May 2007
Our Nuclear Future
Tony Blair is on his way out and now is the perfect time for him to secure the smoldering wreckage of his legacy from the Iraqi quagmire with noble plans and ever more expansive rhetoric. Speaking earlier this month, he stated that "Over 10 years, I have watched energy policy go from a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country's future as defence."
This coincided with the start of a 20 week public consultation on nuclear power following a damning High Court ruling on the government’s previous consultation exercise which was criticized as "misleading, seriously flawed and procedurally unfair". The Prime Minister still insists that "this won’t affect the policy at all" and this is a message that has been picked up by his successor. Gordon Brown is set to signal his support for a massive shake up of the nuclear power programme that will see the construction of up to eight new stations over the next 15 years.
But why has it been that only in the last few years that we have been made fully aware of the importance of energy policy to this country and indeed the world?
Coming to power in 1997, Mr Blair enjoyed the comfort of knowledge that Britain had a strong energy infrastructure, a steady stream of money from the North Sea, and was self sufficient in fuel. The climate change lobby had nowhere near the influence or profile it presently commands and Russian energy policy was dictated by a few select oligarchs and a President more interested in securing his nation’s vodka supplies rather than Russia’s future as an energy giant.
But just 7 years later, Britain had become a net importer of gas, and just last year, it bought more oil than it sold – a first since the North Sea discoveries of the 1980s. With infrastructure showing its age and 3 big nuclear sites to close by 2015 (Hinkley B, Hartlepool and Hunterston B), the next 15 years will see all but one of the existing nuclear power stations shut. Matched in the fossil fuel sector by diminishing coal power capacities, experts in the industry state that as much as 40% of the nation’s electricity production will need to be replaced by 2015.
It is obvious that energy policy is a political hot potato, with opponents of nuclear energy outnumbering supporters by 49% to 44%, but the Chancellor appears to have decided that nuclear energy would be the "prudent" option. Looking purely at the cost to produce energy, nuclear power comes out at a very reasonable $28 per barrel. The 20% of UK electricity already produced by the sector is carbon neutral and doubling of capacity would, at the most conservative estimates reduce greenhouse gases by 8% as other forms of production are replaced. Indeed, this would all be for the very reasonable sum of around £10bn over the next 20 years according to proponents. In comparison to the proposed Severn River Barrage which would cost £14bn and provide a mere 5% of the country’s energy needs.
With encouragement being given to take a leaf out of the French book where as much as 76% of energy is generated from nuclear sources, investment in the industry would not be unique in Europe.
But the nuclear option is not as simple a route as presented. Although risks are small, when accidents do happen, they have earth shattering potential. Incompetence and mismanagement at Sellafield have done little to assuage the British public’s fear of its very own Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Moreover, environmentalists point to clean up cost being left out of the cost equation in the construction of nuclear plants. The current cost of the UK’s nuclear waste clean up programme is set to top more than £70bn according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, who previously estimated £56bn just two years ago.
Indeed, even the issue of energy security remains a clouded one. The advantage of having greater control over its own energy through lessened dependence on fossil fuel rich nations may prove to be illusory. Instead of oil and gas providers such as OPEC and Russia enjoying leverage over domestic supplies, uranium rich nations would vie for the prize instead. This would include the more friendly Canadians and Australians, but primarily revolve around sourcing from those oases of human rights "safe zones" around the world such as Niger, Kazakhstan and Russia. This is to say nothing of the potential political fallout as we demand that North Korea and Iran to decommission their declared civilian nuclear facilities whilst racing to build more of our own.
It is perhaps the tendency to think in absolutes – nuclear or renewable; oil or gas – rather than degrees which is hampering a national plan to reduce emissions, prices and dependency.
Regardless, the government will no doubt take the recommendations of economists, scientists and environmentalists into account, as it has always listened to the voice of reason on other issues of national importance. The author nonetheless makes the suggestion that they have a good supply of ink for their rubber stamps.
Print this page