Nuclear or Not? Do we need nuclear power to tackle climate change?
This question will be debated from various viewpoints at a one day Conference at the
Open University on March 15th. (10.30 – 17.00). Michael Meacher, former
Environment Minister, will set the scene.
For over a decade now things have been relatively quiet on the nuclear energy front in
Britain. Battles over nuclear dumps and reprocessing have subsided and the nuclear
industry has been warily negotiating with environmentalists to try to find solutions to
the problems of waste. It seems as if the nuclear issue, once so prominent, has slipped
down the environmental agenda.
Now this peaceful period looks about to be shattered. Nuclear energy is being backed
by industrial interests, by eminent scientists such as the Royal Society and by some
powerful politicians. Although the nuclear industry still faces some major economic
problems (British Energy had to be baled out by the taxpayer recently) there is a new
confidence around the industry supported by some favourable opinion polls. For
years nuclear was overwhelmingly opposed but a recent MORI poll indicated that
only a third of the population would oppose the replacement of the existing power
stations.
What can account for this sudden change in the political environment surrounding
nuclear energy? One obvious explanation is that as the industry’s confidence has
grown, public concerns about nuclear safety have diminished. The big battles are
over a decade ago and Chernobyl a distant memory. The industry has had time to
regroup.
Another reason is that nuclear begins to look more and more like the solution to our
energy and environmental problems. As North Sea oil and gas declines so
dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian sources threatens the security of supply.
Nuclear risk seems very small when compared to the possibility of the lights going
out.
Above all, nuclear is being presented as the answer to climate change. If the UK is to
meet its modest national target of carbon emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010,
let alone the 60% by 2050 proposed in the government’s 2003 White Paper on
Energy, it will have to rely on non-carbon emitting energy technologies. Nuclear
energy is portrayed as the green fuel of the future.
Of course, nuclear doesn’t have the field all to itself. There are other possible ways of
tackling climate change. One is to boost the energy from renewables (wind, waves,
tides, solar, biomass, hydro) lifting it from a trivial 3% of electricity today to 10% by
2010 and 20% by 2020 as the government proposes. These are actually quite modest
targets. Despite having the best renewable resources in the EU, we have been slow in
developing them: Denmark already gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Another
idea is to find ways of capturing carbon (sequestration) by planting trees or storing it
deep underground, possibly in depleted oil wells. Conservation is the other possibility,
using pricing, controls and persuasion to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
None of these offers a Holy Grail. Some renewables, notably wind power, are
intermittent sources and not everyone loves wind farms. Sequestration is an untried
technology on any significant scale. And a serious conservation programme would
require massive investment in energy saving and major changes in travel patterns.
New technologies such as hydrogen production and storage which could provide for a
wide range of uses including transport are a long way off at present.
Nuclear, too, has well known problems, notably what to do with the burden of nuclear
wastes that will last down the generations. Nuclear energy can only be consumed as
electricity, it is only a partial solution. But, there can be little doubt that the political
climate is more favourable to nuclear than for a long time. Its opponents are less
vociferous, lulled by a decade of relative inactivity. The prospect of a revival in an
industry long since given up for dead is not so remote.
It is now ten years since the last British nuclear power station, Sizewell B, came on
stream and eight years since the proposal for a rock laboratory for nuclear waste at
Sellafield was dismissed. Nuclear still has many problems to overcome, not least
public concerns about accidents, radioactive waste and the possible threat from 9/11
type terrorism. Nuclear will need public support especially in those areas picked for
new power stations or radioactive waste facilities. And, it will have to compete for
resources with an increasingly dynamic renewables sector.
These are some of the issues to be debated at the Conference. With an election
approaching this is a significant moment to debate the future for nuclear energy. The
nuclear option has been left open – but do we need it to tackle climate change?
About the author
Andrew Blowers OBE is Professor of Social Sciences (Planning) at the Open
University. He has written several books on planning and political issues including
The Limits of Power, Something in the Air, The International Politics of Radioactive
Waste and Planning for a Sustainable Environment. For the Open University he has
co-edited the three volume series on Environmental Policy in and International
Context and three volumes in the series Environment: Change, Contest and Response.
For three decades he was a leading county councillor in Bedfordshire specialising in
environmental and planning matters. He has been prominent in environmental policy
making as a member of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
(1991-2004) and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (since 2003) and
as an independent director of Nirex, the radioactive waste disposal company. In 2000
he was awarded the OBE for services to environmental protection.