Assuming Thorpe has to close indefinitely, the UK governments' hopes that the Thorpe plant's profits, from reprocessing nuclear waste from around the world, will also go. They were to help offset the enormous costs to the UK taxpayers of making safe the UK's nuclear wastes; costs that have risen to £60 billion and at least one estimate I heard was probably closer to £90 billion.

Nuclear power generation would probably never have been attempted had it not been for the most appalling Weapon of Mass Destruction the world has ever seen - the atomic bomb. For the two go hand in had, a marriage of convenience which has underpinned the adoption of nuclear electricity generating capacity in countries where there have also been nuclear bomb making. Check it out, not one nuclear power has failed to develop a robust civilian nuclear generating capacity.

This is in stark contradiction to President Eisenhower's stated aims outlined in his famous 'Atoms for Peace' speech to the United Nations on 8 December 1953, in which he said, "The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace."

However prior to the afore mentioned 'coup de grace' to the most potentially dangerous industry ever invented, other moves have been afoot. Tony Blair appeared to distance himself from the flawed Kyoto protocol when he stated "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." he said. "Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven't signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It's there. It's not going to be resolved." Mt Blair continued. For this brutal honesty he was of course roundly condemned by the green camp. However, the UK remains, at least for now, committed to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires substantial reductions in green house gases. As the UK currently generates roughly 20% of its electricity from its 12 aging nuclear power plants, it would come as a particularly painful blow, to lose both this considerable contribution to its power supplies and the beneficial effects on its Kyoto obligations. For this is what is on the cards.

The UK 's nuclear plants are aging. Designed for a specific lifetime, the 12 nuclear power stations currently in operation are scheduled to close as each reaches the end of its life until the last station closes in 2035. Licences can be extended and the lifetimes of the existing station prolonged, for a short period of time, maybe 5 -10 years, giving enough time for future developments to be planned.

I predicted in my press releases prior to this years UK general election that the issue of renewing our nuclear power station would be a decision that would have to be made in the lifetime of this next parliament. That has now proved to be true. Once the green light is given, it will take 15 years to get one nuclear power station on line. That was the time scale it took for the last nuclear power station, Sizewell B, to be built. This issue received no debate and no air time in this year's UK general election. One of the most important decisions facing the UK is where or from what mix of options will the energy to maintain our present way of life come from.

While it is great to have been proved right, I take that as cold comfort that I live in a country with a dysfunctional political system. What's the point of having elections, if there is no real debate? There was no debate because there was no choice. No other major party (aside from the green party, who are not sadly a serious option) would have a different solution from Labour. None of the main political parties offered a choice, but is true that there is really no choice? I would like to examine our options as I see it.

By doing nothing, particularly in relation to getting serious about renewable energy, we now probably have less choice in this matter, money and political lobbyists will decide from what source and how we are to maintain our power generation capacity.

Climate change combined with 'peak oil' has made nuclear almost unassailable as long as you are working on the business as usual scenario. I believer our assumption of 'business as usual' needs to be questioned. This is the stark reality facing us in the UK , and probably most other OEDC countries. There are careless and insidious assumptions that need unpacking if we are to find our way though the problems facing us and our culture. The first assumption is 'Must we continue growth?' The second; Does increased economic growth (a positive GDP) correlate to a positive growth rate in energy required and consumed? And 'Can an OECD rely on renewable energy for its power or is the energy too expensive or diffuse to power a modern economy?' Are there limits to our eventual growth as a race, or will we grow forever in some shape or form? And lastly will we continue with an industrial culture involving large scale solution by large companies with large scale investments, or decentralise and go for small is beautiful type solution? I will take them one by one.

Can an OECD rely on renewable energy for its power or is the energy too expensive or diffuse to power a modern economy?

The short answer is that no one has yet done it, although the Cuban [http://www.cityfarmer.org/cuba.html] example is indicative of what can be done. But they are not an advanced industrial country. Denmark for instance has achieved 20% energy through renewables, mostly wind, perhaps the most promising of large scale renewable electricity generation. The three arguments against wind are: the intermittent nature of wind makes it unreliable, and secondly it too expensive, thirdly we lack an infinite capacity for expansion, there are only so many sites suitable for wind generation. Dr David Toke of Birmingham University has looked at the relative costs of nuclear and wind. His conclusions are that to build enough generation capacity to meet 20% of UK energy requirements wind and nuclear are virtually the same. This calculation takes into account the relative load capacities of each (ie windmills only generate power 30% of the time). This does not account the costs of nuclear waste and decommissioning the power stations. Nor does it account for insurance liabilities (nuclear installations are un-insurable) or the cost of fuel. Once you build the wind farm the cost of its power source is nil. So by any costing assumptions wind is by far the cheaper, and less dangerous. [footnote]

The only other arguments for nuclear power are:

1. That by shutting the door you will be closing a possible energy source
2. When fossil fuels are in long term decline then we will need all the energy we can possibly get. A mix of alternatives of which nuclear will be one of them will be necessary
3. There is also the less convincing argument that there could be a technical breakthrough that will magically solve the waste and decommissioning problems and make nuclear attractive again. I regard this as wishful thinking, and you could equally apply it to a more promising and less dangerous technology

The other, less talked about but implicit in the pro nuclear camp, arguments for nuclear energy are political and social. This is that we are taking costs out of the current column and moving them into the far distant future column. In other words we are stealing from our children, grand children, and generations into the distant (1000 years+) future. It's a politician's dream come true. Get the benefits now but pay for it when those who have had the benefits are dead and hurried. Please note that we have lots of industries like that. Lest you accuse me of bias, I am not singling out the nuclear industry alone.

The question then becomes can we do it all with renewable energy - solar, wind, biomass, bio-fuels, hydro-electric, and wave power- and of course conservation and improvements in efficient use of resources? I think the answer to that question will be what kind of society are you trying to power? What are the priorities? And don't forget no one has ever tried to run modern armed forces on renewable energy. Solar powered fighter jets? I don't think so.

I think the problem with crying uncle and dropping nuclear technology is that as a scientist that would be the most likely place t look for large amounts of energy, and the next step in an energy progression. Let me explain. When we burn something, wood, oil, or coal, anything, we release the energy as a result of a chemical reaction, a reaction between electrons, we are accessing the sub atomic electromagnetic force. A far more potent source of energy is found in the nucleus of an atom, which is what we tap with nuclear reactions, both fission and fusion. Theoretically that's where then next great energy source would be from, it makes sense. It's damned inconvenient that the practical problems with nuclear fission and fusion are, so far at least, insurmountable.

We have always progressed from less dense, less convenient forms of energy to more. It is hard to believe that a technologically advanced society like ours cannot find the next step in the progression. Nuclear fusion is the Holy Grail of energy research. This is where most of the energy in the universe is to be harvested, at least the energy that we know of. If we are to create a 'Star Wars' inter galactic empire harnessing fusion and then some other as yet unknown high tech energy source would be a necessity.

I have not included fossil fuels in this accounting, as we are fast approaching the peak in oil and gas, and an increasing amount of our power will have to come from something other than fossil fuels. Add in climate change and the case for moving away from hydrocarbons is even more compelling. There is some argument for clean coal technology with carbon sequestration, however I see this as 'blue sky' thinking at the moment as it is not tried and tested. I have also not included zero point energy devices, cold fusion, or di-lithium crystals!

Does increased economic growth (a positive GDP) correlate to a positive growth rate in energy required and consumed?

The UK , and every other OECD country, has decreased their consumption of energy per unit of GDP. However, total energy use has risen steadily, even though energy intensive heavy industries have been exported to third world countries.

Jevon's paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox indicates that more efficient use of a resource increases the amount of that resource that you will use, as it will become relatively less expensive.

No one has yet been able to achieve this goal, which is necessary if a society is to become sustainable. Economic welfare goes up and resource use, including energy, decreases. One of the main conclusions of Limits to Growth, the 30 year Update is, "Given enough time, we believe humanity possesses nearly limitless problem solving capabilities. Growth, and especially exponential growth, is so insidious because it shortens the time for effective action. It loads stress on a system faster and faster, until coping mechanisms that have been adequate with slower rates of change finally begin to fail." Pg223.

Must we have growth?

We have an economic system that demands growth. Debt based money, requires more and more money each year to pay for the interest earned from preceding years money supply. See Douthwaite http://www.feasta.org/documents/shortcircuit, and generally Feasta.org We are currently locked into a system that demands continual industrial growth. Unless we uncouple ourselves from this system, the answer is yes.

Are there limits to our eventual growth as a race, or will we grow forever in some shape or form?

We can grow only if we either expand beyond planet earth, or we dematerialise our economy and create a non polluting industrial system, or spend significantly on pollution abatement technologies. This is essentially the limits to growth question. Assuming we remain earthbound, then one answer to this long and difficult question can be found in the Limits to Growth, the 30 year update. Meadows, Meadows, and Randers approach is comprehensive and explores and the avenues where this may be possible. The short answer is we can and probably will continue to grow, but some ways are more sustainable than others, and eventually all non sustainable growth will have to come to an end. Also pertaining to this question, the sooner we adopt sustainable growth the more chance of a soft landing.

Will we continue with an industrial culture involving large scale solution by large companies with large scale investments, or decentralise and go for small is beautiful type solution?

For me this is the real crunch question about energy supply. Will we seek to decentralise and enjoy the immediate benefits of a decentralised energy supply, or continue to try to find large scale industrial capital intensive solutions? Probably the answer is a bit of both. It may well be beneficial to have a distribution grid to balance wind generation across the country, but to generate as much as closely to where it is used as possible. I cannot see how we can get much beyond the 20% target of renewable electricity generation proposed by 2020, or indeed 10% by 2010, without adopting another model- small scale, local, and empowering individuals. We would certainly have to retain the present nuclear power stations for as long as possible to enable the transition. Small scale micro generation, solar water heating, pv electricity as well a significant steps toward energy efficiency and conservation would be required.

We face hard choices and I believe are at a cross roads in our culture. As soon as you let go of having to maintain a high energy, centralised industrial culture then different options become available. We would continue our economic development, but in some new shape or form. The old model is a relic of the high input fossil fuel age, which is obsolete. The choice at the moment is between nuclear or a raft of renewable energy solutions. Will we opt for the inevitable adoption of renewable energy or will we yet again plumb for the unsustainable nuclear options?

–  copyright Naresh George Giangrande
–  Blogspot: http://www.livingonthecusp.org/blog.htm
    We are running a workshop "Peak oil, energy, and ecology",
    at Braziers Park, Oxon, OX10 6AN, UK on November 11-13th, 2005
    see http://www.livingonthecusp.org for full data. See also Blue Events page for November 2005.

REFERENCES [a] Nuclear has never proved its financial viability. British Energy sold roughly £1.2 billion worth of electricity in 2004/05. It made a net operating loss. Add to that some proportion of the costs of decommissioning say if a plant has an operating life of 40 years, even the conservative figure of £60 to decommission would leave an additional 1.5 billion to be added each and every year plus the cost of making safe and storing the waste. This cost is, as yet, un-quantifiable as no one knows the eventual cost of storing the waste. This rough estimate, with no allowance for financing, would indicate that proposed indications of nuclear's cost per kwr would have to triple to take into account the above mentioned costs. Any combination of renewables is a far better deal and a lot less risky. LINKS http://www.world-nuclear.org To reconcile global human need and environmental preservation, our world needs nuclear power. "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization." - James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness Prospects for nuclear power have improved in recent years, with higher capacity utilization rates reported for many existing nuclear facilities and the expectation that most existing plants in the mature market and transitional economy nations will be granted extensions to their operating lives. Further, higher fossil fuel prices and the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol are expected to improve prospects for new nuclear power capacity over the forecast period. Nevertheless, nuclear power trends can be difficult to anticipate for a variety of political and social reasons, and considerable uncertainty is associated with nuclear power forecasts (see discussion on "How Nuclear Power Could Shape World Electricity Markets: Two Nuclear Power Development Scenarios"). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2003/aer_2003.pdf report looking at costs of nuclear, Dr D Toke. The CBI was concerned that the French and the Germans were flouting EU regulations by subsidising their firms, and was also becoming increasingly anxious that the government should respond to the looming obsolesence of UK power stations by opening a debate on future energy supply. Larry Elliot The Guardian 20.10.05 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1596040,00.html David King, the UK 's chief scientist recently (21.10.05) came out in favour of nuclear power. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1597142,00.html

---

| Back | Index | Nuclear Alien 2 |

---