Why we cannot keep the lights on without nuclear energy

Prior to the events at Fukushima or rather the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami (and this is an important distinction) in Japan in March this year there was a growing consensus that nuclear energy would be an essential component of the energy mix in many countries. This remains the case today. A positive observation has been the willingness of Governments worldwide (with one notable exception) and the general populace to take account of facts and analyses rather than jump to pre-emptive negative action.

One of the key issues emerging from the events at Fukushima and the NE coastal area of Japan was the importance of getting factual information across and trying to mitigate the general media intent to report a nuclear catastrophe. There was indeed a catastrophe but it was to do with the hundreds of miles of total devastation, tens of thousands killed and missing and displaced, industry and homes wiped out, all as a result of the tsunami following the earthquake and NOT anything to do with the nuclear reactors and radiation at Fukushima.

Thorough analyses carried out by the Nuclear Regulators and competent authorities in most countries have concluded that the events at Fukushima should not result in decisions to abandon nuclear power programmes. Here in the UK our own Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations recently published a thorough and comprehensive reporting indicating that there were no reasons to adopt a negative approach to either current operating plant or intentions to replace them with new modern reactors.

If we care about the security of our energy supplies: if we care about the affordability of our electricity: if we care about reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, then there is no alternative to unprecedented amounts of all viable, proven, renewable sources of electricity BUT we will still also need a significant proportion of nuclear energy in our electricity mix.

The Royal Academy of Engineering’s Study of last year, ‘Generating the Future’, took the view that we needed to deploy the MAXIMUM amount possible of renewable energy resources that engineers considered feasible. We worked out what you’d actually have to build. Each element was the maximum we thought feasible

- 38 London arrays of offshore wind (we haven’t got one yet)

- 1000 miles of Pelamis wave machines (we’ve only got a set of test units). 1000 miles equates to building 3 miles a month, for the next 40years, or the equivalent length of one London tube train a day

- Nearly ten thousand land based 2.5MW wind turbines

- 25million 3.2kw solar panels

- The Severn barrage built (except it’s already been decided not to go ahead with it)

- 2300 SeaGen marine turbines (we got a couple of test units)

- 25+GW biomass energy

As well as all these installations, in order to meet our apparently legally binding carbon targets we would also need:-

-          At least 40 new nuclear power plants or fossil plants with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (we haven’t got any of these yet either and CCS has yet to be proven as a viable technology)

AND FINALLY

-          A reduction in demand of 25-30%. That’s 25-30%, with the massive sociological and behavioural challenges that brings

The Engineering challenge in delivering all of this is massive in itself. But when you also consider the associated additional infrastructure, in terms of development of the national electricity grid, and the port infrastructure to facilitate particularly the offshore wind and marine technologies, it becomes nigh on impossible in engineering terms.

These issues haven’t been thought through properly (if at all!), neither the buildability nor the cost, which you and I the consumer will ultimately bear. Efforts to update the power network of the National Grid have not kept pace with the construction of wind farms.  We are having to pay windfarm operators hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep their turbines idle, when the energy they are producing cannot be accommodated.

Powering road transport by petrol and diesel is incompatible with our 2050 carbon commitments. So is heating our houses with gas boilers. Switching to electric and plug in hybrid vehicles, and heat pumps in our homes, are major engineering challenges themselves, which will also create an unprecedented hike in our requirements for low carbon electricity.

A 21st century industrialised society like the UK’s requires reliable affordable energy 24hours a day; 7 days a week; 365 days a year.  We have a massive challenge ahead to keep the lights on and our society running.

Renewable energy sources are not sufficient to meet our needs. In terms of engineering reality they cannot be delivered on the scale required and the sooner we examine the practicalities of what can be achieved, and what we must therefore also plan to do, the better. When you do the sums it becomes obvious that nuclear power is essential for the foreseeable future in significant quantities in the UK energy mix to guarantee security and affordability of supply.

In the post Fukushima era we should still have confidence that nuclear energy can be a safe secure affordable form of energy for the 21^st century and that the new modern plants available today should be a significant component of the UK’s energy mix for the foreseeable future. In the very cold days of last winter, nuclear energy was our main source of low carbon electricity. It provided ~18% of the UK’s requirements; 16% from our own stations and a further 2% imported from France. Almost all the rest was provided from power stations burning fossil fuel. We cannot keep the lights on without nuclear energy. Since most of our existing reactors retire over the next decade and a half, it is vital we get on with building new ones to replace them.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Institute of Ideas’ Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Dame Sue Ion is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a visiting professor at Imperial College London. She is speaking at the Fukushima Fallout Battle Satellite event on Monday 24 October, organised in association with the Manchester Salon, Manchester Science Festival and The John Rylands University Library, University of Manchester.

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities