Are nuclear power plants the future? We weigh up the carbon cuts

The government's debate on the future of nuclear energy closed this week, when it announced it would support a new generation of nuclear power stations. One of the arguments put forward by the government for nuclear power is that it can help cut carbon emissions, but many believe that the cost to the environment of nuclear waste makes it too high a price to pay.

In common with modern policy, however, the government doesn't intend building its own power stations -- that responsibility will be left to the private sector. EDF has already said that it plans to build four new nuclear plants in the UK, using European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) technology, with the first one completed by the end of 2017. In theory, private companies will also have to foot the bill for decommissioning the reactor and disposing of nuclear waste.

Despite private companies such as E.ON and EDF saying they are happy to develop nuclear power without subsidy, the industry has a history of costs escalating out of control. The Nuclear Power White Paper already indicates that energy companies will want to cap their liabilities for decommissioning and waste disposal, which could leave us to foot the bill. The nuclear waste disposal burden already costs the British taxpayer £2.8 billion a year. Other hidden costs likely to be met by the taxpayer include adapting transmission lines and the transport and security of nuclear waste.

Many thought that security and radioactive waste fears had killed nuclear power stone-dead, but the need to cut carbon emissions has given it a new lease of life. However, most environmental campaigners are opposed to nuclear power. Stephen Hale, Director of Green Alliance, says that it is a "glowing red herring." He adds: "By the government’s own admission new nuclear power is unlikely to make a significant contribution to new capacity or emissions reductions before 2020. The promise of nuclear power has always proved illusory. We can’t afford to wait for nuclear to fail again."

Although nuclear power stations generate negligible carbon emissions, nuclear power should not be considered as a low-carbon technology. Extracting uranium in particular is a carbon-intensive activity, especially given the poor quality of uranium ore that is available. Transporting, decommissioning and waste disposal also contribute towards nuclear’s carbon footprint. Accurate figures for this are elusive given that a nuclear plant lifetime from inception to disposal of the final waste is up to 150 years. In Parliament debates, opposing sides have claimed a nuclear power station’s total footprint is as high as 40 per cent of that of a gas fired power station to as low as 1.3 per cent.

Whatever the exact carbon footprint figure, there is little doubt that nuclear is an expensive technology. The vast sums of money that nuclear energy requires to build and decommission nuclear power stations should in fact be pumped into developing renewable energy sources. The UK is well placed to benefit from a wide mix of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and tidal. A tidal barrage in the Severn, for example, could alone carry deliver some 4.4 per cent of the UK’s electricity supply.

Security and location issues have also not gone away. Many of Britain's older crop of nuclear power stations were sited by the sea, which makes them susceptible to rising sea levels and increased serious weather events such as massive tidal surges.

And even though Government planning rules will attempt to ride rough shod over local opposition to nuclear power stations, new nuclear power stations won't be generating any electricity for another 10 years at the very earliest.

Photo: E.ON

Related Links

• SmartPlanet