The government's nuclear dream is failing. It’s time for plan B

Posted by Richardg - 20 April 2012 at 2:32pm - Comments
Setting sun shines through nuclear protest flag with radioactive symbol
All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace / Philip Reynaers
The sun is setting on nuclear power plans for the UK

For years the government has placed its faith in nuclear power and the corporate interests that drive the nuclear industry. Its committment to the nuclear dream has warped Britain’s energy policy at the expense of both bill and tax payers.

In 2006 the last government started trying to deliver a new nuclear energy policy. The UK was to have ten reactors at eight sites in England and Wales. But things did not go according to plan. At £5 billion a reactor, nuclear power has turned out to be a very costly means of producing low-carbon electricity. It would take billions of pounds of subsidy before it made business sense to build nuclear reactors.

All mainstream political parties have committed to not providing public subsidy for nuclear power. But energy companies will not build them without a hefty subsidy. So instead of taking full advantage of the UK’s excellent potential for renewable energy and investing in energy efficiency, ministers have been looking at how to transfer the spiralling cost of delivering nuclear power to taxpayers and consumers. This may be illegal under European law. And one of the energy companies has warned that it risks damaging investment in renewable energy.

But despite the government’s best efforts, the nuclear dream is fast turning into a nightmare.

Last year, Scottish and Southern Energy pulled out of new nuclear in the UK. Last month, E.ON and RWE cancelled their plans. GDF Suez and Scottish Power have said that they’re unlikely to build any nuclear plants without a lot more subsidy. Now Centrica is also trying to get out.

That leaves just one company – Electricite de France, better know as EDF. EDF is very committed to nuclear power, but it is owned by the French government and takes its cue from the French president. The French election in May looks likely to deliver a new, more nuclear-sceptical president, Francois Hollande, whose officials have threatened to fire the head of EDF for mocking his plans to reduce France’s dependence on nuclear power.

EDF, whose credit rating was downgraded earlier this year, could well find it hard to raise enough money to build any reactors in the UK, especially if it has to find billions to decommission its French reactors. Investors, who have been sceptical of nuclear for some time now, are not going to rush to invest in EDF’s nuclear plant when every other company has pulled out.

The years that could have been spent on delivering an energy efficient, low-carbon economy, spearheaded by renewables, have instead been squandered pursuing a fading nuclear dream.

It’s time for energy secretary Ed Davey to admit that the government’s nuclear dream is failing. He’s now faced with a future of more imported gas, higher energy bills and higher greenhouse gas emissions. That would be unpopular with bill payers and bad for efforts to curb climate change.

The government could ditch nuclear, reign back on gas and start taking advantage of the UK’s potential for investment in clean, renewable energy. They could put large scale energy efficiency, as well as renewable energy, at the heart of this year’s electricity market reforms.

It’s not too late for a plan B, but time is running out. Ed Davey needs to step up and deliver.

Plan B: starving in the dark. Yaaaaaaay! Clean energy future!

On a planet where ¾ of the population use ¼ of the energy produced, it is impossible for the Energy [R]evolution policy to meet the future equitable needs of all. You don't need a page full of wishful thinking calculations from your energy experts to tell you this, you just need a bit of common sense.

 

90% of the UK's population are urban
dwellers and need reliable base load electricity. Renewables will not cut the
mustard for this huge proportion, but could play a role for the remaining 10%.

 

 

For the urban communities of every industrialised nation, Breeder
Reactors are the inevitable future for base load electricity and we should see
the beginnings of an ever accelerating global deployment from the 2020s into
the 2030s. The energy security, inherent safety and economics of modular production makes this
prospect irresistable.

 

In the UK, we have the NNL's
Memorandum of Understanding with GE Hitachi, regarding the use of their PRISM reactor to dispose of the UK's plutonium stockpile, whilst generating 600 MW per reactor, of profitable electricity:  
http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/nuclear-waste-problem-what-nuclear...     This fuel source alone will power the UK for centuries, without digging
anything else out of the ground.

 

It's so eminently common sensical, to
avoid the persistent need to 'sell' PWR technology with its safety-frailties,
to the public at large and publicise the inherent safety of breeder reactors,
proven over 30 years of EBR-II operation in the USA. How many people know that in 1986, 3 weeks before Chernobyl, this reactor shut itself down safely (according to the laws of physics) under a
Fukushima-style common-mode failure:  
http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/1986-us-medias-coverage-of-chernob...     It hardly made the news - there was too much political grandstanding and anti-nuclear hysteria about Chernobyl at the time. 

 

27 PRISM reactors will give us our 16 GW of inherently-safe, 'New Nuclear'. Don't believe your own blarney, New Nuclear has to happen or your light switch may not work when you want it to and nobody, not even a Greenpeace activist, will stand for that.

 

Are there any UK politicians out there, with the common sense to get us moving along the breeder reactor path? Are there any Greenpeace members who can recognise the inevitability of the global deployment of emission-free breeder reactors as the only solution to our worst problems and needs?

 

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/15/157697.html

Algeria has enough solar energy to power Western Europe 60 times. This is according to Algeria's own energy ministry and therefore maybe slightly over-exaggerated, but it can't be any less than 40 times, surely, which is more than enough. And there are many other deserts around the world, which could all have just as much potential for energy. And there are several places around the world which are particularly suited for geothermic (any fault line), hydroelectric (any fast-flowing river), wind (any large ocean or flat area) and tidal (any coast) energy as well. Knowing this, why would we need nuclear power? It emits unnecessary gamma radiation, which is highly penetrative, meaning that even big steel drums in concrete bunkers deep underground cannot completely stop it, and it will all eventually all be lost into the atmosphere. It's dangerous, it's expensive, and although it may be renewable, in terms of pollution it's no better than oil.

Thanks everyone for your comments.

A quick response to Colin Megson: as we've said before, no one has a commercially-operating breeder reactors, nor a serious proposal for one. We don't know how much a PRISM reactor would cost - or any assurances that its construction would not be beset by the sorts of delays that have plagued EDF and Areva's efforts to build an EPR in Finland and France.

When someone can point to a commercially-viable breeder reactor and give us a sense of how much the energy it produces would cost, then we can talk about breeder reactors and their role - if any - within the UK energy mix. Until then, they are a distraction from proven, costed and affordable renewables and energy efficiency.

Crossing our fingers and hoping for breeder reactors - or thorium, for that matter - to save us from the energy crisis is the very problem that I argue against in my article.

Japan has just wasted $144 billion(!) on nuclear reprocessing alone, which has yet to produce even a single watt of energy. Don't even bother with breeder reactors, they're not even technologically feasible.

In Japan, there were similar propaganda threats from the nuclear advoates - "We will go back to the Ice Age without our puny nuclear! There will be power shortages and mass chaos! The sky will fall!" - So far pretty much all of the nuclear plants are shut down in Japan, yet the sky isn't falling. No power shortages.

Plan B. If only some could articulate a Plan B that stands up to a reasonable analysis.

If only someone would articulat a Plan B that stands up to reasonable analysis.

 

  The Nuclear Industry can not get rid of the Nuclear Waste because there is nowhere safe to put   it as they have already polluted land--Sea and Air, although some can be used in their Murder      Machines in the shape of Plutonium Missiles fired from again Land--Sea--and Air, to force          Human Beings into submission and steal their only means of survival. 

   That was the end product when they got the chain reaction to the most feared mineral on earth     uranium with the destructions that we are all aware of.   The only safe place for this Hell on         Earth is to bury it and never allow it to see the light of day. 

 

   It appears to me now that the Plutonium from the Nuclear Waste has another use alongside the War Machine, and that is to get some humans off this Planet afer they completely ruin it via a  Space Ship or a Squadron of them driven by or helped by Plutonium 238.

 I can foresee the dumping of more Waste in the sea as they will need more Land to grow food    I think that the Plan has been off the Drawing board for a considerable Time and that explains  their determination to have these Plants ongoing throughout the World. where they will  stockpile this Plutonium 238 if that indeed is the Number .

 

As the UK is these days a very small player in the world economy , why does any of this matter? The most important issues are supply security and cost. Dealing effectively with Fuel poverty should be a Govt. priority. We are quickly running out of gas from the north sea and buying more and more in, therefore bolstering other countries bank balances rather than our own (proper investment in renewables in this country would provide jobs and tax income which is what the country needs).

http://britainloans.co.uk/unemployment-drop-recovery.html

Follow Greenpeace UK