Nuclear power? Yes please...

Tony Juniper: Forget nuclear and focus on renewables

Monday, 23 February 2009

Very careful analysis is still needed before going with the nuclear option. By making this choice we could inadvertently waste time and money and therefore not achieve what we could do by pursuing other options – for example, through energy efficiency, cleaner cars and renewable power.

The first issue is the scope of what nuclear can do. Today, nuclear provides only electricity and thus could do little (in the short-term at least) to reduce emissions from other sectors such as heating and transport, which are mainly powered, respectively, by gas and oil. Because of this constraint even a doubling of British nuclear capacity would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by just 8 per cent. This is, of course, a significant proportion but must be weighed against what we might achieve by spending the same effort and money on truly sustainable options.

Then there is the wider economic picture. New nuclear build would be based on imported technology, from France probably. While this might be good for French jobs and industry, we could gain more economic and employment benefits for the UK through developing renewable energy sources – such as offshore wind, tidal and wave power. Using the engineering capacity in our declining North Sea oil and gas, and shipbuilding industries to do this would improve both energy security and create jobs. More jobs could be also created in upgrading our grossly inefficient housing and a major high-speed rail programme.

No one seriously expects nuclear power stations to be built without some official subsidies (none ever have been), so we must ask if public funds will achieve the best impact through this route. One US study found that a dollar invested in energy efficiency achieves seven times more carbon reduction than a dollar spent on nuclear.

…

The Big Question: Does nuclear power now provide the answer to Britain’s energy needs?

By Sarah Arnott

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Why are we asking this now?

Because as The Independent reported yesterday four of the country’s leading green activists have overcome a lifetime’s opposition to warn of the dire consequences of not building more nuclear power stations.

…

Is it a big deal that the Green have changed?

Yes and no. Symbolically it is hugely important. Plans for new reactors are still expected to raise hackles but the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired cousins has always been a major factor. But the introduction of a carbon emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Are the Greens’ concerns now all answered?

No. There are two main environmental complaints about nuclear, and only one has changed. On the question of safety, accidents such as that at Chernobyl in 1986 caused massive image problems. But accidents are increasingly rare thanks to technical improvements and tight regulations.

The other big issue is waste. While the processing of spent fuel has also come a long way from the early days of the industry, critics emphasise that the basic process is still the same. No way to neutralise defunct fuel rods has yet been found, and the only solution is still to bury them. There are concerns that global expansion will not only boosting uranium mining to destructive levels, but that safe storage locations will also be exhausted.

…