Should new nuclear play a part in meeting our energy needs: a personal view

I believe new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs (Chris Huhne, first annual energy statement to parliament, 27 July 2010)

Today, the UK’s energy secretary, Chris Huhne, outlined how the government will address the issue of energy generation.  The strategy will involve new nuclear energy generation capacity.   

The context for this is relatively simple: the 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK to an 80% reduction of carbon emission on 1990 levels by 2050.  To meet these reductions, fossil fuel consumption must be reduced, so the question is very simple: what can replace fossil fuels, when, and at what cost. 

If abandoning these commitments is not an option then substituting lower carbon intensive fuels for higher intensive fuels would help, but this is not a sustainable option.  There are new technologies to sequestrate carbon from fossil fuels (CCS) but the technology is uncertain, the method is likely to be costly even if the risks can be reduced and storage proven to be feasible beyond small demonstration projects. 

A more promising option is the use of renewable energy sources, which are becoming more cost effective each year, and will help to diversify the energy mix.  The EU is committed to a target of 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, but the UK has lagged behind the EU average on renewable energy for some time and on the latest figures, will struggle to contribute to this target.

Renewable energy sources are certainly cleaner and provide very low carbon energy, but even with the substantial increases in investment in these energy sources, they cannot by themselves ensure the other desirable features of the UK’s energy mix i.e. secure supply at an affordable price.

There are likely to be more energy efficient technologies, and energy conservation in the work place, homes and other environments and transportation, which can reduce the demand for energy, but this goes against the observed trend for UK energy consumption.  Other changes in manufacturing and agriculture could have an impact on emissions reduction, but these changes will take time.

This brings me to nuclear energy.  It is, perhaps the most contentious alternative –it is a low carbon energy, based on existing technology, providing security of supply for the next century; however, the costs are contested both in terms of energy generation, decommissioning and other environmental costs.  Existing nuclear energy provides around 20% of the UK’s electricity, and much of this capacity will be removed in the next few years as eleven nuclear plants are due for closure by 2015.  This means that a nuclear-free energy mix will have to find a substantial generation capacity from a low carbon source from somewhere. 

It would seem clear, then, that nuclear must form a part of the UK energy strategy for the foreseeable future, perhaps a substantial part, a point many environmentalists such as James Lovelock, George Monbiot and Mark Lynas concede.

This is not my view.  The problem of energy security is a consequence of inappropriate attitudes towards energy consumption.  Without being forced to pay the full costs of the energy we use there will be no incentive to act boldly.  CCS and nuclear are just ways of deferring this decision.  Let me be clear - the target must be 100% renewable energy by 2050 as this has the lowest environmental impact, which is a key factor in considering sustainability.  This means energy efficiency, reduced consumption, higher prices, an emphasis on investment in renewable energy, changes in key areas such as land use, transportation, manufacturing and construction.  We need to wean ourselves off cheap (i.e. unsustainable) energy and it is likely to be painful, at least at first.  

Is nuclear energy a solution to the UK’s energy needs? In the short run, with a business as usual consumption rate, and with only incremental investment in renewable energy generation, nuclear power will be crucial in maintaining a secure supply.  In the long term I view the solution as paying a fair price for the energy consumed, one that reflects pollution, climate change risk, resource depletion, hazardous waste and other externalities.  This price means that renewable energy sources become economically attractive for large scale energy generation and thus provide incentives for greater investment in R& D, innovation and commercialisation.

If the UK is to achieve secure, clean and affordable energy by 2050, then it must act now, act radically and not defer the issue until it has no choice.  Chris Huhne knows that a policy based on high energy prices and a painful transition is politically unacceptable, so nuclear energy is a convenient option to have for the moment.  He has also announced more support for renewable energy and if many of the problems with renewable sources can be solved by 2020 as a consequence of extra investment and the EU’s 20/2020 commitment, perhaps nuclear energy will be less crucial for the energy mix towards 2050.