Memorandum submitted by Medact
INTRODUCTION
1. Medact is a UK charity for global health,
working on issues related to conflict, poverty and the environment.
It is the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War (IPPNW: Nobel Peace Prize 1985). Medact warmly
welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee for its enquiry on Nuclear, Renewables,
and Climate Change. Medact will restrict its evidence to section
D, ie Other Issues, and will address, inter alia, questions 6
and 7 set out below:
6. How carbon-free is nuclear energy? What
level of carbon emissions would be associated with (a) construction
and (b) operation of a new nuclear power station? How carbon-intensive
is the mining and processing of uranium ore?
7. Should nuclear new build be conditional
on the development of scientifically and publicly acceptable solutions
to the problems of managing nuclear waste, as recommended by the
RCEP?
2. Before we commence, we register our concern
at the Committee's precondition, in its terms of reference, that
"nuclear new build" refers only to "a programme
of building at least eight AP1000 reactors". Considering
only a minimum of eight reactors of only one reactor type is unduly
limiting and surprising. For example, Why not "one"
reactor or "no" reactors? Why not other reactor types?
These questions need to be addressed.
3. Building eight AP1000 reactors is what
the nuclear industry wants. The Committee should bear in mind
that the industry is seeking government subsidies of about £15
to £20 billion to build its chosen programme of reactors.
The Committee should therefore critically examine all aspects
of the matter and not merely what the industry wants or prefers.
In other words, the Committee should follow its own, not the industry's,
agenda.
How carbon-free is nuclear energy?
4. Concerns about global warming and UK
greenhouse gas emissions are widely shared in Britain and rightly
so. For this reason, many people have looked for alternative means
of supplying our economic needs without producing greenhouse gases.
A very common reaction is to suggest nuclear power, as in many
people's minds this does not produce CO2. This is a
widely held view, even by celebrity environmental leaders who
should know better, but unfortunately it is wishful thinking.
It is understandable in our concern about global warming, but
nevertheless it is wrong. The reality is otherwise for two reasons.
First, nuclear, alas, is not carbon-free. Second, nuclear new-build
would make only a small contribution, if any, to reducing the
UK's greenhouse gas emissions.
5. While most nuclear reactors[203]
do not emit CO2 gas, reactors are a relatively small
part of the nuclear fuel cycle which emits very large amounts
of CO2 gas. These arise from the activities of the
front end of the fuel cycle (uranium mining, ore milling, UF6
conversion, fuel enrichment and fabrication), and its back end
(nuclear waste handling, encapsulation, transportation and disposal
in some future waste repository—assuming one is constructed).
6. Life cycle analyses (LCAs) of the internal
and external costs (including especially energy costs) of industries
are often used to analyse the true impacts of ALL their processes.
A number of LCA studies have examined CO2 gas emissions
[usually expressed as CO2 equivalents per kWh] for
different methods of producing electricity. Much depends on the
models used and on the assumptions and rate parameters in these
models.
7. The most comprehensive models in this
area have been constructed by the Öko Institut (1998) and
by Professors Smith and van Leeuwen at the University of Groningen,
see http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/Technical.html The work of
Smith and van Leeuwen has been critically examined and welcomed
by Professor Mortimer at Sheffield Polytechnic. See http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/mortimer
_se74.php
8. Both studies conclude that the nuclear
fuel cycle can create relatively large amounts of CO2
emissions depending on assumptions used. The most important aspects
of the nuclear fuel cycle were the uranium ore grade and the method
used for fuel enrichment. (Currently two methods are used for
enriching the fissile content of uranium fuel, namely centrifuge
separation and gas diffusion.) The lower the uranium concentration
in ore, the higher the amounts of CO2 generated. Gas
diffusion is much more energy and CO2 intensive as
a means of enrichment than centrifuge separation. Using a range
of reasonable assumptions, Smith and van Leeuwen determined that
nuclear generated about a third as much CO2 per kWh
as conventional mid-sized gas-fired electricity generation. Using
pessimistic assumptions, nuclear could generate even more CO2
per kWh than a gas-fired system.
9. A key point that Smith and van Leeuwen,
as well as Mortimer, make is that, because we would increasingly
have to rely on poorer quality uranium ores in the future, CO2
emissions from the nuclear cycle would increase.
10. The Oko Institut report made substantially
similar conclusions, see table below reproduced from the Oko
report.
11. A number of industry studies (WNA, 2004)
have countered by alleging that nuclear is no worse than the renewables
as regards CO2 production. But this is not the case.
The Oko report examined this allegation and concluded "In
comparison with the specific CO2 savings of alternative
systems, like electricity savings [ie efficiency], cogeneration
and renewable energy systems, nuclear power stations come off
badly". The Oko conclusions are supported by earlier
studies by IEA (1998, 2002) and CRIEPI (1995), the research arm
of the Japanese nuclear industry, and an older study by Mortimer,
see http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/mortimer_se74.php
In summary, the Oko report showed nuclear CO2
emissions up to 4 to 5 times greater than those from the renewables,
IEA/CRIEPI up to 2 fold greater, and Mortimer 3 to 4 fold greater.
Its overall conclusion was that the nuclear cycle results in "significant"
emissions of CO2 compared with other forms of electricity
generation. This would apply to any future nuclear fuel cycle
as much as it does to the present one as the front and back ends
of the present nuclear fuel cycle would remain substantially the
same in any new reactor system.
Is nuclear capable of reducing Britain's greenhouse
gas emissions?
13. There is a widespread view that nuclear
power generation will provide a major solution to the nation's
greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee will clearly wish to ascertain
whether this view is correct and what its real potential would
be for UK greenhouse gas reduction. In fact, most of UK annual
CO2 production is not from electricity generation but
from transportation and energy sources such as oil and coal. Electricity
generation is responsible for 25% of UK annual CO2
production. If contributions from aviation were included in UK
greenhouse gas statistics (currently they are not), this fraction
would be even smaller.
14. Because nuclear reactors cannot follow
daily fluctuations in electricity demand (for safety reasons,
they cannot be switched on/off and cannot be cranked up and down
to follow demand), the maximum realistic contribution any new
set of reactors could make to Britain's electricity needs would
be about what it is today, ie approx. 25%. Also, CO2
represents only 83% of all greenhouse gases. Therefore the theoretical
maximum percentage of UK greenhouse gases which could be addressed
by nuclear is 25% x 25% x 83% = 5%—a rather small potential.
In other words, CO2 savings does not provide a strong
reason for deciding to build more nuclear power stations.
Is nuclear a cost-effective way to reduce CO2
emissions?
15. Given its poor CO2 savings
per kWh, it is instructive to compare the cost effectiveness of
other ways of reducing CO2 emissions. The first point
is that nuclear is very expensive. In 2003, the US Congressional
Budget Office estimated the cost of each proposed AP 1000 MW reactor
to be £1.4 to £2 billion (at an exchange rate of US
$1.5 = £1), assuming that 10 reactors were built, ie a total
cost of £14 to £20 billion. Clearly this would mean
massive Government subventions and all manner of subsidies. However
many studies have shown that, £ per £, nuclear is 5
to 7 times less cost-effective than efficiency/renewables in reducing
CO2 emissions. See Keepin and Kats (1990); Lovins (2001).
16. Lovins has stated (2001):
"Each dollar invested in electric efficiency
displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar
invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects. If
climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn't the solution.
It's an expensive, one-size-fits-all technology that diverts money
and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient alternatives."
17. He has also explained (2004):
"If we suppose pessimistically that saving
a kilowatt hour costs as much as three cents, while generating
a new nuclear kilowatt costs optimistically as little as six cents,
delivered. . . then each six cents you spent on such a nuclear
kilowatt hour could have bought two efficiency kilowatt hours
instead. Therefore, by buying the costlier instead of the cheaper
option first, you generated an additional kilowatt-hour from,
say, coal that would have been avoided if you'd bought the cheapest
things first".
18. In other words, to tackle greenhouse
gas emissions most effectively we must choose the cheapest forms
of carbon abatement first. Provided there are still energy efficiency
gains to be made, these will provide a more financially effective
way of spending public money than subsidising new nuclear power
stations.
Should nuclear new build be conditional on the
development of scientifically and publicly acceptable solutions
to the problems of managing nuclear waste, as recommended by the
RCEP?
19. In 1976, the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution stated "There should be no commitment to a large
programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe
containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite
future." (paragraph 533 of the Flowers Report)
20. Although this was written almost 30
years ago, a safe method of dealing with nuclear waste STILL does
not exist anywhere in the world. Therefore this comment is still
as true now as it was then. In moral terms, it is unethical to
embark on a second programme of nuclear build without solving
the problems of the first. In Medact's view, the nuclear option
is not a sustainable development. Indeed, with its major problems
of nuclear waste, proliferation dangers, radioactive discharges
and uranium depletion, nuclear energy is the epitome of unsustainability.
In our view, it is highly unethical to pass these problems to
future generations.
REFERENCESCRIEPI
(1995) Comparison of CO2 Emission Factors between Process
Analysis and I/O Analysis. Working document prepared for IAEA,
Tokyo.
IEA (1998) Nuclear Power. Sustainability, Climate
Change and Competition. Paris: IEA-OECD.
IEA (2002) World Energy Outlook. Paris: IEA.
Keepin B and Kats G (1988) Greenhouse Warming. A
Comparative Analysis of Nuclear and Efficient Abatement Strategies.
Energy Policy, December 1988, Vol 15, No 6 pp 538-561.
Lovins (2001) "Why Nuclear Power's Failure in
the Marketplace is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation
and Climate Protection)" by Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain
Institute, Transcription of a presentation to the Nuclear Control
Institute's 20th Anniversary Conference, "Nuclear Power and
the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other?"
Washington, DC, April 9, 2001. www.nci.org
Lovins (2004) quoted in Guardian 12 August
2004 "Nuclear Plants Bloom" by John Vidal, http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1280884,00.html
Oko-Institute (1997) Comparing Greenhouse-Gas
Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy
Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective. Paper presented at the
CNIC Conference on Nuclear Energy and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions,
Tokyo, November 1997. http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_CO2_en.pdf
cited 12 October 2004.
WNA (2004) The environment needs nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/pdf/The_Environment_Needs_Nuclear.pdf
cited 12 October 2004
20 September 2005
203 Technically speaking, Magnox and AGR nuclear
reactors release coolant CO2 gas each time they depressurize
or refuel, ie about every 12 to 16 months. Typically, an AGR reactor
will discharge about 200 tonnes of CO2 each time it
depressurizes. So, current UK nuclear reactors emit about 3,000
tonnes of CO2 each year. This would not occur with
LWR or AP type reactors.
Back
|
