Skip to main content

BBC News Covers U.K. Nuclear Power Debate

With all but one of the United Kingdom's power stations set to close by 2023, and with Prime Minister Tony Blair calling for an "assessment of all options, including civil nuclear power," BBC News has taken up the issue.

First, BBC offers its own analysis:
Nuclear power looks as if it should be the answer to all our energy conundrums, and perhaps even to climate change. It provides a steady stream of energy, and does not depend on hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. It is the nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source, apart from natural renewables. But it still engenders massive distrust, so much that many people say it can never be part of the way to avoid a disastrously warming world.
The report goes on to say, "Most of us worry far more about something that we see as very unlikely but grotesquely horrible than we do about what we perceive as far likelier but much more mundane." In other words, "We are understandably terrified of nuclear meltdown, but far fewer of us yet fear the prospect of planetary overheating as we should." The math is simple:
The UK's nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the country's electricity, and by 2023 all are due to have closed. But by 2030 it is estimated world CO2 emissions will be 62% higher than today, as global demand for energy grows.
As the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source, nuclear energy should be part of the U.K. energy mix. That's what Sir David Wallace, vice president of the Royal Society and a nuke supporter, tells skeptic Tom Burke, a visiting professor at Imperial College London, in an e-mail debate printed on the BBC Web site.

In fact, Wallace stresses that nuclear should be only a part of the energy mix:
The debate about where we get our energy from must not be polarised, as it so often is, as a trade-off between renewable sources of energy and nuclear power.

If we are to ensure that we are cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases drastically, while at the same time ensuring that there is security of supply, then we must develop a policy of diversity based on evidence and not ideology.

In the short to medium term it is difficult to see how we can meet our energy needs without the help of nuclear power - a relatively "climate friendly" source of energy.

Nuclear currently provides us with about a quarter of our electricity in the UK. But with almost all nuclear power stations reaching the end of their lives in the next 20 years it is not clear how we will make up this shortfall.

Unfortunately - and wishful thinking will not make it otherwise - this gap is unlikely to be filled by renewable sources of energy such as wind, wave, solar or the burning of "energy crops".

The UK's target of generating 10% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010 is laudable but even this target looks ambitious.

In 2002, for example, renewables accounted for just 3% of electricity. Even if we achieve the full 10% we will be more reliant on fossil fuels in 2010 than we are today, if we allow nuclear power stations to close as scheduled.

As part of a comprehensive energy strategy, we should be striving energetically to meet and go beyond these targets for renewable energy.

There is clearly security in diversity of supply and in the long term we would expect renewables to be able to supply a much larger proportion of our energy needs. And the UK is in a particularly good position to exploit wave and tidal power.
Wallace goes on to suggest the government impose a carbon tax to "encourage the development of carbon free technologies - including nuclear and renewable power - and a move away from carbon based fuels in the overall energy supply, as well as promoting energy efficiency measures."

In response, dismisses nuclear power in Britain as "irrelevant," primarily because nuclear plant construction is such a lengthy process. Instead, he proposes using advanced clean-coal technologies. What Burke fails to acknowledge is that such technologies are also a long way off.

In the second round of e-mails, Wallace points out that capture technology has yet to be tested on a large scale, sequestration will incur high costs, a method of safe storage is still "problematic," a coal mining is a physically dangerous activity. "All of this means for me that there are no simple solutions, no silver bullets," Wallace says. "Every option will have to be brought into play whenever it can contribute to tackling the problem. ... We need technologies to be ruled in at this point, not ruled out, and action taken now."

UPDATE: The Institute of Physics is weighing in on the energy issue, saying in a new report that the U.K. "lacks the necessary skills to achieve the government’s target of producing 10 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010" calling for further research into renewables.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…