Does nuclear energy Does nuclear energy provide an answer to provide an answer to

global warming?global warming?

Dr Ian FairlieDr Ian FairlieConsultant on Radiation in the Consultant on Radiation in the

EnvironmentEnvironmentLondonLondon

United KingdomUnited Kingdom

widespread concern about global widespread concern about global warmingwarming need carbon-free alternatives need carbon-free alternatives many people think nuclear power many people think nuclear power provides a solutionprovides a solution

Is Nuclear an Answer? Is Nuclear an Answer?

nuclear is not carbon-freenuclear is not carbon-free new nuclear could only make new nuclear could only make

a small contribution to a small contribution to reducing UK COreducing UK CO22 emissions emissions

nuclear is economically the nuclear is economically the worst way to reduce COworst way to reduce CO22

How Carbon-free is How Carbon-free is Nuclear?Nuclear?

Nuclear Fuel Cycle and CONuclear Fuel Cycle and CO2 2

uranium mining + millinguranium mining + milling UFUF66 conversion conversion U-235 fuel enrichmentU-235 fuel enrichment nuclear fuel fabricationnuclear fuel fabrication fuel transportationfuel transportation reactor operationreactor operation waste encapsulationwaste encapsulation waste transportationwaste transportation future waste disposal?future waste disposal?

COCO2 2 emissions depend onemissions depend on

uranium ore grade, typeuranium ore grade, type U-235 enrichment method U-235 enrichment method future nuclear waste plansfuture nuclear waste plans any underground repositoryany underground repository

COCO22 and U ore grade and U ore grade

1.1.ÖÖko Institut (advisors to German ko Institut (advisors to German Environment Ministry) in 2006Environment Ministry) in 2006 www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf

- - COCO22 savings with nuclear power were savings with nuclear power were poorpoor in comparison with renewable in comparison with renewable energiesenergies

2.2. Storm van Leeuwen in 2006Storm van Leeuwen in 2006- - nuclear produces nuclear produces 20% - 30%20% - 30% as much as much COCO22 as modern gas-fired station as modern gas-fired stationwww.stormsmith.nl www.stormsmith.nl

Two Independent StudiesTwo Independent Studies

How Much Potential for How Much Potential for ReducingReducing

COCO22 emissions? emissions?

Potential for UK COPotential for UK CO22 reductionreduction

electricity generation responsible for ~electricity generation responsible for ~20%20% of of UK annual COUK annual CO22 production production

maximum contribution of ~maximum contribution of ~25%25% to electricity to electricity supply (because nuclear cannot follow demand)supply (because nuclear cannot follow demand)

20% x 25% = ~5%20% x 25% = ~5%

Daily Electricity DemandDaily Electricity Demand

•a 10GW replacement nuclear a 10GW replacement nuclear programme would result in … a programme would result in … a 4%4% cut cut in COin CO22 emissions from 1990 levels emissions from 1990 levels http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344 (March http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344 (March 2006)2006)

•concluded “Nuclear power is not the concluded “Nuclear power is not the answer answer to tackling climate change …” to tackling climate change …” http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.htmlhttp://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

Is nuclear power a cost Is nuclear power a cost effective way to reduce effective way to reduce

COCO22 ? ?

1. Renewable energy1. Renewable energy

2. High efficiency technology, eg CHP2. High efficiency technology, eg CHP

3. CO3. CO22 sequestration sequestration

4. Low carbon fuels, eg gas not coal4. Low carbon fuels, eg gas not coal

5. Greater energy efficiency in homes etc5. Greater energy efficiency in homes etc

6. Nuclear power6. Nuclear power

ie, nuclear power = just 1 of 6 options in energy

How ToHow To Mitigate Climate Mitigate Climate Change?Change?

How much COHow much CO22 saved per $ saved per $

Nuclear capital costs Nuclear capital costs – extremely high– extremely high

AP1000 reactor = £7 to £9 billion eachAP1000 reactor = £7 to £9 billion each

~20 x higher than gas-fired equivalent~20 x higher than gas-fired equivalent

requires very large Government subventions, requires very large Government subventions, subsidies, insurance guarantees, and market subsidies, insurance guarantees, and market interventionsinterventions

increasing costs (per kW increasing costs (per kW installed) installed)

Renewable Energy Cost Trends November 2005(levelised sent-out cost of energy in constant 2005 US$, excluding subsidies)Source: US NREL Energy Analysis Office www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2005.ppt

Compare generating costs/ Compare generating costs/ kWkW

Nuclear vs photovoltaicNuclear vs photovoltaic

NuclearNuclear

•Can’t contribute in short term (~10 years to Can’t contribute in short term (~10 years to plan/build) or long term (exploitable reserves of U plan/build) or long term (exploitable reserves of U ore are limited)ore are limited)

•Dangerous – eg ChernobylDangerous – eg Chernobyl

•No solution yet for radioactive wastesNo solution yet for radioactive wastes

•Proliferation of nuclear weaponsProliferation of nuclear weapons

•Expensive: 20 x more than gas-fired station per Expensive: 20 x more than gas-fired station per GWGW

RenewablesRenewables

faster, cleaner, safer, cheaper, no emissions, no faster, cleaner, safer, cheaper, no emissions, no wastes, no proliferation, no resource depletion wastes, no proliferation, no resource depletion worriesworries

ComparisonComparison

A Nuclear Renaissance?A Nuclear Renaissance?

globally, in last decade, >30 GW globally, in last decade, >30 GW nuclearnuclear capacity has been closed capacity has been closed

in the same time, 70 GW in the same time, 70 GW windwind + + 70 GW 70 GW solarsolar thermal capacity thermal capacity has been installedhas been installed

Nuclear ProliferationNuclear Proliferation

““Should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle Should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle capability decide, for whatever reason, to break capability decide, for whatever reason, to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, away from its non-proliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce a nuclear most experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months.” weapon within a matter of months.”

Mohamed El-Baradei (2003) former IEAE director Mohamed El-Baradei (2003) former IEAE director Oct Oct 16 2003 The Economist16 2003 The Economist

ChernobylChernobyl

““foremost nuclear catastrophe in human foremost nuclear catastrophe in human history” IAEA (1996) history” IAEA (1996)

““The magnitude and scope of the disaster, The magnitude and scope of the disaster, the size of the affected population, and the the size of the affected population, and the long-term consequences make it, by far, the long-term consequences make it, by far, the worst industrial disaster on record” IAEA/WHO worst industrial disaster on record” IAEA/WHO (2005a) (2005a)

““Chernobyl radioactivity was 200 times that Chernobyl radioactivity was 200 times that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki” - WHO/IPHECA from Hiroshima and Nagasaki” - WHO/IPHECA (1995) (1995)

Nuclear WasteNuclear Waste"There should be no commitment to a "There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite radioactive waste for the indefinite future" future"

UK Royal Commission on UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1976Environmental Pollution 1976

Managerial DisasterManagerial Disaster

“ “The failure of the [1980s] US nuclear The failure of the [1980s] US nuclear power program ranks as the largest power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.” a disaster on a monumental scale.”

Cook J. Nuclear follies. Forbes, 11 February Cook J. Nuclear follies. Forbes, 11 February 1985.1985.

Ethical questions Ethical questions about nuclear powerabout nuclear power

a sustainable development?a sustainable development? consistent with the Precautionary consistent with the Precautionary

Principle?Principle? ethical to pass more radioactive waste to ethical to pass more radioactive waste to

future generations?future generations?

ConclusionsConclusions

very small contribution to COvery small contribution to CO22 reductionreduction

examine cheaper, more cost examine cheaper, more cost effective, quicker, safer optionseffective, quicker, safer options

= Renewables and Energy Efficiency= Renewables and Energy Efficiency

a radioactive future?a radioactive future?

or a renewable future…?or a renewable future…?

• Öko Institut, Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Abatement - Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective, January 2006

• House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Sixth Report “Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change” April 2006) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/58407.htm#a14

• Sustainable Development Commission Report “The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy”http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344

• Department of Trade and Industry Consultative DocumentDepartment of Trade and Industry Consultative Document“Our Energy Challenge” “Our Energy Challenge” January 2006 http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file25079.pdf

• US Department of Energy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Energy Analysis Office www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2005.ppt

• Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (2006) “Nuclear power - the energy balance”

• DTI DTI Analysis of Responses to the 2006 Energy Review Consultationhttp://www.dtistats.net/ereview/review_consultation_responses.pdfhttp://www.dtistats.net/ereview/review_consultation_responses.pdf