The Nuclear Power Debate: What you need to know - Friends of the Earth Scotland

The Nuclear Power Debate: What you need to know

A Briefing
White Elephant Campaign

Introduction
Friends of the Earth Scotland backs a diverse energy strategy that maximises energy conservation to prevent waste and prioritises efficient use of energy, micro-generation and a wide range of larger scale renewable technologies including wind, wave, tidal and biomass. Part of the strategy would involve switching to more localised electricity systems which would include combined heat and power generation , since around two thirds of energy produced in today’s large scale power stations is lost as heat up the chimneys and in long distance transmission.

This strategy is realistic in the medium to long-term, more practical and swifter than commissioning a complicated programme of new nuclear reactors. This approach would allow Scotland to phase out and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) from burning fossil fuels for electricity generation, without nuclear power’s risks, expense and dangerous radioactive waste. Scotland is well placed to emulate countries such as Germany & Sweden in phasing out nuclear for good.

1. Scotland’s lights will stay on without nuclear power
Scotland will meet over 30% of its electricity needs from renewables by 2011   (exceeding previous Scottish Executive targets) and has the potential to meet 50% of its needs by 2020.   Other recent reports based on government commissioned studies show that by 2020 renewables could produce 37 TWh of electricity, using a diverse mix of technologies (not just wind farms), without harming sensitive areas, compared with predicted demand of 45 TWh .

The existing Peterhead gas fired power station and Longannet coal power station will still be in use for a number of years, so Scotland could comfortably manage without nuclear power, without an electricity generation gap emerging . Studies have shown that is also achievable at a UK level    . Furthermore, most forecasts are based on historic trends of rising energy demand, despite the fact that the government’s own studies have shown that a 30% cut is practical and affordable .

The last government Energy White Paper in 2003 , The Sustainable Development Commission and the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee all concluded that Britain could meet its energy needs without replacing the country’s ageing nuclear power stations. Only the nuclear industry is pressing the panic button to secure public support and investment so that its old reactors are replaced.

2. Nuclear makes only a limited contribution to our energy needs and security
Nuclear power can only be used to produce electricity, whilst two thirds of the energy generated is waste heat . Oil and gas used to power transport and heat homes accounts for 81% energy use in Scotland , therefore nuclear can only make a marginal difference to our overall energy security. The UK would also be reliant on imported uranium. For this reason it would be quicker and more cost effective to reduce energy wastage through energy conservation and investment in renewables , rather than invest in expensive nuclear stations, the first of which would not be ready for at least 10 years at best, whilst replacing all today’s stations would taken much longer .

3. Nuclear waste is a serious problem that cannot be solved
There is as yet no way of making the radioactive waste from nuclear power stations safe. It will remain harmful to human health for hundreds of thousands of years . The only available option is to attempt to store it securely, either above or below ground, replacing the existing ad hoc short-term arrangement next to existing nuclear power stations . Only 15% of waste is stored securely and such ad hoc arrangements have been identified as a security risk in relation to terrorism . The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), a body of independent advisers, has recommended a deep repository as its favoured option . However, it will be 40 years before such a facility will be in operation, once a site is found, and that is assuming that issues such as public acceptability and geological suitability can be addressed. A previous proposal for such a facility at Sellafield was rejected on the grounds of poor science . Building 10 replacement reactors could increase the amount of spent fuel requiring management, and overall radioactivity, five fold .

Over 960 000m3 of low-level radioactive waste (from gloves and overalls to large pieces of equipment, concrete etc.) has been disposed of at the Drigg landfill site near Sellafield. Drigg can only accommodate 40% of the waste forecast to arise from existing nuclear facilities, before the waste from any new facility is considered . Consultation has just started on how to deal with this problem.

18 million cubic metres of soil and rubble are now known to have been contaminated by leaks, spills and discharges from 30 nuclear sites . Since 1983, more than 900 particles - fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel - have been found on the seabed and 238 on the enclosed beach at Dounreay. A further 57 have turned up on the public beach at Sandside and one on the beach at Dunnet .

4. Nuclear is not carbon neutral and will hinder action on climate change
There is considerable debate surrounding whether nuclear energy is carbon neutral. This is often disputed. Three factors are important; the massive amount of energy needed for the steel and concrete during construction, the energy (obtained from fossil fuels) used to mine and process uranium and the ongoing energy used during decommissioning and the maintenance of waste stores   . Research carried out for the European Union which did look at the overall impact of building and operating reactors, concluded that nuclear power stations would produce around 50% more greenhouse gas emissions that wind power . An expansion in the global nuclear industry might also precipitate the need to use lower quality uranium ores, making processing even more carbon intensive. Even if some carbon emissions reductions could be achieved these could be delivered more quickly and more cost effectively via energy efficiency and the expansion of generation from renewables . The Westminster’s Environment Audit Committee concluded, “It is abundantly clear that new nuclear build is not the only option for lower-carbon electricity generation ”.

5. There are serious risks and dangers associated with nuclear power
Scientist cannot agree on what constitutes a safe threshold for exposure to radiation . Despite this fact the nuclear industry is allowed to routinely discharge radioactive substances into the environment. Cancer clusters occur in the vicinity of several of the UK’s nuclear plants, although the issue of a causal link is highly disputed by the industry .

There have been three major nuclear accidents; Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where 60 people were killed and as many as 40,000 premature deaths from cancer have resulted, Three Mile Island partial meltdown (USA 1979) and Tokai Mura (Japan 1999) where two workers died and 400 were exposed to radiation.

In the UK the most serious accident occurred in 1957 at Windscale, where a military reactor caught fire. Since then there have been numerous smaller incidents and safety scares, including leaks at Sellafield, an emergency shutdown at Torness (1993), waste shaft explosions at Dounreay (1977) and a near miss with an RAF jet at Torness in 1998. On a number of occasions the nuclear industry has been prosecuted for safety failings including the falsification of (BNFL 2000) safety data . Since the September 11th 2001 attacks it has been recognised that there is an increased risk that terrorists could target nuclear power stations   .

6. Nuclear power is expensive compared with the alternatives
Nuclear power is currently more expensive than conventional generation. Sizewell B, the newest nuclear power station in the UK, has an estimated generating cost of 6p KWh .   It is difficult to fully estimate the true scale of hidden costs and subsidies provided in the past or what might be required in the future. The government’s own review concluded that new nuclear could cost 3-4p per KWh compared with 1.5-2.5p per KWh for onshore wind and 2-3p per KWh for offshore wind . The future costs of nuclear generation are uncertain and it is in the interests of the industry to make optimistic and perhaps unrealistic predictions relating to costs . Historically, the industry has been characterised by extensive government subsidies, time and cost overruns, and poor operational performance .

7. Nuclear power undermines renewables and energy conservation
In a world of finite financial resources and demand for electricity, any government time or taxpayers money directed towards the nuclear industry represents a parallel reduction in support for renewables and energy conservation . There is evidence that the decision of the Finnish Government to build a new nuclear station is having a negative impact on market confidence in renewables . Nuclear power stations require the grid to be designed to accommodate them, instead of small-scale local generation such as combined heat and power or micro-renewables   . The government has previously conceded that nuclear will crowd out renewables .

8. Energy conservation is achievable and is better for the economy
The government’s own advisers the (Performance and Innovation Unit) confirmed that energy efficiency measures have either negative or low cost due to the long-term savings delivered. Energy demand in the economy as a whole could be cut by 30 per cent (much more than comes from nuclear generation), equivalent to a potential annual saving to the UK of £12 billion . Existing energy efficiency programmes run by power companies have proven highly cost effective, with the savings substantially outweighing costs. In the business sector, the investments stimulated by the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme are now estimated to save over £800 million annually, with a typical payback period of two to four years, whereas a nuclear power station would take decades to cover its costs. The Carbon Trust, another government-funded body, has also advised that funding should be focused on energy efficiency and renewables, as they have the highest long-term potential to deliver a low carbon economy at the lowest overall cost .”

9. There are more jobs in renewables than nuclear power
Any new reactors in the UK would need to be purchased from abroad, and they are likely to need fewer workers than existing designs. It has been consistently demonstrated that renewables could create new jobs and export opportunities in Scotland . However this potential may never be realised if local markets are undermined by investment in new nuclear generation.

10. Nuclear isn’t popular
Polling shows the majority of Scots are against nuclear power stations and favour renewables . Support for wind power has been consistent and positive, across opinion surveys, according the Sustainable Development Commission .

11. Why The Scottish Government is right to block new nuclear power stations
Scottish Ministers have responsibility for approving all energy developments above 50MW, which includes nuclear power stations. The Scottish Government also grants and regulates certain licences relating to nuclear power. Whilst decisions on energy policy are made at Westminster, private companies won’t risk the vast amount of time and money needed to seek planning permission in Scotland, if the Scottish Government does not support such proposals from the outset. Scotland can be at the centre of investment in renewable technologies if Westminster matches the aspirations of the Scottish Government. In the long-term this strategy, is safer, cheaper and will do more tackle climate change and create more economic opportunities and jobs for Scotland.

References and further reading

Friends of the Earth Scotland (2006) Response to the energy review, www.foe-scotland.org.uk
Scottish Government (2007) PRESS RELEASE 27/11 Renewable energy potential
Scottish Renewables Forum (2006) Route map to Scotland’s renewable energy future
Garrad Hassan & Partners (2001) Scotland’s renewables resource, Scottish Executive
WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, RSPB Scotland (2006) Power of Scotland
Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd (2006) Report Prepared for the NFLA local authorities, submission to the Energy Review
Friends of the Earth (2006) A Bright Future: Friends of the Earths Electricity Sector Model for 2030
ILEX Energy Consultancy (2006) The Balance of Power: Reducing C02 emissions from the UK power sector, A report for WWF-UK
Performance and Innovation Unit (2002) Energy Review, DTI, UK government
DTI (2003) The Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a low carbon economy
The Sustainable Development Commission (2006) The role of nuclear in a low carbon economy , SDC position paper March 2006
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2006) Keeping the lights on: nuclear, renewables and climate change, Sixth Report 2005-06
Ibid. House of Commons (2006)
AEA Technology (2006) Scottish Energy Study: Summary Report, Vol. 1 & 2, Scottish Executive
Guardian Report January 2007, Nuclear Power Can Not Tackle Climate Change
BNFL Commercial (2005) Activities to underpin a predictable timeline for replacement nuclear build
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1976) Sixth Report Nuclear Power and the Environment
House of Lords European Committee (2006) Managing Nuclear Safety and Waste the Role of the EU, 37 Report, Session 2005-2006
Ibid. House of Lords (2006) P.15 Mr Williams Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Barnby F, (2006) Nuclear Fact Sheet 1: Security and Nuclear Power, Oxford Research Group
CoRWM(2006) Final Draft Recommendations May 2006
McDonald C S (1997) Report of Inspector, Cumbria County Council, Appeal by Nirex Ltd, p.200
CORWM (2005) Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory: A Summary, CoRWM Document No 1280
DEFRA (2006) A Public Consultation on policy for the long term management of solid low level radioactive waste in the UK
CORWM (2004) Preliminary Report on the Inventory, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, Document No 542, November 2004
Scotsman, Nuclear particles will stay on beach and in sea forever, 10 Jan 2006, p16
Mark Diesendorf (2005) Can nuclear energy reduce CO2 emissions? Australasian Science, July 2005, pp. 39-40.
Van Leeuwen J and Smith P (2005) Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, www.stormsmith.nl/
AEA Technology (1998) “Power Generation and the Environment.” A UK perspective. Vol 1
Lovins A (2005) Nuclear power, economics and climate protection potential, Rocky Mountain Institute, September 2005
Ibid House of Commons (2006)
International Commission on Radiological Protection (1990) Recommendations of the ICPR
John Hughes (2006) Nuclear The Dossier: Licence Emissions & Controlled Releases, The Ecologist, June 2006
Takagi J. Criticality (2000) Criticiality Accident at Tokai-mura, CNIC
Nuclear Fuel (2000) An investigation into the falsification of pellet diameter data in the MOX demonstration facility at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of safety of MOX fuel in use
Ibid Barnby F, (2006) Nuclear Fact Sheet 1: Security and Nuclear Power, Oxford
Rosenkranz G (2006) Nuclear Power – Myth and Reality, Nuclear Issues Paper No.1, Heinrich Boll Foundation
PIU (2002) Energy Review Working Paper, “The Economics of Nuclear Power”,
Ibid PIU (2000)
SPRU and NERA Consulting (2006), The Economics of Nuclear Power
Thomas, S (2005), The Economics of Nuclear Power: Analysis of Recent Studies, Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich.
Ibid House of Commons (2006)
Mitchell, C & Woodman, B (2006) New Nuclear Power: Implications for a sustainable energy system, Green Alliance
Satu Hassi MEP, Finnish Environment Minister 1999 – 2002, Deciding on Nuclear, PRASEG briefing, 9 Nov 2005
Greenpeace (2006) Decentralising UK Energy, Cleaner cheaper more secure energy for the 21st century
ibid. Mitchell and Woodman (2006)
Ibid Performance and Innovation Unit (2002)
Ibid Performance and Innovation Unit (2002)
Carbon Trust (2002) Submission to the Energy Policy Consultation
Scottish Executive (2004) Towards a green jobs strategy: Opportunities for business consultation
BBC (8 March 2006) Energy Boost for renewables, www.bbc.co.uk
Sustainable Development Commission (2005) Wind Power in the UK

JOIN US

Working for positive change...

BIG ASK SCOTLAND

Calling for a strong Scottish Climate Law

GET ACTIVE

Get involved with our campaigns

Free e-newsletter