Why do we need new nuclear power stations?
There are lots of reasons. One fifth of the UK’s electricity is currently
provided by nuclear power stations, but all but one of these is scheduled to
close by 2023. By then just 7 per cent of Britain’s power will be provided
by nuclear energy, if they are not replaced. Meanwhile older coal-fired
power stations, which do not meet current EU emissions criteria, will also
close in the next five years. So Britain urgently needs to find new
affordable sources of power to maintain security of supply and prevent the
lights going out.
In 2003, the Government called nuclear an unattractive option. Since then,
however, the global price of oil has soared to close to $100 a barrel and
the UK has moved from being a net exporter of gas to being a net importer.
Building nuclear power stations will reduce our dependence on imported energy.
When Russia cut gas supplies to the Ukraine over the New Year of 2006 it
brought a nasty reminder to Western governments of the problems of being
dependent on foreign imports of gas. At the same time demand for electricity
in the UK is continuing to grow at 1 to 2 per cent a year.
There has been considerable pressure from leading scientists like Professor
David King, the Government’s former chief scientific adviser, policy makers
and business leaders like the CBI to replace the UK’s ageing fleet of
nuclear power stations. They are concerned that the country’s economy will
become uncompetitive if it does not replace its decommissioned nuclear
stations.
Calls for nuclear power have also gathered pace because of concern over
climate change. Nuclear power is considered a low carbon energy source,
although emissions are ofcourse still created in the construction of nuclear
reactors. The UK is falling behind in its targets for reducing CO2 emissions
and it is thought that these will not be met without the presence of nuclear
power.
What would nuclear power do for climate change?
The Government estimates that without nuclear power, the UK’s greenhouse gas
emissions would be between 5 per cent and 13 per cent higher than they are
at the moment. The figure for greenhouse emissions from electricity
generation would be even higher.
As all but one of the plants are nearing the end of their lives, this
contribution would be lost if they are not replaced. The Government has a
target of generating 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by
2020, but the loss of nuclear would mean that this keeps carbon emissions
level instead of reducing them.
Green campaigners argue, and the Government accepts, that new-build nuclear
would make little contribution by 2020 because of the time taken to plan and
construct the stations. In the longer term, however, the UK is seeking to
reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
The Goverment says that while this is just conceivable without new nuclear
plants, that would rely on extensive adoption of carbon capture and storage
for coal- and gas-fired power stations. As this technology remains unproven,
the safest course of action would be to replace nuclear capacity.
Anti-nuclear groups point out that nuclear power would not contribute to
cutting non-electricity greenhouse emissions, and say it would reduce the
total by only 4 per cent. Even if this estimate is accepted — and the
Government maintains it is too low — it would still be a significant
contribution.
Nuclear advocates are always clear that it is not the only solution to climate
change, but part of a package of measures that should also include
investment in renewables, microgeneration, energy efficiency and carbon
capture and storage.
Where will the power stations be built?
They will almost certainly be built on or adjacent to existing nuclear sites,
where local communities are likely to be more willing to accept them. With
the highest demand for power in the South East and around London, British
Energy, the UK's main nuclear operator, has identified four sites -
Sizewell, Bradwell, Hinkley and Dungeness - as prime candidates for new
nuclear facilities.
The Government is also announcing an overhaul of planning legislation to make
it easier to build them without lengthy delays. However, there is still
likely to be big opposition from environmental groups like Greenpeace, which
is already considering a legal challenge, and from other groups. Scotland's
First Minister Alex Salmond, for example, has said there is "no chance"
of more nuclear reactors being built in Scotland.
How much will it cost?
Unlike coal and gas-fired plants, only about 5 per cent of the cost of nuclear
power relates to fuel. Capital investment is the biggest factor and the
private sector developers who take the risk of building or investing in new
plant will want to make a decent return. The cost of the new Finnish nuclear
power station, which is already behind schedule, is estimated at €3 billion.
However, by the time construction starts in the UK, the price is likely to
have jumped again.
It is also necessary to factor in the cost of decommissioning and disposal of
waste. Opponents say the clean-up bill for the current generation of
reactors could reach £70 billion.
Who will pay for new generators?
The private sector and the City is expected to pay for the construction of new
power stations after Tony Blair ruled out financial incentives from the
state for nuclear power generators. However, energy companies are looking
for an appropriate “industry framework”, set by the Government, in which
nuclear can thrive.
The industry is not calling for direct subsidies but it fears a repeat of the
situation in 2002 when electricity prices fell below the level of what it
cost to produce power from nuclear fuel. That almost put British Energy,
Britain’s biggest nuclear operator, out of business. If no direct subsidies
are given, the consumer will eventually end up paying through their
household bills.
What will happen to the waste?
Waste is currently stored in temporary facilities in 37 different locations
but the long-term solution recommended by a Government advisory panel is
that these should be replaced with a bunker 300m underground. The idea is
that the Government will fund the building of the bunker and then lease
space in it to the power companies that run the power stations. However, if
this vault has to be extended or enlarged to house waste from the new
nuclear reactors, this would have to be funded by the energy companies
themselves.
Fortunately, the “third generation” nuclear plants that would be built produce
only around 10 per cent of the waste churned out by their predecessors. That
means that even if new reactors go ahead, the vast majority of the waste
that will have to be stored safely already exists, and must be disposed of
come what may.
Nuclear advocates say that this is in itself a powerful argument for
new-build. While starting a nuclear power programme from scratch would
create a waste problem that will remain for thousands of years, a fresh
generation of reactors will add a little more waste to a stockpile that has
to be cleaned up anyway.
Nuclear isn’t exactly safe, is it?
Advocates say modern nuclear plants are much safer than those built 20 or 30
years ago and that they produce relatively low emissions of carbon, thereby
helping to tackle climate change. Nevertheless, the safe storage of
high-level nuclear waste which will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands
of years remains a key concern that makes a realistic assessment of the
overall, long-term costs of nuclear power very difficult.
All four of the designs that are being considered by energy companies are
built to “fail safe”, so that if there is a major problem the reaction stops
rather than spiralling out of control.
Older plants used active safety systems to cool and control the reactor, which
left it vulnerable in case of failure. The new versions use passive safety
features — natural forces such as gravity or convection — which work by
themselves to ensure that accidental meltdown cannot happen. A
Chernobyl-type disaster is effectively impossible with this sort of
technology.
Nuclear power stations are built to withstand the impact of a wide-bodied
passenger jet, so they should also be protected against 9/11 type terrorist
attacks.
The Government has announced plans for long-term storage at an underground
site. However, this will take decades to achieve. Critics also claim nuclear
power is dangerous for another reason: international security. The
technology required to generate electricity from nuclear energy can also be
used to build atomic weapons. Can the UK embark on a huge drive to build new
nuclear power plants while maintaining the moral authority to stop countries
like Iran from doing the same? The fuel used in modern reactors, however, is
not in a form that can be adapted for use in nuclear bombs.
Does this mean the Government has gone off wind power?
In theory, no. The Government remains committed to a huge drive to build new
offshore wind farms around the coasts of the UK.It also still wants to
increase the UK’s reliance on renewable energy to 15 per cent by 2015. But
the financial incentives to achieve this remain unclear and most analysts
believe the UK will miss these targets. Generating energy from wind and
other renewable sources remains expensive and inherently less reliable than
nuclear. Other potential sources such as tidal power are as yet unproven.
The Government believes in using a mix of different energy sources but views
nuclear as an important and reliable source of “baseload” power.
What about carbon capture and storage (CCS)?
This technology involves scrubbing the carbon dioxide from the exhausts of
fossil-fuel power stations, so they never reach the atmosphere where they
contribute to global warming. Flue gases are passed through chemical
solvents to extract carbon dioxide, which is then liquified for storage
underground in disused oil and gas fields.
CCS has huge potential for providing low-carbon energy, as projections suggest
it should be capable of reducing greenhouse gas outputs by 90 per cent. The
problem is that present methods of CCS are extremely expensive and no
demonstration project has yet shown that it is possible to achieve at a
reasonable price.
In the nuclear White Paper, the Government accepts that successful CCS might
allow it to meet the 2050 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60
per cent, without building new atomic plants. That, however, would rely on a
cheap and efficient technology becoming proven soon and ministers have
decided they should not take that risk.
The Government is currently running a competition for a demonstration CCS
projects. One of the candidates is the proposed new coal-fired power station
at Kingsnorth, Kent. If Kingsnorth is approved it will be the first new
coal plant for 20 years but it is not guaranteed to be selected.
Who will build and run them?
The Government is adamant that they will be built and paid for by the private
sector, without public subsidy. But the UK itself is rapidly losing the
skills to build and operate nuclear plants effectively. Much of the
expertise is therefore likely to be imported from overseas. To achieve this,
big power companies like Centrica, EDF and E.On are likely to collaborate
with nuclear power station builders like GE Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse
and France’s Areva.
