The Rebranding of Nuclear Power?

Naomi Klein contributed an article in the Guardian on Saturday regarding the rebranding of America since Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential election. The US is essentially the same America it was before his election, with the same ingredients, using the same processes it used before - but Obama’s America is now cool and appreciated by people who wouldn’t have had Bush’s America if it came with a Buy One, Get One Free offer.

The nuclear power industry has also been attempting to do the re-branding thing but much less successfully and over a longer time scale. They are trying to rid themselves of their association with the nuclear arms race of the Cold War, Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and instead are rebranding themselves as providers of low-carbon energy. Instead of threatening the planet, they are now, they say, ready to save the planet.

The nuclear industry has the power to generate deep divisions and passionate arguments, both in the general public and within the environmental movement. Some well respected environmentalists such as James Lovelock are pro-nuclear as is the author and journalist Mark Lynas. Others, almost certainly the majority, are anti-nuclear.

Personally speaking, I have no ideological objection to nuclear power - I just don't think the supply-side figures add up in terms of extracting the necessary uranium. The more I look at it, the less I am convinced that nuclear fission is a long-term solution with some of the claims made on its behalf based on unproven or doubtful potential technological advances which may lead to nuclear proliferation, whilst the lead times required to build a new power station rules nuclear energy out as a short- or medium-term solution.

In the case of the UK in particular there is also the fact that we have, largely, no home-grown sources of uranium and thus will be dependent on others for our supplies, and therefore, our energy.

This weakening of Britain’s control over its own energy makes it even odder that the political party most in favour of the expansion of nuclear energy is the Conservative Party who are usually so keen to campaign against any decisions that they perceive as weakening British Sovereign powers, but in the case of nuclear energy appear happy to see the UK replace reliance on oil and gas (where supply to the UK is dependent upon the decisions of other countries beyond our sovereign powers) with nuclear power which is dependent on another fuel source (uranium) the supply of which is, once again, dependent upon the decisions of other countries. The result will be that the ability of the British Parliament to act in an independent and sovereign manner based on democratic processes and ethical considerations will continue to be constrained by the ability of other countries to switch off its energy supplies - and lead to a similar level of realpolitik decision-making that involves us in wars and the propping up of vicious and undemocratic regimes.

Unless the UK decides to start mining for uranium in the Orkneys or Caithness - a decision that even Margaret Thatcher felt was beyond the pale and which will still only supply a tiny percentage of our existing uranium needs in return for massive environmental damage - we are total dependent on foreign imports for uranium. This is repeated across the EU as a whole which supplies less than 3% of its current uranium needs from within the borders of its member states.  Similarly the US only supplies 8% of its own needs domestically. Although two of the largest providers of uranium are relatively stable and democratic countries - Canada and Australia (although even here, only the result of a recent election saw Western Australia re-open its uranium mines) - any major increases in reliance upon nuclear power at a worldwide level will inevitably lead to a greater reliance on less stable, less democratic countries like Kazakhstan, Niger, Uzbekistan and so on. There is even talk of exploiting uranium deposits in Greenland by over-turning a 20-year ban and over-riding objections from the local Inuit population.

At present, Russia is the single largest supplier to both the EU (25% of the EU's uranium requirements) and the US (33%), largely from uranium released as part of the decommissioning of cold war nuclear warheads. In total, decommissioned warheads account for 20,000 tonnes of the 65,000 tonnes or so of Uranium currently consumed each year. This 65,000 tonnes provides approx 15% of World electricity generation. I have seen figures that suggest that 122,000 tonnes p.a of uranium will be required by 2030 - to increase electricity capacity by 80% if all proposed and suggested nuclear power stations are built but this will still only supply a quarter of today's world electricity production

Once the Russians have used up their decommissioned warheads, we will find Europe and the US competing for additional uranium resources both with each other and with China (which is embarking on a major nuclear expansion of its own), repeating the same scenario that has caused so much anguish in the past, except that instead of counting the body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan, they may well be flown in from Kazakhstan instead.

Wind, wave, and solar energy are delivered to this country free of charge, and free of political decision-making elsewhere, and are utilised without leaving any waste behind. To ignore these natural resources would be the height of stupidity.  It is time to move on from 19th and 20th century energy systems like coal, oil and gas and move on to the appliance of 21st century science to the renewables.

Tomorrow, Tuesday the 19th January – a motion has been put forward to Full Council proposing that Bristol City Council oppose expansion of Oldbury and Hinckley Point nuclear power stations. Prior to the full council meeting (which starts at 2pm), a protest has been organised for 1:40pm at the Council House. If you too feel that nuclear energy is not the solution to the UK’s energy needs, please come along and add your voice.