Return to News

Views on Nuclear Power

The recent UK government energy review has put investment in nuclear energy back on the national agenda.  Environmentalists are divided in their opinions on this topic, recognising that nuclear power could make a low carbon emitting contribution to the UK energy mix. A piece entitled "The ethics of the decalogue and nuclear power" has prompted discussion on this topic and the following contributions have been offered.

Church-based environmental organisation Christian Ecology Link’s 2006 report entitled ‘Faith and Power’ comes out strongly in support of a low-consumption, non-nuclear energy strategy. Jamie Viisas, a member of the Environmental Network, and Keith Bradshaw, who has experience of working for the nuclear industry, urge us to accept nuclear power as one strategy among many for tackling climate change.

Summary of CEL’s report ‘Faith and Power’:

We have sought an energy strategy that reflects love of the Creator, expresses care for the whole creation, and is informed by Christian principles of wise stewardship, peacemaking, justice, loving our neighbours and moderation in consumption.

•  Climate change and the impending closure of ageing nuclear reactors have raised the prospect of a new nuclear reactor construction programme. Links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, concerns relating to nuclear waste and radioactive emissions, excessive costs, and the implications for economic direction and political structures lead us to conclude that the nuclear programme should not be revived at the present time.

•  We propose instead a low consumption, non-nuclear, energy strategy. This would require much greater attention to promoting energy efficiency and restraining consumer demand, a bold switch from using fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and the phasing out of nuclear reactors in electricity generation.

•  Our reasoning is rooted in Christian ethics and motivated by a determination to reduce the nation's environmental impact, particularly the effects on global climate of excessive fossil fuel use. Christians will disagree on the detail of public policy, but we believe that such a strategy is the most appropriate in order to take proper care of God's creation.

•  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded that nuclear power is not indispensable in order to meet a climate change target of reducing CO 2 emissions by 60%, although a 47% reduction in energy consumption would be needed. Research and experience has demonstrated that such a reduction is feasible.

•  A key determinant of a nation's energy requirement is the nature and direction of its economy. Faster progress is needed towards sustainable development, requiring changes to Britain's economic, social and political systems that will have profound implications for lifestyle patterns and technological choices. An energy strategy based on efficiency, conservation and restraint, with decentralised supply and increased use of renewable sources, would be relatively labour intensive and improve the health of the economy.

•  The high consumption, nuclear path may appear easier for government to pursue in the short term, but we believe that there is a moral duty to follow a more challenging and more sustainable option.

•  We conclude that substantially enhanced Government support for efficient, less profligate energy consumption and investment in renewable sources of energy supply rather than nuclear power is a moral imperative.

‘In support of nuclear power: keeping the options open’ by Jamie Viisas:

Business leaders and politicians have often been the target of protest campaigns.  Environmentalists have generally been particularly suspicious of the rich and powerful, and they have every right to be, because usually the rich and powerful only desire more wealth and power.

The debate about the future of nuclear power is different.  The challenge of uncontrollable climate change means that the traditional tit-for-tat arguments between environmentalists and the nuclear lobby will not solve any problems. 

We need to look at all the options for the future of our energy supply, bearing in mind costs (financial as well as environmental) in the context of the UK and EU efforts to take the leading role on global warming.  The Government’s recent Energy Review provides a useful analysis of what these options are.

It is possible for politics and business to work to promote social justice.  In 2005 MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY proved that there are powerful people who want to help others.  I think more people are coming to a similar view about climate change.

By using every weapon in our armoury, we might just be able to stave off the worst effects of climate change.  Of course, nuclear is not the only answer.  Any new nuclear power station would not commence generation for many years.  Energy efficiency, better technology and increased use of renewables all have a vital part to play.  But to march into the future dismissing nuclear out of hand would be a huge mistake.  In the middle years of this century, our electricity must come from somewhere.  Economically, using fossil fuels would probably be cheapest, and renewables most expensive.  Environmentally, renewables would have minimal impact, whereas fossil fuels would create the most amount of greenhouse gases.  Nuclear provides an alternative that is, according to current estimates, not too expensive, and the pollution problems from nuclear generation do not contribute to the current greatest threat, climate change.  

The big fears about nuclear power seem to be being solved.  A Chernobyl-type meltdown is impossible in modern reactors.  The developments in Finland and the USA may provide a permanent solution to the problems of long-lasting radioactive waste.  The new Teollisuuden Voima Oy plant in Finland has shown that nuclear power can be economically competitive, as it has received no subsidy from the Government.

If we want to be serious about tackling climate change, then the future must include a proportion of nuclear power.  Without it, we either fail to cut our greenhouse gas emissions, or face a future of blackouts and financial crises.

‘Nuclear power as a way of using a God-given resource’ by Keith Bradshaw:

Christians are increasingly seeing part of their faith in terms of their responsibility to God as stewards of His creation. Energy production and use are important elements of this response. Whenever energy is produced or used there are adverse environmental consequences and risks, but if energy is not produced or used at all, the consequences and risks are even worse!

I am in favour of nuclear power as a way of using a God-given resource. It is a reliable, large-scale source of electricity for industrial and domestic use and it minimises pollution of the environment, especially as a source of near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide. I believe that nuclear power can play a crucial rôle in future energy supply and environmental protection.

Over recent years it has made a substantial contribution to electricity generation in this country (about 25%), it has been responsible for about 9% of all energy use and has saved the emission of about 55 million tonnes of CO2 per year (emissions equivalent to those of all the UK’s road vehicles for two weeks in every month)+. The latest reactor designs produce less waste for a given output and are designed to be safer than existing reactors – even though no-one has died from a civil reactor radiation accident in the UK for the last 50 years. Uranium supplies are secure and not subject to rapid fluctuations in price, in contrast to oil and gas. The nuclear industry is an important employer and has brought much needed jobs to parts of the country in economic difficulty.

People have been understandably concerned about waste management, and in particular the generation of various waste streams produced by reprocessing of spent fuel. However, reprocessing is not essential to nuclear generation, since fuel from some existing and all future reactor designs may be stored, without reprocessing, for many decades. Without reprocessing and recycling, there is enough uranium for 50 years’ operation. But spent fuel is a valuable resource, and with reprocessing, by which the 3% of highly active ‘waste’ is separated from the 97% of reusable fuel and plutonium, this time-span could be increased ten-fold. The introduction of fast reactors could lead to an increase of one hundred times.

CORWM, The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, has recently issued a comprehensive report on interim storage and final geological disposal of nuclear wastes. So whether or not fuel is reprocessed, the public may have confidence that the problems of radioactive waste management are being addressed, and that safe and secure technical solutions largely already exist. The location of storage and/or disposal facilities is a political and social question which will be tackled sensitively over the coming years.

I am also in favour of renewables in the ‘energy mix’. We should make the most of the contributions that, for example, the wind, the sun and the tides can make to electricity production, but also should bear in mind their environmental and practical limitations.

We should also try to reduce our personal, church-related and national energy consumption through more efficient equipment, and less extravagant lifestyles.
 
Achieving energy security in an environmentally responsible way does not require exclusive choices (nuclear power OR fossil fuels OR reduced consumption, renewable sources and so on), but rather a judicious combination of all suitable means where appropriate, to meet genuine needs without extravagance.

For a wide-ranging presentation of energy issues, see The ‘Energy Study Pack’, produced by The Cumbria Methodist District in 2003, obtainable from MPH at £3.50. One of the best websites on nuclear power is that of The World Nuclear Organisation:
www.world-nuclear.org

****************************

Return to News