environmentalresearchweb blog
« Too hot to handle | Main | Fiords and unstable glacier behaviour »
Nuclear power - dead end or in with a chance?
The public debate and the government consultations in 2006 and 2007 on nuclear power were framed in the context of a replacement programme for existing reactors scheduled to close. On this basis it has been suggested that there was if not a clear consensus then at least a majority in favour.
However, subsequently the government began to talk about going beyond replacement. For example, in May 2008 Prime Minister Gordon Brown commented “I think we are pretty clear that we will have to do more than simply replace existing nuclear capability in Britain” while Secretary of State John Hutton said, that, although it was up to the private sector developers, he would be “very disappointed” if the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear did not rise “significantly above the current level”. In August 2009 Malcolm Wicks MP, the PM’s Special Representative on International Energy, produced a report calling for a UK nuclear contribution of 35–40% “beyond 2030”.
The government has also indicated that it saw a major role for exporting UK nuclear technology and expertise. Gordon Brown has indicated that he believes the world needs 1,000 extra nuclear power stations and has argued that Africa could build nuclear power plants to meet growing demands for energy. In 2009 a new UK Centre for supporting the export of nuclear technology was set up with a budget of up to £20 m.
You do not have to be anti-nuclear to feel some sense of unease over the global expansion programmes being discussed, not least since they could lead much greater long-term risks for global security in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapons making capacity and the potential for nuclear terrorism. There are other geopolitical issue as well. For example, uranium is a finite resource and, if a major global expansion programme emerges, based on existing burner technology, then there must inevitably come a time when there will be conflicts over diminishing high-grade reserves. That is one reason why interest has been rekindled in fast breeder reactors, which can use the otherwise wasted parts of the uranium resource, and also in the use of thorium, which is more abundant than uranium. But those options are some way off. For the moment, the programmes around the world are mostly all based on upgraded versions of the standard Pressurised Water Reactor, with passive safety features to reduce the risk of major accidents, plus in some case, higher fuel burn up, so as to improve their economics – though that wlll result in higher activity wastes, which could present safety and waste management problems.
There are also other operational issues. In the UK the various contenders – EDF, E.ON etc – have “reserved” a total of 23.6 GW of grid links for new nuclear capacity with National Grid. That’s about the same as the wind power capacity we are aiming to have by 2020, albeit with lower load factors. But as EDF have pointed out, there are operational and economic reasons why a major expansion of nuclear would be incompatible with a major expansion of renewable electricity generation – at periods of low demand you would not need both. So which would give way?
In addition, the renewables and nuclear will inevitably also be in direct conflict for funding. A major nuclear programme could divert money, expertise and other resources away from renewable energy and energy efficiency, which arguably are the only long term sustainable energy options.
It used to be argued that renewables were interesting but marginal. Now however, they have moved into the mainstream – with, for example, more than 120 GW of wind generation capacity in place around the world. And they are expanding. Last year solar PV generation capacity grew by 70% around the world, wind power by 29% and solar hot water increased by 15%. By 2008, renewables represented more than 50% of total added generation capacity in both the United States and Europe, i.e. more new renewables capacity was installed than new capacity for gas, coal, oil and nuclear combined. Interestingly, by 2008 China had installed as much wind capacity as it had nuclear capacity (8.9 GW) and there are plans for continued rapid expansion of wind, to 100 GW and beyond. However, there are also plans for nuclear expansion.
It is sometimes argued that you can and should have both nuclear and renewables – to ensure diversity. But, quite apart from the conflicts mentioned above, nuclear is not only one of the most expensive options, it is only just one option. By contrast, there are dozens of renewable energy technologies of various sorts, using a range of sources. It is true that they are at varying stages of development, but given proper funding, they seem likely to offer a more diverse set of options.
What’s the best bet for the future? An energy source with limited resource availability and major waste and security implications? Or a range of new technologies based on natural energy flows, with no emissions, no wastes, no fuel resource limits, no fuel price rises, and no security implications, unless that is we start squabbling over the wind and solar resource around the planet.
I used some of the arguments above in a recent resignation letter to the Labour Party, as reported to the Guardian.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.iop.org/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/3408
Comments (13)