Head to head: Does the UK need nuclear power?

15th May 2011

Nuclear power

Related Topics

Related tags

  • Mitigation ,
  • Renewable ,
  • Energy ,
  • Generation ,
  • Conventional



In light of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Mark Lynas and Jeremy Leggett give their opinions

Mark Lynas

Author of two major books on climate change

My position on nuclear power is very simple: I don’t think environmentalists should oppose any viable source of low-carbon power.

This is certainly the lesson of history: there were many nuclear plants planned or even built in the 1970s and 1980s that were opposed by environmental activists and were instead converted to coal.

Thanks to the anti-nuclear movement, countless billions of tonnes of extra carbon dioxide have now accumulated in the atmosphere and are contributing to accelerated global warming. I sincerely hope that the Fukushima accident does not force us into repeating this epochal ecological mistake at just the time that the nuclear industry was looking forward to a wider renaissance.

Just to be clear: nuclear is only part of the solution anywhere, and is certainly not appropriate in every country.

In my work as adviser to the president of the Maldives, I do not advocate nuclear as part of the energy mix as this sprawling nation of low-lying islands aims towards carbon neutrality. The Maldives needs solar energy primarily, with some contribution from wind, marine energy and, of course, the necessary dispatchable backup power.

I’m an enthusiastic solar advocate for Australia and North Africa too. Better and more long-distance grid connections in Europe mean that a much higher proportion of renewables can be brought onto the grid here too. Hydropower in Norway can balance out the intermittency of offshore wind produced in the North Sea.

But we will still need nuclear in the UK mix, for as long as we have a baseload demand that would otherwise be supplied by coal or gas. As the French have demonstrated, it is possible to manage a balanced power grid with up to 80% nuclear energy, and to provide cheap and safe electricity at the same time.

Fukushima demonstrates that nuclear – like any energy technology – has risks, but that they are not nearly so large as much of the public, egged on, it must be admitted, by unscientific exaggerations propagated by green groups, fears.

The elevated levels of radioactivity released by Fukushima will not have an effect on the health of any members of the public anywhere in the world, and we should be thankful for that. Oil, gas and coal are vastly more dangerous, as a litany of disasters with death tolls in the hundreds have demonstrated.

My conclusion? Keep nuclear in the mix, and do everything possible to run down and then eliminate humanity’s use of fossil fuel.

Jeremy Leggett

Founder and chair of Solarcentury, the UK's largest solar solutions company

Of the many arguments for phasing out nuclear power, the three most troublesome for nuclear advocates involve economics, timing and proliferation.

To give the economics of a new nuclear power plant a chance to work, a subsidy is required that is unlike a feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewables in two ways. First, it extends decades into the future without declining. A FIT declines to zero within a matter of years as costs come down. Second, the nuclear subsidy is of unknowably huge magnitude. This off-balance-sheet prop must socialise the cost of waste disposal, decommissioning, security, transporation, accidents and clean-ups.

Existing estimates give a feel for the eventual multi-hundred-billion-dollar scale. The latest estimates for decommissioning just 19 British reactors exceeds £70 billion. No estimate for waste disposal is yet possible, given that plans for large-scale high-level waste disposal are still incomplete. When nuclear advocates state a price for nuclear electricity, they ignore all these costs.

They assume that our descendants will pay for them, somehow – not the companies building and operating the plants. Meanwhile, the plunging costs of many cleantech industries ensure that there will be multiple options cheaper than nuclear power, even allowing the latter its off-balance-sheet voodoo economics.

By the nuclear industry’s own admission, given the current operating conditions in Europe, it needs a minimum of 10 years to build a next-generation reactor. This period is now bound to extend, for two reasons.

First, the post-Fukushima audits announced by many governments will undoubtedly tighten and lengthen permitting periods. Second, the industry seems to have forgotten how to build nuclear power plants efficiently.

Areva’s two pilot next-generation power plants in France and Finland are both billions of euros over budget and years behind schedule. The point about timing is that we don’t have the 10 years needed for either of the two main crises that nuclear power would need to address: climate change and energy security.

The proliferation risk builds by the year if western countries cannot fashion an energy future without nuclear power. This is because it is difficult to hold a piece a paper between civil- and military-capable nuclear programmes. If western nuclear companies are allowed to continue pushing their technology into the developing world, it will become harder and harder to enforce safeguards.

A next-generation of nuclear power plants (eventually) is not worth the loss of a city.


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

IEMA reviews political party manifestos

Ahead of the UK general election next month, IEMA has analysed the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Green Party manifestos in relation to the sustainability agenda.

19th June 2024

Read more

Nine in 10 UK adults do not fully trust brands to accurately portray their climate commitments or follow the science all the time, a new survey has uncovered.

19th June 2024

Read more

Just one in 20 workers aged 27 and under have the skills needed to help drive the net-zero transition, compared with one in eight of the workforce as a whole, new LinkedIn data suggests.

18th June 2024

Read more

With a Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures in the pipeline, Beth Knight talks to Chris Seekings about increased recognition of social sustainability

6th June 2024

Read more

Disinformation about the impossibility of averting the climate crisis is part of an alarming turn in denialist tactics, writes David Burrows

6th June 2024

Read more

David Symons, FIEMA, director of sustainability at WSP, and IEMA’s Lesley Wilson, tell Chris Seekings why a growing number of organisations are turning to nature-based solutions to meet their climate goals

6th June 2024

Read more

A system-level review is needed to deliver a large-scale programme of retrofit for existing buildings. Failure to do so will risk missing net-zero targets, argues Amanda Williams

31st May 2024

Read more

Chris Seekings reports from a webinar helping sustainability professionals to use standards effectively

31st May 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close