FT: Tories may not back Blair on nuclear power

"We must make the case for civil nuclear power to tackle the energy crisis with least damage to the environment."

- Conservative spokesman on energy, October 2005

I have always been "instinctively hostile to nuclear because I'm suspicious of the dangers it poses."

- Conservative spokesman on energy, February 2006

The shift in emphasis has come with a change of policy spokesman.  The October 2005 statement was made by David Willetts to the Conservative Party Conference.  The second statement was made by David's successor as Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Duncan.  The FT interprets the new stance as "unexpectedly hostile" to the endorsement of nuclear power that will likely be made by Prime Minister Tony Blair's energy review.

Mr Duncan uses an interview with today's FT (subscription required) to emphasise the difficult economics of nuclear energy:

"The economics are absolutely crucial. The only power station anyone's going to build in a free market at the moment is a gas-fired one.  On the nuclear side, there's a massive question mark over whether, if a nuclear generating company were made to meet all its costs through the entire life cycle of the project, that they would ever build a nuclear power station. That calls into question, given the nuclear decommissioning costs... the relationship between the nuclear sector and government.  If, and again this might come out of the review, it looks as though coal and oil can capture and not emit carbon, then they can contribute to an emissions target."

But is Mr Duncan's premise correct?  He talks of a "free market" in energy but, in reality, it is a heavily (and, perhaps, unfairly) regulated market.  The poor economics of the nuclear industry are partly blamed by some on reactionary over-regulation (see here and here for an American context).

In any case... should cost be the only consideration when it comes to the 'nuclear option'?  Environmentalists such as James Lovelock believe that a major expansion of nuclear energy is the only way to beat global warming.  Others believe that embracing nuclear power is necessary for energy security.  For the second time in a very short time I find myself agreeing with Chris Patten.  In yesterday's FT he asked...

"Do we really prefer dependence on Vladimir Putin, Russian president, and Gazprom or nuclear power?"

My guess is that we probably need a diverse mix of energy sources.  Some will be cheaper at different times as technologies and market conditions evolve.  The Conservatives should support Tony Blair if he takes the nuclear option.  The need for long-term solutions to both the energy and pensions crises demand a degree of cross-party consensus.  The Tories shouldn't play politics on this issue.  Let's leave that to the LibDems...

TODAY'S FRONTPAGE OFFERS NEWSLINKS ON BUSH'S NEW ENERGY POLICY ANNOUNCEMENTS.

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

On a related topic- and maybe I haven't been keeping up- on R4 Today this am, Peter Ainsworth said a future Tory government would commit to allowing a panel of "non-political scientific experts" to decide Britain's carbon emmissions targets, which the govt would then implement. So they'd resolve the row currently taking place between our environmental and business lobbies by deciding the whole thing on "scientific" grounds.

And if business dislikes the outcome? I guess they could just pull up sticks and leave. That should give us back our green and pleasant land alright.

Remind me- what are politicians meant to be for?

[James Hellyer]

It was obvious this would happen back as early as the start of December. Peter Ainsworth, the Shadow Environment Secretary is firmly anti-nuclear, as are John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith. Cameron's CO2 reduction plans come straight from the Friends of the Earth playbook.

Duncan's economic points are also seriously flawed. If anything, nuclear power will become relatively cheaper as an energy source as time goes by, as dwindling oil and gas reserves make those energy sources comparatively more expensive.

Moreover, the energy market is - as noted above - anything but free. Renewables are subsidised to such an extent that their actual cost per KW is heavily distorted.

[Selsdon Man]

The key issue is security of supply. Our gas reserves are dwindling and we cannot rely on gas-fired power stations. It appears that renewable energy will not replace gas generation entirely so we need alternatives. Clean coal is apparently ruled out too so the options are limited. I share Mr Duncan's reservations on nuclear power but there may be no alternative.

[James Maskell]

Oh goody, looks Im going to have another policy I cant sell.

[Richard]

Good God!

[Peter Franklin]

I quite agree. Why on Earth should nuclear be so heavily regulated? I mean it's not as if something going wrong would lead to a large part of the country being rendered unhabitable. Oh, hang on, that's exactly why. Sorry.

As for Mr Patten, could I share some facts with readers, and indeed Fat Pang himself if he's 'in the Home':

1) Most gas isn't used for electricity generation and therefore cannot be replaced by nuclear. Therefore we will remain dependent on gas whatever decision is made on nuclear.

2) The free market is already putting in the investment to diversify Britain's gas importation infrastructure e.g. pipelines from Norway and LNG terminals in Kent and Wales.

3) Further investment in Britain's gas importation infrastructure is needed -- in particular to upgrade our gas storage capacity to Continental levels. This investment will come if the market is left to get on with it, but investors will hold back if the Government launches what amounts to a nuclear-powered renationalisation of the energy industry.

4. There's a great way of testing the economics of nuclear. Allow the market to decide without any special favours from Government.

5. James Lovelock is a maverick whose latest pronouncement is that there is nothing we can now do to stop global warming. If he is right then there is no point to building nuclear power stations -- especially when several nuclear sites (which are already under threat of coastal erosion) would be flooded as a result of melting icecaps.

Mssrs Duncan, Ainsworth and Goldsmith aren't playing politics with the nuclear issue. They are merely acquainted with the truth. Unlike Mr Blair, naturally.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Interesting comments Peter. Geopolitical considerations have to be taken into account, as I think have already been mentioned.

Re-newables will not solve the answer short term. Gas importation is all well and good - but there are huge issues as to where the gas comes from surely.

Should we rule out nuclear?

And what about energy conservation? I hope we wont advocate what was recently suggested and effectively tax light bulbs to push them up to the price of the more energy efficient ones so as to "encourage" the use of energy effcient lighting. Rather than tax what is regarded as "bad" how about some innovative incentives for energy conservation in the home?

[Sam Coates]

What's so bad about taxing lightbulbs?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"What's so bad about taxing lightbulbs?"

My understanding of the argument is that it would yet another stealth tax on the poor.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"On a related topic- and maybe I haven't been keeping up- on R4 Today this am, Peter Ainsworth said a future Tory government would commit to allowing a panel of "non-political scientific experts" to decide Britain's carbon emmissions targets, which the govt would then implement... Remind me- what are politicians meant to be for?"

Cameron announced this 'policy' to create yet another unelected, unaccountable quango to do the job our elected representatives are meant to be doing during the leadership contest. Wake up at the back!

[malcolm]

I think you've said it all Selsdon.James M whichever way we go will be a difficult sell but by no means impossible particularly if our policy is guided by principle and practicalities rather than ideology.

[Tim]

It's easy to make comments such as we "shouldn't play politics on this." That is not an anrgument on the merits of nuclear power either way.

I think it's tempting for some Conservatives to support nuclear power simply because it seems macho and is something that lefties tend to moan about. In fact, as Alan Duncan has pointed out, it may well be impossible to have nuclear power without government subsidy. Is that Conservative?

There may be a case to say the regulations are too restrictive. In that case, reduce the regulations and see if anyone is prepared to enter the market. It's one thing to say nuclear power stations should be allowed, quite another to say the government should seek to have them built and subsidise. Don't we trust market forces?

[wasp]

Peter nobody is suggesting new build nuclear would replace gas. It would replace the existing nuclear due to be decomissioned.

There are questions about how much gas we can get through the interconnector etc. Wind is not viable on a large scale, clean coal is a myth as is wave power. Hydro is maxed out.

Nuclear is not economically viable but necessary for climate change.

If I were Cameron I would sit on my hands and watch Blair slug it out with the BBC and LibDems. No votes to be had here.

[Andrew]

Build-to-replace wrt nuclear is needed just to stand still, but our energy needs are going to expand. Wind+wave can only do a little extra, we really don't want to rely more on oil or gas for security reasons, and coal is just plain filthy.

We need to bite the bullet and look 50 years ahead, not 15. Treble our existing number of nuclear plants, and gradually wind down coal - we'd have much less emissions, and it's far safer to health (coal pollutants cause huge numbers of respiratory illnesses). Yes, it's not economically viable now and will need subsidies/tax breaks, but it won't get done otherwise.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Damn! Peter Franklin has said most of what I wanted to say! Some points to add though...

"Environmentalists such as James Lovelock believe that a major expansion of nuclear energy is the only way to beat global warming."

Well he's as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us but personally I think he's wrong on two counts.

Firstly, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to beat global warning so I take issue with his assertion that the nuclear way is the only way.

Secondly, am I only the only person who believes his logic, i.e. that the best way to deal with one environmental problem is by replacing it with another, to be slightly flawed?

"Others believe that embracing nuclear power is necessary for energy security."

Well obviously I'd prefer it if we didn't have to tiptoe around the likes of GasPutin to meet our energy needs, but embracing nuclear power isn't going to resolve this as many of the major producers of the raw materials required are hardly bedrocks of stability and security.

In addition to this, nuclear power stations would increase our vulnerability to terrorist carnage significantly.

[Sam Coates]

In twenty years we'll just be left with Sizewell B, we need to decide asap whether to embark on a building program to simply replace what we already have, or to attempt to somehow plug the nuclear gap with renewables.

[Adrian Owens]

Nuclear energy has served us well and should almost certainly remain as part of the energy mix jigsaw.

Another piece of the jigsaw is to speed up steps to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. The government's winter fuel payments are a perverse incentive in this regard and the scheme should be changed to redirect the financial support to cutting energy use.

Instead of promoting energy efficiency as a cost-saving measure we should promote it as a planet-saving measure and provide tax incentives e.g. stamp duty reductions on property purchase to promote it.

[James Maskell]

The issue about selling the policy isnt so much that I dont know the case in favour of the policy but whether I personally like it.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Sam my view on pushing up the price of "normal" light bulbs to the price of energy saving ones is why on earth should someone such as say my nana living on a state pension pay £2 £3 or more for a lightbulb in order to somehow send a message that this country is environmentally friendly. She has never owned a car - doesn't have every electrical device under the sun, has been abroad about 4 times in her life and is the last person who could afford such a mesaure.

Environmentalism is easy to preach when you are financially comfortable (like paying extra for free range eggs). Its not as easy a choice when you are on a fixed income.

[Mark Fulford]

The conclusion of studies assessing the comparative risks of each fuel is that nuclear power has the least risk. However, and it’s a big however, you have to view those assessments with a healthy dose of caution. We know how harmful gas, oil and coal are; there’s not much they can do to surprise us and there’s quite a lot we can do to clean them up. Nuclear hazards are different and can't be evaluated in stand-alone risk assessments. First, the range of accident types is massive, from water leaks to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. Second, the human element: human failure, cover-ups and deliberate damage. Third the timescale: decades of damage.

I’m not ruling out nuclear power but it's not a religion and I don't think it's particularly Conservative. I would like to see government invest massively (to the tune of a single nuclear power station) in renewable supplies and efficiency. Pound for pound, spending on efficiency still gives the greatest return. And if we were to massively invest in renewables, I’d bet that we’ll not only make dramatic progress, we’ll also move to the forefront of an expanding, wealth creating industry.

On the light bulbs issue: yesterday Powergen sent us four low-energy light bulbs free! On top of which, increased demand will reduce costs.

[Tory T]

Editor - sorry for going OT in a useful and important thread (BTW - John Gummer is emphatically pro, James).

The Danish cartoon controvery is the biggest story at the moment. Upholding free speech in the face of violence, intimidation and a totalitarian mindset is the issue. The editor of one of France's biggest newspapers has been sacked and the cowardly BBC has been pandering to Islamists by refusing to allow us to see the cartoons so we can make our own minds up - the absolute opposite of its stance on Jerry Springer: The Opera.

I know we talked about it before but the story has moved on, it's happening now and surely deserves a thread.

[Gareth]

Personally I see considerable strengths in the arguments for increasing our nuclear power production. The stikcing point seems to me where these extra plants will be built. They need to be near the sea or a lake and are generally built away from high concentrations of population. Can you even begin to imagine the campaign against a new NPS on your door step? Where's the political courage to push them through in the face of that sort of opposition going to come from?

[Mark Fulford]

Where's the political courage to push them through in the face of that sort of opposition going to come from?

It'll be cowardice, not courage: the ODPM.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Can you even begin to imagine the campaign against a new NPS on your door step?"

I, for one, would be more than happy to join such a campaign.

[Zhukov]

There are many places throughout the UK that would welcome a new nuclear power stations. Areas where they have lived in the shadow of such plants for decades are staunchly pro-nuclear, whether they rely on the power station for their jobs or not.

[Peter Franklin]

Several people have commented on timing issues -- these are of critical importance. when someone says something like renewables won't make a sufficient contribution in the short term they forget that nuclear won't be able to do so either.

Consider everything that has to happen before new nuclear gets off the ground:

+ The new energy white paper has to be published and passed into legislation.

+ Separate legislation will be needed to create a mechanism to reserve a chunk of the electricity market for nuclear over the time it will take to repay the capital investment.

+ An agreement will have to be reach on public liability insurance.

+ A conclusion will finally have to be reached on what to do about radioactive waste -- not just that we already have stockpiled, but which will come from the decommissioning of the old stations and which will be produced in the future by the new stations.

+ The various government sweeteners that will be necessary will have to be agreed with the European Union.

+ The planning system will have to be changed to fast track the site approval process -- even if the new stations are built next to the old ones.

+ Various nuclear power development consortia will have to put together bids for the project,

+ The Government or some kind of independent commission will have to select a prefered bidder.

+ Detailed negotiations will then have to be entered into.

+ Assuming these work out, detailed design work on the new stations will have to begin.

+ Then the stations will actually have to be built. We will need about ten of them to replace our current capacity, but they won't be built at the same time. First of all there will be one or two trailblazers, then assuming nothing goes wrong, the others will follow probably being finished two at a time at two year intervals.

What we are talking about here is the mother of all public sector contracts, combined with the daddy of all civil engineering projects, the uncle disgusting of all safety issues and the girlfriend-from-hell of all planning disputes.

In other words this will all take a very long time to sort out. Think ten years minimum before the first station comes on line. However, there is every possibility that the successive opportunities for monumental state-led cock-up will realised one after another with the whole thing collapsing several years down the line.

In the meantime renewables, energy efficiency and microgeneration, all of which are constantly innovating, competing and getting cheaper will continue to progress, with most of the work being done by the market.

So what should the government do? Provide a sensible framework of incentives to encourage the market? Or impose a top-down nuclear solution?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Surely they look at both options?

[Mark Fulford]

...the mother of all public sector contracts, combined with the daddy of all civil engineering projects, the uncle disgusting of all safety issues and the girlfriend-from-hell of all planning disputes.

Peter, that was the most entertaining political sentence I’ve read in a long time. A certain winner for ROTW.

[Editor]

Peter - your otherwise brilliant post of 13.58 kind of makes my point about over-regulation.

Noone is saying that the nuclear industry shouldn't be regulated but we all know that regulation can be excessive. I think of the speed limit imposed on the rail industry after Hatfield. It had a terrible impact on rail travel and put more people on to the roads - a less safe form of transport.

In so many ways regulation is the new nationalisation - economically burdensome and much cheaper for politicians to enact.

We can't hide from the nuclear danger anyway... over the channel France has a massive (and safe) nuclear industry.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I'm due to have a coffee with Zac Goldsmith in a couple of hour s- I'll be interested to hear his take on the debate.

[AlexW]

As has been mentioned before obliquely, James Hellyer's assertion that Gummer is anti-nuclear power is emphatically wrong. Gummer is in fact extremely pro.

Funnily enough, I grew up in Gummer's constituency and about fifteen miles away from Sizewell. The notion that everyone living near nuclear power plants is going to oppose them, according to Gareth, is ridiculous. Sizewell is one of the main employer in the area, and most people are more than happy to live nearby. In fact, a recent study showed that people living near nuclear power plants are *more* likely to support nuclear power: a function of better information, perhaps?

Some of the anti-nuclear stuff emerging is pretty much recycled tat. The spectre of Chernobyl is raised, but even a cursory glance over your laptop screen will inform you how much IT has moved on in the last twenty years. Decaying Soviet systems in the 1980s are entirely different from modern regulatory ones, and Three Mile Island was earlier still. Modern nuclear power plants have so many failsafes that even direct terrorist attacks are unlikely to trigger meltdown, short of massive penetration into the senior management staff of the plant in question. I won't bore you with the mechanical details. Mere human failure could not produce a catastrophe.

Two major factors weigh in favour of nuclear power: CO2 and security of supply. Even without such considerations, nuclear power should have been promoted as a long-term solution. Gas and oil are cheaper now, but are not an indefinite solution. The two factors make the case for nuclear very much the stronger. Reliance on Middle Eastern oil or Russian gas has been demonstrated to be a decidedly risky strategy. And if we are to cut CO2 emissions, nuclear power as part of an energy mix seems vital. It is no accident that the countries who are best at cutting emissions - France and Japan - are those currently which have relied on nuclear power for decades. The supposed dangers of nuclear power are based on disinformation and scaremongering. The benefits are quite clear.

[Selsdon Man]

The test of an MP's support for nuclear power is whether they would support one to be built in their constituency. It is therefore easier for urban MPs, rather than those representing rural areas, to support it.

As for the areas that are proposed, the residents will not like the inevitable protestors from the environmental lobby who can often turn violent.

It is probably easier to encourage the French to increase its nuclear capacity and buy electricity from them.

So there's your choice Putin or Chirac.... difficult!

[Selsdon Man]

"I'm due to have a coffee with Zac Goldsmith".

Poor you!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I hope he's buying Selsdon!

[Editor]

Selsdon Man: "It is probably easier to encourage the French to increase its nuclear capacity and buy electricity from them. So there's your choice Putin or Chirac.... difficult!"

Brilliant!

[James Hellyer]

James Hellyer's assertion that Gummer is anti-nuclear power is emphatically wrong.

I stand corrected.

[William Norton]

The answer to most of these problems turns out usually to be: you should not have dodged making a decision 10/15/20 years ago. We're in this mess because the nuclear building programme was shelved following Chernobyl (ignoring the rights and wrongs of that decision).

I'd count myself as vaguely pro-nuclear, for the reasons Alex W gives, although I also accept Peter Franklin's broad argument that nuclear power isn't a magic bullet for our current problems (if only because the crisis will arrive before the nuclear power does).

Ultimately a free market with a level playing-field is not going to happen, for exactly the same reasons that you don't see shops called "Hand Grenades R Us" on the high street. No Government will allow any one to just build nuclear power stations in response to energy demand, even if it is robust enough to ignore emotive anti-nuclear campaigners. Equally, it's practically impossible to achieve a fair and transparent pricing of nuclear energy: what do you count as a cost - decommissioning, waste disposal, risk of terrorist activity etc etc - and how do you count it? But something tells me similar issues occur in regard to all these wind-farms we see springing up. How transparent is their pricing? (Peter F: any thoughts?)

Another problem is the difficulty of reliable forecasting. In the late 60s and early 70s everyone was convinced coal was on the way out and so the Heath Govmt had a mine closure plan. Then the Oil Shock mucked up the economics and we had a Three Day Week and a coal strike. The next big idea was rationalised modern super-pits until the price of other sources started coming down and Heseltine decimated the mining industry a second time. Now it seems clean coal is the next big thing. That probably means we're on the verge of developing something new and cheaper from some other source altogether.

Forecasting problems multiply the structural problem of state intervention in the energy market. In many ways energy (especially nuclear power) is still in the post-war mentality of the state as universal provider (and wind-farms look to be going the same way). Remember the people who told us that telephones and water were natural monopolies which only the state could run?

Taking a step back, the ideal energy policy is surely to avoid dependence on any one source and have enough flexibility in the system to absorb price shocks in any one production source. This could include in part (and only in part) self-generation, with new houses having their own solar panels on the roof and a mini-windmill instead of a chimney etc so that they can sell supply back to the grid.

Which means a managed portfolio, and that probably means some role for a state-encouraged nuclear sector as a generator of last resort. The analogy would be with the Competition Commission intervening in given markets to prevent the emergence of monopolies, so the state would act to prevent dominance of any one energy source. The policy would be (part-)funded by some form of source-blind energy tax related to consumption (most effectively within an overall overhaul of energy taxation; I don't like the idea of slapping on on-top carbon tax which is what Huhne seems to be suggesting - that's a disguised corporation/income tax hike).

That means a programme of phased construction of nuclear power stations: long term, building only to replace existing stock going out of service; until then building up a reserve of nuclear power equivalent to x% of the supply. The subsidy effect of maintaining a quasi-state nuclear industry would have to be balanced out for other generating sources while nuclear capacity is being formed.

[Andrew]

"So there's your choice Putin or Chirac.... difficult!"

Energy security arguments apply to both - what happens if the French have a particularly cold winter, and can't sell us extra? Or if they decide not to expand capacity within a particular decade, resulting in a gap of several years where they can't export?

Personally I'd like to see us be almost entirely nuclear, but that's never going to happen. At the very least, we have to rebuild existing plants plus a few extra to cope with increasing demand. If not, we have to do some/all of these:

*buy more oil (=prop up unpleasant regimes)
*use more coal (screw the environment, kill lots with respiratory diseases)
*accept more frequent blackouts
*cover all scenic hill areas with windmills

Anti-nuclear campaigners have valid points, but their arguments are rarely balanced by declaring which of the above depressing options they prefer.

[James Hellyer]

Most gas isn't used for electricity generation and therefore cannot be replaced by nuclear.

That doesn't address our generation capacity though. As was seen this winter, gas supplies through the Interchange were frequently threatened to be insufficient to meet our power generation requirements.

The free market is already putting in the investment to diversify Britain's gas importation infrastructure e.g. pipelines from Norway and LNG terminals in Kent and Wales.

There are already concerns in Norway about their gas supplies being starting to be exhausted in around two decades time, so that's hardly a long or even median term solution.

As for LNG, that poses problems of its own. Besides the need for liquification plants in oil producing nations, there are large capital and safety issues conerning LNG terminals.

LNG terminals require a very spacious—at least 38.5m deep—harbour, as well as being sheltered from wind and waves. These "suitable" sites are thus deep in well populated seaports, which are also burdened with right-of-way concerns for LNG pipelines, or required to also host the LNG expansion plant facilities and end use (petrochemical) plants amidst the high population densities of major cities, with the associated fumes, multiple serious risks to safety.

It's almost as great a minefield as siting a nuclear plant!

James Lovelock is a maverick whose latest pronouncement is that there is nothing we can now do to stop global warming.

Is it? I thought he'd said that nuclear power offered us the best chance for a "powered descent" (I seem to recall an aircraft metaphor).

[James Hellyer]

am I only the only person who believes his [Lovelock's] logic, i.e. that the best way to deal with one environmental problem is by replacing it with another, to be slightly flawed?

Not really. The assumption is that global warming is a threat that requires action now, while there is plenty of time for finding a way to deal with nuclear waste in the future. There is some sense in this, as I understand that the latest reactor designs produce a tiny fraction of the waste of our current reactors.

many of the major producers of the raw materials required are hardly bedrocks of stability and security.

True, bur almost half of the known supply is in countries like the US, Canada and Australia. It's also been suggested that this could be easily stockpiled.

In addition to this, nuclear power stations would increase our vulnerability to terrorist carnage significantly.

Again, my understanding is that the latest reactor designs - including those operatio in France - have been designed to be able to survive terrorist attacks, including aircraft being flown into them.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Over the channel France has a massive (and safe) nuclear industry."

That depends on how you define 'safe'. IMHO, 'safe until something goes wrong' is anything but safe.

"Even without such considerations, nuclear power should have been promoted as a long-term solution."

Please explain how replacing one non-sustainable, non-renewable method of energy generation with another non-sustainable, non-renewable method of energy generation is a long-term solution.

Instead of entrenching our dependence on methods like these, we should be taking the opportunity to develop a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy.

"Reliance on Middle Eastern oil or Russian gas has been demonstrated to be a decidedly risky strategy."

As mentioned before, many of the producers we would rely on to supply raw materials for nuclear power are hardly bedrocks of stability and security.

"And if we are to cut CO2 emissions, nuclear power as part of an energy mix seems vital."

Hogwash. And even if wasn't hogwash, I'm not too sure about the environmental benefits of replacing one form of pollution with another.

[wasp]

French nuclear power is heavily subsidized.

Its also worth pointing out that the british taxpayer paid out a huge chunk of change 2 years ago to sort out British Energy's debt.

[John Hustings]

Daniel, is Nuclear power non-sustainable and non-renewable?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel, is Nuclear power non-sustainable and non-renewable?"

Yes. Unless we can get Paul Daniels to sort us out with a limitless supply of uranium and plutonium for nuclear reactors with an eternal working life that produce absolutely no waste whatsoever.

[James Hellyer]

According to a recent report by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the price of generating electricity by nuclear stations - even factoring in the costs of construction and the decommissioning of waste - is about 2p per kWh.

That is about the same cost as electricity from coal or gas-fired stations and a third of the cost of onshore wind farms.

The main problem for those who support the construction of new nuclear plants lies in finding the capital - the start up costs are about three times those of a comparable gas turbine power station.

[William Norton]

James H - I'd missed that Report. Could you provide a link?

[Chris Palmer]

I haven't been following this issue too closely, but I'm interested to know what the current thinking is regarding old Nuclear Power Plants. Will new installations be built in place of existing plants in the future?

[Mark Fulford]

Daniel, as I’ve said before, I’m cautious about commissioning new reactors. I certainly don’t want to do it without comparable subsidies for renewable fuels and efficiency research – which can deliver results much quicker.

However, there's no need for Paul Daniels' magic in order to get near infinite nuclear fuel supply...

Yes, at an extraction cost of $135 / kg there's a limit to the amount of fuel available. But $135 is an arbitrary figure. If you look for supplies available at $1,000 / kg, the number of fuel sources means that there’s virtually limitless supply. $1,000 / kg only increases cost by about a penny per kWh.

[Big John]

All the above is very interesting.
I was involved in County Council Planning Cttee when Sizewell B was going through the process. I am firm that nucleaar can be safe and is certainly the only economic alternative. Wind is just that - wind. Gas is running out even GasPutins will not last. Coal is mucky and hazardous to get, and very costly to clean up. Bio sources are very promising, are CO2 neutral and solve other problems such as over-supply of sugar.
Tidal power can make up the supply in the long term. It is very attractive, has a long history of energy supply (see the tidal mill at Woodbridge, Suffolk) and is entirely reliable and also free.
When Sizewell B was estimated at £2bn for 1,250 MWH a tidal barrage power generating station in the Severn Estuary was reckoned to cost £4bn for 7000 MWH with no pollution and a working life of 125 years. The Tidal ranges around England are among the highest in the world, and we should look closer at this source of energy.

[Sam Coates]

The Royal Academy of Engineering report.

It shows that nuclear is three times cheaper than wind, wave and even poultry litter, even with its decommissioning costs factored in. Coal and gas are very slightly more costly than nuclear.

[Mark Fulford]

An interesting report, but very low on detail. It didn’t say what assumptions they made about the life expectancy for each plant. It factored in carbon costs (at £30 per tonne), but no provision was made for other risks and hazards. Further, the report says that costs for renewable sources are inflated due to their infancy, so we could expect them to go down. It also says that “Further scrutiny of the commercial claims for nuclear power would be useful because of the lack of data from existing new-build projects”.

[Editor]

Sometimes I read intelligent threads like the one above on this blog and am so proud of the quality of the arguments - more detail, more thought than any five minute Newsnight/ Today programme clip.

Insofar as ConservativeHome is a success it is because of the calibre of its discussants.

I just had to say that!

PS Not every thread fills me with such pride!!!

[Selsdon Man]

You ought to edit self-indulgent threads - like the one on the EPP. Some of the posts are puerile, Ed.

[Editor]

I agree Selsdon Man that some posts on that thread (and elsewhere) are unedifying but I'll always err on the side of free expression.

If I had 24 hours a day to moderate comments the site would undoubtedly be tidier - and less "puerile" - but I don't.

68 IP addresses for a dozen or so people have now been banned - so there are limits to what is allowed.

[James Hellyer]

How many of them were John Coulson?

[AlexW]

"That depends on how you define 'safe'. IMHO, 'safe until something goes wrong' is anything but safe."

It is safe if the chances of "something going wrong" are essentially nil. Comparing the safety controls of Sizewell to Chernobyl is simply wrong.

"Instead of entrenching our dependence on methods like these, we should be taking the opportunity to develop a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy."

This is completely unrealistic. Wind power simply cannot provide the energy needs of the UK. Solar power is too unreliable and inadequate given the UK's climate and position on the globe. Wave power may benefit some areas of Scotland but is unfeasible for the whole country. Which mythical "sustainable" energy sources were you thinking of?

"As mentioned before, many of the producers we would rely on to supply raw materials for nuclear power are hardly bedrocks of stability and security."

The largest uranium producer is Australia. The next four are Canada, South Africa, Namibia and Niger. Niger is now a stable democracy with universal suffrage and parliamentary elections. Namibia has been democratic since its independence. Which producers were you thinking of?

"Hogwash. And even if wasn't hogwash, I'm not too sure about the environmental benefits of replacing one form of pollution with another."

The two "forms of pollution" aren't analogous. Nuclear waste disposal is safe, and getting safer. Global warming is getting worse.

"Yes. Unless we can get Paul Daniels to sort us out with a limitless supply of uranium and plutonium for nuclear reactors with an eternal working life that produce absolutely no waste whatsoever."

What great solution do you have?

[Editor]

James Hellyer: "How many of them were John Coulson?"

About 20!

[Sam Coates]

"An interesting report, but very low on detail."

There is an expanded version here

I've scoured the assumed life expectancies: it gives Nuclear fission plants an average life of 40years, Coal PF plant - 30, Coal CFB - 25, Biomass BFB - 20, Coal IGCC - 25, Gas OCGT - 20, Gas CCGT - 25, Onshore/Offshore wind - 20, and wave/marine tech - just 15 years.
(Though you're a better man than me if you know whether they are fair assumptions or not!)
I'd be inclined to trust the methodology of the report, it was made by PB Power which is a general energy consultancy firm, and as far as I know The Royal Academy of Engineering is non-partisan.

[Ted]

Might I just add that Zimbabwe has uranium deposits - if uranium is the new oil is there hope for regime change?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"True, bur almost half of the known supply is in countries like the US, Canada and Australia. It's also been suggested that this could be easily stockpiled."

Well that's one way of looking at the statistics.

The US only contributes 3% of so-called known recoverable resources of uranium, much of which would probably have to be kept back for their own growing nuclear power programme.

In terms of these known recoverable resources of uranium, between a third and a half are found in sub-Saharan Africa or the former Soviet bloc, neither of which are reliable nor secure nor stable regions.

In terms of reasonably assured resources of uranium recoverable for less than $40/kg, the US supply is negligible - less than Uzbekistan, less than Niger, less than Russia, less than Namibia, less than Kazakhstan.

"However, there's no need for Paul Daniels' magic in order to get near infinite nuclear fuel supply..."

Really? That's interesting, seeing as the World Nuclear Association itself claims that at today's rate of usage, we have enough expected uranium resources to last 200 years. That's at today's rate of usage.

A significant expansion of nuclear power production would see that supply drop accordingly, for example a four-fold increase in nuclear energy generation would mean we only have enough expected uranium resources to last 50 years.

[Ted]

On a more serious note. I think that part of the concern about Nuclear Power is that its the quick fix - if we identify it as the main solution to driving down CO2 emissions we would be drawn down the path of massively increasing nuclear as the primary source of electricity production.
Alternative technological solutions would be less urgent - so funding for these would not be available/limited.
My view is new nuclear stations may well be an immediate solution to the problems of increasing power consumption and approaching retirement of older stations that we'll need to fill a gap in clean energy from 2010 - 2025 or so. It is however a technology with such major environmental and public risk issues that we need to match this with research into other clean technologies.

On the issue of taking politics out of the debate - what do we elect these people for? First they cannot manage their own House so need to appoint an independent arbitor of MPs interests, then they cannot make the final judgements on employment practices in their departments, now they can't be trusted with our enviroment.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It is safe if the chances of "something going wrong" are essentially nil."

History is littered with the disastrous consequences of such complacency. I refer you to the impregnable Maginot Line, the unsinkable Titanic, the failsafe NASA Challenger rocket (about which there's a programme on C4 right now) and countless other examples. The truth is nobody ever really knows the chance of something going wrong until it does go wrong. When the potential consequences of something going wrong are as great as they are with nuclear power, I'd rather we didn't take the risk.

"Comparing the safety controls of Sizewell to Chernobyl is simply wrong."

That's a nice straw man you've got there. Seeing as I didn't make that comparison, I don't see the relevance of your point. But thanks for giving everybody a reminder of just how grim the consequences of nuclear power facilities not being properly maintained can be.

"This is completely unrealistic. Wind power simply cannot provide the energy needs of the UK. Solar power is too unreliable and inadequate given the UK's climate and position on the globe. Wave power may benefit some areas of Scotland but is unfeasible for the whole country. Which mythical "sustainable" energy sources were you thinking of?"

Of course these methods are unfeasible individually for meeting the energy needs of the whole country. That's why I called for a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy.

"The largest uranium producer is Australia. The next four are Canada, South Africa, Namibia and Niger. Niger is now a stable democracy with universal suffrage and parliamentary elections. Namibia has been democratic since its independence. Which producers were you thinking of?"

You appear to be referring to a different set of statistics to me. According to the statistics I have seen (from 2005, see the link I included in my previous comment), Kazakhstan is the second largest producer, and other large producers include Uzbekistan and our old friend GasPutin's Russia.

Taking your point about Niger - Niger is a desperately impoverished country where large swathes of the population live on the brink of starvation whilst the corrupt government is squandering millions on hosting the Afro-Francophone Games (thanks Biodun!), providing the fertile breeding ground for the fermentation of the sort of discontent that has led to the downfall of similar 'stable democracies' in the past.

"The two "forms of pollution" aren't analogous. Nuclear waste disposal is safe, and getting safer. Global warming is getting worse."

Global warming is getting worse, yes. Without wishing to get bogged down in semantics, if something (in this instance, nuclear waste disposal) is 'getting safer', it can't, by definition, be 'safe'. And it isn't clean to dig holes in the ground and dump radioactive waste that takes 500 years just to return to the same level of radioactivity as its pre-enriched state in there.

"What great solution do you have?"

Developing a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy built around renewable energy solutions, rather than smashing all our eggs in the dangerous, expensive, unreliable and unsustainable nuclear basket.

[Peter Franklin]

It's not the geographical location of uranium ore that is the issue -- or even the overall amount available. Rather the problem is availability of high grade uranium ore. Extracting the pure metal is a highly energy intensive process -- so intensive that if the grade of the ore is too low, the energy input exceeds the output. So is there enough high grade ore? Quite possibly not if the western world piles into nuclear. Leaving all the other nucleosceptic arguments to one side for a moment, we shouldn't put a single penny into new nukes until we're sure that the supplies will hold out. The Government admits that it is an issue, but also that it hasn't done a proper study of the supply situation.

[Peter Franklin]

Sam -- the report you mention quotes nuclear costs that are wholly unrealistic and derived from the industry's own best case scenarios. Independent research commissioned for the DTI's Energy Review came up with some very different and much more credible statistics (i.e. wind cheaper than nuclear). Remember that nuclear industry's cost estimates are based on a design that has never been built anywhere in the world.

[Ted]

Actually the comments on the supply situation make me feel a bit better as nuclear will can then only be a stop gap giving time for technologies to progress and a diverse sustainable strategy developed and implemented.
If global warming is as immediate danger as some propose then we need to use the technolgies we have today to address this, including nuclear, but plan as well for clean coal, low emission private transport, energy efficient homes etc.

[James Hellyer]

Really? That's interesting, seeing as the World Nuclear Association itself claims that at today's rate of usage, we have enough expected uranium resources to last 200 years. That's at today's rate of usage.

The WNA is talking about deposits that are currently economically viable to extract. As with coal, or any other resource, the supply available depends on whether it's worth extracting. For example, coal mining in the UK is about to become viable again, not because the coal is easier to get, but rather because it's more valuable. Similarly, rising oil prices make shale based deposits now availble, and in future uranium demand will make sea water recovery - for example - economically viable.

[Mark Fulford]

Really? That's interesting, seeing as the World Nuclear Association itself claims that at today's rate of usage, we have enough expected uranium resources to last 200 years. That's at today's rate of usage.

Daniel, the article you're quoting must be wrong. At the same site you'll find this article. It's heavy reading, but I think this paragraph sums it up:

"Changes in costs or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures markedly. At ten times the current price, seawater might become a potential source of vast amounts of uranium."

As a nation surrounded by seawater, we have secure supply.

The issue is safety. The result of an accident can be catastrophic and, no matter what anyone says, the chances of accident don't become nil.

[James Hellyer]

Well that's one way of looking at the statistics.

Yes Daniel, and it's the one that doesn't ignore them. I note that you highligh only one nation (the US) and ignore the point that the other nations named have 41% of the easily extractible supply.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel, the article you're quoting must be wrong."

Mark, I quote the following directly from their website:

"Current estimates of all expected uranium resources (including those not yet economic or properly quantified) are four times as great, representing 200 years' supply at today's rate of usage."

By the way, the 'four times as great' in that quote refers to four times as great as the leading independent estimate, which is that we have enough to last for 50 years at today's rate of usage.

"Yes Daniel, and it's the one that doesn't ignore them. I note that you highligh only one nation (the US) and ignore the point that the other nations named have 41% of the easily extractible supply."

Sorry James, I didn't mean to imply you were ignoring the statistics. I acknowledge that Australia is the highest producer, with 30%, according to those statistics. Kazakhstan is second, with 17%, and Canada is third, with 12%. I wasn't ignoring your point, I was pointing out that the statistics were open to different interpretation and I saw little merit in repeating the valid point you'd already made.

[Mark Fulford]

I've scoured the assumed life expectancies: ... Onshore/Offshore wind - 20, and wave/marine tech - just 15 years.

Sam, thanks for looking that up. I don't know how they arrived at those figures and I'm not convinced. I haven't checked for wind power, but Tidal Electric use generators with 50 year performance guarantees.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark, I quote the following directly from their website.

Read the article I pointed you at and you'll see my difficulty. It's from the same people and contradicts what you're saying.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Read the article I pointed you at and you'll see my difficulty. It's from the same people and contradicts what you're saying."

Yes, I appreciate your point and that of James regarding the WNA statements on uranium supplies. I'll quite happily refer to the leading independent estimates instead if you like... although they are far more conservative and thereby support my point!

[Mark Fulford]

Daniel, my worry is that the argument against nuclear power will be lost if it's not argued on the facts. The 50 year figure is demonstrably wrong so it weakens the case-against.

[AlexW]

"History is littered with the disastrous consequences of such complacency. I refer you to the impregnable Maginot Line, the unsinkable Titanic, the failsafe NASA Challenger rocket (about which there's a programme on C4 right now) and countless other examples. The truth is nobody ever really knows the chance of something going wrong until it does go wrong. When the potential consequences of something going wrong are as great as they are with nuclear power, I'd rather we didn't take the risk."

Well, actually in nearly all of these instances there were dissenting voices. However, these aren't even vaguely analogous to nuclear power. It is patently nonsensical to adduce evidence that because the Titanic sunk then nuclear power must result in a meltdown. History is also "littered" with instances where the scientists and engineers got it right. The Pyramids haven't fallen down. Gravity hasn't reversed. The Earth still goes round the Sun. Merely saying that in some instances some experts got it wrong is off the point.

"That's a nice straw man you've got there."

I apologise if I inferred that you personally mentioned Chernobyl directly. It has, however, been raised.

"Of course these methods are unfeasible individually for meeting the energy needs of the whole country. That's why I called for a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy."

Even collectively a renewable strategy isn't going to provide for all of our energy needs. That's why leading environmentalists such as the aforementioned James Lovelock are subscribing.

"You appear to be referring to a different set of statistics to me. According to the statistics I have seen (from 2005, see the link I included in my previous comment), Kazakhstan is the second largest producer, and other large producers include Uzbekistan and our old friend GasPutin's Russia."

I concede that Kazakhstan is now has the third largest reserves that can be extracted economically (from the link you kindly provided). The other five countries I originally mentioned constitute the top six. At any rate, the large reserves in Canada, South Africa and Australia ensure that uranium supply is *relatively* more stable than gas or oil. I draw your attention to the historic actions of OPEC and Putin respectively.

"four-fold increase in nuclear energy generation"

This is basically just a figure plucked from thin air. Given that France and Japan are essentially entirely reliant on nuclear power, and other countries already include it in an energy mix, I fail to see how the UK and US using nuclear as part of a mixed energy package will create such a dramatic upsurge.

"Developing a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy built around renewable energy solutions, rather than smashing all our eggs in the dangerous, expensive, unreliable and unsustainable nuclear baske"

No one is advocating 100% nuclear power. A few people seem to be pushing 100% renewables. Neither is realistic. A genuine energy mix is surely the best solution.

[Mark Fulford]

I mentioned Chernobyl to illustrate the point that the spectrum of nuclear accidents goes from inconsequential to a zone of total devastation. It's a statement of fact.

Comparing the safety controls of nuclear power generation to to the dependability of gravity, pyramids and the motion of heavenly bodies is simply wrong. It's a statement of fantasy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Well, actually in nearly all of these instances there were dissenting voices. However, these aren't even vaguely analogous to nuclear power. It is patently nonsensical to adduce evidence that because the Titanic sunk then nuclear power must result in a meltdown. History is also "littered" with instances where the scientists and engineers got it right. The Pyramids haven't fallen down. Gravity hasn't reversed. The Earth still goes round the Sun. Merely saying that in some instances some experts got it wrong is off the point."

It's difficult to tell what point you're trying to make in amongst this flurry of straw.

I never suggested that because the Titanic sunk then nuclear power must result in meltdown. I cited it as an example of complacent 'nothing could possibly go wrong' thinking where something subsequently went wrong, with disastrous consequences - a risk I'd rather wasn't taken with nuclear power.

As for your other point about areas where the scientists and engineers got it right, gravity and the solar orbit aren't subject to human error and/or technological failure so that comparison can be dismissed immediately, and you're right, the Pyramids haven't fallen down, but were they to do so, the consequences wouldn't be particularly catastrophic and certainly wouldn't involve horrifying levels of radioactive pollution.

"Even collectively a renewable strategy isn't going to provide for all of our energy needs."

Oh really? What happens when the uranium runs out then? I'd be really interested to see the evidence behind your assertion that dependence on a finite resource is going to be sufficient for meeting our energy needs over the long-term as opposed to a co-ordinated sustainable energy strategy built around renewable energy solutions, which would involve encouragement of energy conservation and increasingly localised energy generation.

"At any rate, the large reserves in Canada, South Africa and Australia ensure that uranium supply is *relatively* more stable than gas or oil. I draw your attention to the historic actions of OPEC and Putin respectively."

Any assumption that our uranium supply would be sourced exclusively, or even mainly, from these countries fails to take into consideration factors such as import costs and preferential trading agreements, such as that between Canada and the US. In addition to this, any shortfall in nuclear energy production (for example, whilst waiting for nuclear reactors to come on-stream) would need to be met by buying in supplies from elsewhere, in all likelihood France, where the nuclear industry is fuelled by uranium from Niger.

"This is basically just a figure plucked from thin air. Given that France and Japan are essentially entirely reliant on nuclear power, and other countries already include it in an energy mix, I fail to see how the UK and US using nuclear as part of a mixed energy package will create such a dramatic upsurge."

Yes, it is a speculative figure plucked from thin air, which is why I cited it as an example of what could happen, rather than citing it as a statement of what will happen. But given that the US government has announced plans for a massive expansion in nuclear energy generation, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out that there will be a corresponding growth in consumption of uranium supplies.

"No one is advocating 100% nuclear power. A few people seem to be pushing 100% renewables. Neither is realistic. A genuine energy mix is surely the best solution."

Again - what happens when the uranium runs out?

[Mike Christie]

"The Pyramids haven't fallen down"

It seems obvious to state that the ones still standing haven't fallen down, however the science of pyramid building was discovered through trial and error, some did collapse, some weren't finished because it became apparent that they would collapse.

[Mark Fulford]

Again - what happens when the uranium runs out?

Daniel, your 50 year crystal ball has got uranium consumption increasing by a factor of 4, but it's missing the discovery of completely new reserves and cost effective ways of recoving uranium from uneconomical sources (e.g. seawater).

My crysal ball (version 2) just shows a great big bang and a grey and unpleasant land.

[Yet another Anon]

>>>>>Peter nobody is suggesting new build nuclear would replace gas. It would replace the existing nuclear due to be decomissioned.<<<<<<
France has gone for 80% of it's energy produced by nuclear power, I think 50% would be a good compromise.

Also action has to be taken to discourage fuel and indeed water use, unit costs could be raised and profits used to fund greater investment in alternative fuel research and in the existing power generation infrastructure - this will reduce demand as people rationalise their usage.

With regard to water - rainwater can be used for bath water and perhaps regulations for new housing to require such systems to be installed - compulsory water metering should be phased in for all properties.

Maybe having a levy on sale of filament bulbs of 10 Watts or over that don't boost the light somehow (for example there are filament bulbs that produce more light by passing the electricity through a gas - Halogen is probably the main one used, obviously these do have advantages over Fluorescent in that they produce a light far closer to natural light and also Fluorescent Light doesn't work well in low temperatures) will not only reduce energy consumption but might actually save people money because although the old filament bulbs of the type introduced by the General Electric Company in the 1930's are cheaper to buy, in situations in which they are being used for long spells of time the difference in cost of the electricity to the user greatly exceeds the difference between the original costs of equivalent bulbs anyway. Any money raised by such a levy could be cut off Income Tax.

[Yet another Anon]

>>>>I mentioned Chernobyl to illustrate the point that the spectrum of nuclear accidents goes from inconsequential to a zone of total devastation. It's a statement of fact.<<<<<
A very antiquated design of reactor - the design of nuclear reactors has advanced hugely over the decades, reactors in the USSR were mostly very old both in terms of age and actual design, Health & Safety was a low priority.

The levels of radioactivity in the rocks in Cornwall and Devon and in parts of Aberdeenshire is actually above levels that would trigger an alert in a nuclear power station in this country.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel, your 50 year crystal ball has got uranium consumption increasing by a factor of 4, but it's missing the discovery of completely new reserves and cost effective ways of recoving uranium from uneconomical sources (e.g. seawater).

My crystal ball (version 2) just shows a great big bang and a grey and unpleasant land."

Actually Mark, I've made the anti-nuclear argument on a variety of fronts, if only to show that anti-nuclear opinion can be based on practical reasoning as well as narrow-minded prejudice ;-)