Briefing – Nuclear Power

Nuclear power generates about 20% of the UK’s electricity (2006), that’s around 4% of the total energy demand. Overall, the EU gets 30% of electricity from nuclear, heavily biased by France’s usage at 80%. Worldwide, there are 435 operating nuclear power stations, producing 17% of global electricity. Globally since 2002, the output of renewable energy sources (non-fossil fuels, non-nuclear) has been growing faster than nuclear power in terms of total energy generated.

The UK’s nuclear power stations have a limited operational life. In addition, several coal and gas-fired power stations are approaching the time for replacement.  Currently (2007) the Government is consulting on the question – should the private sector be allowed to build new nuclear power plants to provide generating capacity to replace both the nuclear stations and certain fossil fuel-fired stations.

Climate change resulting from carbon emissions, and energy security (dependence on imported fossil fuels like coal and gas) are seen by the Government as key factors in making a decision on nuclear.

Friends of the Earth opposes the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors because a range of safer, greener and cleaner alternatives can deliver greenhouse gas reductions to meet climate change targets and maintain energy security.

The risks of nuclear far outweigh the benefits:

• Nuclear power produces waste that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The Government still doesn’t know what to do with this waste.
• Nuclear reactors have and may again be threatened by terrorists. Attacks, for example by hijacked airliners, could pollute large areas with radioactive materials
• Many processes used as part of nuclear power generation can also be used for covert weapons programmes. If the UK chooses to use nuclear power to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, it will provide an excuse that other countries may use to justify what are really weapons programmes.
• Dirty bombs using radioactive waste as a form of shrapnel are now widely accepted as a real terrorist threat.

Research has shown that a combination of affordable, innovative renewable energy solutions together with sensible measures to improve energy efficiency and the efficiency of coal and gas-fired power plants, means the electricity sector can deliver its greenhouse gas targets, and meet the UK’s energy needs.

1. Nuclear is not an answer to climate change, as its potential contribution has been overestimated

• If we doubled the electricity generation from nuclear reactors (from a fifth to a half of our electricity) we’d only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 8%.
• Nuclear is not an ‘emissions free’ solution. The mining and transport of uranium, the making of nuclear fuel rods, the building of nuclear power plants and the storage of nuclear waste all lead to carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear produces 50% more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power.

2. Many of the costs of a nuclear plant are hidden in the waste disposal, the insurance and the security costs

• It is currently estimated that the cost of nuclear waste disposal will be around £56 billion, according the Government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) which is an increase of £8 billion over previous estimates.
• The Government’s rescue of British Energy in 2003 is expected to cost British tax payers £12 billion over the next 100 years.
• Since 1974 the UK government has spent £6.8 billion in research and development funding for nuclear fission (compared to £540 million for renewables) according to information from the International Energy Agency.

3. The Government still hasn’t determined the best way to store nuclear waste

• Britain has 470,000 cubic metres of waste for which there is no agreed long-term management solution - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times.
• Nuclear waste can remain highly radioactive and dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
• The Government can’t show that waste might not leak from proposed waste dumps. They can’t possibly predict how secure waste dumps will be over tens of thousands of years.

4. The technology used for nuclear power can be mis-used to make nuclear weapons

• Nuclear reactors use enriched uranium, made at enrichment plants. Yet enrichment plants can be used to make super-enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
• Reactors produce plutonium that can be separated through reprocessing and used to make bombs.
• Over the past year, Iran have been investigated by international agencies over their alleged misuse of civil nuclear power to make weapons-grade uranium.

5. Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack

• No nuclear reactor would be able to withstand a direct hit from a 747 crashing into it
• Australian police stopped suspected terrorists who were believed to be staking out a research reactor near Sydney
• US troops found plans of US nuclear power stations at al-Qaeda hide-outs in Afghanistan.
• ‘Dirty bombs’ that use conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material (e.g. waste the nuclear industry) are widely seen as a plausible terrorist threat.

For more details on how Britain can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, maintain its electricity supply and improve energy security – without building new nuclear power stations – see the Friends of the Earth / Tyndall Centre report

Living within a Carbon Budget, July 2006

To respond to the Government’s consultation on Nuclear Power go to http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/

Finally consider this: if it's appropriate for a developed country like the UK to use nuclear power to address climate change, why is it not appropriate for countries like Iran and North Korea to do the same? How can nuclear power in those countries be deemed unacceptably dangerous, if it's OK for us?