Climate change and nuclear power
Posted by David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, at 15:39, Tue 4 July 2006:
The issue of how to tackle climate change has been keeping my mailbag full over the past few months and is clearly a matter of great concern to people in Cambridge. And now nuclear power is firmly back on the government agenda with Tony Blair pre-empting his own Energy Review to give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. I’m not persuaded.
As the Liberal Democrat energy spokesperson I’ve been meeting economists, engineers and climate change scientists to hear what they have to say about tackling climate change. One of the great things about representing Cambridge is the wealth of expertise right here. What I’ve heard has convinced me that building new nuclear power stations is not the answer.
I’m concerned that the government has not properly thought though the costs of nuclear power. The nuclear industry’s special risks, including its appalling record on building power plants to time and on budget, mean that investors require a higher rate of return than on other electricity generation projects. That means that if the government wants nuclear power, it cannot escape providing indirect subsidies such as underwriting the heavy financial burdens of decommissioning or the costs of disposing of radioactive waste or at least skewing the market towards nuclear power and away from renewable energy.
In addition, nuclear power commits us to a centralised and inflexible electricity generating system and will prevent the development of the varied and decentralised electricity generation system that is the key to reducing energy wastage and to security of supply. Our National Grid is currently in need of renewal so we have a great opportunity to redesign it for the needs of the 21st century. Nuclear power will force us to rebuild the existing system and will limit the potential for microgeneration, combined heat and power and renewables.
Experience in other countries also shows that a decision for nuclear largely undermines attempts at promoting energy efficiency, which is in many ways the key to a sustainable future.
I will be continuing to campaign in parliament against a new generation of nuclear power stations and for an integrated and sustainable energy policy that will reduce our greenhouse emissions and make real strides towards tackling climate change.
Best wishes
David Howarth MP for Cambridge
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Francis Irving, 16:19, Tue 4 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
David, I think that Climate Change is important enough we need to not only encourage energy savings and renewables, but also leave the nuclear option open. However, I strongly object to subsidising nuclear power, including not properly charging for decommissioning and cleanup.
It shouldn't be the Government's job to campaign specifically for or against nuclear - instead they should charge the industry for externalities, credit it for lack of CO2 emission, and let it compete with the other ways to mitigate global warming.
Posted by Roger Giddings, 16:49, Tue 4 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I totally endorse your efforts. The liberals should make more 'noise' on this issue - reiterate that nuclear is not CO2 neutral, the Severn barrage can produce the equivalent of 2 nuclear power stations etc etc.. I'm sure you are aware of all this - just a message of support !
Posted by Robert Whittaker, 19:50, Tue 4 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Whilst I'm a little uneasy about further investment in Nuclear power, I've heard from serveral sources that there is little alternative for the UK if we're to reduce our dependence on and hence emmisions from fossil fuels.
I'd be very interested to hear properly calculated proposals on how we can meet our future energy needs without nuclear power. What new engery projects would we need, and how much would these cost? (Am I going to need a wind turbine in my back yard?) How much scope is there for reducing the current dependence on fossil fuels, after the loss of current nuclear provision and increasing demand is taken into account?
Dismissing nuclear power without publishing the details of what your alternative is could be dangerous. Do the Liberal Democrats have such details to share?
As an aside, readers might be interesting in having a play with the BBC's "Electricity Calculator", which I assume has at least some degree of accuracy to it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/electricity_calc/html/1.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5016136.stm
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, 23:49, Tue 4 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
As I understand it the technical issue comes down to whether sufficiently-dispersed wind farms can, along with hydro and pumped storage hydro, supply reliable enough power to remove the need for lots of nuclear or CCGT natural gas plants to supply power on calm days. If they can, then you can get away without nuclear; if they can't, you end up with a choice between gas (supplies controlled by Vladimir Putin and/or mad-as-a-box-of-frogs régimes in the Middle East) and nuclear (with its attendent questions over decommissioning, waste storage, economics and safety).
Long term, going for natural gas means shipping the stuff about in tankers (inconvenient and expensive, but by no means the safety nightmare that certain people claim) and appeasing the governments of countries that happen to control the stuff; going for nuclear means, ultimately, the plutonium economy (eventually we'll need to switch to breeder reactors, unless you're the kind of optimist who thinks that fusion is going to dig us out of this hole). It's probably not worth worrying about the alleged proliferation risks of increased investment in nuclear power; as Iran and North Korea show, our foreign policy is driving proliferation much faster than increased amounts of fissile material in the fuel cycle would.
Posted by Corrina Gordon, 10:02, Wed 5 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
David - I'm delighted that you're taking this stand and give you my full support. It is an honour to have you as our MP. THANK YOU.
Posted by alan truelove, 20:36, Wed 5 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
This comment has been removed