Posted by Laurence Watson

The carbon budget, visualised - by Carbon Visuals from Flickr

The global carbon budget, visualised next to existing fossil fuel reserves- by Carbon Visuals from Flickr

This year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their 5th assessment of the science of climate change. The message was stark – there is near complete certainty in the scientific community that we are contributing to elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that those higher concentrations are going to lead to higher global average temperatures threatening the stability of our climate.

Already we have witnessed an average increase of almost 1 degree, unevenly spread across the globe. For the first time this year, in attempting to explain the problem, the IPCC set out what it considers to be the limit for how much we can emit before we lose the chance of limiting average temperature increases to less than 2 degrees forever.

The IPCC expressed this limit as a total global carbon budget of 1 trillion tonnes of carbon. Since the industrial revolution we have used up around half of this budget, and at current global emissions rates we will use up the remainder before 2040. Reader, hopefully that is within your lifetime, but it is certainly well within the expected life time of our children. This means that within the next 25 years or so if we are to stay within these limits – and these only give a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees – we will have to have completely decarbonised our global energy system. 

This is a significant challenge, and one that requires us to urgently deploy substantial volumes of all known low carbon energy technologies and to rapidly develop the new ones that we know engineers can bring to market with sufficient incentives and support from policy makers.

Nuclear new build undoubtedly has an important role to play. However,  it is scarcely formally mentioned currently in climate discussions at an EU level and in the UN. Energy Ministers within many countries including the UK, China, and India agree that nuclear is needed going forward, but there is still a nervousness when it comes to international climate negotiations about expressly stating this.

The EU

In the EU, we know that this is partly the result of public opposition – especially in Germany and Austria where there are powerful anti nuclear lobbies. But encouragingly recently a group of 10 EU member states led by the Czech Republic wrote to the outgoing European Energy Commissioner to call for nuclear to be treated on a level playing with other low carbon technologies. A new Commission is in the process of being established and with Poland’s Prime Minister assuming the role of President of the European Council and a new Spanish Energy and Climate Commissioner we might see some changes. Certainly Poland was a signatory to the letter but sadly Spain was not.

The reason why we should look again at nuclear are clear. The EU’s electricity comes in at around 300g/kwh thanks to around 30% of its demand being met by nuclear and the two countries in the EU who have most rapidly decarbonised their economy are France and Sweden, both using substantial amounts of nuclear. Denmark and Germany on the other hand have so far had a more limited impact with their recent investment in renewables.

The UK with its ‘all of the above’ energy policy is looking to join France in reaching a carbon intensity of between 50-100g  CO2/kWh by 2030 but it will need to hold on to and expand its current nuclear capacity to do so.

The UK

The proposed reactor at Hinkley Point C is a vast project with a budget to match. 3.2 GW of clean power is almost certainly worth the wait – to match its output with wind would require, depending on assumptions around 3-6000 turbines – or expressed another way increasing by 75% the proposed 10GW target for offshore wind by 2020.

Depending on the outcome of this 3 way negotiation between EDF, the UK government and the European Commission, at least two other large scale projects are waiting in the wings with their proposals. If all go ahead as planned then we can expect to maintain our existing nuclear capacity.

But can we expand nuclear’s role? Can we use nuclear to help fully decarbonise electricity and then start to make in-roads in to emissions from transport and heat?

This is a key question – a lot depends on whether any progress can be made on reducing the costs of nuclear power – wind and solar may not be despatchable when we want them, but they have shown impressive abilities to reduce costs with deployment. There has been no such breakthrough in nuclear where, if anything, costs seem to rise inexorably over the years.

A new way

I remain convinced that were we to start with a blank sheet of paper to design the optimal civilian energy reactor we would be deploying very different reactors to those that we have come to equate with nuclear power today.

By focusing on maximising passive safety, eliminating risk of explosion through loss of coolant accidents and reducing the waste management problem, I am convinced we could arrive at a reactor that has a very different cost profile – and potentially also a much wider application: high temperature reactors for industrial applications may well prove to be a new and important market as the world seeks to fully decarbonise the economy.

Sadly over the last few decades R&D in nuclear fission has fallen away to almost nothing in the UK. Thanks to a House of Lords report which decried this situation in no uncertain terms, there has been something of a reversal of fortune but the sums involved are still so small as to be almost insignificant and there are lots of different views on how best to spend what little R&D money is being made available.

This situation saddens me and as a policy maker I believe we need to think again about how we can direct more money into nuclear fission R&D so that we can design nuclear reactors up to the challenges of the 21st century.  Perhaps then nuclear power can begin to take its rightful place in climate negotiations as a solution for rapidly decarbonising and providing access to clean energy for all.

– Baroness Bryony Worthington

Adapted from a speech given by Baroness Worthington to the UK Nuclear New Build Congress in September, 2014

Comments

  1. Steve Foster says:

    Given the urgency of the situation, we also need to address another big driver of long schedules and huge costs: radiation regulations. Current regs in the USA, for example, specify a nuclear plant cannot expose any member of the public to radiation levels that are but a fraction of NATURAL BACKGROUND. That is patently ridiculous because the public receives radiation from the cosmic background, food (mostly potassium-40 and carbon-14) all the time with little consequence. But, such harsh regulatory limits on anything nuclear do nothing but drive costs up and the speed of deployment down, which only serves to help fossil fuels, a.k.a. the energy competition. So, regulations that are claimed to protect public health from radiation have no net effect, except to help fossil fuels pump more poison into our environment by the billions of tons.

    We need a new rational, evidence-based framework for radiological protection. We must dispense with the myth that radiation is a man-made monster that is something uniquely dangerous and should be regulated as close to zero as possible. Such ignores the fact we live in a sea of natural radiation and life is very well adapted to it. Wade Allison suggests such a rational science-based limit could be as much as 1000 times higher! Clearly, there is something very wrong with current standards. For a revolution in use of carbon-free nuclear energy to take hold, the world must get a better grasp on the truth concerning radiation hazards and slay these myths.

  2. ChrisB says:

    Stumbled across this talk by Paul Littler & Barry Snelson from a few months ago. Basically they argue that an MSR is the best choice among the Gen-4 reactors, and that the UK should be involved in building a prototype. Thought it strange that I didn’t hear them mention The Weinberg Foundation – though they did talk about Dr. Weinberg and ORNL. There’s a good Q/A session in the last several minutes.
    http://www.atkinsglobal.com/en-GB/media-centre/events/atkins-lectures/2014/molten-salt-reactors-can-they-be-the-answer

    • Laurence Watson says:

      Thanks for the link Chris. It is very heartening to hear enthusiasm for MSRs and Gen-4 from the heart of industry!

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I warmly welcome the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s evidence-based approach to the energy debate, and enthusiastically support its mission to raise awareness of next-generation nuclear energy amongst NGOs and the general public.

— Mark Lynas

@thorium_wf

Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need... https://t.co/CPqKOPpyOg
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive

Categories

  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation