Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Nuclear Power: Nuclear Energy Back on the Agenda for Britain?

Robert Edwards writes in Scotland's Sunday Herald about the resurgence of nuclear lobby in the UK:

Nuclear power is back on the agenda with a bang in Britain. The speed with which it has moved centre stage in the political debate has taken everyone by surprise – including the scientists, civil servants and politicians that support it. Most people had naively assumed that the issue had been effectively killed off for at least a decade by the government’s energy policy White Paper in February 2003.

After years of investigations and discussions, it concluded by dismissing the industry’s call for a £10 billion programme to build 10 new nuclear power stations as an “unattractive option”. Nuclear power could not be ruled out for the future, it said, but there was no current economic case for it.

Yet now, just two years down the road, here we are rehearsing the same arguments again. Some suspect that this is the result of a poorly organised conspiracy by a powerful nuclear lobby, deeply embedded in the government establishment.

“The nuclear industry has grasped at climate change like a drowning man clutching a passing log,” said Tom Burke, a visiting professor at Imperial College, London, who was an environmental advisor to four ministers.

Public interest was stirred last year by a few leading “green” gurus coming out in favour of nuclear power. The most famous was the originator of the Gaia theory of the Earth as a self-regulating organism, Professor James Lovelock. He is linked with a small group known as Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy based near Paris. His argument is that because nuclear power emits much less carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – than fossil fuels, it is the best technology available to combat the threat of climate change.

Pro-nuclear environmentalists, however, make up only a tiny fraction of the green movement, and they are not new. They can trace their ancestry back to those in the 1950s and 1960s who were so appalled at the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan by the US in 1945, that they devoted their lives to “atoms for peace”.

There has also been a flurry of leaks from Westminster, all suggesting mounting pressure within government to take decisions on nuclear power. The latest, last weekend, was a memo to the new industry secretary Alan Johnson from his senior energy official Joan MacNaughton.

“It is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament”, she advised the minister. She also revealed that the environment secretary Margaret Beckett had been preventing the government’s review of climate change policy from considering nuclear power.

Ministers in London are sharply divided on the wisdom of building more nuclear stations, which may account for some of the leaks. But with the Prime Minister leaning in favour, and Gordon Brown at the Treasury worried about the public spending implications, it is difficult to predict what will happen.

An opinion poll for the BBC during the election showed that only 17% of people in Scotland supported more nuclear stations, compared to 73% who backed more wind farms.

Public opinion aside, there are major barriers to new nuclear stations. A new programme would likely be based on an untested US-designed reactor known as the AP1000, which is claimed to be cheaper and safer. But before it could be licensed for use in Britain, it would have to be fully assessed by the government’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. Unfortunately, as the Sunday Herald has previously revealed, the inspectorate is chronically short of staff, and has been embroiled in a morale-sapping work-to-rule for more than 18 months.

The former chief inspector of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Laurence Williams, told a meeting of the government’s Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee last November that evaluating an established international design would take 25 experienced inspectors about two years. It would take at least another year to recruit and train them, plus public inquiries which “would be a significant further drain on resources”.

It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear station from scratch, so according to Peter Roche, the earliest any new reactor could be up and running is 2018. This is seven years after Hunterston B is scheduled to close.

It is often forgotten that nuclear power, as a generator of electricity, can only avoid the pollution caused by burning coal, oil or gas in power stations. It can do nothing to prevent the vast amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles and farms.

“Energy efficiency can start reducing carbon dioxide emissions today,’’ argued Roche. ‘‘Just one or two efficiency measures, such as making sure all new central heating boilers and white goods are state-of-the-art, would be enough to displace the savings new reactors could make.”

Even representatives of the nuclear industry, when asked to comment on the prospect of new stations, seem unenthusiastic. A spokeswoman for the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which operates Dounreay, said: “Our mission today is very much about decommissioning our sites in a safe and publicly acceptable manner.”

Do we need nuclear power?

At a UK level the last major independent analysis of the question was conducted by the Cabinet Office’s Performance and Innovation Unit, in preparation for the 2003 energy White Paper. It suggested that a combination of increased energy efficiency, the widespread use of combined heat and power stations and a boost in renewable energy sources such as wind and wave power could sustain an annual growth rate of 2%, while cutting carbon emissions.

In Scotland an investigation for the Scottish Executive in 2001 by energy consultants Garrad Hassan concluded that all forms of renewable energy in Scotland could potentially generate a massive 214 terawatt/hours of electricity a year.

That is more than four times as much as the 50 terawatt/hours generated north of the Border in 2002, almost a third of which was exported to England. Only about a sixth of the total is currently provided by the Hunterston B nuclear station.

“A combination of demand reduction and energy efficiency, along with increased renewable energy capacity in non-environmentally sensitive areas would make new nuclear power plants unnecessary to meet climate change targets, even with the planned closure of Hunterston B,” said Clifton Bain from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds in Scotland.

Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, was encouraged by Tony Blair’s remark last week that the debate about climate change should include “serious consideration” of nuclear power. “Nuclear power can continue to make a significant contribution to securing future energy and environmental commitments,” he told the Sunday Herald.

what is wrong with nuclear power?

A common assumption about nuclear power is that it can be relied upon to keep churning out lots of power. The reality, as nuclear operators will sometimes admit, is rather different.

British Energy’s Montague says that it’s “no secret” that there are “reliability problems” with the advanced gas-cooled reactors such as those at Hunterston B and Torness. One problem is that some of the thousands of graphite bricks that surround the reactor cores are cracking, threatening the safe running of the plants.

The performance of British Energy’s reactors is worse than those in other parts of the world. According to Sig Berg, the managing director of the World Association of Nuclear Operators, the unplanned loss of nuclear generation in the UK was 12% in 2002, compared to under 2% in the US.

The cost of nuclear power is also daunting. Cleaning up the radioactive mess left at Dounreay, which only ever produced very small amounts of electricity, is likely to cost at least £4bn over the next four decades. The estimated total cost of cleaning up all Britain’s nuclear plants – which is being met by taxpayers – is £50bn.

The vulnerability of nuclear companies to price fluctuations was starkly demonstrated by the near-collapse of British Energy in 2002. It had to be bailed out by the government with a £650m loan from public funds.

One consequence of that was the company’s decision to close its Peel Park headquarters in East Kilbride. New documents released to the Sunday Herald last week under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act reveal that this triggered a severe staffing crisis that could have put safety at risk.

Alongside fears about safety, there is the long-running saga of what to do with Britain’s 470,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste. Not to mention the 18 million cubic metres of soil and concrete thought to be have been contaminated with low-level radioactivity from leaks and spills at nuclear sites.

The government’s latest attempt to solve this problem – asking a group of independent experts to come up with recommendations – is in trouble. One scientist, Keith Baverstock, has been kicked off the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), while another has decided to withdraw. Both are thoroughly disillusioned by the process.

Baverstock, formerly a senior radiation adviser with the World Health Organisation in Europe, accused CoRWM of wasting time on “amateurish” attempts to draw up a list of options. “The public health aspects of the problem are being ignored and trivialised by people who do not sufficiently understand the issue,” he said.

Strangely, what critics regard as the most dangerous aspect of nuclear power is sometimes the least talked about. Joined at the hip to the military industry, nuclear power depends on technologies which can also be used to make fuel for atomic bombs. This essential ambiguity is at the root of some of the most destabilising confrontations in the world today.

Britain is enriching uranium at Capenhurst near Cheshire at the same time as urging Iran not to enrich uranium at Natanz. The British government extracts tonnes of plutonium at Sellafield in Cumbria as it tries to persuade North Korea not to do likewise at Yongbyon.

The global tensions that inevitably result from these attempts to control the spread of nuclear weapons disturb many. It doesn’t take a genius to understand how terribly high the stakes are.

Full Scottish Sunday Herald Article

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Danothebaldyheid said...

I was encouraged by the governments support for wave and tidal energy sources - it looked like they had maybe learned that investing in new sources of energy production was a good idea in the long term. It only took Denmark a couple of decades to build the wind industry - and waves offer less potential for controversy about siting. This nuclear talk is madness - the amount of CO2 produced in the building of a nuclear plant is considerable - all for a benefit which is ten years away at least and undeniably dangerous in a land that can't run a decent railway system! We need to be preventing global warming now - not aiming for a decade in the future. Conservation and wind are the two current decent options, with investment in wave for any kind of future.

11:58 am, May 17, 2005  
Blogger Rob said...

The problems and risks nuclear faces are both wildly overblown and insufficiently understood. As the only power producer required at the moment to sequester its waste products, nuclear is a lot cleaner than technologies like coal and even natural gas. This is a problem I have with those decrying nuclear: they don't really have an adequate plan B that's ready to go now. Conservation? Sure, but as someone in Congress recently said, you can't conserve yourself out of an empty gas tank.

The real issue is that the UK, like Germany, can continue to ignore and even ban nuclear power on her own shores -- but then, she is merely shifting the site of that power generation to France to the extent that the UK imports power from France. This fact oftentimes gets lost in the discussion, much as California neatly "forgot" that electric cars cause pollution once you add in the fact that some of the electricity generated to run such vehicles comes from coal.

7:13 am, May 18, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't we do away with wind & solar energy since they do not cut vehicle pollution. Wait that is not a good idea since we need all the forms of non-polluting energy we can get. We need to develop more wind, solar, nuclear and other forms of non-polluting energy. It will be years before we can replace oil & coal. We can use nuclear as a stepping stone. After we dump all oil & coal plants. Then maybe something can replace the less polluting nuclear. By the way how many have died in USA & UK from nuclear = 0. How many have died from the coal & oil pollution = thousands or millions!
We need hybrid cars as a good mid-point until we find a better vehicle power source like maybe Brazil's ethanol from sugar cane.
Gary

9:12 pm, June 13, 2005  
Blogger James said...

Anon,

Wind and solar can be used to cut vehicle pollution by using the electricity generated to power EVs (electric vehicles) and plug-in hybrids. This is how existing technology can be utilised to cut our dependence on oil.

see:

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/01/alternative-fuel-cars-plug-in-hybrids.html

James
Alternative Energy Blog

4:10 am, June 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you support the use of nuclear power? Here is a poll that just started. Anyone can vote on it. http://www.apopularitycontest.com/display_poll.php?ID=5709

4:53 pm, July 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The newest third generation nuclear reactors are extremely safe and have very little waste. Fourth generation reactors improve on both safety and waste significantly including safe shutdown with no operators needed.
Chernobyl was a first generation reactor and the meltdown was due to untrained technicians performing a dangerous ill-advised test. They had a small crew of which many were untrained coal miners. Many of the technicians working there objected to the test which involved shutting down the water pumps. The gamble failed and thus the meltdown. First generation reactors had very few of the numerous safety systems and protocols of modern reactors.
Three Mile Island was a second generation reactor. A broken valve caused a coolant leak into an area designed for that purpose. A long chain of errors and misunderstandings led to a partial meltdown and the shutdown of the reactor. Despite the a long line of errors and misunderstandings the reactor shut down exactly how it was designed to do. No radiation leaked out into the environment and 0% increase in cancer was predicted to people living in the area. The safety systems worked and Three Mile Island continues to operate safely today. It was the first and only significant nuclear accident in American history.
Since these disasters, the last in 1986, hundreds of nuclear reactors have operated safely and continuously with no major incidents. Nuclear power is a viable alternative to carbon emitting power plants and more people are harmed by fossil fuel burning plants.
50,000-100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by particulate air pollution the biggest cause of which is coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east. Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident EVERY THREE WEEKS to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is.
I agree that we need to develop energy sources such as wind and sun further and to get as much power as we can from clean sources of energy. But before we demonize nuclear power, let us take a good look at the facts and decide what is best with our minds and not our hearts.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092

9:02 am, March 29, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Alternative Energy Home Page