Extracts from the Sept-Oct 2002 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

11. Chief Scientist pushes the nuclear option

Renewables are not enough

The Governments Chief Scientist, Prof. David King, has been at it again, singing the praises of nuclear power, fission and fusion, and even talking about the joys of using nuclear electricity to generate hydrogen. In a lecture to the Science and Technology Foundation at the Royal Society in May he argued that if the 20% by 2020 target for renewables proposed in the Cabinet Office PIU Energy Review was met, and nuclear still supplied 27% of UK electricity, then fossil fuels would have to supply 53%. However, that would require replacement nuclear plants, since otherwise, on current plans, nuclear would only supply around 7% by 2010. The alternative was that the fossil input would have to increase to 73%. On this basis he argued that the nuclear option had to be kept open and indeed seemed to imply that we needed to replace nuclear with nuclear, to avoid growth in carbon emissions.

This seems a dubious use of statistics. Really we should be looking not at percentage shares, but at carbon emissions. The fossil fuels are not one thing, switching from coal to gas more than halves emissions/kWh generated. Investing in energy efficiency can also reduce emissions.

None of this shows up in Kings formulation. But to meet his argument head on, SERA has argued the following case. Although, in the UK, around 9GW of old nuclear plant is set to be retired over the next two decades, by 2010 the UK’s is planning to have 10GW (e) of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) capacity installed, with presumably more to follow. CHP plants produce heat as well as electricity, and this can be in roughly in equal proportions, the heat in effect being a bonus- it was wasted before. The widespread adoption of gas-fired CHP would provide heat which would release gas currently used for heating, for use in electricity generation. This could in effect replace the output of nuclear power plants as they retire, without leading to any increase in carbon emissions, leaving renewables to begin to replace coal burning and also to begin to provide electricity, hydrogen and biofuels for transport use.

Carbon sequestration might be seen as performing a similar interim role, by allowing gas to replace nuclear without creating any extra emissions. In parallel, investment in energy efficiency and demand side management should be able to hold down the rate of increase in demand, with, ideally, the cash savings from energy conservation being used to fund the expansion of renewables. Who needs nukes? All they would do is siphon off money that is needed to expand renewables.

Lords also like nuclear

The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities recently reported on Energy Supply issues including energy security and seemed to come out pretty clearly in favour of nuclear power. Although it was not hostile to renewables, it was worried about ‘over-enthusiasm’ on the scale of their likely success in the medium term, and did not see energy conservation helping much with security of supply. Instead supplies could be secured by market liberalisation. Not everyone agreed with this view. In his evidence to the Committee Lord Ezra had argued that "the emphasis on increased competition and reduced prices needs to be replaced with emphasis on energy conservation and efficiency". But the Committee evidently felt that a decision on nuclear was urgent. The situation was nicely laid out at the debate on the report on April 23rd by Baroness Cohen of Pimlico ‘Time closes all options. To paraphrase the well-known saying, all that is required for the death of nuclear generation in this country is for Ministers to do not a great deal rather slowly’.

We will review the report in Renew 140.

Next: Select Committee looks at Energy RD&D

The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, fresh from its very positive review of Wave and Tidal power, is looking at the UK’s non-fossil energy research, development and demonstration programme. Its report will feed into the Governments new energy review.