|
Nuclear Power
Purpose
This Policy Position Statement (PPS) outlines the current CIWEM policy and position on the situation regarding the use of nuclear fission reactors for energy generation and considers the sustainability of the future use of nuclear within a mixed energy generation portfolio.
CIWEM’s Position on Nuclear Power:
1. CIWEM considers that the need for and role of nuclear power must both be placed firmly in the context of a transition from the current position, (reliance on unsustainable carbon intensive energy generation) to a future in which society relies on sustainable energy generation.
2. CIWEM welcomes the latest Government Energy Review 9 ‘Our Energy Challenge’, which states a commitment to take into account “all issues relating to nuclear including long-term costs such as de-commissioning and waste”.
3. CIWEM calls for a comprehensive, independent, analysis of the various energy options’ ability to deliver societal requirements for energy generation as part of this review, with an examination of their full lifetime and resource costs which takes account of all environmental externalities. Such analysis must be conducted with the import and status of a Royal Commission or equivalent, and it is urgent that such analysis is commenced now, and completed before the Government puts forward any policy proposals on nuclear.
4. CIWEM welcomes the public consultation9 which forms part of ‘Our Energy Challenge’. It is essential that society as a whole is fully informed of findings through the review period and has ownership of decisions on future energy supplies. Any attempts to fast-track a new generation of reactors should not be at the expense of full and proper public consultation.
5. CIWEM recognises that there is much uncertainty regarding the accuracy of figures relating to the full lifetime financial costs of nuclear power, but also believes that this applies to many other sources of energy, including renewables. It is essential, for informed debate and decision making, that a consistent methodology is applied to establish the full, comparable costs of all energy sources.
6. CIWEM believes that certain claims regarding the efficiency and performance of proposed nuclear reactor designs are not supported by experience as such designs have yet to be constructed and operated anywhere in the world. Such claims therefore require careful assessment and review. Projections made on the basis of unproven designs must be compared directly with base projections which need to take account of the proven performance of nuclear technology worldwide.
7. CIWEM recognises that whilst figures vary, current known reserves of economically extractable uranium (based on current technologies and economic pricing forecasts) may only last between 40 and 85 years at 2002 rates of consumption. Widespread use of nuclear fission plants on a global scale could be constrained by resources in the longer-term and therefore cannot be regarded as sustainable.
8. CIWEM considers that questions relating to the long-term management and security of radioactive waste and other materials, together with other environmental aspects of nuclear power, must be fully and transparently answered to the public’s satisfaction before any new reactors are planned (and that this “satisfaction” should be properly measured and assessed).
9. CIWEM asserts that the contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction targets that can be made by a new generation of nuclear power stations needs to assessed in the context of all other options in the transition to a low carbon economy and a balanced energy generation portfolio.
10. CIWEM considers there is a risk that investment in new nuclear capacity could divert momentum away from renewables development. CIWEM believes that Government should not favour any one individual technology, but should look for security in long term baseload supplies within a balanced portfolio of economic and sustainable technologies. In this context it is vital that there is a level playing field for all potential power sources, on both the supply and demand sides. Policy and regulatory certainty over a timescale of several decades is essential for investment in any new power source.
11. CIWEM emphasises that sectors such as transport and domestic housing contribute significantly to the UK’s CO2 emissions. Efficiency savings here (and in consequent electricity demand) could deliver significant CO2 emissions reductions if properly implemented. CIWEM believes that there should be a more concerted and immediate focus on innovation and implementation of such energy efficiency measures, in parallel with new energy generation options.
Context
Britain’s history of generating electricity from nuclear power stations dates back to 1956 when the first Magnox reactor at Calder Hall, Cumbria came on-stream. A number of similar stations were built before newer, advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) were favoured. The last nuclear power station to be built was Sizewell B on the Suffolk coast, which began generating in 1995. This was a different type again, being a US-style pressurised water reactor (PWR).
Britain’s existing nuclear power stations provide almost 20% of the current electricity capacity, forming an important, ‘always-on’ component of the UK base-load. However, with the exception of Sizewell B, all are expected to close by 2023 and this has lead to concerns in many circles about what kind of generation should be used to replace this lost capacity. The most recent Government White Paper on energy in 20031 did not paint an encouraging picture for the nuclear industry, stating that unfavourable economics meant no plans for any new capacity, although the option would be kept open for future consideration. A review of energy policy commenced in January 2006 and recently there has been increased discussion of a possible new generation of nuclear power stations to replace those to be decommissioned. Particular emphasis has been placed on nuclear being a technology which would help the UK to meet its targets for CO2 emissions reduction.
Because of its controversial past involving proliferation, secrecy, contamination incidents, a waste stockpile and vast expense, nuclear retains many opponents who are concerned at the prospect of a new generation of reactors, when technologies e.g. some renewables can now compete on price, and carry with them no stigmas of waste, contamination and an unwelcome legacy for future generations. The nuclear industry claims, however, that new reactors would set substantially higher standards in efficiency, safety and construction.
The UK is committed to delivering greenhouse gas reductions of 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and by 60% by about 2050. There is much debate over the ability of renewables and energy efficiency to deliver the required reductions on their own. Furthermore, recent and pronounced increase in the price of oil and gas and the decline of North Sea oil and gas reserves appear to have raised concern within Government about the long-term security of fuel supply and exposure to price fluctuation. These factors have conspired to push nuclear power to the forefront of political debate in 2006.
On an international level, nuclear is a well-established and widespread method of electricity generation. In 2002, nuclear power provided about 16% of the world's electricity, with 441 units operating in 30 countries.7 Some 30 further power reactors are under construction (equivalent to 6% of current installed capacity) with a further 35 are firmly planned (equiv 10% current capacity). 17 countries in the world get at least ¼ of their electricity from nuclear generation.8 In this context, and with increasing international pressure on countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, whatever course of action the UK embarks upon nuclear generation, with all its associated issues, will be present at a global level for many decades to come.
Key Issues
There is a lack of reliable information
By its very nature, with historic links to defence, the nuclear industry has been a secretive one over the years. Whilst the industry is trying to improve this image, there remains much commercial confidentiality of information, and a significant amount of that which is publicly available is produced by parties from one side or other of the nuclear fence, and can be expected to be skewed in favour of the technology or against it. This means that confidence in claims regarding economics, efficiency of future designs, likely waste solutions etc, is lower than it might be for other technologies.
Nuclear is currently an important component of the UK energy mix
Nuclear currently accounts for about 20% of the electricity generation in Britain today. As such it is an important component. The importance of a diverse mix of generation types cannot be understated, and helps to buffer the market from the effects of instabilities in fuel price, availability or output. The aim is quite rightly a secure energy mix which in combination delivers a sustainable supply over a set timescale.
New reactor technology – better efficiency, less waste?
Any new designs of nuclear reactor built in future in the UK would be of a different type to the current Magnox and AGR designs which are dated. PWRs are now the most common types and of the designs for potential future reactors, most are evolutions of the traditional PWR designs. Such designs, for example the Westinghouse AP1000, claim to be far less complex, quicker to build, and far more efficient in their use of fuel and consequently the amount of waste produced. The Government’s Performance and Innovation Unit(PIU)2 has reported that a new generation of reactors would only add in the region of 10% to the current level of nuclear waste in the UK. Such claims are, however, unsupported by experience as none of the new designs which would be in contention have yet been built, although one, the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), is under construction in Finland.
Claims about carbon dioxide emissions are not clear cut
A significant factor in the emergence of the ‘new nuclear power stations in the UK’ debate has been recognition and concern regarding mounting evidence on climate change and the need to make substantial cuts to CO2 emissions. Proponents of nuclear have seized on this to promote it as a low carbon technology, claiming that CO2 emissions are virtually zero using this method of generation. This has been countered by claims from those opposed to nuclear3 that consideration of the carbon footprint of nuclear from uranium extraction and processing all the way through to decommissioning and waste storage, indicates CO2 and other greenhouse gas production is upwards of 40% of a gas fired system with the same energy output. It is difficult to judge the reliability of such claims, however clearly nuclear is more carbon-emitting than might be appreciated at first glance, and this point is recognised in the current energy review.
Uranium supplies are finite
Proponents of nuclear have over the years portrayed the technology as having an abundance of available fuel. Uranium exists on earth in huge quantities in low-grade ores and even in sea water. However, there is a threshold beyond which it becomes inefficient to extract, i.e. more energy is required to extract and process it into fuel than can be generated through consuming the fuel. Estimates vary as to how long economically extractable reserves of uranium may last but figures of between 40 and 85 years at current rates of use have been cited4 and are recognised by Government9 who also state that these timeframes will be reduced by widespread uptake of nuclear globally.
If a new generation of nuclear plants were commissioned in the next few years, it would be unlikely that they would come on-stream until around 2025. If the expected lifespan of a nuclear power station is 40 years, it is entirely possible that within the lifetime of a new generation plant, a shortage or imminent shortage of uranium reserves might impact significantly on the economic viability of nuclear power generation. However, it must also be recognised that there has been little exploration for new reserves of uranium since the mid-1980s and that increased fuel prices may stimulate the viability of further reserves.
Waste management issues remain
One of the greatest concerns expressed about nuclear power is the generation and long-term management of radioactive waste. Nuclear waste is broadly categorised into three levels – high level, intermediate level and low level waste. Whilst low level waste can be relatively easily managed, intermediate and high-level waste poses greater challenges. Much of this is currently stored at a facility in Sellafield in Cumbria, but is not in a condition suitable for long-term storage (some waste has a half-life of tens of thousands of years). There is at present no long-strategy for managing much of this waste (470,000 m3) beyond the next few decades5.
The Government has commissioned the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to investigate and make recommendations on how higher-level wastes should be managed in the long-term. The Committee, which is due to report in July 2006, has considered a range of potential solutions and has compiled a short-list of four main options. These are Long-term interim storage, Near-surface disposal of short-lived wastes, Deep geological disposal, and Phased deep geological disposal. Whilst agreement on the proposed techniques appears closer, it is likely that the main obstacle will come when trying to decide where to site such facilities and public opinion comes into play.
These solutions will have to be found irrespective of whether a new generation of plants is built, and the waste factor does not appear to be considered by the Industry or Government as a deciding factor on whether to build a new generation, because the waste from such new sites has been estimated to add comparatively little (10%) to existing volumes (although much of that created would be high-level waste, levels of which could increase five-fold). In the latest review9, the Government states: “The issue of waste will be one of the important considerations relating to nuclear power in this review”. Furthermore, the CoRWM has made it clear that its present review is for solutions to the problem of existing waste and that any new waste from a new generation of reactors should be the subject of a separate investigation10.
The economics of nuclear
In its early years, the nuclear industry raised the prospect of electricity too cheap to meter. However, this never materialised and in general nuclear has proved to be expensive, relying on billions of pounds of Government subsidies and bail-outs over the years. Cost estimates have generally had to be revised upwards – 40% in the case of the most recent reactor, Sizewell B (which delivers electricity at about 6p/kWh6). New reactor designs are now claimed to be cheaper but there is no direct experience of building one of the new designs to support this, let alone somewhere with construction costs as high as those of the UK. The PIU considered that the construction costs and operating performance quoted by the industry were potentially over-optimistic.
A further point about such claims is that they are based on economies of scale derived from a programme of reactors being built rather than a small number of plants. To put this into context, in the 1980’s, Margaret Thatcher planned 10 new nuclear power stations and only managed to build one before excessive cost stifled any further construction. Whilst the Government appears to now be concerned by fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels, and appears to consider this makes the economics of nuclear more attractive, nuclear is still more expensive than a range of other, often more sustainable options. The New Economics Foundation (NEF)4 states:
“Even based on the PIU’s estimate of 3-4p/kWh for nuclear power, offshore wind(2-3p/kWh) is at least as cheap, and could cost as little as half as much; and onshore wind (1.5-2.5p/kWh) is between 17 per cent and 60 per cent cheaper”, and
“corrected estimates for nuclear…suggest that it will almost certainly be substantially more expensive than any form of renewable energy with the exception of photovoltaic (which remains substantially more expensive in the UK) and possibly wave power.”
PIU figures2 for fossil fuels with CO2 capture and sequestration also compare favourably with nuclear, although these will have been impacted somewhat by recent hikes in oil and gas. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that if a price of 3-4p/kWh can be achieved, this would represent a significant reduction in cost from previous nuclear plants and would be broadly comparable with other forms of generation. The Government has stated it will consider all costs and that new nuclear plants would have to be built and operated by the private sector.
Security and proliferation
Much is made by opponents to nuclear power of the threat posed by terrorists successfully targeting a nuclear reactor, as well as proliferation of nuclear reactors leading to increased levels of nuclear waste, potentially in unstable countries, which could fall into the wrong hands for the purposes of use in ‘dirty’ bombs. Such risks must be seriously considered by Government and the international community and evaluated fully as part of an energy review in the UK. If nothing else, such security concerns will translate into additional cost - the cost to BNFL of addressing security risks has been estimated at around £50 million/yr.
Openness and Honesty
Shortly after the Government began to discuss nuclear again, there came reports of a leak of 20 tonnes of plutonium and uranium at the Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield. This was classified as a serious incident on the International Nuclear Event Scale and illustrated that despite claims of far better operational standards, such events can still occur. Details of previous ‘incidents’ such as the Windscale reactor fire in 1957 were not made public for 25 years. The industry has tried in recent years to reform its image and it will be essential, if new nuclear plants are to be built, that the public is kept fully informed about the pertinent issues and decisions to be made.
There has been some pressure by the nuclear industry on the Government to fast-track the planning process for new reactors11, with licences granted before sites are agreed upon, but this must not come at the expense of proper public consultation. At the same time, it is important that there should be a mechanism for valid local concerns to be raised and addressed. The Sizewell B public enquiry, despite its length (6 years), did not necessarily lead to a better outcome for locals than a more focused and local enquiry might have done. Clarity is needed over how valid local factors and fundamental objections to national strategy are considered.
Discussion
It is clear that as Britain’s current generation of nuclear power stations is wound down, replacement generating capacity will need to be developed. The Government appears to be seriously considering the potential for developing a new generation of plants to replace those being retired, and the nuclear industry is working hard to encourage Government to choose this route. There is an argument that if targets for CO2 reductions are to be met then there may be little option but a new generation of nuclear installations.
Much is being made of the need to reduce carbon emissions and proponents of nuclear have seized on this argument. It is important to remember, however, that electricity generation only accounts for 33% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions. Currently, road transport contributes at least 22% of CO2 emissions and domestic housing around 30%. Both sectors are expected to increase their emissions in coming years. It may well therefore be cheaper and easier to make the necessary savings in CO2 through well targeted efficiency policies in these sectors before building a new raft of nuclear capacity. In addition, a new generation of nuclear power stations would only be likely to come on-stream in around 2025 or later if the Government were to decide to opt for such a direction soon and the majority of new capacity would simply be replacing that which is to be de-commissioned.
It is reasonable to expect that the nuclear industry would be able to deliver electricity at greater economic efficiencies to those experienced in the past. The PIU price estimations indicate that there are a whole range of technologies available of similar or lower likely cost to nuclear, and it is probable that this will be reflected in the future energy mix – whether this includes nuclear or not. It is likely however, that even if new stations are built, the finite nature of economically extractable uranium supplies will mean that only one further generation of nuclear reactors can be built, and even during their lifetimes, fuel price could become an issue as reserves dwindle. The extent to which this might be borne out would be dependent upon the level of expansion of nuclear on the global scale.
There is a range of issues which must be tackled before any new generation of nuclear reactors are planned. These include setting in place a clear and agreed strategy for the future long-term management of nuclear waste, including locations for repositories. Security risks must also be fully appraised, as should the impacts of climate change on the siting of any future reactors and waste facilities.
The Government clearly wishes to re-evaluate the scope for a new generation of nuclear power stations. CIWEM considers that it is important to retain an open mind on future energy options and to set decisions in the context of an overall plan to make the transition to a truly sustainable energy portfolio, which must be the ultimate goal. CIWEM considers that there is a need for rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the full lifetime costs of nuclear, alongside other energy options, as part of the current review. This must recognise that the economics and technology of uranium extraction may change the future dynamics of the uranium supply chain and what is economically available, and take into account the full environmental and climate change costs of nuclear construction and its fuel supply chain. Similarly the full resource cost implications of all energy options should be analysed.
It is necessary to ask the question: “If not nuclear, then what?” This PPS cannot possibly consider all the potential alternatives. However, it must be noted that without a dramatic (and unlikely) change in Government policy, and without significant lifestyle changes now, in what is essentially a consumer-led society, renewables and energy efficiency alone will not be able to fill the gap in the short to medium-term. Because of its inherent resource, waste and safety issues however, nuclear power is not a sustainable form of electricity generation in the long-term. Consequently, CIWEM considers that a long-term strategy for significantly improving energy efficiency as well as carbon-neutral modes of generation is of paramount importance, both in the UK and internationally. Extended planning of a series of technological and behavioural steps, together with policy security over the medium-term, is required in order to deliver the transition to a low-carbon economy.
References
1. DTI: Energy White Paper – our energy future – creating a low carbon economy, 2003
2. Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit: The energy review, 2002
3. Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith: Nuclear Power: The Energy balance, 2005
4. New Economics Foundation: Mirage and oasis – Energy choices in an age of global warming, 2005
5. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management: Preliminary report on the Inventory, downloaded December 2005
6. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: The nuclear energy option in the UK, 2003
7. International Atomic Energy Agency: Country Nuclear Power Profiles, downloaded January 2006
8. World Nuclear Association: Nuclear Power in the World Today, downloaded January 2006
9. DTI: Energy Review – Our energy challenge – securing clean, affordable energy for the long-term, January 2006
10. The Ends Report: Nuclear inquiry stakes out the battlelines for energy review, December 2005
11. The Guardian: Next generation of nuclear reactors may be fast tracked, January 21, 2006
May 2006
Note: CIWEM Policy Position Statements (PPS) represents the Institution’s views on issues at a particular point in time. It is accepted that situations change as research provides new evidence. It should be understood, therefore, that CIWEM PPS’s are under constant review, that previously held views may alter and lead to revised PPS’s.
|
