The Case for Nuclear Power
By Sir Bernard Ingham
Article in 'Country Life' magazine, 17 June 2004, p166.
Aneurin Bevan's island "made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish" is a very different place 60 years on. Our fish and coal mining are running out. Britain is no longer self-sufficient in energy. North Sea oil and gas are past their peak. For the first time, we face a perilous future relying on imported energy.
France appreciated its vulnerability in 1974 and went nuclear after OPEC, the oil producers' cartel, savagely turned the price screw. Getting on for 80% of France's electricity is now nuclear generated. This and its hydro-power give it the cleanest atmosphere in Europe.
Need I say more by way of advocating that Britain should substantially develop its nuclear power industry? Logically, no. In practice, making the nuclear case requires you to penetrate a thick and highly resistant chain-mail of ill-informed prejudice and myth.
Of course, if we had regular power cuts, public doubts would evaporate overnight. Nothing is more calculated to make the people love nuclear power than to find their comfort and convenience seriously disrupted. This is not beyond the bounds of possibility, as a recent BBC TV 2 "If..the lights went out" programme showed.
The Government, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% (on 1990's output) by 2050, sees the future in idealistic terms. It proposes to rely on renewable sources of energy, energy conservation and massive imports of gas - even up to 80% of our energy needs. Coal and oil (now generating 30% of our electricity) will be effectively regulated out of the market by the environmentally conscious EU - gas is half as polluting as coal - and nuclear (23% of our electricity) allowed to wither on the vine.
This means that the Government, with impeccable political correctness, contemplates the closure of half our current sources of electricity in favour of wind power, energy conservation and gas from such pillars of political stability as Russia, Algeria and the Middle East.
Heavily subsidised wind power is the only available renewable at present. It is certainly clean but totally unreliable. The average turbine generates electricity for only about 25% of the time and so requires expensive and dirty conventional power stations on stand by to chip in when the wind does not blow or blows too hard.
If the Government is to get 20% of our electricity (intermittently) from wind by 2020, it is going to have to motor. The 1,000 turbines currently wrecking our countryside generate only 0.4% of our needs. Engineers think the 20% idea is for the birds. In any case, the grid cannot cope with that much intermittent power. The Irish electricity regulator has just barred any more wind farm connections to its grid. There aren't enough conventional power stations to cope with calm periods or raging gales.
As for energy conservation, as the official responsible in 1978-79 for Government policy in that area I would not rely on it to cut demand. People will save energy for a time in crises, with encouragement from fierce price rises. Otherwise, even the greenest save money - and then spend it on more appliances which require more electricity. Electricity demand is rising by a steady 1% a year, in spite of continuing improvements in energy efficiency.
So, unless unexpected progress is made with wave, tidal and solar power or photo-voltaic cells, Britain is risking its future at the end of a very long pipeline. As a freely traded international commodity, gas supply security may not be the issue, though what would happen if the French found themselves short? But price is a different matter. And our trade deficit is bad enough already.
If this does not make nuclear desirable what does? Supplies of uranium and plutonium fuel are secure. Their price is predictable, though fuel is the least of nuclear's costs. New designs of reactor are cheaper and inherently safer, but since there has not been a single UK death from a radiation accident in 50 years there cannot be a safer form of electricity generation. Nor is there any scientific, technical or cost problem in managing long-term waste - only one of political palsy in choosing a site for it.
But what about Chernobyl, I hear you say. Well, 700 UN scientists crawling over the entirely avoidable disaster have so far certified only 45 deaths - less than a week's toll on our roads.
Since the Queen opened Windscale nuclear power station in 1957, we have learned to manage a reliable, continuous, emission-free source of electricity that the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Civil Engineers think we would be mad to ditch.
Oh yes, and a recent Royal Academy study finds nuclear the cheapest form of power with gas. The world's fourth largest economy cannot do without nuclear power, especially if it wishes to meet its Kyoto obligations. I rest my case.