on Jan 9th, 2007
Energy crisis - is nuclear the only way forward?
“Make hay whilst the sun shines” is an old saying. Maybe I could change it to “Make solar electricity whilst the sun shines and use wind turbines when it’s windy”, but what about when it’s neither sunny nor windy?
We will be faced (or rather our governments will), with some choices about energy production for the population in the not too distant future. Unless some new technology comes along that generates bountiful energy with no nasty side effects, we are faced some stark choices.
Renewables (wind, solar, wave) etc certainly need additional investment and commitment from governments so they can be producing an even greater percentage of power to the national grid than they currently do (and relatively, the cost of electricity generation using these ways will become cheaper as they are more widely adopted and the cost – both in materials and to the environment, of the other ways increases). In some parts of the UK hydro-electric is a clean source (although not necessarily if excessive land has been lost due to damming rivers), so the rest comes back to oil, coal, gas and nuclear.
Most people will know and understand the problems with oil, coal and gas-powered power stations. In addition to the greenhouse gases, we have already begun to see the demands and bullying of the countries that now have large gas reserves over those that they may wish to exert political influence or control. Here in the UK, although we have not actually had an interruption to gas supply, many people will be shocked to know how close we came to running out at the beginning of 2006 (the UK is at the very end of the gas pipes that come from Russia, and we choose to stockpile just a few weeks worth of gas whereas France and Germany stock between 2 and 3 months worth).
So that leaves nuclear. Many environmentalists are uneasy or downright anti-nuclear, although there are notable exceptions (James Lovelock – author of the Gaia hypothesis etc) – it’s not that these people think it’s great to have nuclear, rather they are saying that realistically there is no alternative if we want abundant and cheap electricity.
The UK government seems to be backing nuclear as a way of providing independence from foreign fossil fuel imports in the future, and I can see that if we are to continue to need electricity as we do today, there are limited alternatives. The problem for me is that nuclear comes with a big ‘but’… we can’t escape from the memories of, for example, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl which even today is affecting (in a bad way) the lives of thousands of people across many countries.
People have argued that these incidents could not happen again, but we live in an unstable world where politics and religion are changing geographical boundaries. 20 years ago, who would have predicted that the USSR would break apart and loose it’s rule over eastern block countries, and yet these changes happened and left parts of the former USSR with incredibly dangerous technologies that became under-funded and hence accidents became a likelihood rather than a possibility.
Of course, here in the UK, safety at nuclear power stations is taken much more seriously isn’t it? Despite countless minor radioactive leaks, and higher than average incidents of cancer and leukemia around nuclear power stations (which somehow are explained away as not being linked to the nuclear power station), the government and the operating companies insist everything is fine. But today (8th Jan 2007) 40,000 gallons of radioactive water leaked from a pipe at the Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk. Sizewell B is being decommissioned and although the leak was ‘detected immediately and contained within the plant’ it highlights the problems that nuclear presents us with. Then there’s dealing with the spent fuel rods and so on.
Of course, there is another alternative. That is to reduce the amount of power you consume. We have so many electricity consuming gadgets (are they really all necessary?) and devices which are left on standby (for standby read – still consuming electricity) that simply making an effort here will reduce our personal electricity consumption. We can make further efforts by purchasing energy saving lightbulbs (and switching off lights when not needed), purchasing energy efficient appliances and much more (most of which is fairly obvious).
To spur this along, we need a government that gives people incentives to do the right thing, to make hard decisions that may (in the short term) be unpopular with people who will not willingly make a change to their lifestyle for the good of everyone else, but this is the key – we all need to be preparing ourselves for a different lifestyle.
Any comments?
It’s ironic that after writing the above article in the early hours of yesterday morning, that later that day, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair was asked whether he would give up long haul holiday flights - “I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that.
“I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less.”
Jonathan Porrit (who acts as an advisor to the government and who has applauded Tony Blair’s international record on climate action), said, “He’s done more than any other world leader to bring people to a sense of awareness about the importance of climate change. But here in the UK, his leadership has been patchy, and frankly muddle-headed.”
Shortly after the interview, officials at No 10 were clearly panicking about the PM’s comments and later stated that the PM would ‘offset’ emmissions from his holiday flights.
As Jonathan Porrit later mentioned, it seems that the PM falls into the camp that technology can save us. Unfortunately that sends a message to the average person that the climate change problem is nothing to worry about, hence personal action is pointless.
Martin,
A minor factual correction to the above, it’s Sizewell A that’s being decommissioned.
On a matter of opinion, it concerns me that we all too often see polarisation into various camps when it comes to sources of sustainable energy. I am busily working in my own small way to help a range of sustainable technologies become viable. As such I try to be realistic on all fronts - environmental, economic, commercial and operational. As a result I actually see a future energy mix that includes a balanced portfolio of clean coal, wind, solar, biomass, nuclear and marine (tidal & Wave). I come from a background of 30 years in the nuclear energy sector, having spent a proportion of that in energy strategy areas. Oh- and during that time I helped to start up a small scale CHP business.
So - all I ask is that we try to keep out of the trap of energy technology partisanship. What is at stake is far too important.
Richard, thanks for your correction and for your comments - all are welcome here even if they may not be agreeable by all parties - a balanced view is vital in any discussion.
Last night I was reading George Monbiot’s latest book, ‘Heat’, and specifically the chapter that talks about electricity production and the options. According to ‘Heat’, there is still a lot of gas and coal that can extracted from the earth, probably for the next 200 years, and George’s preference is gas, in that it contains less embedded carbon and is more efficient (than coal). George has a problem with ‘Clean burning coal’ - go to the USA (Appalachian Mountains) and see the mountain tops that are literally being removed during open cast mining on a massive scale - in fact, given a choice between this continuing and using Nuclear, he would choose Nuclear!
Clean burning coal is a future possibility, but as I understand it, carbon extraction (except for underground coal gasification) is not viable at the present time.
The solution is a balanced approach which also needs public support (ie reducing the demand of electricity), but this contradicts businesses whose job and profit is made by selling more of it. I have only recently begun to appreciate the complexity of balancing electricity supply with demand, and you can see why renewables (ie sources that are very variable) would cause uncertainty within a finely balanced system.
This is a massive topic and I would urge people to do more background reading on the subject as you can’t do it justice in a few paragraphs. It is also very easy to form opinions without understanding the whole system. However, the key aspect is that people need to take personal responsibility for the resources they use - this requires a change in culture - never easy!
Nuclear can only leave huge issues for future generations because we can’t deal with the waste some of which has immense half life. Have you seen the programme ‘It’s not easy being green’? We may not all be able to take it that far but with the correct education and government incentives we could substantially reduce our energy demands.