Public Interest Research Centre - PIRC

ENERGY CONTEXT – SCIENCE DEMANDS LARGE EMISSIONS CUTS

Around 21% of our electricity needs are currently met from nuclear (1) - Planned retirement of old sites is due to drop this figure to around 14% over the next ten years. Because it is not used for heating or transport, nuclear makes up a smaller amount of the UKs energy needs (2). Recent appraisals of climate science suggest we need to cut UK emissions at least 94% by 2050, with 50% cuts by 2020 (3). With generating capacity due to fall, and emissions cuts necessary, we need to ask where our energy is going to come from in the future.

AS A RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE NUCLEAR DOESN’T MAKE THE CUT

Optimistically, any new nuclear plants will not be operational before 2020 (4). This means that nuclear power plants could not address any ‘energy gap’. It also means that nuclear will be slow to deliver carbon savings. 10 GW of new nuclear generating capacity – replacing 10 stations scheduled to close – would provide just a 4% cut in emissions after 2024 (5). 20GW of capacity – an expansion beyond what the Government is currently suggesting – would equate to an 8% cut in emissions by 2024. Nuclear’s ability to make any significant contribution to the kind of emissions cuts discussed above for 2020 targets is therefore limited (6).

LARGE SCALE RENEWABLES AND NUCLEAR POWER NEED DIFFERENT NATIONAL GRIDS

A grid powered by decentralised renewables utilises demand management, intelligent home appliances (which vary their power consumption), increased energy storage capacity, and generally complements and encourages energy efficiency. Investing in a grid powered by centralised nuclear is failing to adapt electricity infrastructure to suit a renewably powered country, when it is likely that only renewable can deliver the emissions cuts we need.

ON A FULL LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS NUCLEAR IS EXPENSIVE

Although the installed cost of nuclear generation is broadly similar to wind (7), the costs of decommissioning nuclear plants and dealing with radioactive waste makes nuclear a much more expensive option on a full life-cycle assessment – cost estimates for decommissioning current UK nuclear plants stand at £73 billion and are expected to escalate (8). Despite 54 years of operational nuclear power plants in the UK, there is no good long-term storage option available for nuclear waste, and unknown associated costs.

IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, NUCLEAR POWER DOES NOT PROVIDE ‘ENERGY SECURITY’

While global uranium production is sufficient to meet current demand, reserves are finite and were there massive growth in nuclear power supplies could become insecure. Nuclear thus satisfies ‘energy security’ only in its narrowest form. To have a significant impact in reducing carbon emissions, nuclear would need to be deployed on a massive scale, compounding well understood problems - security risks, poor safety records and civil nuclear power driving proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nations adopting nuclear as a way to generate low-carbon electricity will have little authority to discourage non-nuclear states from pursuing civil nuclear programmes.

BEING ABLE TO CUT EMISSIONS QUICKLY DEPENDS ON CURRENT INVESTMENT CHOICES

Emissions cuts need to begin now – the longer they are delayed the more dramatic they will have to be. We also have to be able to make very high cuts – 80%, 90%, 100%, in the future. Choices about investment in the energy sector that are made now will determine our ability to make dramatic emissions cuts in the future. Committing to nuclear as an emission cutting strategy risks choosing a slow and costly option which does not deliver adequate carbon cuts, and diverting money from developing renewable capacity (9). A fundamental restructuring of how we meet our energy needs is required. At best, nuclear provides only a limited and expensive step towards reducing emissions. At worst, it distracts from effective action, contributes to global insecurity, and leaves a long legacy of dangerous waste.

References

1. Source: Carbon Monitoring for Action – see www.carma.org
2. (In 2000) – See Godfrey Boyle, ‘Energy Systems and Sustainability’ - p 71
3. See IPPR – ‘High Stakes’ - http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=501
4. See Tom Burke at http://www.e3g.org/index.php/programmes/climate-articles/decoding-nuclear-nonsense-ii-the-real-evidence/
5. Sustainable Development Commission – See ‘The Role of Nuclear in a Low Carbon Society’ http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344
6. SDC – Ibid.
7. See the Guardian – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/05/guardiansocietysupplement8
8. See http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG31I-Bek2HrX5WA9znIUoD4bMNA