The Nuclear Resurgence

On 9th November 2009, 10 new nuclear powerAnother issue is that of radioactive waste and the
station sites, of the 11 proposed, were approveddilemma of storage and disposal. So far in the UK,
by the government.there has not been a solution that pleases
This agenda is part of the effort to fill the evereveryone. Several ideas have been proposed,
approaching energy gap that is predicted by 2015from sending it down to the deep ocean to
as present nuclear stations are decommissionedsealing it in geological vaults, and each has its
and we look to reduce the prominence of fossilinherent risks.
fuels. If given the final planning go-ahead, theseSo far, there seems to be only one site for
proposed sites could be producing energy by 2018radioactive waste disposal near Drigg in Cumbria.
and are projected to be producing 40% of theThis facility is fast filling up so the selection
UK's electricity needs by 2025.process for more sites is underway, with a focus
The proposed sites can be seen on the mapon community involvement and voluntarism.
below and include: Bradwell in Essex; Braystones,Waste disposal sites can only be considered for
Kirksanton and Sellafield in Cumbria; Hartlepool andareas that are willing to provide them; a righteous
Heysham in Lancashire; Hinkley Point in Somerset;method indeed and a step in the right direction.
Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Sizewell in Suffolk; andIn the mean time however, there is a worryingly
Wylfa in North Wales.large amount of waste in interim storage within
Of course, the debate as to the viability of thissome power stations. Currently, a total of
plan is heated. Although many are concerned over100,000 tonnes is being stored, waiting for final
the safety of this scheme, the majority ofdisposal.
inhabitants of the locations in question are said toWith the oncoming bombardment of new nuclear
be feeling positive on account of the 9000 jobsfacilities, the decommissioning of old ones and the
that will be created.growing amount stored temporarily, the
Safety Firstsite-selection process must produce results soon,
It is generally accepted that new reactors are notas Drigg cannot possibly cope on its own.
only more efficient, but safer than those thatAll aboard the nuclear bandwagon?
feature in the high profile accidents such asFrance, one of the greatest proponents of nuclear
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Although evenpower, obtain 80-90% of their electricity from
these could be said to be less significant thanthis source with no disasters as of yet. Sweden
equivalent accidents involving fossil fuels. In theproduced 45% of their electricity needs using
case of Chernobyl, it has been reported that theatomic energy, and Finland produced 28% in 2007.
reactor was not at fault, but the humansAcross the pond in 2008, the USA possessed 104
operating it. It has also been written that airnuclear power stations, providing 19.6% of its
pollution from coal-burning leads to 10,000 deathstotal electricity.
per year, which is the equivalent of 25 meltdownsAll of these countries are well ahead of the UK in
a year (1), a figure that is not even close todisposing waste, with nuclear reprocessing and
reality. So it could be argued that, relatively,deep geological waste disposal programmes
nuclear safety is up there with the morealready ongoing. For example, waste in the United
traditional methods of energy production.States is disposed of 655 metres under the
A more important worry for the future is theChihuahuan Desert in New Mexico.
unjust referral to nuclear energy as anHowever, this summer, EDF was forced to shut
environmental saviour, particularly in terms ofdown one third of the nuclear reactors in France
carbon emissions.due to adversely hot conditions. This produced an
With nuclear, nothing is carbon freeenergy crisis and electricity had to be imported
Several writers have referred to this technologyfrom countries such as the UK.
as carbon emission free. This simply is not true. InThis, along with the several (overly publicised)
fact, it is estimated that the process as a wholeaccidents that have occurred through the years,
produces up to 140g of CO2 per kilowatt hourthe potential terror target status and the
(kWh) of energy produced (2). This is after takingsusceptibility to natural hazards (as is the case in
into account the building of the power plant (aJapan), shows that, internationally, there does not
vast undertaking), the mining of uranium,exist a story of one big happy nuclear family.
transportation and processing of the ore andA stepping stone to a sustainable future?
eventual radioactive waste, and the dismantling ofNuclear energy in the UK will indeed be vital to fill
the plant.the energy gap that has been predicted, given
This figure is set to increase as uranium oreour commitment to reducing fossil fuel use. It is a
becomes more scarce (estimated to last aroundpower source with the potential to produce a
70 years), resulting in greater mining campaignslarge amount of electricity with a relatively lower
and the use of poorer quality ore, which requiresimpact on the atmosphere.
more processing.However, there are several issues to fix and we
To put this in perspective, a gas powered plantmust not become reliant on it. Nuclear power is
produces approximately 330g/kWh2.not sustainable, so the answer lies in a working
So it seems it will be harder to achieve climatecombination with renewable energy sources,
targets as nuclear power develops, becomingemphasising the need to continue our efforts
more expensive (the current decommissioningtowards the E.U's 2020 target. This will provide a
process will cost up to £70 billion by theplatform from which we can leap into a
way) and unkind to the environment.renewable age once nuclear activity becomes
Today's waste: Tomorrow's problemobsolete.