A government white paper has suggested that new nuclear power stations will be essential to secure Britain’s energy needs.
I’m less than convinced. First, it just isn’t true that nuclear stations are carbon free. It may be that nuclear power produces no carbon at the station, but what of the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel around the world? Second, nuclear power is no answer to our energy security. We urgently need to address our dependence on imported energy. Going nuclear is no help here, unless Britain has uranium mines that I’ve never heard of.
I’m certain that at least a partial solution to Britain’s energy needs lies in the decentralization of energy production. How many acres of rooftops are there which are capable of holding photovoltaic cells? How many gas boilers which could be replaced with micro-CHP systems? There are many existing technologies, currently too expensive for most individuals and familes, which could be made available by government intervention. Real imagination is going to be needed if the twin problems of climate change and energy security are to be successfully tackled.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Mark Byron 05.24.07 at 5:27 am
I’d think it’s cheaper to move the uranium needed to run a plant than the oil or gas to run one. The uranium would likely come from friendlier countries. as Canada and Australia make up half of world production. As long as you can keep the cores contained (big if), it creates far less pollution than coal or oil-based plants.
The other technologies you mentioned are worth exploring, but if you’re going to have big electrical power plants, nuclear makes more ecological sense than the alternatives.
Larry B 05.24.07 at 6:13 am
I agree with Marks analysis. And I don’t understand the continuing resistance to added nuclear power capacity to adress global climate change issues. It’s a proven, effective and ready technology. It immediately reduces the carbon footprint of power generation and it can be had for about the same cost or less than current electrical generation options.
Solar power is a nice idea, but is still a long long way off from being practial. Current material technology isn’t producing effective conversion levels (only 6 -16% efficiency), and the cost is enormous. The only way solar systems are being sold here in the states is with giant subsidies from local governments and the ability to sell excess generated power back onto the electrical grid as part of the payback for buying the system. The system for a typical household to go solar is running $24,000 USD for 3 KW. The area needed for that much energy is 300-600 sq. feet if you live in an area with enough sun. With the current cost of energy, it’s about a 20 year payback which is way more than most people can afford. I live in Arizona where we have over 330 days of desert sun and there is nary a solar panel in use around here.
Unfortunately the material science isn’t advancing much in this area, so the cost isn’t going to come down any time soon. There is also material availability constraints on the components of solar cells that would eventually limit the production of solar cell components if a massive adoption were to occur. I don’t see how a government can afford the cost of widescale adoption.
ee 05.25.07 at 9:37 am
Part of me thinks that those of us who grew up on the political left have a knee-jerk ‘Nuclear=evil’ reaction. Understandable, given the uses to which it has been put; but perhaps blind to its potential benefits. I wholeheartedly agree with the vision of solar panels on every roof and a windmill in every school - but realistically, that will only be a part of the energy mix, and I’d argue that nuclear is better than fossil fuel for the rest of the mix.
Wood 05.25.07 at 10:59 am
ee, I think you’re right. I think it’s because we hear the word “nuclear” and think “bombs” and “Greenham Common” and such things.
Richard 05.25.07 at 8:51 pm
I’m sure there’s some of that going round, but I used to be pro-nuclear. It was my studies as an undergraduate that convinced me that fission is a dead end. We certainly need to keep some reactors for research purposes, and it may be that controlled fusion will provide a practical source of mass-market energy in the long run. But for now: nuclear power? No Thanks!