Michael Laughton makes the case for nuclear

My main hope is that the outcome of the Energy Review of 2006 will focus on future security of supply linked to the need for a new nuclear build programme as well as more diverse renewable contributions.

All Engineering Institutions say the same. (See 1 below)

Eminent opinion
Linking the security case for nuclear also to environmental concerns, the President of the Royal Society, Lord May, said recently in an interview that climate change demands Britain consider building new nuclear power plants and that the time to act is now.

He argued that the idea of Britain meeting its energy needs with renewables alone was simply wishful thinking.

Likewise Dr James Lovelock, FRS, a lifelong environmentalist and member of the green movement who developed the Gaia Hypothesis of a self-regulating planet, commented that,
‘The Green idea that renewable energy can fill the gap left by retired nuclear power stations – and also meet the constantly rising demand for power – is romantic nonsense. Though it [nuclear] is so much cleaner and safer than fossil fuels – and also easily the cheapest, according to a recent European Commission study – we allow Greens to exploit our fears [concerning safety] in the same way that churches not long ago preyed on our fears of hell-fire. 

Only because of this pressure, not for any rational reason, governments are afraid to grasp the nuclear lifeline. If a scientific or engineering reason exists against it, I am yet to hear it.  Certainly, no Green organisation has come up with a single argument worth considering.’

Energy outlook
A broader perspective on the case for nuclear energy with implications for both security of supply and environmental concerns was provided recently by the World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency’s new projections for the next 25 years. It sees world energy demand being likely to rise by almost 60 per cent between now and 2030.

On the IEA’s projections, 85 per cent of additional energy will come from fossil fuels. Two thirds of the extra demand will come from developing countries, mainly China and India. (plus Russia, Brazil and Mexico). Even without China and India, which rely principally on coal and oil, the market for natural gas seems likely to be stretched for years to come. At the same time, mainland Europe is expecting to import far more gas and so is America, which is now set to make significant demands on the international LNG market.

Natural gas burning would treble by 2030 from an already substantial level on the IEA’s projections, a scenario involving large price rises. The UK forecast of increasing gas use in electricity generation to 2020 is based on some but not significant price increases. Yet for the next few decades we are increasingly dependent on gas for electricity generation (and also as a prime feedstock for the chemical industry).

Higher energy prices would be reflected in slower world growth and more people staying poor.  The environmental impact of China and India coming up to Western levels of GDP with associated carbon dioxide emissions from energy generation would be catastrophic. 

Europe’s drive for wind power and other forms of renewable energy will make an insignificant contribution to resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. The share of renewables in EU energy supply will double to only 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to seven per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.

Options
The choice then appears to be between global warming, nuclear power and keeping poor people poor.

Long before the end of this century, major changes in energy supply availability and patterns of energy use appear to be inevitable. These changes that will take many decades to accomplish, hence the need for foresight based on an appreciation of actualities and not on faith in unknown possibilities. (See 2 below)

I believe that the Swedish Energy Foresight programme came to the broadly correct conclusions that I would like to see enshrined in the results of the energy review. In brief, based on our present knowledge of technology options, the long-term future belongs to renewable energy, but the bridge to that future involves nuclear power. I hope that feedback from reality will present these two choices as the main strands of future energy supply policy.

References

1.  Responses to the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry, ‘Keeping the Lights On’, 2005
2. ‘Everything unknown has great potential’, Tacitus, AD 54

Professor Michael Laughton FREng is Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of London