Pushing the nuclear button

The government's second energy review in the space of two years is distinguished by the recommendation that will be making tomorrow's headlines: building new nuclear power generators. While there is plenty of interesting stuff in the white paper, including on the need for improving energy efficiency, carbon pricing and trading, and on the desirability of generating more power from renewable sources, it is the nuclear button that will arouse the most interest and controversy.
What today's report shows is how things have changed. Twenty years ago, in the wake of Chernobyl, public opinion would have presented an almost insurmountable obstacle to building new nuclear generation plants in the UK. Since then, of course, global warming and climate change have succeeded in changing the view of nuclear generation, and rehabilitated it, for better or for worse. But even those convinced by the need for new nuclear generation should be aware that this is far from being a solution to Britain's carbon emissions. The current share of power generation that nuclear provides for the UK is small, just 80bn kilowatts a year, compared with the 250bn output of carbon-based fossil fuel powered stations. It would take a huge increase in nuclear generation to make a dent in the UK's target of cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 - and there are many better and probably cheaper alternatives to doing that.
So what happens if we build new nuclear plants? The first question is, who pays for it? Commercial power generators such as EDF have said they will pick up the bill so long as they receive a fixed price for electricity in long-term contracts - not exactly a subsidy but a guarantee (the companies want to protect their investment, which represents a huge sunk cost, against the possibility that, say, a fall in gas prices back to the levels seen only a few years ago that would price nuclear power out of the market). The who pays? question also involves indirect subsidies, such as decommissioning and disposal costs. The other big government intervention would be insurance of some form. Where the power plants are located is another issue. More importantly still, where will the waste be disposed of? As things stand, no other country will take British nuclear waste, and there are as yet no long-term disposal sites in this country.
If global warming was not an issue, then the nuclear lobby would be a lot weaker. Its only argument would be "energy security", and the dangers on relying on imports of gas to fuel our power stations. (The fear is that the Russians could use the gas supplies as a trade weapon, as it appears to have done to Ukraine recently. Ironically, one issue on the agenda of the G8 meeting next weekend in St Petersburg is energy security.) Most uranium comes from Canada and Australia, but another leading exporter is Kazakhstan, which is not exactly Switzerland. But if energy security was the issue then there would probably be only one answer: coal, something the UK has a lot of (even though 50% of the UK's current coal imports also come from Russia) underground. "Clean coal" technology, if it becomes reality, and carbon sequestration, when combined could actually make coal a real alternative. Perhaps that is the best way to view today's announcement of more nuclear plants: as a stop-gap, until cleaner technology one day allows us to finally jettison nuclear power completely.