As the BORING UK elections roll around, nuclear energy is entering the debate to spice things up a bit:
Building a new generation of nuclear power stations would be a much cheaper way of meeting the UK's ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions than persisting with an expansion of renewable energy, according to research published today.
The analysis, by the economics consultancy Oxera, calculates that a new nuclear programme would cost the taxpayer just over £4bn whereas continuing to rely on green energy such as wind power would require £12bn of public support.
The research comes as Tony Blair prepares to seek backing for the construction of up to 10 nuclear power stations should he win the election next week. A consultation document setting out the case for a new nuclear programme is expected within weeks of a Labour victory.
The Government has set a target of reducing the UK's carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 and producing 20 per cent of the country's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
However, Oxera calculates that by 2025, the UK will be running 40 to 60 per cent short of its carbon-reduction targets, based on past economic performance, unless there is a much bigger shift away from fossil fuel electricity generation than currently envisaged.
Scottish Greens apparently didn't get the Stewart Brand memo, and are making a stink:
The Scottish Greens are urging voters to make nuclear power an election issue and oppose any Labour plans to increase the number of nuclear stations.
Nineteen years after the Chernobyl disaster, Chris Ballance MSP said nuclear power had proved to be "a dirty, risky and expensive mistake".
He said renewable energy had not been properly utilised to meet Scotland's energy needs.
The MSP said a new Labour government would build more nuclear stations.
We haven't had this debate in the US yet, because we have no national greenhouse gas goals, no specific targets in our climate change policy, yet. But consider this a preview - it's coming.
...In fact, Promethean Roger Pilke speculated last month that the Bush administration would soon use nuclear energy as an entree for a major climate change policy announcement, perhaps in conjunction with the G8 meeting in Scotland this July. Seems likely, especially given the president's call today for the development of nuclear plants as a response to higher energy prices (via NEI):
Under pressure over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday will propose tackling the root causes of the problem by encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases and jumpstarting construction of new nuclear power plants.
In a speech, Bush will also propose giving federal regulators the lead authority to decide where to locate terminals for processing imported natural gas. States have increasingly been taking the lead on this issue...
All three area good ideas - no matter how much we'd like our energy systems to evolve, we are facing unavoidable shortfalls in domestic refining capacity and natural gas supplies in the near term, and nuclear energy will almost certainly be necessary to meet our electricity needs in the long term, assuming we will ultimately regulate greenhouse emissions from power plants.
But we should ALSO be hearing about more support for reasonably economical alternatives like wind, a more vigorous hydrogen R&D program, &c. We need to be pursuing all currently reasonable options if we want to avoid a big CRUNCH in the years ahead, and if we're serious about climate change we need to be pursuing a long-term, zero-emissions solution as well.