We need nuclear power to stop climate change don’t we?
No, nuclear power is not the answer to climate change. We need a rapid and substantial decrease in our carbon emissions to deal with climate change. Nuclear power cannot deliver that. Our existing nuclear power stations provide just 20% of the electricity that we use. And that is only 8% of our overall energy needs (a lot of the rest of our demand for energy comes from transport and industry). Currently, there is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. But the reality is that even if we doubled the UK’s nuclear power production, our carbon emissions would only be reduced by 8%. In reality, nuclear power production is dirty, expensive and a uniquely risky business with the potential for catastrophic consequences.
But isn't climate change such a serious issue that we need nuclear power in the mix, along with renewable energy sources?
The fact is, even if we were prepared to overlook all the dangers associated with nuclear power, it would just be too little too late to solve the problem. Climate change is happening now. New nuclear power stations are planned for the UK but each one will take more than a decade to be up and running. Most of the new power stations would not even be additional facilities, but replacements for the existing aging stock, so there is little chance for any real increase in the amount of nuclear power produced. And they won’t be built in time to make the difference we need to make now. Renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures are already making a difference and, despite significantly poorer financing compared to nuclear power, their technologies are rapidly advancing. For instance, in Germany plans for 24 new offshore wind farms would replace the output of all 17 of their nuclear power plants. In the UK, by fitting all homes with the insulation they need (a simple energy efficiency measure) carbon emissions could be reduced by around the same amount as another 10 nuclear power stations.
Isn't nuclear power a form of low carbon electricity supply, though?
Nuclear power stations produce lower carbon emissions than coal or gas-fired power stations. But, when the whole nuclear power cycle is taken into account (including Nuclear power uranium mining, processing, transportation, power station construction and decommissioning), renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency measures and technologies produce far less carbon emissions. Moreover, the world only has a limited amount of high quality uranium ore – maybe not more than 50 years’ worth and less if there is a big global increase in nuclear power. Mining lower quality ore will increase carbon emissions because it is more difficult to extract and thus requires more energy.
What are the dangers of nuclear power?
Nuclear power has uniquely serious risks associated with it:
1. proliferation of nuclear weapons
2. contamination by toxic radioactive nuclear waste
3. nuclear accidents
So more nuclear power stations in the world means more transportation of nuclear materials and more nuclear waste, leading to a higher risk of accident, theft of radioactive materials by terrorists, increase of nuclear targets and risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. A combination of effective alternative measures can tackle climate change. These include alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power and energy efficiency technologies and measures to reduce energy demand. None of these measures involve the dangers associated with nuclear power. By pursuing nuclear power the government risks adding the potential catastrophe of nuclear disaster to the disastrous scenario of climate change.
I’ve heard about the terrible Chernobyl nuclear power accident. Are new nuclear power stations going to be more safely designed?
New nuclear power stations are designed to be safer, but however small the probability, there is always the chance of accidents releasing toxic radioactive substances into the atmosphere. Human error and mechanical failure can never be ruled out. And it is not just accidents that we need to worry about, there is a risk that even small amounts of radiation exposure may be harmful and nuclear power stations are permitted to routinely release low levels of radioactive emissions into the environment. Research has shown that there are increased rates of cancer around nuclear power stations. Recent German government-commissioned research showed higher rates of cancer in children under five living near nuclear power stations.
Won’t government legislation protect us?
Not necessarily. New planning laws are being pushed forward to allow new nuclear power stations to be more quickly agreed with less chance for local involvement and opposition. The two designs being proposed for the UK are new and so we don’t know how safe they will be in practice. With France and the UK agreeing to collaborate on nuclear power, the French European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) may be chosen. An EPR being built in Finland is over budget by 100%, is three years over schedule and 1,500 safety and quality problems have been identified. The building of a new EPR in France has also seen a series of problems resulting in construction being temporarily halted.
What about the economic benefits of nuclear power?
Nuclear power stations have always been heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Our nuclear power industry has cost us tens of billions of pounds over the last 50 years. Decommissioning old nuclear power stations is costing us over £70 billion and rising fast. This means that economic benefits may only ever be gained by the shareholders of the nuclear power companies. There is not a big pot of money to pay for nuclear power and renewable energy and efficiency technologies, so having nuclear power in the mix means that money cannot be spent elsewhere. Government promises that new nuclear power stations will not be subsidised are hollow. Taxpayers will pay for insurance in case of accidents. We will also probably have to pay for increased coastal defences because new nuclear power stations are likely to be built on old coastal sites identified as being at increased risk of flooding – especially as the effects of climate change take hold.
Who will pay for decommissioning and nuclear waste storage?
For new nuclear power stations the government plans to cap nuclear waste charges to the companies, yet the costs are almost certain to go up, and then who pays? The main problem is that despite over 50 years of nuclear power in the world there is still no safe storage solution for the enormous amount of nuclear waste that has already been produced. And some of this waste will be highly radioactive – and lethally toxic – for hundreds of thousands of years. Having even more new nuclear power stations will mean leaving an even greater legacy of this poisonous waste for future generations to deal with.
Trying to predict a realistic cost for nuclear waste storage is extremely difficult. The government has so far ruled out reprocessing (separating out plutonium and uranium to process into new fuel) the spent fuel from new nuclear power stations. This means that the spent fuel may need to be stored for up to 160 years at each site. There are plans for an underground site, but these are still just on paper – no location has yet been found. There is no knowing if an underground store would retain its structural integrity over the extremely long timescale that is needed – hundreds of thousands of years – especially when you take into account any future geological events like earthquakes. The government has said that ‘in extreme circumstances’ it will come in to cover nuclear decommissioning costs (decommissioning involves the reactor being dismantled and the site decontaminated and usually happens at the end of the reactor’s lifespan). There are no details given of what those ‘extreme circumstances’ might be but serious accidents are likely to be covered. Human and environmental costs aside, this could prove extremely expensive.
What is the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power?
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share a common technological basis. Skilled workers and continuing research are beneficial for both industries. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel (spent nuclear fuel) from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons. In the UK our first nuclear power stations were a front for the production of nuclear weapons. Today we have large enough military and civil stockpiles of uranium and plutonium that new nuclear power stations are not directly necessary to make new nuclear weapons. In fact, we could make around 13,500 nuclear bombs just from our civil stockpile of over 100 tonnes of separated plutonium alone.
Will more nuclear power stations in the world mean more nuclear weapons?
That’s the danger. Because countries like the UK are promoting the expansion of nuclear power, other countries are beginning to plan for their own nuclear power programmes too. But there is always the danger that countries acquiring nuclear power technology may subvert its use – as we did in the past – to develop a nuclear weapons programme. Nuclear materials may also get into the wrong hands and be used to make a crude nuclear device or ‘dirty bomb’.
What is the solution?
The logical solution is to encourage countries to adopt safer and cheaper renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures to meet their energy needs and not have nuclear power at all. Instead nuclear power is being encouraged and to combat the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, proposals have been made to limit the spread of nuclear technology to other countries, particularly the enrichment process. A multinational nuclear fuel bank would provide already-enriched nuclear fuel to those countries that want it to prevent them from developing the technology themselves.
Our government and many others have already joined in one such proposal, the US’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This plans for a handful of ‘supplier’ countries to keep the enrichment and reprocessing technologies and supply enriched nuclear fuel to the other countries. Spent nuclear fuel would be shipped back to be reprocessed by the ‘suppliers’ and separated plutonium could be used to make new fuel. But any proposal for more nuclear reprocessing is worrying – it has already proved to be a very expensive and dirty process and increases separated plutonium stockpiles which could be diverted or stolen for use in nuclear weapons. Sellafield’s reprocessing plants in Cumbria are one of the chief sources of radioactive emissions in the UK.
But wouldn’t a nuclear fuel bank scheme like the GNEP help reduce global tensions?
A scheme like the GNEP will actually increase tensions in the world. The right to have civil nuclear power technology is enshrined in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed by nearly all states in the world. The GNEP however would mean that some of the technology would be confined to a small number of states, and the majority of countries would be expected to give up their rights to nuclear power technology. Ironically, some of the countries that wish to control the enrichment process are those that already have nuclear weapons and seem determined to keep them, despite being required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to give them up. So these states will get to keep their own nuclear weapons whilst also controlling enrichment and reprocessing technologies necessary for civil nuclear power, thus increasing the division between nuclear ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.
What can I do to stop new nuclear power stations being built in the UK?
The most important thing you can do is make your voice heard. Take action against the building of new nuclear power stations:
- Write to your MP explaining the risks of nuclear power. To identify your MP, put your postcode in to the box below:
To write to your MP via the web, visit writetothem.com - Write to Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change asking him to ditch new nuclear power plans and make sure we meet renewable energy targets: Department for Energy and Climate Change, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
- Support a local group that campaigns against nuclear power or get together with friends or family to form your own local campaign. Contact your local CND group – see the Local Groups section of the CND website