PowerSwitch

Bloomberg - 15/11/07

The U.K. may have to increase its nuclear power capacity in order to meet its goal for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions over the next 35 years, according to a study by market research company Datamonitor Plc.

It's unlikely that renewable energy sources including wind farms will be able to fill the future supply void that will be left by decommissioning fossil-fuel burning units as the U.K. attempts to cut emissions by 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, Datamonitor said today in an e-mailed report.

The government is considering public opinion about whether to back new reactors to meet supply needs while cutting greenhouse gases. Although nuclear stations produce radioactive waste, they emit lower levels of carbon dioxide when generating power compared with plants burning coal or natural gas.

``It will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to reduce carbon emissions to the levels being advocated with technology currently available in the foreseeable future, without the advent of nuclear power,'' Datamonitor analyst David Niles said in the report.

Since the start of this year, the number of announcements concerning the building of new nuclear units, or extending the lifespan at current reactors across Europe, outnumbered those about plant closures for the first time since 1990.

While only two countries have increased net nuclear generation capacity since 1990, nuclear output across the continent between that year and 2004 provided a greater share of total generation, according to the report.

Critical Supply

``Even where policy or economic factors restrict nuclear development, its contribution to the security of supply remains critical,'' Niles said.

Public opinion regarding nuclear power is changing, Niles said. More than 50 percent of people in 14 European countries including the U.K., Netherlands and Italy believe nuclear output should be increased. This may be prompted by higher natural gas prices which are feeding through to consumers paying more for their electricity, he said.

British Energy Group Plc, whose nuclear reactors can produce about a fifth of the U.K.'s electricity, said on Nov. 13 that it would be ``economically feasible'' to extend the operating lives of its Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B stations.

The U.K.'s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said last month it may extend the lifespan of its Wylfa nuclear plant in Wales until December 2010. The station was previously earmarked for closure in March of that year.

emordnilap wrote:Another blatant example of claiming reductions in emissions through re-locating them.

...nuclear power generation entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.

According to calculations by the ?ko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany [4]. The results from other international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.

Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.

kenneal wrote:CAT have provided a plan for the production of sustainable power for the UK without resorting to coal or nuclear, but it requires a lot of conservation not Business As Usual. See http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/

emordnilap wrote:Are you saying, then, that building a nuclear power station in England, using ore from, say, Australia, is not an example of a re-location of CO2 emissions? It seems to me - and not a few others - that it is. The nuclear industry cons the Brits into believing they get their juice 'emissions free' - which might be true at the point of generation - but wilfully hide the whole picture.

Anyway, loads of links out there, without really trying, that dispute the idea that nuclear is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.

kenneal wrote:If nuclear energy is so good why don't British Nuclear Energy put their money where their mouth is and get on and build some new power stations. That is after they have provided a bond to cover the cost of decommissioning.

emordnilap wrote:Are you saying, then, that building a nuclear power station in England, using ore from, say, Australia, is not an example of a re-location of CO2 emissions?