| 'Nuclear power has advantages and drawbacks. The only rational approach is to keep as many options open as possible.' |
 |
|
|
In the field of energy things can change very rapidly - within a year (the world oil price trebled between mid-1999 and mid-2000), a month (the electricity shortages in California in late 2000 appeared quite suddenly), a week (the transportation fuel crises in much of Europe in September 2000), or even a day (11 September 2001 may have profoundly changed the world of energy - in terms of the security of oil supplies, or the dangers of terrorist attacks on energy installations such as nuclear stations or large power dams). Life sometimes returns to 'normal' almost as quickly, but sometimes it takes much longer.
|
Yet some of the decisions taken in the energy field can have implications for many decades, if not longer. In many developed countries, a decision taken today to build a nuclear power station might well be followed by some years of planning and regulatory activity, a construction phase lasting up to six years, and 50 years of operation. The installation of a new gas pipeline, or major hydropower or tidal facility, might have similar time horizons. In a competitive power market, in which investors generally prefer a quick return and are averse to economic risk (which inevitably tends to increase as timescales lengthen), the contrast is accentuated.
|
Against such uncertainties and timescales, the only rational approach would seem to be to keep as many options open as possible. If the future is uncertain, then we have to plan for many different futures, accepting that, when hindsight is available, it will appear that some resources have been wasted.
|
On the face of it, nuclear power appears to be an attractive option. It does not rely on fossil fuels, which represent a limited resource with other important uses, notably in the manufacture of plastics, artificial fabrics, fertilisers, medicines and so on. Being a very concentrated form of energy - a ton of uranium produces as much energy as 20,000 tons of coal in a modern power station - the amount of fresh uranium needed each year, and the volumes of waste being produced, are modest by industrial standards.
|
Crucially, because no fossil fuels are being burned, the use of nuclear power produces negligible emissions of greenhouse gases (although mining, processing and constructing plants does require fossil fuels at present). Nuclear technology is well-established, producing between one sixth and one fifth of the world's electricity and being used in over 30 countries. France famously gets around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power, though in the UK the figure is a more modest one quarter. Unlike many renewables, the flow of electricity does not depend on how hard the wind is blowing, or whether the tide is in or the Sun is out.
|
However, nuclear power also has a number of drawbacks. The reactors which have been built over the past 20 years have tended to be very expensive to construct - costing perhaps four times as much as a gas-fired power station of the same electrical output (although fuel costs are much lower). The failure to find an acceptable radioactive waste disposal route has become a major issue in many countries.
|
And there are serious questions over the skills base, with many regulatory bodies (such as Britain's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate) arguing that at present they do not have the personnel to grant new licenses and monitor an expanded nuclear programme.
|
There are also safety concerns. The public tends to be happy enough with existing nuclear stations but opposed to proposals to build new ones. Although nuclear power's safety record has been good, with only one accident with clear off-site health consequences (at Chernobyl in 1986), the spectre of a major accident hangs heavily over the industry. The possible links to nuclear weapons cannot be ignored, although the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty has proved rather effective at limiting the spread of such weapons.
|
As a result of some of these issues, and the perception that global fossil fuel reserves are plentiful, nuclear development has stopped in most of Europe and North America, though countries such as Japan, Korea, China, India and Russia remain publicly committed to the technology.
|
The extent to which nuclear power will be attractive in the future depends on two main sets of factors. The first set are outside the influence of the industry, such as:
|
-- how much energy the world needs - demand is expected to double or treble by 2050;
|
-- the availability of fossil fuels, notably oil and gas - how much more is there to be discovered, how will the world political situation develop given that two thirds of oil reserves are owned by just five countries (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates);
|
-- the extent of climate change, and success in combating it - current estimates suggest that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to fall by 60 percent by 2050;
|
-- the success of developing ways of trapping carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel power stations and other sources;
|
-- the success of renewable energy sources.
|
Nuclear power would be more attractive in an energy-starved world with significant climate change and limited progress with alternatives than in a world with low energy demand, other readily available sources and a successful climate change mitigation programme.
|
It is absurd to argue, as some seem to do, that while enormous progress is to be expected in developing renewable energy, nuclear power is forever stuck in the past and is unable to evolve to meet new demands. However, the size of some of the obstacles should not be underestimated. For the nuclear option to be available to respond to all possible future worlds, progress in some key areas would be important.
|
Firstly, cheaper reactors, which are quicker to build, are needed. The industry has made considerable progress with this: a number of designs are no ready on paper, with much lower construction costs. These include General Electric's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, the BNFL-Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000, the Canadian Next-Generation CANDU, and, at a more experimental stage, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor being developed by Eskom of South Africa.
|
These designs rely more on 'passive' safety, using the laws of nature (eg, water expanding at higher temperatures) rather than equipment such as valves and pumps. Supporters of these designs claim they will not only be cheaper, but more reliable and safer, as there is less to 'go wrong'. However, most of these designs have not yet been built on a commercial scale, and there may be need for government support to bring them to maturity.
|
Secondly, a clearer idea of waste management options must be developed. Some countries, such as Finland and the USA, are more advanced than others in finding long-term disposal routes, but the events of 11 September make removing nuclear material from where it is at risk of accidental or deliberate damage to sites underground look more urgent.
|
Thirdly, a new approach to decision making. This should allow for much more genuine debate and public involvement - on questions such as whether nuclear power should be developed at all, and, if so, where facilities might be sited. The old days of 'DAD' - decide-announce-defend - as a way of managing an industrial economy have gone. Many new techniques of involving people at an earlier stage of decision making are being trailed.
|
It cannot be assumed that these problems can be overcome, any more than it can be assumed that renewables will be as successful as enthusiasts claim, or that energy demand can be controlled while still allowing developing countries to improve their lifestyles. However, the threats of energy shortages and climate change are as huge as they are uncertain.
|
The requirement in the next decade or so in a country like the UK is not to build new nuclear stations, but to devote attention and funds to trying to overcome the problems, so that a clearer view of what nuclear power (and other energy sources) can offer can be developed. At the start of the new century, we cannot know whether there will be a need for nuclear power in, say, 100 years' time. I suspect we can know that the world is going to face very difficult choices of one sort or another.
|
The Royal Institute of International Affairs is an independent research and membership organisation working to promote the understanding of key international issues.
|
