E3G

Decoding Nuclear Nonsense II: the real evidence

By Tom Burke

“Nuclear power is essential for Britain’s energy security”

There are three significant threats to Britain’s energy security.

The most important is the threat of interruptions to our oil supply. However, essentially all of Britain’s oil is used for transport and cannot be replaced by nuclear electricity. Preventing political instability in the Middle East and reducing our dependence on imported oil by more efficient transport systems are the only ways to improve the security of our oil supplies.

Much has been made of the threat of becoming over-dependent on imported gas, particularly from Russia. Unfortunately, half of our gas is used directly for domestic space and water heating and cannot be replaced by electricity.

More is used for industrial processes, leaving under a third that is used for electricity generation. Much of that third is used to generate electricity at peak times because gas turbines can be easily switched on and off to meet short term spikes in demand. Nuclear power stations must be run continuously.

This considerably limits the role nuclear electricity can play in reducing our dependence on gas, from wherever it is imported.

Finally, Ministers have frequently expressed anxiety about the ‘generation gap’ that will emerge as some 20GW of obsolete coal and nuclear capacity is closed between now and 2020. They argue that this would threaten security of electricity supply. If this capacity is not replaced by new nuclear, carbon-intensive gas or coal will have to be used thus damaging the climate.

Unfortunately, the Government’s own nuclear consultation admitted that even if an order were placed immediately under its accelerated regulatory procedures, it would be 8 years before construction could start. It also assumed a 5 year construction period – making an optimistic assumption for a wholly new design.

The Government has not explained how a nuclear power station that will not be operating before 2021 can help it meet a ‘generation gap’ it expects to appear well before 2020.

“Nuclear power is necessary to maintain climate security”

New nuclear build in Britain will not help with climate change and will divert capital, and more importantly, scarce skills away from investments in the carbon neutral coal technologies, renewables and energy efficiency that will reduce our carbon footprint faster and more cheaply than nuclear.

The Government’s commitment to keeping the eventual rise in global average temperature to below 20C cannot be met unless the world very quickly makes its coal use carbon neutral by deploying carbon capture and storage technologies. The International Energy Agency forecasts 1400GW of new coal fired power stations by 2030.

China is building new coal fired plant at the rate of 2GW a week. China also has the world’s most ambitious nuclear power programme. It plans 40 nuclear power stations by 2030. If they are all built they will still only provide 4% of China’s electricity.

If we want others to make their coal burning carbon neutral we must do so ourselves. Action speaks louder than words. In the next three years Britain will spend £2.8billion/year on cleaning up the nuclear legacy of the past. We will spend nothing on deploying carbon capture and storage which is the world’s most important technology for ensuring climate security in the future.

Given our real, as opposed to our rhetorical, priorities, why would anyone believe that we were serious about carbon capture and storage?