This site is still in its early stages, but if I wait for it to be nicely polished it will never be published. More topics will be added over time. Launched 26 March 2019. Last Edited 20 February 2020.
Nuclear power, once seen as essential for our future prosperity, certainly seems to have lost its appeal. After a number of high-profile accidents, politicians no longer want to be seen supporting it.
The problem with nuclear power is that it needs political backing to enable power stations to be built - each one requires years of work just to demonstrate its safety and get planning permission, and politicians usually find that there are more votes to be gained by opposing a station than by approving it. This legal work increases the costs of nuclear power considerably. Although new power stations are safe, it is expensive to achieve and prove the levels of safety demanded by an ever-more sceptical population. The last nuclear station to go live in the UK was completed in 1995, and it was supposed to be the first of 'a small family' of about six similar stations. So, although we once led the world in nuclear-powered electricity generation, the UK is now thinking of buying foreign-designed stations, at great cost because the sellers want guarantees that they will get a fair deal. If you are going to have a nuclear industry, you have to do it with a sense of conviction!
There is now a new darling of the energy market - renewable energy, especially wind turbines and solar panels.
The problem with renewable energy as a panacea is two-fold. Firstly, to rely solely on wind and sun for electrical power is very much like putting all your eggs in one basket. What if we have a prolonged period of unfavourable weather? Or what if we discovered a design fault in our solar panels or wind turbines that meant they had to be shut down for safety or environmental reasons until they were repaired? It's unlikely, I know, but it would be good to have a plan B. Secondly, we are starting to run out of really good sites to put wind turbines or solar panels. Wind turbines in particular are a blot on the landscape, made worse by the fact that, if they are working at all, they are in motion, which exacerbates their 'in your face' visibility. Already, people are complaining about beauty spots being spoiled by them. Can we really accept a doubling or tripling of wind turbines?
All this is just to stand still. Our energy market is not just about electricity, but also about fuel for heating and fuel for transport. If we electrify more of our transport, then means more demand for electric generation - even more wind turbines.
So - here's my suggestion. We recognise that renewable energy is the 'way to go' for generating electricity - nuclear power used to enjoy that claim, but not any more. However, we also recognise that renewable energy has its own limitations and is not yet mature enough to be the sole answer. We need a second source - at least until we solve the blot-on-the-landscape problem and develop a reliable and efficient way to 'store' electricity. Note that a typical PWR generates about 1000 MW, or about the amount of 200 of the biggest wind turbines (5 MW each), or 4 square miles of solar panels (100 W per square metre, 100 MW per square kilometre). But that comparison ignores the fact that nuclear power is available more than 75% of the time, compared with less than 50% for wind or solar. So a true comparison is 300 turbines or 6 square miles of solar. I suggest we build another batch of 10-12 nuclear stations, using a single, proven design and a clear plan to control costs (rather than the piecemeal approach we have had in the past). In another forty years, when the new generation is approaching the end of its working life, we should be in a position with renewable energy, and the storage of energy, that we can safely manage with renewable energy alone. Renewable energy is the future - but we're not there yet. We need nuclear for a little longer.
Update on Feb 8 2020: every time I revisit this page, my estimate of how many nuclear power stations we need goes up. I have to be honest, I think I'm striking the wrong tone with this page.. It's not as easy as I've been trying to make it look. Let's lay out the assumptions, and do some proper arithmetic. Rounding is OK, as we only need a ball-park figure.
Assumptions:
-
Current electrical generating capacity = 50 GW, of which 25 GW is gas, 15 GW is wind/solar, 10 GW is nuclear.
-
Current energy rate for transport not already counted by electricity = 60 GW, all of which is met by oil (yes, that is about right).
-
Current energy rate for heating not counted by electricity = 50 GW, all of which is met by gas.
-
Future energy efficiency measures (above what we are already doing) will save one quarter of energy.
Hence, we currently use 160 GW, but with energy efficiency yet to be achieved (e.g. more insulation, smarter heating, moving more transport to rail) we will eventually use 120 GW. We will have to replace gas-powered generation, so our current 25 GW capacity will need to be increased by 95 GW. Is this all going to be met by renewable energy?
10 nuclear stations would take 3000 large wind turbines off our hillsides, which is worthwhile but only represents about a tenth of the total capacity required. It is relatively easy to find places to put 10 nuclear stations, as it is usually possible to add capacity at sites that already have them. Perhaps we need to think bigger - maybe 40-50? This would halve the number of wind turbines but increase the number of nuclear stations to close to the number currently in France. This is where the DESTINY model comes in. You have to address the Environment, but not at the expense of Democracy. Would the people tolerate so many nuclear power stations? Come to think of it, would the people tolerate so many wind turbines?