Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Green
Party
The Scottish Green Party believes that there should
be no nuclear new-build. Nuclear power is not economically viable,
safe or likely to have a significant impact of CO2
emissions
The nuclear industry has been trying to make
nuclear power economic for 50 years, yet in April 2005 the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority took on the liabilities of BNFL &
UKAEA—some £56 billion. Why pay this premium to incur
nuclear power's inherent problems of:
— accumulating radioactive waste, active
for up to 250,000 years;
— diverting resources away from energy
efficiency, cogeneration[351]
and renewables;
— risk of nuclear accident (as at Chernobyl);
— inability to restart generation for
days after an unexpected shutdown;
— radioactive pollution from reprocessing
nuclear waste at Sellafield (such as the leak of some 20 tonnes
of uranium and plutonium fuel at the Thorp reprocessing plant
at Sellafield, including, reportedly, enough plutonium to make
20 nuclear weapons);
— risk of theft of weapons-useable
plutonium;
— risk terrorist attack on nuclear
reactors and waste storage facilities; and
— risk of nuclear waste transport accident
or sabotage (rail, sea).
When the Government published its Energy White
Paper in February 2003, the then Energy Minister, Brian Wilson,
said, "If renewables and energy efficiency can prove themselves
over the next five years there will be no need for new nuclear
power stations. [352]"
The Scottish Executive's own figures (2001) show that Scotland's
renewable capacity is around 6 times Scotland's annual electricity
requirement, leaving enough spare capacity to power most of England
as well[353].
We could be well on target to pass this test by 2008, were it
not for such a lack of serious government support. But here we
are, in 2005, assuming renewables will fail and still asking if
nuclear power is an option.
How "renewables and energy efficiency can
prove themselves over the next five years" unless there is
a strategic plan for energy efficiency and renewables development
as a matter of priority is not clear. And it must be stressed
that this inquiry is just considering electricity, which accounts
for only one fifth of our energy use. Nuclear power cannot address
non-electrical energy use, such as transport and non-electrical
heating. So even if nuclear power were truly CO2-free,
it would do little to tackle climate change when some 80% of CO2
emissions come from transport.
But nuclear power isn't CO2-free,
as is so often claimed by its supporters. Even with the best uranium
ores, when the whole cycle is considered, nuclear power generates
approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired
electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve
this are, however, so limited that if the entire present world
electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these
ores would be exhausted within three years[354],
even less if we think nuclear power can be used to make hydrogen
for fuel cell use in transport. Use of the remaining poorer ores
in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission
than burning fossil fuels directly.
In March we learned that the most comprehensive
survey ever into the state of the planet found that human activities
threaten the Earth's ability to sustain future generations[355].
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was drawn up by 1,300 researchers
from 95 nations over a period of four years and concluded that
the way society obtains its resources has caused irreversible
changes that are degrading the natural processes that support
life on Earth. Just last week[356],
we learn that a record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer
has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have
crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never
recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible
phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea
ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of
years.
Yet the Government is still considering prolonging
an uneconomic nuclear industry which will have negligible impact
on CO2 emissions, rather than divert that money into
a serious programme of energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewables,
including micro-renewables. Micro-renewables not only address
some of the base-load problems of supplying large conurbations,
but they also make people more aware of their electricity consumption.
Coupled with 2-way metering, micro-renewables could transform
the public's perception of renewable energy[357].
We in the so-called developed countries only
live such lifestyles because we've had 150 years of cheap energy,
in the form of oil. Since 1981, we have been using more oil than
we have discovered—yet our global demand for energy is spiralling
upwards. No mix of renewables can supply our current demands for
energy—they are unsustainable and the biggest problem is
transport, not electricity generation. Producing all our (UK)
electricity from renewables resources is technically possible
and more economically viable than nuclear power. We have to change
the way we think about work, life and transport and that has to
begin with decentralising our electricity supply systems and making
a firm decision against new nuclear power stations.
In response to some of your specific questions:
A. THE EXTENT
OF THE
"GENERATION GAP"
1. 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?
According to http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/electricity/index.shtml,
in 2004 major power producers used the following (Million tonnes
of oil equivalent).
So removing nuclear and coal capacity would
reduce output by almost 50 Mtoe or over 60%. It is clear that
to end coal and nuclear electricity generation without serious
investment into the alternatives is impossible without severe
cuts in power. The Scottish Green Party has been calling for investment
into energy efficiency and renewable electricity generation for
decades. This gap can only be filled if demand is reduced and
the electricity we do require is generated from renewable sources
wherever possible. Scotland at least has hydro power, but there
is little scope for new hydro stations. Therefore, it is vital
to implement a mix of energy efficiency and renewable electricity
generation.
B. FINANCIAL
COSTS AND
INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
2. 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?
In April 2005 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
took on the liabilities of BNFL & UKAEA. According to Nuclear
Engineering International (11 August 2005) [358]the
total estimated lifecycle undiscounted cost of operations, decommissioning
and clean up is now estimated at £56 billion, up from the
2002 estimate of £48 billion. Should the UK's plutonium stock
be reclassified as waste then the costs would increase by several
billion pounds. For reasons of waste alone, nuclear power can
never be profitable.
The Scottish Green Party finds it hard to believe
that the commercial non-viability of nuclear energy has still
not been recognised by the Government. Numerous studies have been
carried out into the commercial viability of nuclear power, including
the recent Rocky Mountain Institute paper entitled Nuclear
power: economics and climate-protection potential[359],which
concludes that "on the criteria of both cost and speed, nuclear
power seems about the least effective climate-stabilising option
on offer".
Costings for nuclear power are unrealistic if
cost trends aren't taken into account. How will price of uranium
ore increase with time? How will increased oil prices impact on
the economics of nuclear power? These are questions which cannot
be answered and the precautionary principle should prevail.
The Scottish Green Party is not confident that
the nuclear industry can ensure the safety and disposal of the
existing legacy of waste, let alone adding to it with the waste
from "at least eight AP1000 reactors or equivalent".
We also have reservations over AP1000 design itself, the selling
points of which include that it is cheaper and quicker to build.
Installing the cheapest design does not inspire confidence and
adds further to the claim that nuclear power is uneconomical.
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?
Renewables have to be made to work and they
can with demand reduction. As referred to above3, the Scottish
Executive's 2001 study indicates that nearly 60GW of new renewable
energy generating capacity could be available in and offshore
Scotland at under 7p per unit in 2010 (including connection costs
but not grid strengthening costs), as shown in the table below.
For comparison, the total UK installed generation
capacity is around 80GW, while the total amount of electricity
supplied in a year is around 390TWh.
A 2004 study by Gross[360]
says the UK has a practicable potential to meet 230TWh per year
using renewable energy. This is a more recent UK-wide study and
obviously England & Wales have more renewable electricity
potential than 14TWh. However, the levels given in the Gross study
assume a constrained build rate and no network reinforcement for
onshore wind, and biomass (energy crops) figures are based on
conservative assumptions for land availability. So they may be
more realistic than the Scottish Executive's 2001 figures.
According to Gross, UK electricity demand is
320TWh per year and the UK has a practicable potential to meet
to 230TWh. Based on these figures, the UK should be aiming to
reduce its electricity demand by around 30%, as shown below:
320 (current UK electricity demand) - 230 (UK
renewable potential) = 90/320 = 0.28 or
a 28% reduction in current demand to make
a realistic renewable supply mix work.
Renewable alternatives to electricity are more
developed and currently more feasible than similar moves to tackle
the even bigger transport problem. Therefore, the Scottish Green
Party believes that electricity demand cuts of 50% can, with sufficient
investment, be achieved by 2020 with a 2015 target of a 30% reduction.
As for baseload, the economically recoverable
marine resource for the UK has been estimated by Ocean Power Delivery
at 87TWh per year[361],
or approx. 25% of current UK demand. This potential could be realised
by 2020 with sufficient investment, although we still need to
assess the environmental impacts on marine ecosystems. Again,
the more localised generation the less demand for baseload.
Residential appliances and equipment use 30%
of all electricity generated in OECD countries[362].
Assuming that the electricity generation and industry sectors
make up a large part of the remaining 70%, while promoting marine
renewables for baseload, we also stress the urgency to localise
the grid, encourage 2-way metering systems and microgeneration,
install district heating, and significantly increase CHP, especially
for industrial processes. The looming energy gap can be filled
without nuclear power, but it does require Government will.
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?
The Scottish Green Party believes that localisation
of electricity supply is a vital component of decentralising our
electricity supply to enable a switch away from centralised systems
which are no longer effective for supplying electricity in a modern
context. Micro-generation is an important component of this decentralisation
process. Large-scale generating capacity should be reserved for
situations where local production cannot meet demand, eg large
industries and concentrations of residents in an area which required
more than micro-generation can provide. There has to be Government
encouragement for people to start to generate as much of their
own electricity as possible, including 2-way metering to deal
with surplus capacity.
3. 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?
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?
The Scottish Green Party believes we have to
move away from the purely profit-driven motives of big business
and actually start changing for the benefit of all—this
generation and those to follow.
What impact would a major programme of investment
in nuclear have on investment in renewables and energy efficiency?
For the reasons stated above, the Scottish Green
Party fears that any money invested into nuclear is money diverted
away from renewables and energy efficiency.
C. STRATEGIC
BENEFITS
4. If nuclear new build requires Government
financial support, on what basis would such support be justified?
What public good(s) would it deliver?
If nuclear power is competitive, as its proponents
claim, there should be no Government support for building new
nuclear power stations. If it is an economically viable industry,
then the industry should invest in the capital accordingly. Under
no circumstances, should public money be put towards nuclear power
and diverted away from renewables and energy efficiency.
To what extent and over what timeframe would nuclear
new build reduce carbon emissions?
That nuclear power can alleviate climate change
is a fallacy. As stated above, even with the best uranium ores,
when the whole cycle is considered, nuclear power generates approximately
one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired electricity
production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this are,
however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity
demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would
be exhausted within three years4. 80% of CO2 emissions
come from transport, which nuclear power cannot begin to tackle.
To what extent would nuclear new build contribute
to security of supply (ie keeping the lights on)?
If we have to resort to nuclear power to "keep
the lights on" then the Government has failed in its duty
to ensure a diverse mix of energy supply, especially worrying
given we are approaching a peak in oil production. Nuclear power
has failed the test and a new round should not be an option.
19 September 2005
351 Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of
heat and power in a single thermodynamic process. Back
352
Guardian 25 February 2003, "Green Power-Five years
to prove its worth"' by David Gow. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,902411,00.html Back
353
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/news/2001/12/SE5008.aspx Back
354
http://beheer.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/ Back
355
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm Back
356
Global warming "past the point of no return", Steve
Connor, Science Ed, The Independent. Published: 16 September
2005. Back
357
Taken from the Scottish Green Party's response to the DTI's
consultation on Microgeneration Strategy and Low Carbon Buildings
Programme. Back
358
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2030326 Back
359
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-08-NukePwrEcon.pdf
(11 Sept. 2005) Back
360
Gross, R, "Technologies and innovation for system change
in the UK: status, prospects and system requirements of some leading
renewable energy options", Energy Policy vol 32, no 17, Nov
2004. Back
361
http://www.oceanpd.com/Resource/default.html Back
362
http://carroll.org.uk/archives/2005/05/25/leaked-g8-draft-climate-decisions/2 Back
| 
