Disagreement over the use of nuclear energy in Brazil 

Last week, Eletronuclear (a state-owned company responsible for nuclear power generation in the country) was fined by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama).

The fine was due to radioactively contaminated water being discharged into the sea by the Angra 1 power plant last September.

The incident, which became the target of a public civil lawsuit filed by the Federal Ministry of Public Affairs (MPF) last Tuesday (21), has reignited the debate over the costs and benefits of generating electricity through thermoelectric nuclear power plants in Brazil.

Brazil’s two nuclear power plants (Angra 1 and 2) are responsible for about 2% of the South American country’s electricity generation.

This week, Eletronuclear, responsible for operating Angra’s power plants in Rio de Janeiro, announced that Angra 1 set a new record for power generation in one month, generating 485 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in January of this year.

In 2022, Angra 1 generated 4,872 GWh, while its sister plant Angra 2, produced 9,686 GWh.

IBothgenerated 14,558 GWh, which Eletronuclear said would be enough to power the entire Midwest.

Production is also forecast to double by 2031 when two new plants will be added to the country’s generation fleet. Angra 3, with an installed capacity of 1.4 GW, is under construction with 65% of the work completed and is expected to be operational in 2028.

Another power plant is expected to have a capacity of 1 GW by 2031, according to the 2022/2031 Ten-Year Energy Plan published last year.

SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY

According to the president of the Brazilian Association for the Development of Nuclear Activities (Abdan), electrical engineer Celso Cunha, nuclear energy is an essential source for maintaining supply stability and ensuring the security of supply.

This is because renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, and solar power depend on the weather to supply the national power system.

“They [nuclear power plants] are always there, with continuous production capacity, whether it rains more or less or is windy or sunny. They guarantee the stability of the system,” Cunha says.

According to him, nuclear power plants – a type of thermoelectric power plant that uses uranium as fuel – not only guarantee the stability of the system but are also a source of clean energy since they do not emit greenhouse gases, unlike other thermal power plants that use coal, oil or natural gas as fuel.

In addition, he points out that nuclear power plants have a better generation factor than wind and solar power plants, meaning they can produce more energy relative to the plant’s rated capacity.

Cunha also describes the possibility of building them close to energy consumption centers as a positive, which avoids high transmission line costs.

DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS

However, Heitor Scalambrini Costa, a Ph.D. energy scientist, and retired Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) professor, disagrees with Abdan’s assessment.

In his opinion, Brazil does not need nuclear power plants because it is possible to power the country with wind, hydro, and solar energy sources.

“Brazil, with all its diversity of hydro, solar, wind, and biomass, really doesn’t need such a controversial energy source,” he said.

“The argument that wind, solar and other sources follow natural cycles is contradictory from a technical point of view.”

“It is possible to build hybrid, complementary systems.”

“If you don’t have the sun to provide energy, the winds are stronger at night, especially in the Northeast.”

“When there is little rain in the south, that time coincides with the sugarcane harvest, when you can burn the bagasse and generate electricity.”

“In addition, the claim that nuclear energy is clean is a myth, he said, because greenhouse gases are released in the production of the fuels.”

“There are greenhouse gas emissions from mining [uranium], transportation, enrichment, and pellet production.”

“Another problem is the disposal of the fuel already used, known as nuclear waste, which continues to emit radiation for years and poses a danger to people and the environment,” Scalambrini said.

For Celso Cunha, however, this fuel is not waste but can be reused through reprocessing.

According to him, Brazil has decided not to use this material but could generate resources by selling it to countries that reprocess it, such as France and Japan.

According to Scalambrini, this waste is even more dangerous than new fuel because it contains plutonium and can be used militarily to make dirty nuclear bombs.

Another point Scalambrini stresses is the risk of nuclear accidents, as happened in Chornobyl and Fukushima.

In his opinion, there is no guarantee that new accidents will not occur, no matter how advanced the technology and safety protocols are.

Cunha explains that the accidents were isolated incidents.

Chornobyl occurred when safety protocols were not as sophisticated as today.

Fukushima was the victim of a series of incidents resulting from an earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

COST

Scalambrini also explains that nuclear power generation is expensive, which affects costs.

“The costs are much higher. They are three to five times more expensive than wind energy, solar energy, and energy from hydroelectric plants,” he says.

For Cunha, however, the cost should be considered in terms of stability since nuclear energy, although more expensive, would guarantee the energy supply.

“The cost for someone to guarantee the system’s stability adds up,” justifies the president of Abdan.

SMALL PLANTS

Abdan believes that small nuclear reactors represent the future of thermal nuclear power plants.

“These are reactors manufactured and homologated in factories and then taken directly to the site [where they will be installed to generate power].”

“The construction problem, which takes a long time, is greatly reduced. The company’s investment volume is much lower,” Cunha explains.

The small reactors also promise to solve the problem of the limited amount of energy produced by large nuclear power plants, as they allow the load to be increased and decreased more quickly than large reactors.

According to Cunha, small reactors can therefore complement wind and solar plants.

“They can work together with solar and wind power to balance the existing fluctuations.”

According to Scalambrini, these small reactors carry the same risks as large reactors, including radioactive waste and possible accidents.

ANGRA 3

The two experts also disagree on the construction of Angra 3, which has dragged on for four decades.

According to Cunha, the cost of completing the work is around R$21 billion.

However, he believes stopping the work and dismantling the already-built structure would cost about R$15 billion.

“It does not make sense to stop the work. The cost of this energy does not correspond to the cost of normal construction.”

“This project has already been stopped three times. This is the cost of Brazil, the famous bridge you build but doesn’t have the head or the road.”

“You need continuity: beginning, middle, and end,” says Cunha, who advocates that the government let private initiative lead nuclear power generation.

“Let the private sector build and operate. And we will continue to regulate and control this project through the National Nuclear Safety Authority, which was created for this purpose.”

Scalambrini defends the halt in the construction of Angra 3 and the dismantling the already-built plant.

In his opinion, this will not cost much because the plant has never been in operation and therefore does not need to be decontaminated.

He also advocates setting a timetable for decommissioning the Angra 1 and 2 plants.

“This cannot happen overnight, but it should be set as a goal. If we build thermoelectric power plants, we should build them with biomass and use agricultural residues.”

In his opinion, the government needs to involve society in discussing the future direction of the energy matrix.