Independent thinking on international affairs

| A A

Media

Research

Latest News

Elections in Ghana: Tensions Build
Tuesday 2 December 2008

Yemen's Uncertain Future Threatens Regional Stability
Wednesday 19 November 2008

Key Foreign Policy Issues Facing Barack Obama
Wednesday 5 November 2008

Latest Events

Monday 8 December 2008 13:00 - 14:30
The Foreign and Cross-Strait Policies of Taiwan's New Administration

Nuclear Power

Experts' Comment - January 2008

A new generation of nuclear power stations will get the formal go-ahead from the government on Thursday 10 January. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said on Wednesday the UK needed a more secure and independent power supply, but critics say new stations are dangerous, will harm the environment and will be expensive.

Two Chatham House experts assess both sides of the argument. Malcolm Grimston says that the case for nuclear investment is now strong whilst Antony Froggat says that nuclear power is not necessary.

Further Chatham House resources.

Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House

It's important to note that, contrary to the way it has been portrayed in some of the media, the government has not taken a decision to build new nuclear stations, or to make anyone else build new nuclear stations. It is simply remedying a rather artificial situation, a hangover from the 2003 Energy White paper, whereby companies wishing to build a nuclear plant are uniquely prevented from doing so.

As a result of the recent announcements this barrier has been removed, but unless a robust case can be made for nuclear energy on economic and environmental grounds there is no reason why companies should come forward.

My own view is that the case for nuclear investment is now strong. By 2050 we expect the world to be using perhaps twice as much energy as it is today. Oil, gas and coal, the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, make up some 88% of traded energy today (the rest being split evenly between nuclear and hydro with a very small contribution from the 'new' renewables), yet we must reduce those greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% and probably more. Oil has brushed the $100 a barrel mark, having been below $10 a barrel as recently as 1998, and gas and coal prices have followed suit. Since 'baseload' electricity, the irreducible minimum needed hour, day and month-in and out, must be reliable it is difficult to see how it could be served by intermittent electricity sources such as many of the renewables - the realistic choice is gas, coal or nuclear.

Last week we saw permission granted for Britain's first new coal station since Drax in 1976 and we are seeing a second 'dash for gas' gathering steam (if you'll pardon the phrase). To disqualify nuclear from contention seems to me worse than unwarranted, it is foolish.

But what I and other individuals think is irrelevant. If opponents of nuclear energy have their facts right then private companies will not build nuclear plants and nothing in today's announcement will induce them to do so. The government's job is to decide the parameters of the electricity market, and especially how to balance financial, environmental and reliability/security issues, and to create a framework that will promote those ends. It is then for the market to choose which technologies, and in what proportions, will best deliver these objectives. Governments dictating winners and losers should be (and fortunately largely is) a thing of the past.

Send us your comments.

Antony Froggat, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House

The energy sector will change over the coming years. This will be both to avoid the dangers of climate change and a growing awareness of the implications of the finality of fossil fuels.

The global and European contribution of nuclear power is often perceived to be bigger than it actually is as. First, nuclear power is only used by 31 countries, less than 1 in 5 of the United Nations Member States. Just six countries - USA, France, Japan, Germany, Russia and South-Korea produce almost three quarters of the nuclear electricity in the world.

Secondly, nuclear is almost exclusively used only for electricity generation and globally it produces 16% of electricity. In the EU the share is larger (30%) and it is used in 15 countries, but the French production alone represents almost half of the total. Without the French program, the nuclear share would decrease to 16%, much closer to the current level in the UK.

However, electricity is just one part of the energy sector. There is also heating, cooling and transport. Taking all these equally significant sectors into account, nuclear provides just 6% of global primary commercial energy production. Furthermore, if you look at the contribution of nuclear power to final energy consumption, then it provides around 3%. In the UK nuclear contribution is similar, with it providing just 3.5% of final energy consumption.

The unparalleled growth in demand is raising concerns over the longevity of the fossil fuel resources. It is forecast that at the current rate of consumption - not even taking into account the forecast increase in demand - the major energy resources will last 40 years (oil), 67 years (natural gas) and 147 years (coal). Uranium, which is providing by far the smallest contribution to current global energy mix will last around 70 years. Therefore nuclear is, like the other traditional energy resources, finite.

The nuclear sector is well aware of the limited nature of the global uranium reserves and is trying to develop its so-called next generation of reactors, GEN IV, which are largely so-called breeder reactors. This requires the reprocessing of spent fuel as carried out at plants like Sellafield, to extract the plutonium and then use it as a fuel. It is proposed that new demonstration reactors are built soon after 2020 with commercialisation sometime after 2030.

The International Panel on Climate Change has undertaken longer term forecasts in which nuclear power plays a greater role in reducing CO2 emissions. One in which the installed capacity of nuclear power increases by nearly an order of magnitude to 3000 GW by 2075 (providing 50% of the world's electricity) and then to 6500 GW in 2100 (75% of electricity).

If only uranium-fuelled reactors were used, this would result in 600 tonnes of plutonium being produced annually. However, as stated given the number of reactors necessary and the extent of the known uranium reserves it is expected that plutonium-fuelled reactors would have to be in operation. If plutonium-fuelled reactors were deployed around 4000 tonnes of plutonium per year would be needed. To put this in context the combined global military stockpiles of separated plutonium is 'only' around 150 tonnes.

Even if far greater reserves of uranium are found and there is no need to widely deploy plutonium fuels the use of nuclear power still raises proliferation concerns. An expanded nuclear power programme increases the need for uranium enrichment, which as we have seen in Iran can leaded to raised international tension. In addition to the huge proliferation risks, there would much larger quantities of waste to manage and transport as well as increases in radioactive discharges, especially from reprocessing plants. Just to maintain the current risk level the safety requirements would have to increase ten-fold.

As we change our current energy industry we need to take the opportunity to develop one that is truly sustainable, not just one that is low carbon. The Bruntland Commission's definition of sustainability is "a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". To me this rules out nuclear power. The problems that it creates for future generations with the longevity of the radioactive materials that it produces is a clear negative. There is no point jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

At the most recent Spring Council, EU leaders agreed to what is known as the 20:20:20 plan by which the EU would seek to reduce its GHG emissions by 20%, increase its energy efficiency by 20%, and meet 20% of its energy needs from renewable sources. All of this would be done by 2020. This creates an important set of priorities and principles that would set Europe down a much more sustainable energy path.

The impact on CO2 emissions of these two policies - that of renewable energy and energy efficiency - would result in a 24% decrease in CO2 emissions by 2020, more than the current unilateral emissions reduction target. However, also within the scenario is a decline in nuclear power, in fact a 23% decline by 2020 from the baseline and a 59% decline by 2030. So, as we are seeing in Germany, it is possible to both phase out nuclear power and reduce CO2 emissions in line with agreed overall targets.

It is dangerous to forget the lessons of the last 30 years on nuclear power. A technology that is not economic, is dangerous and most of all is not necessary. Rather than even contemplating embarking on the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors, the UK's efforts must be put into bringing into the mainstream efficiency and renewable technologies that we know can deliver the services we need to secure a truly sustainable energy future.

Send us your comments.

Please find a list of further resources below.

Members only content Please note that content marked with this symbol is only accessible to members of Chatham House. More about membership.

Reports and Papers

Changing Climates: Interdependencies on Energy and Climate Security for China and Europe
Bernice Lee, Antony Froggatt et al, November 2007

Transforming our energy within a generation
Walt Patterson, June 2007

Climate Change Policy Uncertainty and the Electricity Industry: Implications and Unintended Consequences
Rory Sullivan and William Blyth, August 2006

The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build
Malcolm Grimston, December 2005

Energy 21: Making The World Work
Walt Patterson, January 2005

Networking Change. Keeping the Lights On: Working Paper 3
Walt Patterson, June 2004

Generating Change. Keeping The Lights On: Working Paper 2
Walt Patterson, September 2003

Overview: The Electric Challenge. Keeping the Lights On: Working Paper 1
Walt Patterson, March 2003

Event Transcripts

Members only content Dealing with Nuclear Proliferation
Transcript of Professor Wyn Bowen, 25 October 2007
Speech at Chatham House and Chatham House Foundation Annual Members' Conference, 'New Foreign Policy Directions for Britain', held on 25 October 2007.

Members only content Uniting energy and the environment to avert catastrophe
Wednesday 27 June 2007
Lord Howell, Shadow Deputy Leader, House of Lords
Carole Nakhle, Energy Research Fellow, University of Surrey

Members only content International Energy Challenges
Thursday 21 June 2007
International Business Leaders Programme
Rex W Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation

Members only content Power In The Global Information Age
5 February 2007
Professor Joseph Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University

Keynote Conference Speech - The Electric Challenge: Getting the Story Right
Walt Patterson, September 2005

Surname
Membership No.
	Remember me