Is this the end? According to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, new nuclear power in this country has been “completely derailed”(1). She may not be wrong.
She was talking about the decision by Cumbria county council to reject the nuclear waste dump the government had planned(2). But she could just as well have been responding to the new report by a parliamentary committee, or to the declaration of surrender by Centrica: the last British company with a stake in the technology here. Put the three of them together and they add weight to the claims of those who maintain that atomic energy is finished in the UK. As I’ve spent much of the past two years defending it (3), this is a hard admission to make.
I don’t blame the people of Cumbria for rejecting the dump: the plan was an expensive, erudite and technically advanced dog’s breakfast. The location the government had chosen had only one virtue: availability. Or so it thought. The nuclear-friendly county turned out to be no more enthused about mopping up the industry’s excretions than the rest of Britain. No dump in Cumbria means no dump anywhere.
The whole thing was misdirected anyway: it was a waste of waste. The material the government wants to bury could produce— according to an estimate endorsed by the chief scientific adviser to its energy department— enough low-carbon energy to supply all the United Kingdom’s electricity needs for 500 years(4). Integral fast reactors can in principle keep recycling nuclear waste until a tiny residue remains, whose components have half-lives of tens rather than millions of years(5,6). The government’s failure in Cumbria could become an opportunity: to treat the waste as an asset rather than a liability. But I’m not holding my breath.
No one has made atomic energy harder to love than the industry that supplies it. On Monday its long and colourful record of corner-cutting, incompetence and cover-ups was supplemented by the Commons public accounts committee’s report(7). “Basic project management failings continue to cause delays and increase costs” at Sellafield, where the waste is being stored.
The past is a mess, the future a thicket. Centrica was reported on Sunday to be pulling out because the cost of building new plants has soared(8). While other sources of low carbon energy are getting cheaper, nuclear power— at least of the kind being promoted in Britain— is becoming more expensive(9). Every year the industry raises its demands, insisting on more lavish guarantees before it builds(10). The higher the cost, the weaker the argument in favour of the technology becomes.
I think the point might now have been reached at which attempts to build the favoured model (the European pressurised reactor) here should be halted until the costs have been reassessed and, preferably, compared to the likely costs of integral fast reactors. There’s no point in assembling clunky third generation power stations if fourth generation technologies are cheaper and easier to build.
Many people will be delighted to read this gloomy assessment. Before you join them, please consider the consequences.
Ten days ago, the Japanese government announced that it is abandoning its promise to cut the greenhouse gases the country produces by 25% by 2020(11). The reason it gave was the shutdown of many of its nuclear plants as a result of the Fukushima disaster. Nuclear power saved around a quarter of a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in Japan(12): equivalent to just under half the UK’s emissions(13). Much of it will now be replaced by coal and liquified gas(14).
Germany also decided to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis, due to the imminent risk of tsunamis in Bavaria. Last year, as a result, its burning of “clean coal”— otherwise known as coal— rose by 5%(15). That was despite a massive cut in its exports of electricity to other European countries(16)*. One estimate suggests that by 2020 Germany will have produced an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 as a result of its nuclear closure(17): equivalent to almost all the savings that will be made in the 27 member states as a result of the EU’s energy efficiency directive.
If the UK fails to replace its nuclear plants, which currently generate 22% of our electricity (18), the same thing will happen. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy— which is essential if we’re to have any chance of meeting our climate change targets— is hard enough. Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is harder still. As thermal power plants perversely attract less opposition than wind turbines, the temptation to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels will be overwhelming. Abandoning a proven and reliable low carbon technology as climate breakdown accelerates is a special form of madness.
Flawed and stalled as the nuclear clean-up plans may be, at least they exist. Neither the government nor the fossil fuel companies have any programme for cleaning up carbon dioxide. This waste is, in aggregate, orders of magnitude more dangerous than the materials produced by atomic energy plants, and even harder to make safe. It’s a choice of two evils, but one is much worse than the other.
I accept that for now the facts are against me. Enjoy it if you will. But then step back a pace and consider what it means.
*That was the case for 2011. Since this article was published I’ve been told that provisional figures for 2012 are now available. They show a reversal of the situation, with record exports, of 22TWh. See page 10
First published in the Guardian. Courtesy: www.monbiot.com
6. And see Tom Blees, 2008. Prescription for the Planet: the painless remedy for our energy and environmental crises. ISBN 1-4196-5582-5 You can read a chapter summarising what IFRs are and how they work here: http://tinyurl.com/cwvn8n
George Monbiot is an excellent columnist who is fiercely honest and doesn't cut corners when it comes to addressing core issues. Outlook is lucky to have him.
It is essential that Indian audience is aware of the Integral Fast Reactor technology that George mentions in the passing.
> The whole thing was misdirected anyway: it was a waste of waste. The material the government wants to bury could produce— according to an estimate endorsed by the chief scientific adviser to its energy department— enough low-carbon energy to supply all the United Kingdom’s electricity needs for 500 years(4). Integral fast reactors can in principle keep recycling nuclear waste until a tiny residue remains, whose components have half-lives of tens rather than millions of years(5,6).
Substantial information about this technology is now available from the free open-access book of Tom Blees. www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com
Cumbria is a south western British coastal region. If the region had been developed considerably as a coastal fort, then Hitler might not have crossed the English channel. Also, the south eastern coast of Britain should have had a coastal fort too, and then, the German navy might not have entered the English Channel.
I wonder, why are the Communist personalities green in France? Every party has certain principles, and they are normally, socialist, green and centrist, or aiming to be. No wonder they have the monorail. Also, the President of France is socialist, as very important Presidents also were. But this is very evident currently, and I never knew that other great Frenchmen who were President also were.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT