In case anyone was thinking that Britain’s nuclear installations were clean and green, there comes a chilling reminder that they are far from being either.
A leak — a real leak, rather than a piece of spin doctoring — of highly radioactive uranium and plutonium last month forced the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield in northern England. It followed a leak of the news management variety, suggesting that the newly created Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry was likely to look more kindly on the rebirth of Britain’s nuclear power industry. And so an issue that was punted into the long grass before the election begins to creep out from the undergrowth.
There are three forces at work that make ”the nuclear option” look attractive. One is that Britain’s current suite of nuclear power plants is ageing: all but one will be decommissioned between now and 2023. A second is that the economy’s growth is likely to need secure energy sources, to replace the last generation of generators (both coal and nuclear) and anticipate the higher prices of fuel used to fire natural gas-powered plants. Another is that Britain’s record on tackling climate change is looking tarnished — emissions are up 2,1% since 2002 — and nuclear energy is at least greenhouse gas free.
There lies the rub. If environmental lobbyists and the country’s most powerful politician agree that climate change is among Britain’s most profound issues — as Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown declared in a speech in March, ”human-made climate change is the most far-reaching” environmental challenge that we face — then it must have a higher priority than any of the issues surrounding nuclear-generated power. If climate change push came to nuclear shove, presumably the needs of the wider environment would have to win out?
It is not as simple as that. In fact, in an unusual reversal of roles, it is the environmental lobby, such as Friends of the Earth, that appears more pragmatic and nuanced on the subject than some factions of the government. It argues that rather than investing in a string of new, high-tech nuclear plants, there is a menu of options that should be given priority.
First, the phasing out of Britain’s old, coal-powered generators would be the fastest practical way to reduce the country’s carbon output. Second, serious sums should be directed towards increasing national energy efficiency. Third, translating the full carbon costs incurred during surface and air transport into pounds and pence at the petrol pump or budget airline website would be an important step in reducing demand for the activities that cause more damage to the environment than electricity generation, which emits just 30% of the UK’s CO2.
Even after these steps, there are others that can come before expanded nuclear power. The use of carbon sequestration — capturing CO2 and storing it — is a short-term move backed by Brown that is worth debating. Using market-based mechanisms — such as encouraging power-generating companies to compete over efficiency rather than price — is also more useful. After all this, it may be that there is still a role for nuclear power. In that case, it will be vital that a decision to restart the nuclear bandwagon should be taken in broad daylight. The public can be convinced of a good case, and should be offered a choice between, say, nuclear power and higher carbon taxes. But the process itself is vital: not just power to the people, but how it is generated. — Â