Comment

Tony Blair may already have decided that the future's nuclear, but the case against nuclear power remains strong, argues Pete Roche.

Energy Review II: if your review gives the wrong answer,
just order another one

Tony Blair has finally announced that his Government will publish new proposals on energy policy by summer 2006. [1] He says he wants an "open-minded" debate on nuclear power. [2] But rather perversely, unknown Downing Street “advisers” have told a national newspaper [3] that Blair is already convinced that building nuclear power stations is the only way to secure our energy needs and meet our climate change objectives. There seems little point in having an energy review if the Prime Minister has already made his mind up.

In fact, the last energy review was only completed a little over two years ago. [4] This concluded that nuclear power’s “economics make it an unattractive option … and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved”. Dr Catherine Mitchell, a member of the last Energy Review team, says we don’t need another energy review unless we want a different answer. If the recommendations of the 2003 Energy White Paper on demand reduction and renewable energy were put in place, it would be obvious we don’t need nuclear power. The White Paper also said the UK should keep the nuclear option open, and failed to recommend a target for renewables for 2020. This has, according to Mitchell, allowed the industry to question its recommendations. [5]

Before the ink was dry, the nuclear industry began an orchestrated campaign to re-open the debate [6]. A carefully planned public relations strategy is forcing nuclear power back onto the political agenda. Even virtually bankrupt British Energy, having been bailed out with taxpayers’ money, appointed Monsanto's former top UK lobbyist, enlisted the help of a former energy minister, and paid £1m to a PR firm. [7]
If Blair has, in fact, already made up his mind then he will have to admit that his Government has failed to implement its own policies on energy efficiency and renewables.

What Blair and nuclear advocates ignore is the fact that electricity generation accounts for only around a quarter of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. An examination of Government energy scenarios shows that, although all but three of the UK’s nuclear stations will be closed by 2020, replacing them will only displace around 5% of the UK’s carbon emissions. [8] Worse still, there is a serious danger of damaging efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting resources away from the most cost effective options to an extremely expensive option which can, at best, only make a minor contribution.

Putting this into perspective, it represents around half of the increase in emissions expected from transport by 2020. Similar emissions reductions could be made easily, more quickly and much more cost effectively, without any of the nasty side effects, by implementing a few additional energy efficiency measures.

UK Climate Change Objectives

The UK is committed under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. We also have a national goal of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. It is this second target that the Government is worried about missing.

A new generation of nuclear power stations could not start coming on stream until around 2018 – 2020, so wouldn’t be any help in meeting the 2010 target. [9] On the other hand energy efficiency improvements can be implemented now, with carbon savings beginning immediately, and up to seven times more cost effectively. Without government subsidies in some shape or form or a radical reorganisation of the electricity market it is hard to see how new stations will be financed. [10] If taxpayers’ and consumers’ money is going to have to be spent to drive carbon out of the economy, then we need to ensure it is spent in the most effective and environmentally sustainable way [11] and a new generation of reactors will detract from the need to give energy efficiency and renewables priority. [12]

The Energy White Paper also says the UK should aim towards a 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050. But by 2020 we could implement much more ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes, and by then many households and buildings will be generating their own electricity. For example by promoting micro-combined heat and power (micro-CHP) domestic central heating boilers, which provide hot water for central heating and generate electricity, we could replace half the output of our current nuclear stations. [13] Roof-top wind turbines and solar panels could also have an increasing role to play in tackling climate change in a sustainable manner. [14]

There are some formidable hurdles to a nuclear revival. Perhaps the most important is the need to find a ‘solution’ to the problem of radioactive waste. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’s (CoRWM’s) has shown that a programme of ten replacement reactors would increase the amount of high-level waste or spent fuel we will be left to deal with by 300%. [15] A decision to cap the production of nuclear waste may be seen by some of the public as a prerequisite to achieving a solution to the waste already created.

The public will also find it very hard to understand why Blair, who is so worried about terrorism that he thinks we should lock people up without trial for 90 days, is prepared to sanction up to ten new potential terrorist targets. [See News Extra – “Nuclear Power – a terrorist target?”] We have to ask ourselves what sort of energy policy Osama Bin Laden would want the UK to adopt. Chief Superintendent David McCracken has already warned that Torness nuclear power station could be a target for international terrorism in a report to East Lothian Council. [16] It has also been reported that someone working at Torness deliberately tried to disrupt security by installing a tripwire at the top of a flight of stairs. This, most likely was some sort of personal vendetta, but despite the fact that the police were called, the perpetrator was not caught, and probably still works at the plant. The incident illustrates that something much more sinister than a personal vendetta could be lurking at some nuclear facilities and remain undetected. [17]

Nuclear power would only ever be able to play a very limited role in tackling climate change, and would likely have a negative impact on other more cost effective carbon abatement measures. Whilst formidable hurdles to its revival remain - the threat of terrorism and the lack of a solution to the waste problem being perhaps the most important - there is still every chance the Government will reject the technology a second time, but it will probably need a little persuasion to do the right thing. Time to get persuading now.

---

[1] BBC “Full text of Tony Blair's speech to the Labour Party's 2005 conference” 27th September 2005
[2] BBC “Blair 'open' over nuclear future” 11th October 2005
Blair's monthly press conference
[3] “Britain goes back to nuclear” The Times, 21st November, 2005
[4] DTI (February 2003) “Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy”, Cm 5761
[5] Evidence by Warwick Business School to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee’s investigation on “Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change” 19th October 2005
[6] “Nuclear Delusion” by Tom Burke, Guardian 2nd March 2005.
[7]“The Nuclear Charm Offensive” by Jonathan Leake and Dan Box, New Statesman 23rd May 2005
[8] DTI, Energy Projections for the UK, Energy Paper 68
[9] The Guardian 8th September 2004, “Action Stations” by Catherine Mitchell;
MacKerron, G (September 2004) “Nuclear Power and the Characteristics of Ordinariness – the Case of UK Energy Policy” NERA Economic Consulting;
Who puts up the cash? By Gordon MacKerron, Observer 4th December 2005
[10] Pearl Marshall & Ann MacLachlan, “Vendors, investors discussing potential new U.K. construction”, Nucleonics Week - Vol46 No.18 April 28th 2005
[11] “Why Nuclear Power’s Failure in the Marketplace is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation and Climate Protection)” by Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, Transcription of a presentation to the Nuclear Control Institute’s 20th Anniversary Conference, “Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other?” Washington, DC, April 9, 2001. www.nci.org
The Guardian 12th August 2004, “Nuclear Plants Bloom” by John Vidal,
[12] Pearl Marshall “Official says reviews needed before new U.K. nuclear built” Nucleonics Week, Vol46 No.11 March 17th 2005
[13] See for example The Guardian, 12th June 2003 “PowerGen markets boiler that generates electricity” by Paul Brown; and
Hewitt, C (2001) “Power to the People: Delivering a 21st Century Energy System” IPPR; and
“Natural gas – meeting the UK’s energy challenges”. BG Group Advertisement, The Parliamentary Monitor, December 2003.
[14] The Guardian 3rd May 2005 “Home wind turbines cut bills and pollution”, by Paul Brown
[15] CoRWM’s Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory, July 2005
[16] “Nuclear Plant Terror Warning”, Edinburgh Evening News 21st November 2005
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2275822005
[17] “Over 200 abnormal events at nuclear plants since 2000” by Rob Edwards, Sunday Herald 4th December 2005