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?

first, nuclear is not particularly first, nuclear is not particularly carbon-freecarbon-free

second, new nuclear could only second, new nuclear could only make a small contribution to make a small contribution to reducing COreducing CO22 emissions emissions

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

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 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?

UK Gov’t Consultative UK Gov’t Consultative DocumentDocument

January 2006 http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file25079.pdf

"Nuclear power plants emit almost "Nuclear power plants emit almost zero carbon …. However the mining, zero carbon …. However the mining, refining and enriching of uranium, refining and enriching of uranium, and plant construction and and plant construction and decommissioning, are carbon-decommissioning, are carbon-intensive processes…”intensive processes…”

Annex A: page 64Annex A: page 64

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 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 ? ?

How much COHow much CO22 saved per $ saved per $

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

AP1000 reactor = $7 to $12 billionAP1000 reactor = $7 to $12 billion ~15 x higher than gas-fired equivalent~15 x higher than gas-fired equivalent requires very large Government requires very large Government

subventions, subsidies, insurance subventions, subsidies, insurance guarantees, and market interventionsguarantees, and market interventions

Nuclear construction costs per Nuclear construction costs per kW kW

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

Comparison of generating Comparison of generating costscosts

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 in sight for radioactive wastesNo solution in sight for radioactive wastes

•Proliferation of nuclear weaponsProliferation of nuclear weapons

•Expensive: 15 x more than gas-fired station per Expensive: 15 x more than gas-fired station per GWeGWe

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, most away from its non-proliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months.” 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 The magnitude and scope of the disaster, the size of the affected population, and the long-size of the affected population, and the long-term consequences make it, by far, the worst term consequences make it, by far, the worst industrial disaster on record” IAEA/WHO 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