Nuclear
Too late, too dangerous, too costly
In this clip, I argue that the planned nuclear renaissance cannot help combat either the energy crunch or the climate crisis in time to make a difference, and that because of the link to nuclear weapons, it is too dangerous a route to take anyway. Then there is the question of whether or not it makes economic sense. A much safer and cheaper option is to mine energy efficiency and accelerate renewables. I elaborate in a recent article in The Ecologist.
Nuclear industry targets money meant for renewables
EDF and Eon have quietly warned the UK government, during its recent Renewables Consultation, that efforts to get to 20% renewables in the energy mix (the EU target) are not only unrealistic but damaging to nuclear plans. Additional carbon-generating plant will be needed because of intermittency, they say. EDF CEO Vincent de Riyaz has yet to persuade his owners, (85% the French government) that his plan to build 4 British reactors at €5bn (£4.4bn) each makes commercial sense. He wants a “level playing field” with wind power, and has told the Financial Times he is concerned that high levels of wind construction will require the nuclear plants to be shut down when the wind output is high. The truth, I believe, is that there is only so much money available, and the nuclear advocates want it to go to them. As for intermittency, the 2007 German Kombikraftwork national scaled experiment shows that mixed renewables can overcome intermittency and cover baseload. I elaborate in a recent article in the FT.
“Facts” about the nuclear option are weighed down by the propaganda, fears and misunderstandings built up over 50 years. Current news, based on hard science and simple observation, from Hiroshima, from Chernobyl, from every radiotherapy clinic, from the radiobiology laboratory, makes it clear that an over-turn of current atttudes to radiation and nuclear is appropriate. The result of a 3-year scientific study is published in “Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear”. Mankind has to do some serious thinking to appreciate how mistaken are the ideas with which we were all brought up, the author included, in the Cold War era. More on the website.
Even if there is little to worry about with radiation, which is assuming a lot, the nuclear debate is about much more than that. Lets start with economics. Why build nuclear if renewables and efficiency can do the job cheaper?
If the wind blew all the time, if the Sun shone all the time, yes, in those places where this is true. But efficient energy storage on the required scale is not available. Geothermal, yes (that is nuclear fission in the Earth of course). Hydro if you have it, yes. Carbon capture doubtful on the scale required. Otherwise nuclear - the expense is related mostly but not exclusively to the cost of shielding people from radiation and radioactivity - at levels that we now know to be harmless. Actually all energy sources are needed except fossil fuel. And we are going to need extra electricity to charge all those cars too.
You are a scientist who has done a three year study of radiation, and you think we need the sun to shine “all the time” to make solar work. I despair then. And if you really think the expense of nuclear is mostly down to the cost of shielding people from radiation and radioactivity, please make a short study of the problems at the first two next generation nuclear in Finland and France.
I have not suggested that the sun needs to shine all of the time to make solar work, just that it would have to if solar were to be a complete solution. Dont despair! Sizewell B is now a superb and productive energy source (despite problems in construction) and the design of the French/Finnish stations are very similar. Every big project has its problems, some real, some bureaucratic and regulatory. I understand that these projects have both but I am not chasing details here. There are other designs with slight variations. All of these are international commercial operations. They are not designed to make weapons-grade fuel for nationalistic purposes on the side. They are based on the active cooperation between people, businesses and nations, without which prospects for the human race are grim.