Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report on Iran. It clearly states Iran is studying nuclear weapons . Along with Fukushima and the explosion at a French nuclear waste processing plant in September, these provide three topical reasons to say “No” to nuclear power.
But nuclear power has a carbon footprint that is much lower than fossil fuels, and, with the IAEA reporting record carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 despite a global recession, a climate conscious world simply cannot pull the plug on nuclear.
Nor does it seem the UK is prioritising renewable energy when debt is acting as a catalyst that may well lead the European Union into meltdown.The modern nuclear power plant is very safe. Older reactors did not have the safety mechanisms modern reactors do.
Cooling the fission reaction
One of the design flaws that led to the infamous meltdown of the Chernobyl reactor was that the control rods, which were to be inserted to slow down the nuclear reaction, actually initially increased it. Modern reactors, of which a popular design is the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), are designed to cool.
If something goes wrong, the reactor itself is designed to slow the nuclear fission process automatically – no one even needs to flick a switch. EPRs are the type of reactor most likely to be built in the UK in the near future. They incorporate four types of so-called “passive” safety systems that mean the reactor will automatically cool.
I was actually amazed by the stability of the Fukushima reactors, which was commissioned way back in 1971. The tsunami may have wiped out the emergency cooling systems, but the plant did initially survive a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.
However, Japan didn’t plan for the absolute worst case scenario when building the reactor, and that was its catastrophic downfall. That’s by no means acceptable and should never happen again, but given research on tsunamis lacked the complex computer models we have now it’s almost understandable. Japan’s prime minister announced last month that the country is completely re-drafting its energy policy to have less dependence on nuclear power.
Here is where Japan is really ahead of the UK: Japan re-thinks its energy strategy, but the UK doesn’t even have a long-term plan for nuclear power. Last month the Royal Society pointed out that there is not enough research into which technologies are best for the UK, and there are no clear policies in place to determine the future of nuclear power in the UK.
Wasting time
UK plans for nuclear waste disposal are years behind those of other European countries. There is widespread international agreement that geological disposal, burying it deep underground, is the best path for nuclear waste. But while Sweden has a good disposal setup and France is in the process of establishing an underground storage facility, the UK is still shuffling preliminary paperwork around Cumbria.
Copper cannister for geological nuclear fuel disposal in Sweden
The last big story about geological nuclear waste disposal in the UK broke way back in 2006, after a geological analysis of Cumbria did not rule out the Lake District as a site with potential for deep nuclear waste disposal. This is ridiculous because the story misinterpreted the aim of the report.
The aim of a geological analysis is, surely, to point out geological information. Its objective is not to produce maps that strategically exclude pretty areas. Stashing nuclear waste under the most popular parts of the Lake District would create political uproar, and transporting industrial waste through mountains and scenic villages is an absolute nightmare. If planning law makes it hard to build a house extension, what are the chances of a nuclear waste facility gaining planning permission in an area of scenic importance?
Five years later, Cumbria is still in the process of talking about building a deep geological storage facility. If you are interested in their progress, you can sign up to a monthly e-newsletter.
Greenpeace is critical of geological storage, which is very expensive and requires complicated geological predictions that can never be perfect. They are very frequently quoted in the news for their anti-nuclear agenda, and as such can be argued to have a big effect on public opinion. And yet they propose no viable solution for the nuclear waste that already exists and, let’s face it, we have to do something with it.
Geological storage makes the most sense because high level waste needs to be stored for thousands of years to reach safe radiation levels, and rocks are the only thing we know that change very little on those time scales. But Greenpeace is right in one sense – nuclear waste is incredibly nasty stuff, and we should think very hard about how much of it we want to commit to dealing with over the coming millennia.
Planning ahead
Nuclear is not the power of the future. Even ignoring the waste and meltdown issues, we have enough uranium for only a century of nuclear generation. However much the environmental movement shouts, we also cannot switch off all our nuclear plants tomorrow and not suffer dire consequences. Renewable energy is currently too expensive and too inefficient, and fossil fuels are much more of a nightmare, environmentally, than nuclear. One could also put together a good argument that the quest for oil for electricity generation and transport has started more wars than uranium has.
A view of Sizewell A and B Nuclear Plants from Minsmere Beach, Suffolk
Renewable energy is at a stage where we need more time and money to research, develop and implement it on a national scale. In my opinion the technology is there, but we lack the overall social willpower to make the sacrifices the changeover would currently mean.Has anyone done the calculations as to how much it would cost not to invest in nuclear energy as a long term solution, but to invest in it on the short term? I have tried to pin down some figures, but recent reports such as the Energy 2050 report don’t explore this scenario. Instead they combine all sorts of sources to reach an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, including underdevelped technologies such as carbon capture and storage (for which the industry hopes to have a viable commerical model by 2020) to achieve their target.
The UK should build a good nuclear waste disposal facility now, as everyone accepts the current surface storage is unsustainable. I would go further, and propose we should decide now how much nuclear waste we will generate in the future before we stop, and build a facility must hold our current waste and that much more. It should be built so that the waste can be pulled back out and moved if necessary. This is important if it turns out that we built in in the wrong place or a better solution shows up. Who knows, we might even be able to use the waste some day.
If we were to build enough nuclear plants to meet UK energy demand for, say, 50 years, and build them in the next decade, we could commit to not building any more. We could commit to researching, developing and implementing renewable power schemes that would replace those plants as they are decommissioned. That way, by the end of my life, I might see UK as a sustainably powered country.
Procrastination Meter image courtesy of Emilie Ogez
Copper Cannister image courtesy of Fred Dawson
Sizewell A and B image courtesy of Zorba the Geek
Nuclear power buys us time in the race for cleaner energy
By Philippa HobbsLast week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report on Iran. It clearly states Iran is studying nuclear weapons . Along with Fukushima and the explosion at a French nuclear waste processing plant in September, these provide three topical reasons to say “No” to nuclear power.
But nuclear power has a carbon footprint that is much lower than fossil fuels, and, with the IAEA reporting record carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 despite a global recession, a climate conscious world simply cannot pull the plug on nuclear.
Nor does it seem the UK is prioritising renewable energy when debt is acting as a catalyst that may well lead the European Union into meltdown.The modern nuclear power plant is very safe. Older reactors did not have the safety mechanisms modern reactors do.
Cooling the fission reaction
One of the design flaws that led to the infamous meltdown of the Chernobyl reactor was that the control rods, which were to be inserted to slow down the nuclear reaction, actually initially increased it. Modern reactors, of which a popular design is the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), are designed to cool.
If something goes wrong, the reactor itself is designed to slow the nuclear fission process automatically – no one even needs to flick a switch. EPRs are the type of reactor most likely to be built in the UK in the near future. They incorporate four types of so-called “passive” safety systems that mean the reactor will automatically cool.
I was actually amazed by the stability of the Fukushima reactors, which was commissioned way back in 1971. The tsunami may have wiped out the emergency cooling systems, but the plant did initially survive a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.
However, Japan didn’t plan for the absolute worst case scenario when building the reactor, and that was its catastrophic downfall. That’s by no means acceptable and should never happen again, but given research on tsunamis lacked the complex computer models we have now it’s almost understandable. Japan’s prime minister announced last month that the country is completely re-drafting its energy policy to have less dependence on nuclear power.
Here is where Japan is really ahead of the UK: Japan re-thinks its energy strategy, but the UK doesn’t even have a long-term plan for nuclear power. Last month the Royal Society pointed out that there is not enough research into which technologies are best for the UK, and there are no clear policies in place to determine the future of nuclear power in the UK.
Wasting time
UK plans for nuclear waste disposal are years behind those of other European countries. There is widespread international agreement that geological disposal, burying it deep underground, is the best path for nuclear waste. But while Sweden has a good disposal setup and France is in the process of establishing an underground storage facility, the UK is still shuffling preliminary paperwork around Cumbria.
Copper cannister for geological nuclear fuel disposal in Sweden
The last big story about geological nuclear waste disposal in the UK broke way back in 2006, after a geological analysis of Cumbria did not rule out the Lake District as a site with potential for deep nuclear waste disposal. This is ridiculous because the story misinterpreted the aim of the report.
The aim of a geological analysis is, surely, to point out geological information. Its objective is not to produce maps that strategically exclude pretty areas. Stashing nuclear waste under the most popular parts of the Lake District would create political uproar, and transporting industrial waste through mountains and scenic villages is an absolute nightmare. If planning law makes it hard to build a house extension, what are the chances of a nuclear waste facility gaining planning permission in an area of scenic importance?
Five years later, Cumbria is still in the process of talking about building a deep geological storage facility. If you are interested in their progress, you can sign up to a monthly e-newsletter.
Greenpeace is critical of geological storage, which is very expensive and requires complicated geological predictions that can never be perfect. They are very frequently quoted in the news for their anti-nuclear agenda, and as such can be argued to have a big effect on public opinion. And yet they propose no viable solution for the nuclear waste that already exists and, let’s face it, we have to do something with it.
Geological storage makes the most sense because high level waste needs to be stored for thousands of years to reach safe radiation levels, and rocks are the only thing we know that change very little on those time scales. But Greenpeace is right in one sense – nuclear waste is incredibly nasty stuff, and we should think very hard about how much of it we want to commit to dealing with over the coming millennia.
Planning ahead
Nuclear is not the power of the future. Even ignoring the waste and meltdown issues, we have enough uranium for only a century of nuclear generation. However much the environmental movement shouts, we also cannot switch off all our nuclear plants tomorrow and not suffer dire consequences. Renewable energy is currently too expensive and too inefficient, and fossil fuels are much more of a nightmare, environmentally, than nuclear. One could also put together a good argument that the quest for oil for electricity generation and transport has started more wars than uranium has.
A view of Sizewell A and B Nuclear Plants from Minsmere Beach, Suffolk
Renewable energy is at a stage where we need more time and money to research, develop and implement it on a national scale. In my opinion the technology is there, but we lack the overall social willpower to make the sacrifices the changeover would currently mean.Has anyone done the calculations as to how much it would cost not to invest in nuclear energy as a long term solution, but to invest in it on the short term? I have tried to pin down some figures, but recent reports such as the Energy 2050 report don’t explore this scenario. Instead they combine all sorts of sources to reach an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, including underdevelped technologies such as carbon capture and storage (for which the industry hopes to have a viable commerical model by 2020) to achieve their target.
The UK should build a good nuclear waste disposal facility now, as everyone accepts the current surface storage is unsustainable. I would go further, and propose we should decide now how much nuclear waste we will generate in the future before we stop, and build a facility must hold our current waste and that much more. It should be built so that the waste can be pulled back out and moved if necessary. This is important if it turns out that we built in in the wrong place or a better solution shows up. Who knows, we might even be able to use the waste some day.
If we were to build enough nuclear plants to meet UK energy demand for, say, 50 years, and build them in the next decade, we could commit to not building any more. We could commit to researching, developing and implementing renewable power schemes that would replace those plants as they are decommissioned. That way, by the end of my life, I might see UK as a sustainably powered country.
Procrastination Meter image courtesy of Emilie Ogez
Copper Cannister image courtesy of Fred Dawson
Sizewell A and B image courtesy of Zorba the Geek
energy, Nuclear, policy, Power, renewable, UK, waste, Zany, Comment.