|
The Case for Nuclear Power (2) |
|
|
|
|
Written by Sir Bernard Ingham
|
|
Thursday, 11 April 2002 |
The issue is not whether they are dangerous but whether we have learned
how to handle them safely. One thing is clear, nuclear power stations
are the most robust structures we have in Britain and in one famous
experiment an aircraft flown into such a structure in the USA at 50Omph
evaporated; the structure remained substantially intact. It is true
that we do not know the effect of a fully-fuelled jumbo, flying into a
nuclear power station but I have heard it said that terrorists would
cause much greater devastation if they guided their aircraft into a
football stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
We clearly have to
take anti-terrorist precautions and it is counter-productive to talk
about them. But what is the safety record of the nuclear industry
otherwise? Frankly, it is impeccable. Not a single death - repeat, not
a single death - has been recorded from a radiation accident in the
entire history of nuclear energy in Britain over the last 50 years.
This must make it the safest form of energy ever devised by nun, not
excluding horsepower.
It is true that the "Greens" wish to curb road use which, with an
average of 10 fatalities a day in Britain, is horribly dangerous. But
they don't want to do so primarily on grounds of loss of life but
because of pollution and lifestyle.
Ah, yes, but you may say, what about Chernobyl? Well my attitude is,
what about it? This was the worst nuclear accident we have known - the
result not of a nuclear explosion but a chemical one. It should never
have happened - and would never have happened if Communist
dictatorships were programmed to take a keen interest in people's
safety. Yet we have seen that it contributes but one-twelve hundreth of
the radiation we naturally absorb in the course of a year. Given the
institutionalised horror about Chernobyl, and the preposterous
precautions taken over lamb reared in Cumbria and Wales, you may feel
inclined to disbelieve that figure.
I cannot blame you. No stone has been left unturned by the "Greens" to
use Chernobyl as a reason for killing nuclear power. You have probably
heard the BBC claiming that thousands of deaths have resulted from it -
or at least they did until SONE put them wise. In fact, "thousands" of
deaths is a low figure compared with the propaganda put out in Russia
where there is a compensation-culture reason for stoking up the
figures. The highest projected death toll I have seen canvassed is 15m.
Yet the official recorded and verified death toll by 700 UN scientists
who have been monitoring the effects of Chernobyl since the accident is
still only 45. Repeat 45. There have been at least 2,000 cases of
treatable thyroid cancer as a result of inadequate treatment of
children at the time. But so far there is no evidence of any excess of
leukaemia in the population that experienced the fall out or among the
emergency staffs who brought the situation under control immediately
after the accident.
My experience is that the UN figure of 45 - less than a week's toll on
our roads - is simply not believed, certainly not in Ireland where they
have grown comfortable with their Chernobyl myths. It is as a
consequence ignored. Instead, all sorts of lurid tales are peddled
about the devastation wrought. For example, a Daily Star reporter who
claimed to have been to Chernobyl reported that the ground there was so
hot that the snow melted as it. fell. A scientist who has been there
has calculated that that is an exaggeration of the order of billions.
As a matter of fact, I went with a scientist friend and his geiger
counter to Chernobyl to see for myself Except in the lee of the
stricken reactor, we never registered a higher radiation reading than
we got at 38,000ft flying closer to the sun and its cosmic radiation
out of Moscow. Scientists told me that there was no evidence of
malformations at birth in animals eating fodder with a radiation
content up to 30 times the level animals experience here. The steppe
and forest around were teeming with wildlife, including wild boar
snuffling in the soil where the radioactive deposits were greatest. A
nightingale sang for us in an abandoned farm.
What is sadly true is that the affected populations of Russia,
Belorussia and the Ukraine blame Chernobyl for every ailment and even
nosebleeds. Its psychological effect has been greater than its physical
consequences. Anti-nuclear campaigners have reinforced the people's
fears. The chicanery over Chernobyl is fearful to behold. Chernobyl is
not, however a reason to abandon nuclear energy. It is a reason to have
the kind of safety culture which has served us in Britain so well over
the last 50 years.
Ah, but you may say, what safety culture when they falsified test
readings in batches of nuclear fuel for Japan at Sellafield. They did
indeed - and what fools they were to do so. If the customer wants
tests, then for God's sake give them to them. But - and this is what is
totally ignored - this was only one of several tests in the usual belt,
braces, old school tie, safety pins and sticking plaster routine in
nuclear, and had, as the nuclear safety authorities said at the time,
no implications whatsoever for human safety.
By now you will have got the message. Nothing is as "Greens" would have
you believe about the nuclear industry. And because the nuclear
industry itself is not a dynamic communicator, lies, distortions and
exaggerations are just not nailed. SONE, in its own modest way, tries
to do so. I am trying to do so tonight.
But the situation is worse than that. A friend of mine has been
injected with and inhaled plutonium in the interests of medical
science. He is as wick as a weasel in his closely monitored old age. So
much for the "Greens` claim that plutonium is the most dangerous
substance known to man. Bunkum.
Because of his guinea pig status, he was recently introduced as a
phenomenon to a group of women from the nuclear industry in the margins
of a conference. One of them said: "Oooh, you're not as old as I
thought. How can you be allowed to endanger your life by taking deadly
plutonium?"
My friend, who does not suffer fools gladly, replied that "deadly"
plutonium was a myth. Radium was 22 times more dangerous. There was, he
said, no evidence whatsoever that any person on earth had ever died or
shown any detectable health consequences from plutonium as a
radioactive contaminant by inhalation, ingestion, absorption or
penetration. Several thousands had died by its use as an explosive in
Japan. Otherwise, nothing.
He says the women turned away and started another conversation, clearly
thinking he was barmy. I shouldn't be surprised if they put it down to
his plutonium injection. The moral of this tale is that the nuclear
industry has a great deal of missionary work to do within its own ranks
before it can even usefully start on the general public.
Meanwhile, I find myself working on people you would have thought might
have got their ideas sorted out better. Take The Carbon Trust, for
example. It is a British Government backed body with Ian McAllister,
retiring boss of Ford, as its chairman. Its aim is to achieve a low
carbon future but it resolutely refuses to bring nuclear under its
umbrella even though nuclear power stations do not emit a puff of
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
I have got extremely shirty with them over this, especially when Mr
McAllister claimed that Britain could achieve a low carbon economy
without nuclear. He wrote back: “We recognise the value of nuclear as
potentially a long-term option.… which can make a small but still
important contribution to carbon dioxide emission reductions".
Long term! Small! I expostulated. “Are you not aware", I have inquired
of him "that nuclear currently generates 25% of our electricity and
avoids the production of some
60m tonnes a year of carbon dioxide? It isn't potentially a long-term
option. It is cleanly generating a substantial proportion of our
electricity now." Where do they dig these people up from?
This is a very good question when it comes to the City. The politically
correct crackpots who inhabit the square mile have recently devised a
Footsie4Good so- called ethical index which automatically excludes
nuclear power and uranium mining. In other words, in their eyes,
nuclear energy is "unethical”. I don't suppose they realised - until
SONE told them - that it is so damned unethical that it is currently
providing half the power the City relies on to function. Ye Gods! It
doth amaze me so many fools walk this earth.
I think I have now said enough to show you what a mad, ignorant,
prejudiced and hypocritical world nuclear power inhabits. That world is
reflected by the media which, with notable exceptions, regularly
displays its ignorant prejudice against the nuclear power on which it
relies. Journalists have seldom a good word to say for it.
So why nonetheless do we need nuclear power? What is the case for it? I
want to approach the question from the opposite end. What are the
arguments against it? There are three:
economics - waste - public opinion
Let's deal with the economics first. Conventional wisdom is that
nuclear cannot compete with gas-fired power stations. This is true, if
you look at it in the short-term and ignore the extent to which nuclear
electricity reflects its environmental consequences in its current
price, unlike gas. But we are not looking at the short-term in
examining Britain's future energy supplies. That is a long-term issue,
especially as it takes up to 10 years to secure planning approval for a
nuclear power station and build it.
It is true that nuclear, for safety reasons, requires a very heavy
up-front capital cost. But if you look at its economics over say, a
50-year life cycle, its prospects can be transformed. Especially, as
its fuel supply is secure and its costs are likely to be stable. That
is more than you can say for gas, given its location in such
politically unstable parts of the world as Russia, the Middle East,
Libya and Algeria. The price of gas roughly doubled last year. This is
not to mention the R&D on new reactor designs which will almost
certainly reduce unit nuclear costs.
In other words, if you are looking at energy economics, you have to
take a longer-term view. If you don't, you could be badly caught out as
California has been. There is a very serious risk that Britain will be
badly caught out.
The position is that between now and 2020 nuclear's contribution on
present plans will fall precipitously from the current 25% of total
British supply to a mere 3%. There are, as yet, no plans to replace any
of this capacity which is to be retired on grounds of age. It is true
that by 2020 the Government aims to replace 20 of the disappearing 22%
with heavily subsidised benign and renewable sources of electricity -
from wind, waves, tides, solar and hydro. And don't say it isn't
subsidised. Only last month Reuters reported that British electricity
bills are likely to rise by 5% to pay for renewables - and we've hardly
got any yet.
I know hardly anybody with his feet firmly planted on British soil who
thinks it remotely possible that renewables will produce 20% of our
electricity by 2020. In any case, the gap left by nuclear and not
filled by renewables will be far more than 2%, given the tendency for
electricity demand to rise by at least 2% a year. So, stand by for
trouble.
The big test for industry is whether they would put their shirts on
wind power - in practice the only practical as distinct from viable
renewable at this stage - when Country Guardian, a pressure group
formed to protect our landscapes from the ravages of wind power, has so
far succeeded under the planning system in frustrating about two thirds
of the proposed wind farms. It is an even bigger test when you realise
wind power currently now generates only 0.3% of our electricity. To
secure the 20% of our electricity from wind by 2020 will require the
erection of at least three 300ft high turbines a day for the next 20
years, thereby causing massive damage to our land and seascapes. In my
view, it simply isn't on.
And even if it were, would you as an industrialist put your operations
at the mercy of the winds? For if the winds don't blow or if they blow
too hard - above 55mph - no electricity is generated because the
turbines either are not driven or have to be shut down for safety's
sake. Of course, you wouldn't.
And don't think there is much salvation to come from waves, tides,
solar and hydro. Solar is not very useful at night. All that can be
said for it is that it's more predictably intermittent than wind power.
Our potential for large scale hydro schemes is very limited. And
neither tidal nor wave power has yet been proven in Britain. No
industrialist could sensibly place much faith on a wave power device
off Islay which has cost £1.5m and so far produced only enough juice to
light 25 domestic fires.
The plain fact is that, as things stand, we are flying on a wing and a
prayer. It is not a sensible way to proceed. The logic of our position
is that, if nuclear is run down as planned and renewables fail to
provide the power expected of them, we shall have to bum more dirty
coal, oil and gas. But over the last two years we have put more not
less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So we are in line for a
spectacular failure to fulfil the Blair/Prescott Kyoto promises
drastically to cut greenhouse gas pollution. Frankly, energy policy is
in a complete mess without nuclear.
Ah yes, but you may say, but it's all very well saying nuclear can come
to our rescue when its waste poses an unsolved problem. But what's the
problem? So far as I can see, after consultation with the nuclear
industry, there is no scientific, technological or cost problem in
storing the relatively small amounts of waste produced by nuclear
operations. It can be safely stabilised and contained in cement and
stored until after 600-800 years its radioactivity has decayed to that
of pitchblende which is found naturally in the ground.
The only problem is political: the problem of finding a Government with
the guts of the Swedes and George Bush to designate a site for the
long-term storage of highly
radioactive waste. It is simply not good enough for the likes of
Michael Meacher to say there is a problem when the only one is his
weak-minded prevarication.
It may well be that Mr Meacher is trying to complicate the problem by
suggesting that the 70 tonnes of plutonium we have in store is also
waste. This is the origin of the attempt to curdle our blood by saying
that the waste has to be stored for tens of thousands of years. But the
plutonium in store is not waste. It is recovered fuel. It currently
represents a year's electricity supply. It would be a criminal waste to
throw it away instead of burning it away in power stations, especially
when we are anxious to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the risk
of proliferation.
Which brings us to the only real problem for the nuclear industry:
public opinion, the basis for which I have already examined
extensively. But public opinion is a very volatile thing. It is even
more volatile when it discovers it has been fed a load of guff by the
"Greens" for decades. It is just as likely to be for nuclear power if
it thinks it provides the only way of maintaining its lifestyle as it
is to be against it if it thinks it doesn't need it.
The issue is therefore whether we need nuclear power. You will note
that I have not yet mentioned global warming. I am sceptical about it.
Scientists still argue over it and the evidence is far from convincing.
On the one hand we are told the Antarctic ice sheet is breaking up and
on the other that the Antarctic continent has cooled. Our climate does
seem balmier but we are told there is no observed warming of the
troposphere up to 30,00Oft. And so it goes on.
I prefer to use my common sense. That teaches me it does not make sense
to go on pouring pollution into the atmosphere if we can avoid it. It
also advises me that if we can avoid it, it would make greater sense at
this stage for advanced democracies to use those nuclear methods which
do avoid pollution since this is, by definition, a problem that cannot
be solved nationally, only globally.
So my case for nuclear power is founded first on common sense. It is
reinforced by the safety record of the British nuclear power industry,
the likelihood that nuclear's economics are or will very shortly prove
highly attractive and the certain knowledge that its so-called waste
problem is nothing of the sort. I do not regard the state of public
opinion as an insuperable obstacle. And the reason I don't is the
arithmetic of need.
No Government will be forgiven for allowing this nation to run short of
power. That would damage the livelihoods, well being and lifestyle of
the people. It would be intolerable to voters when they realised that
there had been absolutely no need for it. There are signs in the recent
Governmental Energy Review and utterances by the Government's Chief
Scientific Adviser that the awful truth is dawning. Mr Blair's
ridiculously pathetic Performance and Innovation Unit, which conducted
the energy review, rapidly became besotted with the amazing potential
of renewables and energy conservation. Its first draft was so
inadequately, impractically awful that the politicians - though not
Meacher and Peter Hain - re-wrote it to keep the nuclear option alive.
The "Greens" are now convinced that this still grossly inadequate
re-write represents a crablike movement towards nuclear salvation. We
shall see. But one thing is clear: you cannot overcome the arithmetic.
Forget all the nonsense you have been stuffed with about nuclear's
risks, dangers and problems. Just remember the following figures.
Nuclear Now - 25%
Nuclear 2020 - 3%
Renewables 2020 on the most optimistic assumption 20%
Gap - 2% plus the difference between the current allowance for electricity demand growth and the actual difference
Real Gap - 10, 15~ 20 30% Who knows.
Response: Help, quick, especially as it takes 10 years to plan and build a nuclear power station.;
Solution: Nuclear, Proven, Reliable, Continuous, Safe, Economic, INDISPENSIBLE………………. NOW
Ladies and Gentlemen: I rest my case.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 26 April 2005 )
|
|
|
|
Join SONE |
|
We need your support
To become a member of SONE download the application form by clicking the button below
|
|
