At long last, we have overcome the squeamishness about nuclear power that led to the cop-out that was the 2003 energy white paper. Although the building of new nuclear power stations was not ruled out, serious discussion of options for the future was effectively silenced. Thankfully we’ve moved on, if a little late in the day.
If the UK’s future energy needs are to be met on the basis of secure supply, reduced dependence on imports and a reduction in CO2 emissions, then nuclear has to be part of the solution. It is not being pushed, as some environmentalists disingenuously claim, as the only means of addressing these concerns but as part of a package of measures that all have their part to play.
We mustn’t fall in to the trap set by the green lobby which portrays the debate as a zero-sum game where the choice is between either nuclear or renewable energy. But in order to take public and party opinion with us, we have to argue that both have a place in meeting out future energy needs, and that the problem of nuclear waste is not insoluble.
At present, 20 per cent of our electricity is generated by 12 nuclear power stations housing 23 reactors. Nine stations are due to close by 2020, leaving just three meeting barely seven per cent of our electricity needs. Taken together with the decommissioning of old coal-fired power stations, we could have an energy gap approaching 30 per cent of current electricity generation. Yes, greater use of renewable energy can help address this but no one is seriously suggesting that wind farms, tidal power, biomass and other unproven technologies can generate anything like this level of electricity.
If we are to maintain nuclear’s current 20 per cent share of the energy mix, we will need another 10-15 new reactors by 2020. There have even been suggestions that we should aim for a 30 per cent share which would need about 20 new reactors. This point was reinforced recently by Gordon Brown when he said that we should be considering additional nuclear capacity, not just replacing existing nuclear stations.
But one crucial political issue will have to be addressed and that is the question of what to do about nuclear waste. Environmentalist nay-sayers have been totally irresponsible in suggesting that nothing can be done about it. Again, they are twisting the argument in order to turn public opinion against new build. First of all, waste can be dealt with safely and effectively. Secondly, it has to be dealt with because of the estimated 470,000 cubic metres of waste that already exists.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’s recommendation to store the waste deep underground with the proviso that it be retrievable by future generations should that be necessary is a perfectly plausible and feasible solution. This is infinitely preferable to the current arrangements where the waste is stored on the surface at 37 different locations spread across Britain. A specific site will have to be identified, financed and constructed. This won’t happen overnight but then neither will waste from new nuclear reactors suddenly need to be stored.
The prospect of a new generation of nuclear power stations will inevitably create a great deal of political controversy and opposition based, as the leading international environmentalist, Sir James Lovelock said, on ‘irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the green lobbies and the media.’ That’s why now, more than ever, we need clear, confident and rational explanations of why we need an increased nuclear capacity, without ignoring the role of renewables.
Richard Olszewski