Why Britain doesn't need nuclear power

Mark Lynas

Published 17 January 2008

It is shameful the UK languishes at the bottom of the renewable energy league despite our huge resources

Three years ago I lost quite a few friends by writing an article for the New Statesman suggesting that new nuclear plants, while not an energy panacea, could have a role in Britain's future. Earlier this month, the government, too, lost a few green friends by completing its long-heralded volte-face on the nuclear issue.

The announcement was met with predictable howls of indignation from the Green Party and from Greenpeace. Clearly, the issue is just as polarised today as it was when I first tackled it in May 2005. Both sides are still throwing out biased information to support preconceived positions, leaving the public confused and dismayed. However, polls show that public opinion is shifting: most people are no longer anti-nuclear, largely because of fears about climate change and energy security.

Some of the anti arguments are also obviously wrong, and don't get any less so simply because they are constantly repeated. I keep hearing that nuclear is not low-carbon because of the greenhouse gases emitted during the construction of plants and refining and transportation of fuel. But the same criticism goes for any centralised power generator. The same goes for the argument, often heard from Greenpeace, that nuclear displaces only moderate amounts of CO2 because it generates only electricity, not energy, and is therefore irrelevant for reducing emissions from heating or transport. True, but you could make the same case against wind or solar (they don't).

Nor is it fair to dismiss nuclear as simply "too expensive". If E.ON, RWE or Npower is convinced that new reactors will provide a fair return on a hefty capital investment, that is their decision. In a free market, we don't need environmental groups to second-guess energy investment decisions made in every corporate boardroom. Environmental groups are supposed to focus on factors other than value for money.

Still, the UK is endowed with some of the best renewable resources in the world (particularly wind and wave, as well as tidal) and could become both a technology market leader and a major energy exporter if only the political will and economic muscle could be mobilised to make this happen. The proposal by the Energy Secretary, John Hutton, in December - to open our seas to 33 gigawatts of offshore wind energy (enough to power all the UK's homes) - is a welcome sign that government thinking is shifting in this direction. The last thing we need now is for this momentum to be lost because of a huge diversion of political energy into justifying new nuclear power stations and battling environmentalists. Nuclear reactors can be built anywhere, and make far more sense in countries where renewables are less freely available than here. Because of our geographical position and shallow continental shelves, we could be the Saudi Arabia of windpower. It is countries like China that should be encouraged to construct a fleet of new reactors, in order to try to wean them off the dirtiest and most dangerous fuel of all: coal.

The worst of all possible options would be to allow new-build coal on our own shores. Not only would that put us in a weak position for lecturing the Chinese, but it would commit billions of pounds of investment into an energy source that will produce millions of tonnes of CO2 over the decades ahead. Companies such as E.ON, which is proposing two new coal-fired units at its Kingsnorth plant, try to wriggle out of this contradiction by claiming that their new coal-power stations will be "capture-ready". But if they really believe in carbon capture and storage as a solution to fossil-fuel emissions, they should build it now. E.ON and its competitors should be encouraged to invest their billions in wind, wave and tidal power instead - with government regulatory support and subsidy as necessary.

It is utterly shameful that the UK languishes at the bottom of the renewable energy league despite our huge resources. We need to turn this situation around, and quickly. Nuclear power is fine in principle, but it is not a priority for us.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

jamesturn
17 January 2008 at 15:34

The reason that Greenpeace and others belittle the contribution nuclear can make to our Co2 reduction efforts is not because it is insignificant in itself but that the legacy of radioactive waste and the costs involved in decomissioning seem a high price to pay for a tiny slice of our energy mix.

David Thompson
17 January 2008 at 17:16

Mark has failed to take account of the UK need to replace existing generating capacity which is to due to be decomissioned, with a viable alternative in relatively short timescale. Renewables are based upon relatively underdeveloped technologies are their siting will attract local opposition & planning delays.Nuclear needs to be the immediate priority, followed by renewables.

Carl Jones
17 January 2008 at 22:57

Mr Lynas; bit sore after your last drubbing? The French have a lot of nuclear, so it must be good. But taking my tin hat off....how can YOU say nuclear has a role, when sea levels are expected to rise?

BryanMcHugh
18 January 2008 at 13:42

To utilise wind properly you have to have access to comperable amounts of 'rapid response' plant like hydro plant. Denmark can only use a third of its wind capacity itself - rest is exported to hydro contries like Norway. Only Spain uses its wind to capacity since it has adequate hydro no CO2 is saved. The UK does not adequate water capacity

writeon
18 January 2008 at 22:12

Dear Mark,

I agree with the basic tenor of your article. I'm not fanatically anti-nuclear, or religiously pro-nuclear. I am though, rather sceptical about the promised, and perhaps exaggerated benefits of nuclear. As I've discovered recently having taken part in huge debate on Britain's nuclear future, this issue is very polarizing, heated, controversial, and not least, highly complex.

I do think you're wrong in suggesting that Greens shouldn't interest themselves with the economics of nuclear power but stick to what they know. This is both undesirable and impossible, because the cost of nuclear is far from clear cut, and may well be 'unpayable'. Despite what many people think, more does not grow on trees, and scarce resources 'wasted' on nuclear might well have been better utilized on other areas of energy production, namely renewables. What if we suddenly can't do it all, and we have to choose? Then, surely, the Greens would be correct in examining where we get best value for money and use our scarce resources optimally, no?

My general feeling is that Britain's entire energy sector has been grossly and irresponsibly mismanaged for decades. What's been lacking has been long term, stategic, planning, integrating all the different sectors of energy production; oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables, into a whole. Instead, everything has been piecemeal and central government has abdicated responsibility, prefering to let the private sector steer. It's this state of affairs that has lead us into the mess we're in today. It's almost as if the privatization of the railways was seen as so brilliantly successful, that it was decided to adopt it as a model for the rest of society!

I also believe you're underestimated problems the private sector has in relation to nuclear. This isn't really a political point, more pragmatic. Ideally the private sector would like to build and run the nuclear facilities, but they get cold feet when the costs of decommissioning are considered, and the cost of looking after the substantial quantities of radioactive waste produced. They would like the State to take over the task or give massive and open-ended subsidies and garantees. The State is wary about both areas because the costs involved go from massive to almost infinite. The nuclear sector is anything but 'free' and a 'market'. The State is already deeply involved and always will be. Without State involvement and tax subsidies it's highly debatable whether nuclear is commercially feasable.

Another telling point is the problem of insuring a nuclear facility in the case of an accident where radioactivity leaks out into the surrounding environment, with potentially disasterous results to follow. Now, there are those who allege that modern nuclear is virtually risk free and the chances of a major accident are near zero. If this is really true, then it's strange that nuclear plants in the US and the UK are not insured against accident by the private insurance sector. Currently I believe the private sector is only willing to insure nuclear plants for around two or three percent of the cost of an accident, even though those who support nuclear say the days of accidents are over! Guess who, in the event of an accident will be left to pay? That's right - the State! Once again this is another massive subsidy for nuclear and a potentially 'infinite' cost.

It's also worth mentioning that on a small and densely populated island like Britain the consequences of nuclear are, in reality unknowable and therefore infinitely expensive. What would happen if the north of england became uninhabitable for several centuries if a core went into meltdown and massive ammounts of highly radioactive material spread into the environment? What price could one put on the North? Where would the people go and live? Would they all move into the Home Counties and move in with the rest of us? Could a big accident effectively mean the end of Britain as a functioning State? Once again another potentially 'infinite' outlay to put on the 'cost' side of nuclear power. Does one see a pattern emerging here?

Then there's the problem of what would happen if Britain decided to build a whole 'New Generation' of nuclear plants and there was suddenly an accident in a country without our sterling record on safety and build-quality! What do you think would happen when people in this country saw the results of a major accident on there television screens? Wouldn't the Greens go absolutely bananas, along with millions of others, taking to the streets and demanding that the government close all Britain's nuclear sites. This would be an 'irrational' and 'emotonal' response, but no less dangerous, powerful, and disasterous. How would the government react to mass, anti-nuclear demonstrations paralyzing Britain's cities and using direct action to close the nuclear plants? I believe there could be 'substantial problems' in maintaining order and stability. If the government bowed to public pressure, where would they find a substitute for nuclear power? Wouldn't we be up a creek without a paddle?

We are, for a variety of reasons, in a very bad position in relation to energy in the UK, worse than probably any advanced country. We've wasted our oil and gas lifeline, and now we're increasingly dependent on imports. Imports which may not be around for much longer. On worldwide basis we've now used up about half our oil reserves. From now on the oil is going to be of an increasingly poorer quality, far less abundant, and much, much, more costly. A hundred dollars a barrel is just the beginning!

What we should be doing is initiating a government organized stratgic plan for dealing with the coming 'energy crisis' putting Britain on something close to a war-footing, but without the police state methods. A massive campaign to reduce petrol consumption is required. One could start with car free days and then gradually increase the number of car-free days, once people accepted them. Take the railways back into public ownership and re-establish British Rail. Invest twice as much in the railway system. Nationalize the bus companies. Pay people far more to insulate their homes and put in double-glazing. Bring in draconian methods to eliminate energy waste. There is a massive ammount that can be done here, because we are so wanton, but it needs a proper strategy. The days of waste and throw-away are over, now we are entering the days of scarcity. Have some courage from government to lead, instead of follow the sacred market God we worship. Make it a political priority to reverse the worst escesses and absurdities of the consumer society. It's not only morally wrong that we consume so much while others have so little, it's also impossible in the long run to continue down this road - it's literally a dead end for society. Change society from the top to the bottom, starting with the voting system. Introduce proportional representation and return power to Parliament. Refrom the entire tax system and abolish VAT. Tax the rich until the pips squeek! Put caps on incomes. No one allowed to earn more than a million pounds a year. If they don't like it, hard luck, they can always go abroad, and show everyone how patriotic they really are! There are, after all, plenty of talented people able to replace those who choose to immigrate, we'd probably be better off without them anyway! People who want more than a million pounds a year are greedy and selfish and anti-social. We have to make a start on building a new type of society, not based on greed and gorging ourselves on resources that are running out. It's not as if we really have any choice. The only choice we have is whether we take charge and change in an orderly fashion, with everyone involved, bearing the burdens equally and justly, sharing and helping one another; or we carrry on towards the cliff edge. We let the 'free market' decide our future and our fate. If we do that, all we'll have to look forward to is more of the last thirty years of 'Thatcherism', only harsher, far harsher, 'Thattchersim' without the wealth. Thatcherism with only the iron fist, no gloss and no glitz, that's coming to an end. The National Security State isn't going to be fun. Because now we don't have the oil and gas to pay for it all. We've wasted that legacy, and another miracle isn't anywhere on the horizon. The great and monsterous, thirty year, debt bubble is bursting, and the chickens, huge, ferocious things, are really coming home to roost!

Nigel Stock
19 January 2008 at 12:55

Oh dear - this is about as accurate as Mr Lynas's deliberately off the point and downright ignorant comments about global warming. renewables are nice but practically they won't do it. We need nuclear because otherwise the lights will go out and we will freeze - except that Mr Lynas thinks we may have a period of runnaway global warming. Good grief. cn't the New Statesman do better than this?

Tim Grollman
19 January 2008 at 19:32

Carbon capture and storage can't be that hard, and would deliver a huge benefit. Why isn't this being forced through by the government? If it's a question of who pays, well it will be me one way or the other won't it? Let's just do it.

Tim Grollman

Peter Martin
21 January 2008 at 06:38

Maybe Mark would like to expand on the problem and solution on a more international scale. Correct policies for the UK alone won't fix the problem.

If a mixture of solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources can be shown to be sufficient then so much the better. But I have my doubts. Maybe conventional U235 reactors are going to be needed. Some people have speculated that Thorium is another possibilty.

Much of the opposition to the idea of AGW is largely motivated by a fear of 'draconian' measures to curb the problem. To counter this, we ( all of us who are astute enough to realise the severity of the problem) need to present plausible solution and it's not going to be easy if we totally discount nuclear power as a possibility.

Cybertiger
21 January 2008 at 10:28

@PM

"Much of the opposition to the idea of AGW is largely motivated by a fear of 'draconian' measures to curb the problem."

Do you mean the Yanks might object to the idea of their gas guzzling lifestyles being sequestered?

mitchy
22 January 2008 at 09:42

Hooray! Writeon for PM!

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:54

Well yes, we Yanks do object to our lifestyles being interefered with by the central government - that's the principle on which you Brits and we Yanks have differed since 1776.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 15:23

The reason Greenpeace (to the horror of its founder) is opposed to nuclear as the solution is because it has NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN ABOUT CO2 FOR THEM, BUT RATHER IT IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT IMPOSING A BACK-TO-NATURE LIFESTYLE.

For them the only answer is sacrifice - for its own sake. This is about bringing Malthus, whose ideas were thoroughly discredited as a matter of economics, back into vogue through the back door via environmental issues. And that is why an entirely workable answer that does not involve sacrificing our lifestyles is unacceptable to Greenpeace - though it is acceptable to its founder.....

Keep in mind Greenpeace still clings to the urban legend about Monsanto corn pollen harming Monarch butterflies despite both the USDA and FDA - under a Democrat so don't say this is Bush big-corporate BS - held up the marketing of the pollen while they studied the issue and concluded that there was no such danger.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 15:26

Now do I still support wind? Of course - it's there, you might as well use it. It presently requires subsidies or tax breaks to be profitable and I know Ricardo and Schumpeter would pull me aside and explain that that is the price mechanism telling us that the consumers want the resources used to construct the plants used for some other purpose - but it's close, and just as a security measure you don't have to import wind.

But wind is usable only for baseload power and only for at most 20% of a grid's power supply, so that the unreliability is not a greater factor than the shift in demand within the grid.

Unless of course you decide that no, if there's no wind people will just have to shut off their computers and lights, which brings us back to whether this is about CO2 or about bringing back the long-since discredited Malthusian ideas through the back door.

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 23:22

Oh my god I've actually read more of your columnists' articles and you guys really do think that by driving to work I'm causing droughts in Kenya.

Such madness is akin to ancient Mayan beliefs that forcing virgins to dive into cenotes aided the corn crop.

nawawimohamad
27 January 2008 at 03:55

The best choice is to have a variety with no significant dependent on any particular energy source. Yes, why not try the waves, wind and tidal.

Pat T
28 January 2008 at 21:13

I agree - but there's only so much waves, wind and tidal energy - develop them as much as possible but let's agree we can't just live on what that gives us, or impose such limits on society.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Mark Lynas

Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, and blogs on www.marklynas.org