Memorandum submitted by Dr J A Pritchard,
JAP Consultancy Services
The Inquiry raises a number of issues on which
I would like to comment.
The first point to bring out is the scale of
the problem. Nuclear power has been contributing some 20% of the
electricity supply in this country.
Within the next 20 years or so virtually all
of the operating nuclear power stations will have reached the
end of their lives. Since there is little sign of a reduction
in the rate of increase in the demand for electricity (despite
better insulation etc) we will be faced not only with replacing
that 20% loss but supplying the increase in demand anticipated
in that timescale. At the same time we are committed to reducing
our carbon dioxide emissions according to the Kyoto agreement.
Are renewables the answer? There is a great
deal of talk about wind turbines, particularly from "green"
groups but again the scale needs to be addressed. A single nuclear
power station typically generates 1000 megawatts of electricity.
The largest of the wind turbines generates (assuming the wind
continues to blow at the correct speed) some 5 megawatts. Simple
mathematics tells us then that at least 200 (400 ft tall!!) wind
turbines are required just to replace the output from one nuclear
power station. Is this an environmentally acceptable, let alone
practicable solution?
Nuclear waste is an important issue but , again,
there is much confusion in the minds of the public. There is a
world of difference between waste stored at Sellafield, arising
from reprocessing of nuclear fuel, and that accumulated on the
nuclear station sites. The High Level Waste at Sellafield accounts
for 95% of the total radioactivity of UK waste, but only 0.5%
of the total volume. The Intermediate Level Waste on power station
sites represents just 5% of the total UK radioactivity. Technology
for dealing with the High Level Waste is available (immobilisation
by glassification) and is being applied. This process should be
accelerated to minimise stocks of liquid waste. The most effective
way of dealing with the Intermediate Level Waste remains to be
agreed but immobilisation (by grout encapsulation) is also an
option here. Generally the disposal of nuclear waste is an issue
which must be resolved whether there is a future nuclear generation
programme or not. However, the construction of new nuclear power
plant on existing sites would obviate the need for complete removal
of all waste and reversion to a green field site and the associated
high cost. There is a strong need for joined up thinking here.
There is no point in the Nuclear Decommissioning
Agency pursuing a rapid decommissioning and clean-up policy, investing
large resources in removing services and converting closed power
stations to green field sites for the Government to then announce
support for a new nuclear build programme with common sense dictating
building on existing sites.
Construction of nuclear power stations is capital
intensive with a long lead time to revenue return. With the present
uncertainty on Government policy on treatment and disposal of
waste, and therefore uncertain "back-end" costs, it
is unlikely that private investors would wish to commit funds
to nuclear build without some subsidy or Government support.
However, nuclear power is currently the only
large scale electricity generation process which does not involve
combustion of hydrocarbons with the associated emission of carbon
dioxide to the environment. It is capable of making a substantial
contribution to our environmental release commitments, therefore,
and should be included in a sensible generation mix. So-called
renewables can also play their part in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions but it is likely to remain a relatively small contribution.
Nevertheless they are receiving vast sums in
subsidies. The same arguments that are used to subsidise renewables
could be applied to providing some form of incentive to new nuclear
build. Given the relatively long lead time for nuclear construction,
this decision should be reached sooner rather than later. An early
decision is also required to ensure that a nuclear build capability
remains within the UK.
15 September 2005
| 
