Should we go nuclear?

TONY Blair has given the clearest signal yet that his Government will commission a new generation of nuclear power stations.

In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Prime Minster said nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance" because of carbon emissions and Britain's growing reliance on imported oil and gas. Failure to make long-term decisions on the country's future energy needs would therefore be a "serious dereliction of duty", he said.

Mr Blair also talked about making "a big push on renewables" and improving energy efficiency". But it was his commitment to nuclear power that generated the headlines. So do we really need nuclear power to meet our country's needs?

YES PLEASE

The nuclear industry

KEITH Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), welcomed the Prime Minister's recognition that nuclear power, alongside renewables and increased energy efficiency, should contribute towards the UK's future energy needs.

"Nuclear energy is a large scale, low carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply," he said.

In January, when the Government launched its review of energy policy, the NIA, which represents the British nuclear industry, published a series of talking points making the case for nuclear power.

The following is an edited extract:

The world has changed

The importance of climate change to policy thinking has increased. Security of supply concerns have grown and energy prices have risen sharply. In the UK, CO2 emissions continue to rise, progress on energy efficiency and renewables uptake has been disappointing, and North Sea oil and gas resources have depleted faster than expected.

Nuclear power is proven

Nuclear supplies 16 per cent of the world's electricity, and 20 per cent of the UK's electricity, with 23 reactors on 12 sites.

Demand will grow

Many coal-fired stations will not meet emissions legislation and will have to close. Eleven of our 12 nuclear power stations are due to close over the next 20 years. Investment is therefore needed to replace more than 30 per cent of today's generating capacity. The UK has set environmental targets to reduce carbon emissions, which will necessitate using less fossil fuel. Renewable sources of electricity, currently supplying three per cent of the UK's electricity, can not grow fast enough to replace the electricity shortfall.

Nuclear is virtually carbon dioxide free

Nuclear power produces negligible CO2, a by-product of fossil fuel generation which is the main cause of global warming.

Nuclear is safe

The UK's civil nuclear programme has an outstanding safety record

and the UK has managed its radioactive waste safely for more than half a century. Following successful Government and public consultation, the process for constructing radioactive waste disposal sites is under way in countries such as Finland and Sweden.

Nuclear fuel supplies are assured

Accessible and affordable uranium ore from known reserves in politically stable countries can be assured for the full lifetime of a fleet of new UK reactors.

Business

THE Prime Minister was "absolutely right" to put nuclear power firmly on the agenda for the future, said Andrew Palmer, deputy regional director of the CBI for Yorkshire and Humber.

"The Government must take brave decisions as a result of its energy review to help deliver to business and consumers secure and affordable power for the long term that doesn't come at the expense of the environment," said Mr Palmer.

"With an ever-increasing reliance on imported gas, and the pressing need to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear power may well form part of the solution."

NO THANKS

The environmental expert

THE Prime Minister would have to be "almost brain dead" to think nuclear power was the best and cleanest way to plug Britain's energy gap, says Professor John Whitelegg, of the Stockholm Environment Institute, based at the University of York.

There are many reasons why.

New nuclear power stations wouldn't be ready in time to plug Britain's energy gap. It would take at least 15 to 20 years before the first of a new generation of nuclear power stations was able to produce any electricity. "And we don't have that amount of time to deal with the energy gap, the greenhouse effect and climate change."

Nuclear power was also hugely expensive, said Prof Whitelegg. The Government has just approved £65 billion of guarantees to decommission 20 nuclear sites across the country - about one third of the total. "Why should anybody want to generate electricity in a way that creates a need for £65 billion to decommission?" he said.

Nuclear power isn't even carbon neutral, as is claimed, he adds. You have to take into account the "whole life cycle" involved in the production of energy from nuclear power. That includes the carbon emissions produced from mining of uranium, to the costs of transport of nuclear-grade material, and of building the "concrete mountains" that are nuclear power stations.

Take all that into account and, on average, energy from nuclear power stations produces about one third of the emissions of dirty, conventional coal-fired power stations. Better, certainly, but not enough to stop us polluting the world.

The trade-off is that we are left with a legacy of highly toxic nuclear waste that will remain lethal for hundreds of thousands of years and that we just don't know how to dispose of properly.

That poses a threat to human health - concerns about leukaemia in children, for example - as well as a security risk. What if terrorists were to target a nuclear waste storage facility? And, given that nuclear waste is a source of weapons-grade plutonium, what about the danger of nuclear weapon proliferation?

The saddest thing of all is that Britain is sitting on inexhaustible supplies of cheap, clean energy. We're an island in the middle of the sea, Prof Whitelegg says.

We have the biggest resource of wind power in Europe - and that doesn't necessarily mean we have to build giant wind farms. Individual turbines could be attached to factories or hospitals.

We have thousands of miles of coastline, which would enable us to harness the power of the waves. And that's without mentioning biomass or solar power, both of which could be developed cheaply and quickly.

The Green Party

MR BLAIR'S plans were "insane", said Mark Hill, York Green Party councillor. "It makes no sense when there are perfectly financially viable alternatives that would greater reduce CO2 emissions," he said.

"Wave and wind power and solar power would cost much less than the amount of money Tony Blair is willing to throw at the nuclear power industry."

He believes we are not making enough effort to curb our energy consumption - locally and further afield. "We need to do more about energy insulation in homes - our housing in York is some of the worst in Yorkshire."

People might not like wind turbines being built near them. "But they won't be as unhappy as people who end up with a nuclear power station next to them," he said.

Coun Hill agreed that we must not become dependant on imports of oil and gas from the Middle East, Africa and Russia. "But the answer is to use the sun, the wind that blows over our land and the waves that break on the shore."

York Green group leader Coun Andy D'Agorne agreed that we need to be doing everything we can to reduce the amount of energy we waste.

"I heard that if you gave every household in the country a low energy light bulb it could save one power station from being built; that could be done now," he said.

Britain's power needs

Nuclear power stations produce about 20 per cent of the UK's energy. By 2025, all except one will have closed.

Dwindling reserves of North Sea oil and gas make the country is increasingly reliant on overseas supplies, mainly from Russia and the Middle East.

The Government has a target of producing ten per cent of the country's energy by renewable resources such as solar and wind by 2010.

The UK also has a target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2010, but is not on target to meet this.

Dirty Drax

DRAX power station is the nation's third highest carbon dioxide polluter, figures reveal.

Five companies in the UK produced more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 between them last year - more than all our motorists, the European Commission figures show.

A Drax spokesman said: "While the statistics show Drax is the third worst in the country it should be viewed in the context of Drax being the largest provider of electricity from coal in the country, providing more than seven per cent of the country's requirements."

The CO2 blacklist: (tonnes of Co2 produced per year):

e.on: 26m; Npower: 21m; Drax: 20m; Corus: 19m; EDF energy: 18m

Updated: 11:35 Thursday, May 18, 2006