Is nuclear the answer?

The Committee on Climate Change suggest 14 nuclear reactors should be built to help the UK reach their carbon emission target – but should they hold fire while alternative renewable are developed?

Should the UK be considering alternatives to nuclear energy?

With the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the effects they had on the Fukushima nuclear power plant, you’d be forgiven for thinking that nuclear power is off the cards when it comes to looking at alternative sources of energy in the UK.

However, according to a report from the government’s climate change watchdog – the Committee on Climate Change – it is still the cheapest viable solution to help the country reduce its reliance on fossil fuel.

The UK has pledged to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% compared with 1990 levels and the report suggests two more nuclear reactors – on top of the 12 already being planned at seven different sites – might be needed within 20 years if the UK is to meet these targets in a cost-effective way.

The committee’s chief executive, David Kennedy, said: “Let’s not forget that nuclear does look to be the lowest-cost low-carbon technology. Up to probably the second half of the 2020’s, nuclear will be the cheapest option.”

It might be the cheapest, but analysts suggest each reactor will cost a massive £4.5bn – adding another layer of cost and complexity to one of the most ambitious programmes to replace ageing nuclear facilities in Europe.

The report says there are many promising forms of renewable energy which could provide as much as 45% of the UK’s overall energy needs by 2030, a significant jump from the 3% we see today, but the committee still see nuclear power as the most suitable replacement.

It recommends that the government makes clear commitments to support less mature renewable technologies – such as offshore wind – but they are not likely to be as competitive as other low-carbon technologies. So what are these alternatives and should we be so quick to dismiss them?

The report suggests that 8,000 more wind turbines are needed offshore but plans to build them within the next decade are likely to be slowed because of the cost. Wind turbines have also met considerable public opposition as they can be noisy and unsightly.

Solar energy has long been considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels and scientists around the world are striving to improve photovoltaic cells; studying the materials and coatings; making them thinner and more efficient.

In this issue we have also seen how scientists in Switzerland are working on a photo-electrochemical approach to generating hydrogen – a serendipitous discovery which the scientists hope could replace the majority of fossil fuel in the energy sector (pg 3). There is still a lot of work to be done but the scientists obviously believe it could one day be considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels some way, and if nuclear power is the cheapest way to do that then that’s the route that the government will choose. However, that isn’t to say that research into other alternatives shouldn’t continue at the same rate – or even increase – especially since we still have a long way to go to reach the target of reducing our emissions by 80%.

As this research is likely to be directed towards making renewables more efficient, cheaper and safer than nuclear power, perhaps the government should hold fire before commissioning these new reactors.

However, the UK will miss two of their carbon budget targets to cut emissions in the next decade if they rely on existing policies. We already missed the 2010 target to cut carbon emissions by 20%, but it must be acknowledged that there was a huge decrease in emissions between 2008 and 2009. A cold winter led to a rise in 2010, and forecasts suggest emissions will fall by 0.5-0.75% every year until 2020, increasing to 1% between 2020 and 2025.

This goes to show how difficult is it to put in place policies that would actually achieve effective reductions, so maybe – in the short term – the commissioning of 14 new nuclear reactors is the best way to reduce our emissions.