Submission to the DTI Nuclear New-Build Consultation, October 2006
By Churches Together in Cumbria (CTiC) Social Responsibility Forum (Energy Sub-Group)
The Sub-Group has not met as a body to discuss this response; it has been compiled from the individual contributions of the Sub-Group members. Members have met previously to reply to The Energy Review and to the NWDA Climate Challenge proposals.
1. We have not come to a consensus on the desirability of nuclear new build. Although a majority of those group members who have expressed a view are in favour of it, there is a broad spectrum of views on the issue of nuclear new build. We believe this range reflects the opinion of committed Christians in the churches of Cumbria which the CTiC seeks to represent.
-
· Arguments advanced in favour of new build were as follows:
a) It is clear that the UK is missing all its renewables targets, that we are becoming far too dependent on imported gas (concern re security of supply and CO2 production), and therefore nuclear is seen as being the only practical alternative to fill the gap until renewables can make a far greater contribution;
b) A high proportion of renewables are intermittent, and need back-up generation (usually 20-25% capacity) from a baseload or gas-powered source;
c) Without new capacity, nuclear power's share of electricity generating capacity is likely to decline from the current level of about 21% to possibly less than 17-18% by 2010 and to 7-8% by 2020. The shortfall would be met largely by gas and coal-fired generation with the consequent increased production of CO2, or by renewables;
d) The design of a possible new generation of nuclear reactors is said to be intrinsically safer than previous types, give rise to significantly smaller waste volumes for a given power output and uses fuel that would not require reprocessing in the short term to guarantee its physical and chemical stability.
- · Against nuclear new build it was argued that:
a) The viability of new Nuclear generation in the UK, and possibly in much of the world, is considered it at best ‘not proven’ in terms of the costs and benefits of construction, operation, decommissioning, waste treatment, waste storage and security;
b) The UK track record on nuclear power is not a good one, and currently many stations are not operating at their rated capacities. The resources expended and still to be committed (even excluding new build) would have been better spent in other ways;
c) A decommissioning cost of £55bn for existing nuclear legacies is still to be found;
d) In equity if nuclear is a major answer for 'the west' it must also be a major answer for 'the rest' and that brings into huge question concerns of security, safety and governance.
- · Both those who were in favour of new build and those against it agree that:
a) The Nuclear industry should remain under the full control of the UK government and safety agencies;
b) The recent sale of UK nuclear interests in reactor and fuel manufacture would make us unduly subject to control by US and other foreign combines when the most likely new-build reactor designs are in place;
c) Reflecting on the Christian principles of equity and justice it is clear that where there is not a significant consensus, great care must be taken in imposing a policy of nuclear new build;
d) Given the mix of views amongst the SRF and across the UK, we consider that, as a relatively carbon emission-free technology, new build should be the subject of further research, development and market testing before final decisions are taken to deploy, while recognising the urgent issue of UK security of supply.
2. However, we are in overall agreement on a number of fundamental energy-related questions and on the general principle of deep disposal of radioactive waste and possibly spent nuclear fuel.
-
· Energy conservation and wise stewardship of the planet’s resources should be paramount. There is no justification for the profligate use of energy just because the means exist to produce it. The extension of nuclear power, or for that matter, any source of generation or energy production, should not be an excuse for wasting energy and for encouraging lifestyles which threaten environmental, economic and social sustainability;
-
· Energy conservation is the responsibility not just of individuals but of local and national government. The government needs to match rhetoric to action. For example, the government could match its rhetoric on domestic energy conservation by insisting upon the standards of new house build that are at least as good as the best in Europe and Scandinavia.
-
· The majority of the world’s population that will suffer most from the consequences of man-made global warming was not been responsible for it in the first place. It is the obligation therefore of the richer world, including the UK, to adopt and encourage energy-saving and appropriate carbon-reduction technologies to minimise future greenhouse gas production;
-
· We strongly support urgent research into techniques of carbon capture and sequestration, into energy efficiency measures and technical and social developments in methods to reduce emissions from transport;
-
· The recommendations of the Stern Report need to be carefully reviewed and legislation enacted which moves forward rapidly on energy conservation, transport and car use reduction alongside other fiscal and taxation measures;
-
· We are in agreement with the CORWM recommendation on the principle of deep geological disposal for nuclear wastes. The priority with regard to the location of such a store or stores should be public agreement that the sites are sufficiently safe geologically. The principle of ‘volunteerism’ by potential host communities is important, but secondary to the safety criteria above. Concern was expressed in the group that the future economic wellbeing and development of host communities could depend solely on their willingness to have a deep disposal facility in their area. This would be unacceptable. Such communities could be seen to be at the mercy of a national policy that seeks a convenient rather than safe location for a waste repository;
- · Although there was significant support in the group for nuclear new build, we strongly encourage the national and international development of all forms of renewable energy technologies. These should be developed to the optimum levels which they can support in terms of local environmental acceptability, generating limitation and grid capacity.