A Submission in 1996 on "The Future Prospects for Nuclear Power"
to the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry
from the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland
Contents
Links
Summary
- The future prospects for nuclear power cannot properly be assessed in isolation from an overall appraisal of energy production and use in the UK. It is profoundly lacking in foresight to assess the prospects in any particular sector of energy, without setting out an overall, long term energy policy.
- We are concerned at the possibility that in assessing the role of all energy supply, short-term competitiveness could be allowed to override primary criteria of care for human health and safety, and our present and future environment. Even as strongly constrained a market as currently exists in electricity supply is unable to take due account of these externalities which are fundamental to the stewardship of our energy resources.
- Fossil fuels dominate UK energy use, and on the scale which we now use them, their atmospheric emissions have become the cause of major environmental damage. Although the best efficiency and emissions control measures are essential, the basic problem - that burning fossil fuels generates CO2 and a variety of other wastes - will be met only by substantially reducing our dependence on fossil fuel combustion.
- Electricity production presents the best opportunity to reduce fossil fuel use, given that alternatives are available. Since nuclear power generation does not emit significant quantities of the acid gases and very much smaller amount of CO2, to shut down existing reactors, or simply to phase out all present stations at the end of their operating lives, would be environmentally a retrograde step, unless the environmental and safety consequences were far worse, or there was a readily available alternative.
- The long term aim must be to reduce consumption and to switch our reliance as far as possible to indigenous renewable energy technologies, of which Scotland has an abundance. At present, however, there seems no prospect of installing renewable electricity on such a scale that would enable a clean swap from nuclear to renewables, either in Scotland or in the whole UK.
- On the consequences of nuclear power for the environment and human health and safety, there are within the church, as in the wider UK population, sharply divided views. For some, it is the energy source above all to be rid of, primarily because of the human and environmental consequences of a possible major accident, and because to pass on to subsequent generations the legacy of long-lived wastes for the indefinite future is seen as a matter of grave ethical concern in a Christian moral framework. While recognising the drawbacks of nuclear power, however, these objections need to be set not only against its advantages, but also in the wider context of the environmental impact of whatever alternative policy was pursued if nuclear power were to be displaced. This would seem inevitably to mean the increased use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.
- The SRT Project's view is that while the vast majority of the UK's energy is supplied by fossil fuels, with the difficulty in reducing their emissions on a large scale, and with the prospect of large increase of worldwide CO2 emissions, the priority for the time being must be to reduce the fossil fuel electricity component rather than the nuclear. Since a balance must also be struck with risks of nuclear energy, and especially the strong public concern about them, we suggest that the existing levels of nuclear power generation in the UK and in Scotland should remain about the same, for the foreseeable future. This would therefore require setting up a programme for replacing time expired nuclear stations by new ones.
- While we cannot judge the detailed economics of the case, we are concerned over the basis being used for assessing competition in the energy market. There are clearly uncertainties about the costs of nuclear energy, but comparable attention has not been paid to costing the externalities of the fossil fuels. If the global impact of CO2 emissions and the removal of acid gases and particulate from their discharges were included in generation costs, it could substantially change the relative economics of both nuclear and renewable electricity compared with electricity generated from coal, oil or gas.
- We consider it essential that all investment towards future decommissioning of nuclear stations should be "ring fenced" in a trust fund, to avoid the potential diversion of these funds.
- There have been many recent improvements in PWR technology which would need to be incorporated in any future stations built to the Sizewell design. Pressure to show competitive costs must not be allowed to avoid nuclear utilities adopting the proven current best practice from PWR's elsewhere in the world, for example in reducing the radiation dose to the operators.
- In view of the risk of widespread contamination and the serious effect on life in the event of a serious nuclear accident, priority should be given in choosing future reactor designs to those embodying the maximum use of passive safety systems and features.
- We wish to record our deep and continuing concern at the slow progress towards a demonstrated solution to the problems of radioactive waste management, and the apparently continual reviews and changes of policy. This seems to put back still further the realisation of a deep level ILW repository. This must be seen as an urgent priority.
- We are concerned at the additional delay that has been introduced on a decision over the proposed Torness dry fuel store, despite the Reporter's favourable review. It is important that this alternative technology for the AGR fuel cycle in Scotland be now demonstrated.
- While recognising the changed circumstances which have led to the closure of the Dounreay fast reactor, insufficient attention has been given to encourage redeployment of the highly skilled workforce. We consider that the Government has shown a serious lack of concern for the human cost to the community of Caithness, both in spirit and in economy.
- The UK should continue to pursue actively the prospects for nuclear fusion power, on an international collaborative basis, to establish whether this would be a strategic option for large scale energy generation for the long term future.
It is our view that the future prospects for nuclear power
cannot properly be assessed in isolation from an overall
understanding of energy production and use in the UK. In this
respect we are disturbed that the Government's assessment of the
different sectors of the country's energy requirements is
apparently being done on a piecemeal basis - coal, nuclear,
renewables, etc. Many experts, as well as ourselves, have
repeatedly stressed to the Government that in an area so
strategic to the country's well being - not only economic, but
also environmental, and in health and safety - it is profoundly
lacking in foresight to assess the prospects in any particular
sector of energy, without setting out an overall, long term
energy policy. This should address not only the balance of
energy supply methods, but the necessary portfolio of investment
incentives and fiscal policy to reduce energy consumption,
encourage energy efficiency.
Return to Contents
The Government's believes that "the future role of nuclear power
... will depend on proving itself competitive while maintaining
rigorous standards of safety and environmental protection".
While not denying the need for efficiency and productivity, the
impression given is that the Government accords to the criterion
of competitiveness a particular attention and priority in
assessing an energy technology, where all other criteria would
be seen as secondary. We recognise the need to balance many
factors, but from the application of Christian principles we are
concerned at the possibility that in assessing the role of all
energy supply, short-term competitiveness could be allowed to
override primary criteria of care for human health and safety,
and our present and future environment.
By its nature the energy industry operates on long timescales,
and major changes cannot be implemented quickly. It is
inappropriate, therefore, both for our own and future
generations, that the assessment of the balance of electricity
supply from different sources, and thus the contribution of
nuclear energy, should be based primarily on factors as
transient as the "mechanisms of the market". As we shall argue,
even as strongly constrained a market as currently exists in
electricity supply is unable to take due account of the
externalities of health, safety and the environment which are so
fundamental to the stewardship of our energy resources.
Again from Christian principles, we see it as poor stewardship
to adopt an approach which by nature favours energy choices
which show the most attractive short-term financial returns, and
which discounts the value of long-term deployment of our
resources. We see this error exemplified in the switch to the
large scale consumption of Scottish gas resources for
electricity generation. This is short-sighted use of a single,
finite resource - for which there are other important uses - and
is likely to subject the UK to unnecessary dependence on
potentially volatile international markets when our own
resources run down.
Return to Contents
We recognise that energy production is a vital factor in the
economics of this or any country, but by the same token, it is
one of the largest sources human impact on the environment, and
can provide some of the most serious challenges to public health
and safety. Most of the energy in the UK comes from burning
fossil fuels, but it has become apparent that on the scale which
we use them, their atmospheric emissions have become the cause
of major environmental damage - in acid gas pollutants and other
toxic wastes, and the potential contribution of largest waste,
carbon dioxide to global warming, threatening not just one
locality, but the whole earth. It is now clear that it is of
paramount importance that these emissions should be drastically
reduced. Emission control technologies can reduce acid
pollution to some extent, but these treat the symptom rather
than the cause, and there appears to be no practicable means to
remove CO2 and store or treat it. Again, the situation can be
eased a little by more efficient combustion methods, and
combined heat and power schemes, whose UK potential is severely
underused by comparison with many European countries. Even the
best efficiency, however, will not remove the basic problem -
that burning fossil fuels generates CO2 and a measure of other
wastes - which will be met only by substantially reducing our
dependence on fossil fuel combustion.
Return to Contents
If we are serious about combating global warming, and the
pollution from acid gases and particulates, we will need to find
alternatives to burning coal, oil and gas on our present scale.
For the a long time to come, however, it seems inevitable that
oil, gas and perhaps advanced "green" coal technologies, will be
needed, especially for heating, cooking and transport fuels for
which there are currently no realistic alternatives on the scale
which would be needed. This suggests that we should minimise
our other uses of fossil fuels, where there are alternatives, of
which electricity production is the most obvious area. The
three alternatives are renewable electricity, nuclear power and
the greater use of combined heat and power (CHP) schemes. It is
in this context that we view the future role of nuclear power in
the UK, and in Scotland in particular. Already over half of
Scotland's electricity comes from such sources, namely hydro
(15%) and nuclear power (around 50%), significantly more than in
England and Wales.
Return to Contents
Since nuclear power generation does not emit significant
quantities of the acid gases and, in the UK gas-cooled reactors,
a very much smaller amount of CO2 , it has played a significant
role to date in reducing emissions of these gases in the UK. In
the present climate where most major industrialised countries
are experiencing serious difficulties in reducing these
emissions sufficiently, it seems that to shut down existing
reactors, or simply to phase out all present stations at the end
of the operating lives, would be environmentally a retrograde
step, unless the environmental consequences were far worse, or
there were a readily available alternative.
Return to Contents
The long term aim must be to reduce our energy consumption and
to switch our reliance as far as possible to indigenous
renewable energy technologies, of which Scotland has an
abundance. Not only will these not run out, but in general they
have a far lower environmental impact with regard to CO2, acid
and other emissions, and they do not carry the particular risks
associated with nuclear power. We recognise, however, the
practical difficulties and the economic implications which would
be involved in such a major switch of energy infrastructure, and
also the current problem of a large excess of installed
generating capacity in Scotland. Nonetheless, many in the
Church of Scotland have become concerned with what they see as
the slow progress in developing this immense resource. The SRT
Project wishes to emphasise strongly the need to proceed with
development and demonstration projects, including in such
resources as biomass, tidal and wave energy, whose current
uncertainties will not otherwise be resolved. At present,
however, there seems no prospect of installing renewable
electricity on such a scale that would enable a clean swap from
nuclear to renewables, either in Scotland or in the whole UK.
A much wider use of combined heat and power generation (CHP)
could make significant improvements in the overall efficiency of
fossil fuel electricity generation, and thus reduce the
emissions per unit of electricity. The UK lags behind many
European countries in this essential energy efficiency measure.
Steps need to be taken by the Government to remove the barriers
currently discouraging the realisation the full potential of CHP
in the UK, particularly smaller scale municipal schemes. While
these opportunities should be grasped, CHP seems unlikely
adopted on the scale needed to provide an alternative to nuclear
generation in terms of savings in emissions. It is rather a
step to be done in parallel.
Return to Contents
On the consequences of nuclear power for the environment and
human health and safety, there is within the church, as in the
wider UK population, a sharply divided reaction. For some, it
is the energy source above all to be rid of. Two main reasons
are cited. The human and environmental consequences of a
possible major accident are considered so severe as to make even
a small numerically probability unacceptable. To pass on to
subsequent generations the legacy of long-lived wastes for the
indefinite future is seen as a matter of grave ethical concern
in a Christian moral framework, especially to proceed with
nuclear power while the question of ultimate storage or disposal
has not been demonstrated in practice. Some church members are
also troubled by the risk of diversion for military or terrorist
uses, and the historical association of nuclear energy and
nuclear weapons. Some perceive this as the main reason the
Government has continued to support the nuclear energy
programme. Another concern is what some see as the subsidising
of nuclear power by the requirement, following the electricity
privatisation, for Scottish Power to buy Scottish Nuclear's
electricity, and the allocation of most of the non-fossil fuel
obligation in England and Wales to nuclear. This is regarded as
distorting the economic case, at the cost the of developing the
full potential of Scotland's renewable energy resources.
Return to Contents
Others in the churches, while not denying the drawbacks of
nuclear power, stress the need to see them in the context, not
only of its advantages, but also of the environmental impact of
whatever alternative policy was pursued if nuclear power were to
be displaced. In particular, this would seem inevitably to mean
the increased use of fossil fuels to generate electricity, at
the very time when we most need to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
It is a matter of judgement whether the risk from global
warming and the actual damage from acid gases is more tolerable
than that the risk of a severe nuclear accident and the concerns
arising out of long-term radioactive waste management. The SRT
Project's view is that while the vast majority of the UK's
energy is supplied by fossil fuels, and with the difficulty in
reducing their emissions on a large scale, and a prospect of
large increase of worldwide CO2 emissions, the priority for the
time being would be to reduce the fossil fuel electricity
component rather than the nuclear. The relatively low level of
fossil-fired electricity in Scotland should not therefore be
increased, but the existing nuclear component retained for the
foreseeable future.
Even if the best possible conditions existed for the penetration
of renewable energy into the electricity supply market on a
significant scale, if this were used to displace nuclear
generating capacity, the "opportunity cost" of this would mean
that same proportion of fossil fuel generation had not been
replaced, and that amount of CO2 and acid gas emission would not
be removed. Given the conclusion of a priority for reducing
fossil fuel emissions, renewable energy deployment should
displace fossil fuels for the time being. Some may argue that
the nuclear component should be increased, perhaps to 40% for
the UK, to reduce fossil emissions more rapidly. Nuclear power
might, in conjunction with renewables, virtually remove the need
to generate electricity from fossil fuels. While there is some
logic to this in terms of the risk of global warming, we feel a
balance must also be struck with risks of nuclear energy which
we have expressed above, and especially the strong public
concern about them. As a matter of prudence we suggest that for
the time being the existing levels in the UK should remain about
the same. A rolling programme of fresh nuclear stations should
be planned to replace time expired nuclear plant, which would
also maintain a stable UK nuclear industry with both
construction and support capabilities, but this should not
increase nuclear's share substantially.
Return to Contents
The issue of the "true" costs of the nuclear industry have been
a subject of controversy over many years and especially in the
privatisation of the electricity supply industry. We are not in
a position to make a detailed assessment of the costings for
future PWR's based on the Sizewell B design, or their validity
vis a vis coal or gas fired stations. It would have been more
honest, however, if the comparisons of nuclear coal and gas in
fig.3.3 showed included the possible variations in the nuclear
costs, including the sensitivity to uranium price increases.
We are pleased to see that a wide range of sensitivity studies
taken into consideration in the Nuclear Utilities Chairman's
Group report, and an explanation of the decommissioning cost
provisions. We consider it essential that all investment
towards future decommissioning should be "ring fenced" in a
trust fund, to avoid any diversion of these funds, after what
has occurred in the past. Public confidence is at stake on this
issue, since there is a strong feeling of being seriously misled
in the past by both the Government and the former utilities.
While we cannot judge the detailed economics of the case, the
question of what is meant by competition in the energy market
affects not only nuclear energy but renewables as well. It is
widely believed that we have been getting our energy "on the
cheap", and that some form of energy taxation should be used
which begins to reflect the true environmental costs of our
energy consumption. Amongst the conclusions of the Government's
workshops on Climate Change in March 1993 (1) was the widespread
view that energy is too cheap to motivate people to reduce
energy consumption and thus reduce emissions of CO2. A carbon
tax was generally preferred as the right way forward, and not
VAT or a general energy tax, and not be levied just to raise
general revenues. In any taxation, the greatest care would be
needed to ensure that the better off, who can pay, do pay, even
an extra share to protect the increasing percentage of society
who are poor, elderly and infirm, for whom keeping warm is
already a problem.
It is now quite clear that comparable attention has not been
made to costing the environmental, health and safety impact of
the fossil fuels, in respect CO2, NOx, SO2, inhalable
particulate, CH4, etc. and their impact on acid deposition,
global warming, urban health and pollution, and other
degradation arising from transport fuels. Until such costing is
done, it is meaningless to speak of the nuclear industry
"proving itself competitive", since the "playing field" by which
assessment is made may be so far from level. This applies to
nuclear energy, but still more to renewable forms of energy,
which, in the main do not suffer these particular forms of
fossil fuel environmental impact, nor carry the risks associated
with nuclear power.
If our fossil fuel electricity generating costs included either
the safe removal and storage of CO2, acid gases and particulate
from all our industrial and domestic flue gases, or at least the
environmental impact, the relative economics of renewable and
nuclear energies against coal and gas could look very different.
It is not our place to pass judgements within the difficult and
controversial area of estimating externalities, but we note, by
way of example, Pearce's estimate that the combined additional
costs of global warming and acid emissions on the generation of
electricity either by a new IGCC coal plant or a combined cycle
gas turbine may tip the economic balance in favour of a new PWR
nuclear plant. (2)
Return to Contents
Improved safety in the Sizewell B/C design
We note that reactor choices for the time being are likely to
focus on the Sizewell B design. This is a UK modification of
what is now an old US design which dates back to the 1970's.
There have been many improvements in PWR technology since then
which would need to be incorporated if the design were
continued. A notable example is in operator radiation exposure,
whose relatively high levels are one of the drawbacks of the PWR
reactor concept. Any future PWR built in the UK should follow
German practice with low cobalt materials which has resulted in
reduced worker doses more in line with the low levels customary
in the UK AGR and Magnox stations. The church would be
concerned if the pressure to show competitive costs meant that
the nuclear utilities sought not to adopt the proven best
practice elsewhere in the world for protecting those working on
future nuclear power stations, or the general public.
Severe accident risk and passive safety
The risk of widespread contamination and the serious effect on
life, both immediately and for generations, in the event of a
serious accident cannot be ignored. In choosing reactor
designs, priority should be given to those embodying the maximum
use of passive safety systems and features, bearing in mind the
largest source of risk may well lie from human error. Nuclear
companies should be advised not to make unrealistic claims about
"intrinsically safe" reactors.
Radioactive Waste Management
Our largest concern continues to be in the area of the
management and disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes. While
this is the subject of a parallel review, we wish to record our
deep and continuing concern at the slow progress towards a
demonstrated solution, and the apparently continual reviews and
changes of policy. This seems to put back still further the
realisation of a deep level ILW repository. We note that nearly
20 years have passed since the 1976 Royal Commission report was
very cautious over the advisability of the continuation of
nuclear power until its radioactive waste management problems
had demonstrated solutions.
Delay on the Torness Dry Fuel Store
We are now also concerned at the additional delay that has been
introduced on a decision over the proposed Torness dry fuel
store, especially in view of Reporter's favourable comments. It
is important that this alternative technology for the back end
of the AGR fuel cycle in Scotland is given the opportunity to be
demonstrated. The idea of a centralised facility for the UK
seems not to merit serious consideration, as it would remove all
the advantages of on-site storage, and would increase
unnecessarily the transport of spent fuel around the country.
The Economic and Social Impact on Caithness
Caithness has borne a heavy part of the closure of the fast reactor at Dounreay, and the rundown of the associated research. While recognising the changed circumstances which have led to this pioneering Scottish work being terminated, we are concerned that insufficient attention has been given to encourage redeployment of the highly skilled workforce, and are concerned at the loss of the unique pool of experience if ever there is seen to be a prospect for the commercial deployment of the fast reactor. As with its severe measures in cutting back the coal
industry, we consider that the Government has shown a serious lack of concern for the human cost on this relatively small and extremely remote local community, both in spirit and in economy.
Nuclear Fusion
The UK should continue to pursue actively the prospects for nuclear fusion power, on an international collaborative basis, to establish whether this would be a strategic option for large scale energy generation for the long term future. It should be made clear to the public, however, that although it has many safety advantages, even fusion power is not completely without risk - notably from tritium releases and medium term radioactive wastes.
Normal caveat on submissions to the Government
These are the views of the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland, and should not be taken as necessarily representing an official view of the Church of Scotland, since this can only be made by its annual General Assembly.
References
- Report of Workshops on Climate Change - "Our National Programme for CO2 Emissions," QEII Conference Centre, 1-2 March 1993, A.Hedges et al, eds., Dept.of the Environment.
- Professor David Pearce - "Can global warming save nuclear power?", a paper given at IBC International Conference on the Future of Nuclear Power, London, 18-19 January 1994.
This page has been produced by the Society Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland (SRT for short), and is copyright, Donald M.Bruce, 1996. We're usually happy for people to reproduce all or part of our articles, but please write or email us for permission first, at our address below.
Return to Contents
Return to SRT Project Home Page
SRT Energy Home Page
Impact of Energy in Scotland's Environment
Scottish Churches' Energy Efficiency Scheme
What Prospects for Renewable Energy?
Nuclear Power Home Page
What Future for Nuclear Power?
What Lessons from Dounreay?
Chernobyl Reflection
Climate Change Home Page
Climate Change Petition
Climate Change : Petition Result
Links to SRT's Other Environment Pages
Links to other SRT Project Pages
This page has been produced by the Society Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland. For more about our work on other issues, see our Other SRT Project pages, or our SRT Publications List.
We'd also welcome any comments you may have. We don't claim to have said the last word!
If you want to send us a comment or obtain further information or receive our latest Newsletter,
email us at :
mailto:srtp@srtp.org.uk
or send an ordinary letter or fax to :
Dr.Donald M.Bruce,
Society, Religion and Technology Project,
, 121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN, Scotland.
tel. +44 (0)131-240 2250, fax +44 (0)131-240 2239,
email address : srtp@srtp.org.uk
This page was last revised on 4 January 1999, and has been accessed
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
times since I put in a counter on 22 June 1998.
Return to Contents
Return to Further Information
LINKS TO OTHER SRT PROJECT PAGES
[SRT Project Home Page]
[What is the SRT Project?]
[SRT Publications List]
[Genetic Engineering Pages]
[Human Genetics Pages]
[Cloning Pages]
[Environment Pages]
[Energy/Nuclear Power/Chernobyl Pages]
[Climate Change]
[Internet Issues]
[Science and Faith Pages]
[Talking Point - This month's special feature article]
Return to Top of the Page
Return to Contents
Return to Further Information
Go to SRT Contents Page
SRT Website Map
Return to SRT Home Page
