Memorandum submitted by the Research Councils
UK
INTRODUCTION
1. Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic
partnership that champions the research supported by the eight
UK Research Councils. Through RCUK the Research Councils are creating
a common framework for research, training and knowledge transfer.
Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk
2. This memorandum is submitted by Research
Councils UK on behalf of three of the Research Councils (Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research
Council and the Natural Environment Research Council) and represents
our independent views. It does not include or necessarily reflect
the views of the Office of Science and Technology (OST). RCUK
welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry from the House
of Commons Environmental Audit Committee[350].
3. This memorandum provides evidence from
RCUK in response to the questions outlined in the inquiry document,
in addition to supplementary views from:
| Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
| Annex 1 |
| Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
| Annex 2 |
4. The summary below provides an overview of cross-Council
activities of relevance to the inquiry. The comments provided
by EPSRC in Annex 1 give a summary of current and future energy
R&D activities. The comments provided by NERC in Annex 2 address
the specific issues raised by this inquiry.
RCUK OVERVIEW
5. The Research Councils recognise the importance of
conducting technology-based research in the context of a thorough
understanding of markets, consumer demand and public acceptability.
Within this context, cross-Council initiatives, in collaboration
with stakeholders, play a crucial role. NERC, EPSRC and ESRC received
additional funding in the 2002 Spending Review to launch the "Towards
a Sustainable Energy Economy" Programme (TSEC). This Programme
was designed to adopt a multidisciplinary, whole systems approach
to energy research. The earmarked budget for TSEC was £20
million of core funding plus £8 million for renewables previously
earmarked following the Performance and Innovation Unit Review
of Energy R&D in 2001. TSEC is a broad-based programme of
research which aims to enable the UK to access a secure, safe,
diverse and reliable energy supply at competitive prices, while
meeting the challenge of global warming. In the event, in order
to support a number of high quality projects that could not otherwise
have been supported, the TSEC budget was augmented to a total
of £36.5 million with the additional funding drawn from Research
Council baseline funding and from the additional £30 million
funding for energy announced under the 2004 spending review. The
TSEC budget was allocated through five funding streams: establishment
of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC); Managing New Uncertainties;
Keeping the Nuclear Option Open; Renewable Energy, and Carbon
Management. Further information on these programmes can be found
in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8.
6. The initial aim of TSEC was the establishment of the
£14 million UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) which is focussing
on addressing system-level issues in energy generation, supply
and consumption, and which will act as the hub of the new National
Energy Research Network. EPSRC, together with NERC and ESRC, are
funding the UKERC, with EPSRC providing £5.6 million, NERC
providing £5.2 million and ESRC providing £3.2 million
over an initial five year period. The main research grant started
in October 2004. UKERC is already forming a focus for networking
the UK energy research community and for developing international
collaboration. For example, UKERC hosted a workshop on innovation
and research for energy within the official programme of events
marking the UK presidency of the G8. UKERC's research and networking
remit covers demand reduction, future sources of energy and energy
infrastructure and supply with energy systems and modelling, materials
for advanced energy systems and environmental sustainability as
cross-cutting themes. UKERC also features a permanent meeting
place in Oxford which will host international visitors as well
as providing a venue for community meetings.
7. EPSRC has taken the lead in enabling the establishment
of the £6 million "Keeping the Nuclear Option Open"
(KNOO) initiative due to start October 2005 which will run for
four years. With a £0.5 million contribution from BNFL, KNOO
will address issues such as fuel cycles and fuel management, future
reactor systems including Gen IV technologies, waste management,
storage and decommissioning and extending existing plant lifetime
through materials science and technology. The other key Government
and industrial stakeholders involved with the initiative are:
AWE; BNFL; British Energy; DEFRA; the Environment Agency; the
Health and Safety Executive; DTI; Mitsui Babcock; MOD; Nirex;
NNC; Rolls-Royce PLC; and UKAEA.
8. An additional £8.5 million from EPSRC has enabled
joint funding with NERC, ESRC and BBSRC of research consortia
under the TSEC Programme's carbon management: sequestration (£2.0
million); and biofuels (£2.5 million)—which will run
for 3 and 3½ years respectively; three research groups on
transition to a sustainable energy economy (University of Sussex)
(£2.8 million); economic policy analysis (Cambridge) (£2.4
million); and energy consumption (Surrey) (£3.0 million)—each
for five years; and a consortia on public engagement with renewable
energy technologies (£0.5 million) which will run for three
years.
9. In April 2005 the Research Councils established a
new Energy Programme, led by EPSRC. The Energy Programme will
expand the Research Councils' total investment in energy research
over the SR2004 period from the present level of approximately
£40 million per annum in 2005-06 to approximately £70
million per annum in 2007-08. Much of the increased expenditure
is expected to be in the engineering and technology research areas
supported by EPSRC, but will also encompass the range of energy
research issues including social, economic, environmental and
biological contributions that will be developed in conjunction
with other Research Councils.
10. NERC, EPSRC and ESRC each contribute to the total
budget of £10 million for the Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research at 50%, 37.5% and 12.5% proportions respectively.
The Centre has research collaborations with numerous partners
such as the CCLRC, the Environment Agency, DEFRA and the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research. The Tyndall Centre supports
transdisciplinary research, assessment and communication of the
options to mitigate, and the necessities to adapt to climate change
within the context of sustainable development. The Centre's total
budget for the first phase of funding is £10 million over
five years. Research relevant to energy efficiency comes under
the research theme "Decarbonising Modern Societies",
which aims to provide technical, regulatory, social and policy
options to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
nationally and globally. The total expenditure in this theme amounted
to £2 million over the life of the present first funding
phase. To aid knowledge transfer, the DTI additionally provides
£70k per year to allow the Centre to run a Business Liaison
Programme.
Table 1
Notes on data:
1. The data presented in the table are for expenditure on
grants in the financial years shown.
2. The data shown do not include the NERC (£5M) or EPSRC
(£3.75M) contributions to the £10M Tyndall Centre Programme.
3. The data shown includes expenditure on the UK Energy Research
Centre but not on other TSEC activities.
Annex 1
MEMORANDUM FROM THE ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES
RESEARCH COUNCIL (EPSRC)
BACKGROUND
1. EPSRC supports research and training in the core physical
sciences (mathematics, physics and chemistry), underpinning technologies
(eg materials science and information & communications technologies)
and all aspects of engineering.
2. EPSRC awards research grants through two main delivery
modes - responsive and managed. Through the responsive mode EPSRC
invests in the highest quality research projects, as judged by
peer review, within subject areas of the researchers choosing.
In managed mode, researchers submit their research ideas in response
to a research remit specified by EPSRC and key stakeholders; conditions
may be applied to applications, for example the requirement that
proposals involve an industrial collaborator.
3. EPSRC believes that it is technically feasible to
meet the likely shortfall in electricity generating capacity by
approaching the "generation gap" from a truly mixed
energy supply perspective, including most if not all of energy
generation technologies such as renewables, cleaner fossil fuel
technologies and nuclear fission and in the longer term fusion
power. EPSRC also recognises the huge potential for energy efficiency
improvements to lead to a reduction in both energy demand and
CO2 emissions.
4. Research, development, demonstration and technology
transfer are all essential to enable the implementation of innovation
in the energy supply market and funding agencies must work in
effective partnerships to support innovation. EPSRC would emphasise
that the shortage of trained personnel within the energy industry
as a key area of concern.
5. This memorandum provides an overview of the research
in energy supported by EPSRC including current and future activities.
EPSRC SUPPORT TO
ENERGY RESEARCH
IN THE
UK
6. ESPRC aims to support a full spectrum of energy research
to help the UK meet the objectives and targets set out in the
2003 Energy White Paper.
7. EPSRC has a large portfolio of research relevant to
energy. Research activities include technologies associated with
the extraction of energy resources (principally coal, oil and
gas), energy production (utilising carbon-based, nuclear, and
renewable sources), and electricity transmission and distribution.
The transmission and distribution of electricity encompasses research
relating to power systems management, protection and control systems,
energy vectors such as hydrogen, energy storage and recovery and
embedded generation . Research funded includes also some areas
of research underpinning the current and future activities in
the power sector such as nuclear physics. EPSRC funds also a diverse
range of research into the development and introduction of potential
energy efficiency measures in areas extending from the built environment
to industrial processes and products, from materials to power
generation, and from markets and regulation to organisational
and individual behaviour. Table 2 summarises EPSRC spent by technology
in the financial years from 2000 to date.
Table 2
8. EPSRC provides a major investment in renewable energy
and related R&D, at a level of £31.7 million in the period
2000-01 to 2004-05. Renewable sources of power include wave, wind,
biomass, solar PV, and fuel cells utilising renewable hydrogen
sources. The portfolio includes issues relating to the integration
of renewable sources of generation into the energy grid. An indicative
breakdown of EPSRC's investment classified by technology area
is provided in Table 2—although the nature of research is
such that it is likely that EPSRC funded research, being undertaken
in other areas such as materials, chemistry and physics, may also
give rise to useful results in this field. Full details of all
of the projects identified by EPSRC as relevant to the inquiry
can be provided if required.
9. The investment by EPSRC in these areas reflects current
and past research priorities in energy research. EPSRC has supported
a series of managed programmes in energy-relevant topics including
fuel cells, photovoltaics, energy storage, renewable and new energy
technologies, and energy supply research for the 21st century.
The operation of responsive mode and managed programmes in parallel
means that while strategic investment in targeted areas have a
significant influence on the overall distribution of research
funding, the ongoing award of research grants in responsive mode
allows for a broader range of innovative research ideas.
10. EPSRC is continuing to make strategic investments
in research addressing both the supply and demand side of the
energy economy through a major research programme on Sustainable
Power Generation and Supply (SUPERGEN). SUPERGEN, started in July
2003, is a multidisciplinary research programme that addresses
simultaneously technical solutions and market and public acceptability
issues. As such it is ideally placed to inform the development
of effective regulatory strategies to enable the transition towards
a low carbon economy. EPSRC total investment in SUPERGEN is of
£25 million over five years. Research is delivered through
multidisciplinary consortia of the order of £2-3 million
tackling key challenges in improving the sustainability of the
power supply industry. The activities of the SUPERGEN Programme
have been expanded into the social, environmental and life sciences
to address these challenges. This has enabled SUPERGEN to become
a collaborative activity across the research councils including
BBSRC, ESRC and NERC. Initial priority areas funded under the
SUPERGEN Programme were biomass, wave & tidal generation,
hydrogen generation & storage, and future distribution networks.
The second phase of the programme, with grants awarded early in
2004, is focusing on conventional generation plant lifetime extension
and photovoltaics. The third and fourth phase priorities, with
grants awarded between January and August 2005, include fuel cells,
energy storage & recovery, distributed technology and next
generation photovoltaic materials. Priorities for the fifth phase
include wind technologies, biological fuel cells and network infrastructure,
these awards are expected to be announced later in 2005. The expectation
is that the total value of the Programme over the five-year period,
inclusive of third party contributions, will be in excess of £40
million.
11. EPSRC is also working in partnership with the Carbon
Trust on "Carbon Vision", a £14 million joint R&D
programme on low carbon innovation, with additional funding from
ESRC and NERC. This programme is supporting research to underpin
the development of tomorrow's low carbon technologies. Carbon
Vision's current activities are research consortia in low carbon
buildings and low carbon industrial processes. The £5.4 million
Carbon Vision Buildings consortium aims to create and assess a
range of options whereby the owners and operators of the national
building stock can reduce carbon emissions significantly in comparison
with today's performance. The Carbon Vision Industrial Processes
consortium (£1 million) aims to develop a methodology for
a systematic life-cycle estimation of carbon inventories in different
industries (food, chemicals, plastic, construction and biomass).
EPSRC and ESRC have also invested further £0.8 million in
a Carbon Vision project aiming at developing detailed understanding
of the barriers that apply at times of disruptive innovation towards
low carbon systems, and at identifying responses to these barriers
that will promote step changes in carbon efficiency, The Carbon
Vision programme includes management arrangements to encourage
close co-operation between the research teams. An engagement group
of key research users is being established for Carbon Vision Buildings
to provide advice and guidance to ensure that the Carbon Vision
portfolio delivers high quality stakeholder-focused, solutions-driven
research. As a final phase of the current Carbon Vision programme,
ESPRC is planning to fund two awards to develop future research
leaders in low carbon technology and, in particular, in energy
efficiency. Each award will be allocated £1 million to provide
research support in terms of staff and other items to excellent
researchers who have the potential to become international leaders.
We will also be looking for commitment from the university in
terms of longer term support for the research group and for exploitation.
The successful candidates will also be provided with contacts
and mentoring to help them develop international and high level
business and policy-related contacts.
12. A Collaborative Training Account to provide masters
level and continuing professional development training in nuclear
energy related skills has been funded with £1 million from
EPSRC and £1.6 million from various stakeholders such as
Government bodies (NDA, MoD, Cogent), regulators (HSE/NII) and
leading industrial employers (BNFL (including NSTS, Energy Unit,
British Nuclear Group), UKAEA, AWE, Rolls-Royce Naval Marine,
Serco, British Energy, Nirex, NIS, NNC, NPL, Mitsui Babcock, Atkins
Nuclear, INucE and BNES).
13. The Nuclear Technology Education Consortium (NTEC)
includes eleven universities and other training partners and the
key public and private sector stakeholder groups in the UK. NTEC
will cover decommissioning and clean-up, reactor technology and
fuel cycles, environment and safety, policy and regulation, project
management, fusion and medical use.
14. A Letter of Arrangement (LoA) has been agreed between
EPSRC, the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Weapons Establishment,
British Nuclear Fuels PLC and British Energy PLC. The first activity
under this LoA is to establish a Nuclear Engineering Doctorate
(EngD) Centre. The EngD is a four year, industrially relevant
doctoral training programme which offers a radical alternative
to the PhD, geared to training research managers of the future.
It is hoped that the first intake of students will take place
in the 2006-07 academic year.
15. From April 2003, EPSRC funds the UK Fusion programme
based at Culham. The UK Fusion programme includes the UK participation
to the European Programme Joint European Torus (JET) and the development
of the UK's own spherical tokamak—the Mega Amp Spherical
Tokamak (MAST). The programme is currently supported by a single
large grant of £48 million for four years from April 2004
to March 2008. A mid term review of the activity is scheduled
for January 2006 which will look at the level of funding for the
second half of the grant and to address the current plans for
JET extension and the associated host subscription requirements.
The research programme funded by EPSRC is aligned to the development
of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
and will be enhanced by £8.65 million in this spending review
period.
16. EPSRC continues to invest in research and training
relevant to the oil and gas sector and areas such as clean coal,
efficient combustion, combined cycle and gasification technology.
EPSRC recognises the potential of carbon sequestration combined
with fossil fuel plant as a potential zero-net carbon energy source;
this option should be explored further as one of a number of priorities
within a broad-based R&D programme.
17. EPSRC is working with the DTI under the auspices
of the Memorandum of Understanding with the USA on collaboration
in energy research, as part of this agreement, this year EPSRC
will fund postgraduate research students to spend an additional
year working on hydrogen-related research at Sandia National Laboratories
in the USA.
18. Energy has been identified as a strategic area to
be addressed by the EPSRC Science and Innovation Awards programme.
Established in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council,
the Science and Innovation Awards programme aims to address academic
capacity needs in areas with declining number of entrants as a
result of a changing research landscape. £2.7 million have
been awarded to the University of Strathclyde to focus on future
trends in power technology.
19. Platform grants are one of the key mechanisms by
which EPSRC strives towards maintaining and developing the strength
of the UK engineering and scientific research base, by supporting,
through underpinning funding, those UK groups considered to be
world leaders in their fields. Platform funding is aimed at providing
a baseline of support for retention of key research staff with
the aim of providing stability to these groups. It is also anticipated
that it will provide the stability and flexibility to permit longer-term
research and international networking, and to take a strategic
view on their research. An example of such a platform grant is
supporting a group at Imperial College London looking at the development
of clean, small scale energy generation technologies and their
integration with the existing power system.
20. EPSRC supports the establishment of networks in new
interdisciplinary research areas to develop and stimulate interactions
between the appropriate science, technology research community
and industrial groups. An example is the Radioactive Waste Immobilisation
network which aims to provide a forum for all stakeholders to
foster an integrated approach to nuclear waste management through
improved communication and the identification of new collaborative
research programmes.
21. The Faraday Partnerships have been established to
strengthen the way technology is developed and exploited within
the UK by stimulating closer communication and cooperation between
researchers and new product developers. DTI and EPSRC sponsor
the Integration of New and Renewable Energy into Buildings Faraday
Partnership. This provides a national focus for research, training
and technology transfer in building-integrated new and renewable
energy technologies, relevant to research into energy efficiency.
It includes research on options beyond the basic energy efficiency
packages of measures in the domestic and non-domestic building
sector, with over 225 companies, Universities and other organisations
involved. The core funding consists of a grant from the DTI of
£1.2 million for three years, and a grant of £1 million
from the EPSRC. In addition, ESPRC provided funding for fourteen
postgraduate studentships in collaboration with industry sponsors.
22. Fifty per cent of EPSRC's current energy research
portfolio is conducted in collaboration with industry, involving
over 200 companies, with the value of their cash contributions
totalling over £7 million.
23. Working with the DTI, EPSRC is organising an Energy
Research Summit Launch, to be held in November 2005. This will
launch the expanded Research Councils' Energy Programme and provide
the starting point to develop better strategic engagement on research
and training priorities with energy-related business. Participants
will be asked to identify common business-led research or postgraduate
training opportunities which will then be worked up in more detail,
culminating in a second Energy Research Summit in spring 2006.
24. EPSRC aim to appoint a prominent member of the energy
research community as an energy senior research fellow to be an
envoy and advocate for the Research Councils' energy work. In
particular, their work will involve developing the international
profile and level of collaboration and to provide information
to EPSRC on potential international research opportunities. The
appointment will be made in early 2006.
Annex 2
MEMORANDUM FROM THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL
The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) welcomes
the opportunity to comment. NERC is one of the UK's eight Research
Councils. It funds and carries out impartial scientific research
in the sciences of the environment. NERC trains the next generation
of independent environmental scientists. Its priority research
areas are: Earth's life-support systems, climate change, and sustainable
economies.
NERC's research centres are: the British Antarctic Survey
(BAS), the British Geological Survey (BGS), the Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology (CEH) and the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory
(POL). Details of these and of NERC's collaborative centres can
be found at www.nerc.ac.uk.
NERC's comments draw on inputs from BGS, CEH and Swindon
Office staff.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The inquiry emphasises financial costs, and although
it is concerned with carbon emissions and the public acceptability
of nuclear waste, it does not address other environmental or social
issues which are necessary for a holistic picture and for proper
assessment of the sustainability of the UK's energy-generation
choices.
2. The inquiry also focuses entirely on electricity generation—in
isolation both from other forms of energy and from the uses to
which different forms can be put. Obviously, electricity is easily
moved around to provide both motive power and space heating, for
example. But space heating (and cooling) can also be provided
by other forms of energy, eg heat from the earth (geothermal energy)
available at the location where it is needed. Our apparent electricity
needs should therefore be assessed in the light of alternative
ways of meeting them.
3. Nuclear-related questions requiring attention by the
Committee concern the supply of uranium: its origin, transport,
and possible limits on availability.
A. THE EXTENT
OF THE
"GENERATION GAP"
What are the latest estimates of the likely shortfall in electricity
generating capacity caused by the phase-out of existing nuclear
power stations and some older coal plant? How do these relate
to electricity demand forecasts and to the effectiveness of energy
efficiency policies?
4. As indicated above, the provision of energy to users
is not all about electricity. Some demands can be met by other
forms of energy, such as geothermal energy for space-heating and
cooling, and although switching to such sources may not fully
compensate for predicted electricity shortfalls, their contribution
could be significant.
B. FINANCIAL COSTS
AND INVESTMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
What are the main investment options for electricity generating
capacity? What would be the likely costs and timescales of different
generating technologies?
What are the likely construction and on-going operating
costs of different large-scale technologies (eg nuclear new build,
CCGT, clean coal, on-shore wind, off-shore wind, wave and tidal)
in terms of the total investment required and in terms of the
likely costs of generation (p/kWh)? Over what timescale could
they become operational?
5. BP's/Scottish power recently announced (July 2005)
their plan to construct the Miller hydrogen-burning power plant
with CO2 capture and geological storage. It could be
operational by 2009 if construction is commissioned by 2006—much
sooner than a nuclear power plant. BP is still working on the
detailed economics but it is likely that the cost will be similar
to or below the cost of nuclear or offshore wind, and the plant
will have significant flexibility to meet demand swings (unlike
nuclear or wind). It will avoid about 1Mt/year of CO2
emissions. It uses natural gas as the primary fuel. Other companies
such as Progressive Energy have designs and plans for coal-based
hydrogen power coupled with CO2 capture and storage.
These designs compare favourably with nuclear and offshore wind
in terms of costs per KWh. and, again, have flexibility to meet
supply swings. These installations will not become a commercial
reality until there is an economic benefit to the operators for
decarbonising fossil fuels.
With regard to nuclear new build, how realistic and robust
are cost estimates in the light of past experience? What are the
hidden costs (eg waste, insurance, security) associated with nuclear?
How do the waste and decommissioning costs of nuclear new build
relate to the costs of dealing with the current nuclear waste
legacy, and how confident can we be that the nuclear industry
would invest adequately in funds ring-fenced for future waste
disposal?
6. There are hidden costs associated with all energy
sources. Rarely is holistic accounting used. The hidden costs
of nuclear new build include not only decommissioning and waste-handling
costs, but also the cost of environmental and social impacts,
which need to be explicitly assessed.
7. The current nuclear waste legacy is large in volume
and radiation. This has been and is being dealt with to remove
the risk to future generations. Much depends on whether reprocessing
is to be allowed. If it is then future nuclear power will generate
significant waste streams. If not then the volume of waste will
be much smaller and more easily absorbed within existing and proposed
management plans. Assessments of environmental capacity will have
to contribute to these plans. Some people consider that components
of nuclear waste will provide an exploitable resource to future
generations; others consider that it will not be possible to adequately
communicate warnings about storage sites to (distant) future generations.
Is there the technical and physical capacity for renewables
to deliver the scale of generation required? If there is the capacity,
are any policy changes required to enable it to do so?
8. Each of the renewable sources has its own limits on
capacity and the limits are not independent of one another. For
example, different sources may compete for the same space and/or
compromise each other's requirements for water or wind. However,
they may work synergistically, for example providing complementary
generating systems and transfer routes. Increasing renewables
generation may conflict with other land uses (agricultural food
production, forestry, landscape, etc) and these impacts need to
be examined, but the use of small-scale local generation mechanisms
(eg micro-wind) could avoid that. Policy may be necessary to change
people's appreciation of energy.
— What are the relative efficiencies of different
generating technologies? In particular, what contribution can
micro-generation (micro-CHP, micro-wind, PV) make, and how would
it affect investment in large-scale generating capacity?
— What is the attitude of financial institutions
to investment in different forms of generation?
— What is the attitude of financial institutions
to the risks involved in nuclear new build and the scale of the
investment required? How does this compare with attitudes towards
investment in CCGT and renewables?
9. Financial risk is not the only risk that needs to
be considered; the cost of and responsibility for failure and
environmental damage has to be identified at the outset.
— How much Government financial support would
be required to facilitate private sector investment in nuclear
new build? How would such support be provided? How compatible
is such support with liberalised energy markets?
— What impact would a major programme of
investment in nuclear have on investment in renewables and energy
efficiency?
C. STRATEGIC BENEFITS
If nuclear new build requires Government financial support,
on what basis would such support be justified? What public good(s)
would it deliver?
10. Support could be most obviously justified by the
need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (to meet our Kyoto commitment).
Other grounds could include reduction of other atmospheric pollutants
if there were an equivalent reduction in fossil-fuel use (eg nitrogen
and sulphur compounds).
11. The environmental costs of all energy generation
mechanisms need to be considered by means of full life-cycle analysis.
New nuclear development should not be looked at in isolation from
other generating systems, but should be seen as a component of
a diverse rounded supply sector, with a view to replacing nuclear
fission with nuclear fusion in the intermediate to longer term.
The cost benefits of maintaining our centralised electricity grid
rather than moving to more community-based systems should also
be considered.
12. The main public good to be delivered would be mitigation
of climate change (but this would only be delivered in combination
with a wider energy-supply and demand package). Others could include
cleaner air and a secure electricity supply.
— To what extent and over what timeframe
would nuclear new build reduce carbon emissions?
13. Carbon emissions will not be decreased simply by
the construction of nuclear power stations. A decrease is dependent
on decreased demand, and on what happens to our use of electricity,
and energy generally, from other sources. At present our consumption
of energy is rising, and new nuclear might serve merely to meet
that rising demand or replace existing nuclear capacity. Without
new nuclear, it is probable that our carbon emissions will rise
more dramatically.
— To what extent would nuclear new build
contribute to security of supply (ie keeping the lights on)?
— Is nuclear new build compatible with the
Government's aims on security and terrorism both within the UK
and worldwide?
In respect of these issues [Q 4], how does the nuclear option
compare with a major programme of investment in renewables, microgeneration,
and energy efficiency? How compatible are the various options
with each other and with the strategy set out in the Energy White
Paper?
14. The Energy White Paper (EWP) suggested putting nuclear
development on hold until the waste-management issues had been
addressed; these are currently being considered. The EWP goals
are environmental improvement (reduction in carbon emissions),
security of supply (through diversity), improving quality of life
(less fuel poverty) and economic development (through innovation).
Nuclear can contribute to all the goals as part of a diverse energy-generation
mix.
D. OTHER ISSUES
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?
15. The emissions (a) associated with construction are
far less than renewables which require massive infrastructure
per KWh delivered. Construction on the surface, using existing
techniques, will, however, require cements and metals that are
associated with carbon emissions. New construction techniques
could utilise underground voids. This could impact on terrorism
and security issues. With regard to the operation of a new nuclear
power station (b), nuclear energy has very low life-cycle emissions.
The carbon emissions of uranium mining are likely to be very high
but not significant in the context of nuclear's overall very low
life-cycle emissions.
Should nuclear new build be conditional on the development
of scientifically and publicly acceptable solutions to the problems
of managing nuclear waste, as recommended in 2000 by the RCEP?
16. The public needs to gain a good understanding of
the security and risks of waste management. Solutions do exist
and are being used internationally. We need to consider the effect
on waste streams of reprocessing; existing wastes contain a significant
component from this.
21 September 2005
350
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eac_21_07-05b.cfm Back
| 
