In 2002, Britain’s nuclear stations generated 21% of the country’s electricity. In doing so they saved emissions of some 56 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, about 10% of the UK total, assuming it would have been replaced by a mix of gas and coal. The greenhouse gas emissions from countries with large nuclear programmes are considerably lower than elsewhere.

Emissions of carbon dioxide (tonnes) per MWh of electricity generated

The power cuts in New York and London this summer brought the issue of energy right back to the top of the political agenda, and reminded us how dependent we have become on secure electricity supplies. The closure of over 10% of the UK’s electricity generating capacity over the last two years is an issue of growing concern to many commentators.

In view of this, the 2003 Energy White Paper, Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy, contains much to be welcomed. It offers an admirably clear exposition of the challenges ahead, that global use of energy may double in the next fifty years, while greenhouse gas emissions must fall by some 60% in developed countries like the UK if climate change is to be manageable. It acknowledges the role of innovation and the importance of research, development and new technologies, and encourages a growing role for renewable sources of energy.

The White Paper promises a review of the nuclear option in 2006. However, there is a strong case for taking some action now to prepare for that review and to keep the nuclear option open.

Where are we now?

In 2000, total electricity consumption in the UK amounted to 359 TWh. Some 71% of UK electricity supply, about 255 TWh, was provided by fossil fuels (39% gas, 31% coal, 1% oil), assuming all imports to be from French nuclear electricity (assuming the fuel mix was essentially unchanged between 1999 and 2000).

Energy Paper 68 (published in 2000) assumes a major improvement in energy efficiency over the next twenty years, but even so its middle estimates imply electricity use in 2020 of about 415 TWh. Let us assume that the aspiration for 20% electricity from renewables in 2020 is achieved. If no new nuclear plants are built, total nuclear generation may be around 10% of total demand (about two thirds of this from UK owned plants). So fossil fuels will be generating 70% of the increased power demand, or a total of 290 TWh.

So at the moment we are heading for an enormous increase in the amount of gas used for electricity production. Having accounted for 0% of power production in 1990, on the basis of the White Paper and EP68 it will account for 58% in 2020. Gas-generated electricity will increase by 60% between 2000 and 2020, gas we will have to import. Given our relative geographical isolation that will inevitably put us at the end of very long pipelines from Russia and the Middle East, a scenario that may not be a comfortable one.

“...if renewables account for just 10% of power consumption by 2020 then carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector will actually rise.”

Greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector will fall modestly as the last phase of the ‘dash for gas’ is completed, though if renewables account for just 10% of power consumption by 2020 then carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector will actually rise.

How do we avoid this future?

Of course, the future is not fixed. But does the White Paper give us reason to believe that such a future can be headed off?

UK electricity production in 2000 (actual) and 2020 (projected) (TWh)

The main policy proposal in the White Paper is a radical improvement in the ‘energy ratio’ of the economy over and above the improvements assumed in EP68, ie the amount of energy needed to produce a unit of GDP. The rate of improvement will have to double from the 1.8% achieved in the period 1970-2000.

However, the energy ratio fell more rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s than in the 1990s. The first two decades were characterised by high energy prices and a one-off change in the economy away from energy-intensive manufacturing industry towards services industries. The Government is committed to keeping energy prices below the 1975-1995 average. International experience suggests that, at such prices, there may be insufficient incentives to increase the rate of energy efficiency improvement sufficiently.

Secondly, despite offering subsidies to renewables of at least 2.5p per kWh in 2010 (about 150% on current market prices), many commentators believe it unlikely that either the renewables target of 10% market share in 2010, or the aspiration for 20% in 2020, will be met without further support measures. Many of the renewables, notably wind, are intermittent – we can’t be sure of getting the energy when we want it. Since we can’t store electricity, we can’t rely on windfarms, however many of them we have, to keep the lights on during the coldest nights of the year. Someone will have to pay for back-up capacity.

The nuclear option

Without giving supporting reasons, the White Paper says that building nuclear power plants is not attractive because of economic considerations. However, last September BNFL Westinghouse claimed that the costs of generation from its new AP1000 design would be 3p per kWh for the first plant, falling to 2.2p per kWh for the fourth and subsequent stations of a series; similar claims are made on behalf of the Canadian Advanced CANDU Reactor. This would be less than the subsidy on offer to renewables. It will be difficult to evaluate such claims until commercial demonstration plants have been built, but recent plant construction projects, for example in the Asia-Pacific region, have come in to time and cost.

An uncertain future

The future the White Paper paints might develop, but it does require a lot of individual elements all to work together. If energy efficiency or renewables fail to live up to the (by historical standards) optimistic targets set for them in the White Paper, it is very unlikely that the UK will meet its environmental commitments and maintain secure power supplies without a programme of new nuclear power stations. This option should be actively retained.

“...Nuclear power is today the only large-scale source of electricity, with the exception of hydropower, which is a proven alternative to using fossil fuels.”

We do not need to commit ourselves now to a major new nuclear programme. But equally, there are steps we should be taking now to keep the option open if it should prove needed. There is a very strong argument for beginning the pre-licensing process for two or three of the new plant designs, such as Advanced CANDU and AP1000. This would not be expensive, but could save up to five years in developing new nuclear stations should it become clear that this is a sensible approach.

Nuclear power is today the only large-scale source of electricity, with the exception of hydropower, which is a proven alternative to using fossil fuels. When facing such enormous uncertainties, all options should be retained.