov/new.items> accessed 1 May 2021

[53] Nuclear Information & Resource Service, ‘Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change (Nirs, February 2005) <www.nirs.org> accessed 11 May 2021

[54]B. Flowers, ‘Reporting on Nuclear Power for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’ Voices of Science(London, 11 November 1976) 6

[55] Ibid

[56] Supra note 53

[57]Ibid

[58] Supra note 53

[59]  Supra note 47

[60] Ibid

[61] Ibid

[62] Supra note 10

[63] H. Rogner, 'Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development' (2010), JIA 137,64