Earlier this week, the UK government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change announced plans to build 10 new nuclear power stations in an effort to both meet future electricity demands, and help meet its commitments regarding climate change mitigation (an ambitious 30% reduction by 2030). Currently the UK gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear energy, and its existing aging fleet of power stations is set to be retired by 2030. New reactors will need to be built just to maintain the current electricity source mix.

Seven of the new power stations are set to be built in locations already housing an existing nuclear power plant, and one will be built on the site of a retired plant. Only two of the proposed plants are Greenfield sites.

The draft national policy proposes to dramatically reduce the amount of time that it takes to approve a power station, currently a lengthy multi-year process (similar to what happens in the US regulatory environment) to a one-year decision. It is hoped that through this and other fast-tracking measures, the first of the new reactors will be able to come online by 2018.

Nuclear energy is often pushed to the periphery in the mainstream climate change/clean energy debate. I have mixed feelings about it, and I suspect many environmentalists feel the same way. Here are some pros and cons:

Pro:

• Once built, has extremely low carbon footprint
• Compared with massive wind and solar farms, a small geographic footprint
• Can provide 24/7 baseload power (unlike many renewable sources, which are intermittent)
• Effectively unlimited supply of energy for the foreseeable future – especially with new types of reactor designs

Con:

• Potential for accidents/meltdowns, theoretically a target for terrorists
• Dealing with fuel waste is problematic and unresolved
• Require a huge capital investment, often done through government subsidies
• Large users of water for cooling purposes

Nuclear power plant in Cattenom, France. Source: Stefan Kühn

Proponents of nuclear power say that third and fourth generation reactors will be more cost effective, efficient, and have the potential to generate only a small amount of short-lived waste. Here is a run-down of the latest commercially available reactors.

Some of the more compelling arguments against the expansion of nuclear power in the US point out length of time and cost of construction. This puts nuclear power as coming online too late to help with a near-term reduction in GHG emissions, and being expensive when taking into account construction costs. However, if the US modified its regulatory process like the UK is doing, it could accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy, increase efficiencies, and potentially displace coal generation.

The waste issue is no small matter – perhaps Finland will provide a good example, as it will be the first country to build a permanent home for its nuclear waste. Should everything go to plan with their scheme, it could alleviate some of the fears and NIMBY challenges that have plagued the storage issue, especially the US Yucca Mountain effort.

The bottom line, however, is that I feel that the climate crisis trumps fears of nuclear meltdown and waste. Anti-nuke environmentalists should recognize that we risk certain catastrophe if GHG concentrations are allowed to continue to rise while in comparison the risk of a nuclear accident is quite low.

There are currently 436 reactors in operation (104 in the US) and 53 reactors under construction worldwide. Nuclear power is here to stay, and I for one welcome any expansion carbon-free energy.

A realistic effort at solving the climate crisis requires a massive push on all low-carbon energy fronts: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), solar, wind, geothermal, efficiency, and yes, nuclear.

Source: IAEA

(On a related note – in case you missed this article – did you know that 10% of US electricity comes from decommissioned Russian nuclear warheads? Since 1993, the “Megatons for Megawatts” program has eliminated 15,000 warheads and reprocessed them into commercial reactor fuel. It’s one legacy of the cold war that is being put to good use.)

What are your opinions of nuclear power?