Fishburn Hedges

18.03.2011 | (1 comment)

When asked what factors were most likely to get in the way of a Government’s plans, the then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said: “Events. Dear boy. Events.”

The terrible problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in north-eastern Japan are far too serious to be dismissed as mere “events”. But, with Germany and China already having put a halt on new nuclear development, no-one is expecting the timetable for building new nuclear plants in the UK to be stuck to.

Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, has been converted from a nuclear sceptic to a proponent of new build since taking on his job in May. This damascene conversion has been prompted by a combination of factors, notably:

• The need to replace gaining generating capacity – not least the UK’s fleet of nuclear reactors, most of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s
• The slow and expensive development of renewable, not helped by a big dose on nimbyism which has help up planning approvals
• The need to cut CO2 emissions – and the commitments made to do so.

Chris’ reaction to Fukushima has been the classic UK Government reaction to any “event” – a review.  For once, though, it’s right not to be too kneejerk, as this is a critical year for the nuclear industry in the UK.

Huhne’s proposals for electricity market reform, which are critical to the economic case for new nuclear plants, will be put before parliament soon. The proposals to build the first of its four new reactors – at Hinkley Point in Somerset – need to be approved this year for the building programme to be on track. EDF and Horizon Energy – the E.ON/RWE nPower joint venture – want to build reactors on three more sites in quick succession to Hinkley. Any delay to the first site is bound to delay the others.

The question is whether there is any chance of getting Hinkley approved in this environment?

The answer is almost certainly no. The nuclear industry has always struggled with the rational versus emotional argument. It can emphasise safety until it is blue in the face but it comes down the ultimate risk question – can you be 100% sure that nothing will go wrong? The answer to that is, of course, no. And the consequences of something going wrong at a nuclear plant are so horrific that some people will never be persuaded that the risk is worth taking.

The impact of Fukushima is to increase the percentage of people who fall into that category. Research has shown that as much as half of the population are undecided about nuclear. The key to getting new reactors built is to win over the “don’t knows”.

But how? This goes back to the rational versus emotional argument. The nuclear industry (in the UK at least) has traditionally used rational arguments – statistics about safety, scientific arguments and a good deal of transparency. Its reaction to Fukushima has been to point out the differences between that plant and what exists or might be built in the UK – better design, not located on fault lines etc.

However any amount of rational arguments will not overcome the emotional – some might say irrational – fears of what might happen in the worst case scenario. To win the arguments about new build, the industry, the Government and all those interested in getting new nuclear stations built, must answer to emotional questions. Or to use another famous politician’s phrase, they must find answers to the unknown unknowns.

Posted by Jason Nisse

on 02.05.2011

Rhydian Beynon-Davies :-
It's simple economics that investment in nuclear energy will diminish the total investment in renewables. The issue of safety is not that of the probability of a catastrophic event, due to the low likely-hood with current technology and protocols, but the disposal and containment of medium to high level nuclear waste as the long-term impacts are still less than certain. Selective accumulation through sedimentation from emissions is also an issue. The simplest argument is that there is no need for nuclear where another option in a mixed renewable infrastructure is eminently preferable. More investment in nuclear energy is just a delaying exercise to appease the nuclear lobby and current investors. Sometimes (in fact often) it is best not to let the market decide, being inherently inefficient and prone to emotional-bias, which, ironically you are arguing against from a legislative perspective. The ACTIVE promotion of energy efficiency as well as targeted education are also integral to reducing CO2 (and other atmospheric pollutant) emissions. Nuclear has a place as long as existing reactors remain viable, but no longer.

From your argument it would appear that rationality itself is subjective. I would like you to convince me otherwise, although I fully expect that this will be removed.......