Nuclear Power - No Thanks
August 1st 2008 09:27
So it seems the French energy company won't after all be taking on the building and running of British Nuclear power stations. I'm tempted to say "nice try Gordon." Government plans were to get a new generation of reactors built by the private sector. The reason they want the private sector involved is because the government doesn't want to be carrying the risk. I'm not talking about the risk of a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack but the financial risk. According to the National Audit Office the cost of decommissioning Britains existing nuclear power plants has risen by £12 billion to £73 billion since 2005. In truth no-one knows just what these costs will eventually amount to. But the Government, keen not to face similar open ended financial commitments in the future, has made it clear that bids to build and operate must include detailed and costed proposals for decommissioning these new reactors. EDF is actually owned by the French Government. In effect future decommissioning costs of British reactors would have been shifted from UK tax payers to French taxpayers. So you have to say "nice try Gordon."
So why is the Government so keen to persue the nuclear option. In part I'm sure because there doesn't appear to be another option. Nuclear currently supplies approximately 20% of our electricity, with gas generating about 40% and coal 33%. However international gas markets are becoming tighter, coal isn't favoured because of co2 emmisions and climate change and our nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their working lives. Maintaining supply could well be problematic in the near future. I suspect there also political reasons. Continuing to be nuclear nation, both with energy generation and with weapons technologies gives us a seat at the top table in the international arena. Developing this technology does hold out the prospect of selling the technology to other countries who are also seeking ways to produce electricity while reducing co2 emmissions. But there are many problems.
If nuclear power was expanded globally to the level needed for it to be a solution to climate change then world stocks of uranium would last just 25 years. And how can we be seeking to profit from the technology while at the same time trying to restrict its use in Iran and other parts of the world we consider unstable or to be a challenge to our interests. Others have argued that if you look at the life cycle of nuclear generated electricity its not that clean anyway, even in terms of co2 emmissions. And what about the cost. Once upon a time nuclear power was going to provide electricity too cheap to metre. Whats actually happened is that billions of pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on R & D. That money has allowed the nuclear industry generate electricity at a price that gives the taxpayer no return on that investment and doesn't account for future decommissioning costs. Why would we want more of this. Especially when there is an alternative that could provide the 20%-30% of UK electricity needs, safely, cleanly and without the hidden and unspecified decommissioning costs that plague nuclear. Its time for a sea change in energy policy in the UK. Gordon, its time to go tidal.
So why is the Government so keen to persue the nuclear option. In part I'm sure because there doesn't appear to be another option. Nuclear currently supplies approximately 20% of our electricity, with gas generating about 40% and coal 33%. However international gas markets are becoming tighter, coal isn't favoured because of co2 emmisions and climate change and our nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their working lives. Maintaining supply could well be problematic in the near future. I suspect there also political reasons. Continuing to be nuclear nation, both with energy generation and with weapons technologies gives us a seat at the top table in the international arena. Developing this technology does hold out the prospect of selling the technology to other countries who are also seeking ways to produce electricity while reducing co2 emmissions. But there are many problems.
If nuclear power was expanded globally to the level needed for it to be a solution to climate change then world stocks of uranium would last just 25 years. And how can we be seeking to profit from the technology while at the same time trying to restrict its use in Iran and other parts of the world we consider unstable or to be a challenge to our interests. Others have argued that if you look at the life cycle of nuclear generated electricity its not that clean anyway, even in terms of co2 emmissions. And what about the cost. Once upon a time nuclear power was going to provide electricity too cheap to metre. Whats actually happened is that billions of pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on R & D. That money has allowed the nuclear industry generate electricity at a price that gives the taxpayer no return on that investment and doesn't account for future decommissioning costs. Why would we want more of this. Especially when there is an alternative that could provide the 20%-30% of UK electricity needs, safely, cleanly and without the hidden and unspecified decommissioning costs that plague nuclear. Its time for a sea change in energy policy in the UK. Gordon, its time to go tidal.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
