A Weblog monitoring coverage of environmental issues and science in the UK media. By Professor Emeritus Philip Stott. The aim is to assess whether a subject is being fairly covered by press, radio, and television. Above all, the Weblog will focus on science, but not just on poor science. It will also bring to public notice good science that is being ignored because it may be politically inconvenient.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Going nuclear.....

At last, we are to get a reasonable UK Government energy policy, and one that includes a new generation of nuclear power plants and a strategy for clean coal, exactly what 'EnviroSpin' has been proposing over the last two years [see: 'Nuclear plants set for go-ahead' (BBC Online Politics News, July 11)]:
"Number 10 says 'wishful thinking will not keep the lights on', as ministers look set to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Tony Blair says the UK needs a mixture of energy sources to lessen reliance on imports and to address climate change....."

Of course, it won't do anything predictable about climate change; but, never mind, this policy is on the right tracks, although it does remain a tad over-optimistic about the possible contributions of so-called 'renewables'.

Nevertheless, lots of Green bunnies, the Liberal Democrats, and the usual suspects in the Labour Party will, like automata, "go nuclear", many of them marooned in the hippy, anti-nuclear world of the late-60s. Expect to hear lots of nonsense about Chernobyl, a plant which would never have seen the light of day in the West, even at that time.

This is surely the moment to ignore such knee-jerk responses from a past age. The new generation of nuclear reactors is in a different world, and they represent the safest, and, I might add, the least environmentally-damaging, forms of energy production. "Well done Mr. Blair for spotting this. Now, don't lose your nerve."

The only real debate is over which system should be adopted for the UK. We will need at least 20% of our power from nuclear reactors, although, personally, I should like to see an energy mix more like: 30% coal; 30% gas; 25% nuclear; 15% other.

First, a summary of the safety, costs, and speed of construction of the new Generation 3+ reactors:

(a) the new plants are modular in construction, and they are incredibly simple in relation to older designs. For example, the Westinghouse AP 1000 employs 50% fewer valves, 35% fewer pumps, and 70% less cabling. The whole plant can be contained in a building half-the-size of current plants;

(b) this means that the plants express a very small environmental footprint (just compare this limited footprint to an extensive wind farm) and they are much safer, employing 'passive' systems of control, not 'active' human management. In the event of a problem, the safety systems rely on 'natural' forces, including gravity, circulation, and evaporation, not on human-controlled, and potentially unreliable, pumps and valves. Indeed, human action is required to keep the system going, not to shut it down;

(c) inevitably this makes the plants cheaper (c. £400 - 500m), and they can be constructed in 36 to 42 months, with a productive life of 60 years;

(d) they are also highly efficient, and they will produce only 10% of the nuclear waste of the past.

EPRSecondly, with regards to the major manufacturing options, my own personal choice would be the Areva/Framatome Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) (the Areva EPR), with a generation capacity of 1,600 MW. One is already under construction at Olkiluoto in Finland, and this type will be the choice for France's next generation of nuclear reactors. The UK should make immediate plans to work with France over both expertise and maintenance. Other alternatives are the Westinghouse AP 1000 PWR (1,117 MW), which will probably become standard in China, and the CANDU ACR 1000, which is a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) (1,200 MW) being built in Canada. [Above right: computer simulation of an EPR Generation 3 nuclear power plant. Image: under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. From: Wikipedia.]

But, whatever happens now, let's ignore the usual whingers and whiners and just get on with the job, ensuring that we choose one system that can be serviced and maintained easily throughout the whole country. I believe the European Areva EPR makes particular sense because we can share expertise with other countries on this, like Finland and France. Ten would do the trick nicely.

[For further information: BBC News provides a good summary of the various options here.]

Philip, excited by the prospect of a new generation of safe and sound nuclear plants. Let's go for it. Time for more fission & chips. With tea, of course.

[New counter, June 19, 2006, with loss of some data]

WWW EnviroSpin Watch

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?