SB The Nuclear Option

SPICe THE NUCLEAR OPTION GRAEME COOK briefing 13 April 2006 06/28 This briefing discusses nuclear power stations in Scotland, profiles relevant key organisations and considers which powers are devolved and which are reserved. It further considers recent nuclear policy developments. Reference is made to radioactive waste, though this topic will be covered in a future SPICe Briefing. Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) Briefings are compiled for the benefit of the Members of the Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with MSPs and their staff who should contact Graeme Cook on extension 85086 or email graeme.cook@scottish.parliament.uk. Members of the public or external organisations may comment on this briefing by emailing us at spice@scottish.parliament.uk. However, researchers are unable to enter into personal discussion in relation to SPICe Briefing Papers. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in SPICe briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. www.scottish.parliament.uk 1 CONTENTS KEY POINTS ................................................................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................4 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY - A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................4 THE NUCLEAR CONTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................................................5 NUCLEAR REACTOR SITES IN SCOTLAND ............................................................................................................7 DEVOLVED AND RESERVED RESPONSIBILITIES..................................................................................................7 SCOTTISH POLICY .....................................................................................................................................................9 UK POLICY AND THE ENERGY REVIEW................................................................................................................10 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................13 THE CASES FOR AND AGAINST.............................................................................................................................14 PUBLIC OPINION ........................................................................................................................................................15 ECONOMICS ..............................................................................................................................................................15 ETHICS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ..........................................................................................................................16 THE ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................................................17 TECHNICAL AND SAFETY ............................................................................................................................................17 POLICY ..................................................................................................................................................................18 THE NEXT GENERATION?.......................................................................................................................................19 CASE STUDY – FINLAND ............................................................................................................................................20 CASE STUDY – GERMANY ...........................................................................................................................................20 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................21 Didn’t British Energy almost go bust a couple of years ago? ............................................................................21 Where does uranium come from, how big are reserves? ..................................................................................21 Isn’t plutonium used as well? .............................................................................................................................22 Can nuclear weapons be used as fuel, and vice versa? ...................................................................................22 Are there any other possible fuels? ...................................................................................................................22 Is nuclear power free from greenhouse gas emissions? ...................................................................................23 Are nuclear power stations a terrorist target? ....................................................................................................25 What can we do with the radioactive waste? .....................................................................................................26 What about nuclear fusion – isn’t that the future? .............................................................................................26 ANNEX I - KEY PLAYERS IN THE NUCLEAR SECTOR .........................................................................................27 ANNEX II – THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE...............................................................................................................30 ANNEX III - DEVELOPMENT OF THE UK NUCLEAR INDUSTRY..........................................................................31 SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................................34 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 2 KEY POINTS • • • • • • • The UK Government is conducting a broad review of UK energy policy, which will conclude in summer 2006, including consideration of the future role of electricity generation from nuclear power The UK Government went into the review ‘nuclear-neutral’ The 2003 DTI Energy White Paper (and the Scottish Sustainable Development Strategy) indicates that it is energy efficiency measures, not cleaner technologies, that are expected to deliver half of the UK target of 60% decrease in carbon emissions by 2050 Scottish Ministers have powers over whether to approve power stations over 50MW capacity. Existing nuclear power stations are ten times this size Scottish Executive policy is to reject new build until the matter of radioactive waste management is resolved There are wide ranging views regarding the future role of nuclear power amongst professional institutions, industry bodies and environmental and sustainable development organisations The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), having appraised nuclear power against the UK Government’s sustainable development principles, say nuclear power is not the answer to climate change and has a long term legacy that should not be added to Others believe that nuclear should be part of the energy mix as it is greenhouse gas emission low at the point of generation, and contributes to the UK’s security of supply objectives Nuclear power stations use primarily uranium (and some plutonium). Uranium is a finite resource. Pressure on existing deposits will increase if new nuclear power stations are built worldwide, though this would be expected to encourage new exploration Scotland has two generating nuclear stations, both owned by British Energy. Torness and Hunterston B are of a more modern design than older nuclear power facilities such as Chapelcross, Dounreay and Hunterston A. The latter three are state operated and undergoing decommissioning British Energy, a private generation only company (with no electricity supply business), was in serious financial difficulties in the early 2000s requiring Government assistance, though has now recovered Nuclear power provides for just over a third of electricity generated in Scotland Nuclear power provides for approximately 18% of electricity generated in England Radioactive waste, of varying levels of contamination is produced as a result of electricity generation, and from decommissioning of nuclear power stations The radioactive waste legacy will last thousands of years Supporters argue new nuclear power will not add considerably to the existing levels of waste Germany’s current policy is to phase out nuclear power, though this policy is coming under some pressure A new nuclear power station is being constructed in Finland, though financing of the project is being considered by the European Commission following suggestions that state aid rules may not have been adhered to. • • • • • • • • • • • providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 3 BACKGROUND The future role of nuclear power is currently the subject of public debate in the UK, Europe and further afield. The UK Government launched an energy review in November 2005. This review, the second in 3 years, asks for opinions on the role nuclear power should or should not play in the UK electricity generating mix. The new European Green Paper on Energy (European Commission 2006a) calls for “a transparent and objective debate on the future role of nuclear energy in the EU, for those Member States concerned.” Electricity has been generated by nuclear power stations for over fifty years, though the technology originally developed from a defence perspective. Worldwide there has been a steady increase in the percentage of electricity generated from nuclear power. No applications for new nuclear power stations have been forthcoming in the UK since the 1980’s. This has not been due to any regulatory or government barrier, but simply that the market would not have supported the case, and public opinion remains divided on the issue. In the UK the industry has had some problems, ranging from the historical (and ongoing) legacy of the nuclear experiment at Dounreay, to the financial problems of the privatised British Energy in the early 2000s. The nuclear industry has long been faced with the question of what to do with radioactive waste produced as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations. This radioactive waste legacy is one that will last for thousands of years. This issue is being considered by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) whose task is to review the options for managing those UK radioactive wastes for which there is no agreed long-term solution. CoRWM (2006) has no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear power new build. Any proposals for new nuclear power stations would not be likely to be based on technology currently being used for nuclear generation in the UK and would need, therefore, to go through a licensing regime, in addition to seeking Ministerial approval for specific applications. Even if a new station used an existing design, it would still require to go through a rigorous process. A fuller history of the development of the nuclear industry in the UK is available at Annex III. This includes more detail on the financial and institutional history of British Energy. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY - A BRIEF INTRODUCTION Electricity is produced by nuclear power stations in much the same way as it is by fossil fuel power stations. The difference is in how the steam that drives the turbines is produced. In conventional plants, fuel (e.g. gas, coal) is burned to produce heat in order to convert water to steam. In conventional nuclear plants heat is produced from nuclear ‘fission’ reactions within a reactor. Nuclear power is not suited to turning on and off quickly, therefore it tends to be used as ‘baseload’, that is it is constantly generating. The fuel most commonly used in nuclear reactors is uranium and enriched uranium oxide. Natural uranium consists primarily of two different types (known as isotopes), uranium-238 and uranium-2351. Plutonium-239 can also be used in some reactor designs. Uranium is enriched through either ‘gas diffusion’ or ‘centrifuge’ process. The latter is much more energy efficient and cheaper than the former providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 4 1 ‘Fast reactor technology’, such as was developed at Dounreay in Caithness, works on the principle that uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239 at a rate faster than the original fuel is consumed. In theory this would extend the life of natural uranium reserves. Although a Prototype Fast Reactor was built and operated at Dounreay, it did not reach the point of commercial viability and the reactor was eventually closed down. Most power stations, including nuclear, require vast amounts of cooling water and are situated close to a good supply, although one type of nuclear reactor at Dounreay was cooled using sodium as water evaporated too quickly. Some developing technologies do not use water for cooling. Radioactive waste is produced as a result of nuclear electricity generation and as a result of decommissioning of nuclear sites. Waste can be classified as ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘high level’. Low, intermediate and high level waste require special care, with high level waste requiring complex, long term (hundreds and thousands of years) solutions2. The types of waste produced include spent fuel; maintenance & engineering materials; and suits, gloves and other disposable items. Annex II shows the ‘nuclear fuel cycle’ in diagrammatical form. On 30 March 2006 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority published its approved strategy for cleaning up the nuclear legacy (NDA 2006). THE NUCLEAR CONTRIBUTION Most debate on energy policy relates to the generation of electricity. However ‘energy’ is not the same as ‘electricity’ and the terms cannot accurately be used interchangeably. Contribution to energy In 1973, nuclear accounted for 0.9% of the total global primary energy supply. In 2003 this figure had risen to 6.5%. Total energy demand over that same period rose by over a third (International Energy Agency 2005). According to the recently published Scottish Energy Study Volume One (Scottish Executive 2006a), electricity accounted for 21% of the energy delivered in Scotland in 2002 (Scottish Executive 2006b). In 2004, nuclear power was responsible for generating approximately 7.4% of total energy in Scotland3. Contribution to electricity The table below shows the breakdown of the use of nuclear power to generate electricity worldwide. 2 3 A separate SPICe Briefing will be published on radioactive waste Based on the fact that nuclear accounts for 35.4% of electricity, and electricity accounts for 21% of all energy in Scotland i.e. 35.4% of 21 = 7.4 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 5 Figure 1 – Global nuclear electricity generation (2003 figures) Country USA France Japan Germany Russia Korea United Kingdom Ukraine Canada Sweden Rest of World World Scotland Terawatt hours (TWh)4 788 441 240 165 150 130 89 81 75 67 409 2,635 17 Percentage of world total 29.9 16.7 9.1 6.3 5.7 4.9 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.5 15.6 100 0.6 Source: International Energy Agency (2005) and personal communication, British Energy. Scottish figures are for 2003/04. The proportionate contribution of nuclear to electricity generation is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. Nuclear accounted for 20.2% of UK electricity generated in 2004, compared with figures of 35.4% for Scotland; 21% for Wales and 17.7% for England (DTI 2005b; Scottish Executive 2006). The nuclear sector actually uses about 1% of electricity consumed in the UK (Environment Agency 2005). Scottish nuclear generation figures for the four years 2000-2004 are shown below (Scottish Executive 2006). Figure 2 – Percentage of electricity generated from nuclear in Scotland Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Amount generated (GWh) 16,918 18,052 15,863 18,394 18,013 Percentage generated (1) 33.6 36.8 32.0 37.2 35.4 Of the 10,993 MW total current installed capacity, nuclear accounts for 2,490 MW (Hunterston and Torness are roughly the same size, with two reactors each) (National Grid 2005). The table below shows the amount of electricity, in terawatt hours (TWh), generated by the two stations. Figure 2 – Output from Torness and Hunterston B 1995-2005 Output (TWh) 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 Hunterston 8.71 8.03 8.73 9.18 B 8.91 9.65 9.27 9.48 Torness Source: Personal communication, British Energy 1999/00 8.88 10.17 2000/01 6.43 7.71 2001/02 9.85 8.30 2002/03 8.93 5.70 2003/04 8.77 8.15 2004/05 8.26 8.30 4 One terawatt hour = one thousand gigawatt hours = one million megawatt hours providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 6 NUCLEAR REACTOR SITES IN SCOTLAND There are six main nuclear facilities in Scotland of which two power stations are currently generating. These, Torness and Hunterston B, are owned by British Energy, a private company. Another three stations are in varying degrees of decommissioning. Whilst not strictly a civil site, the sixth facility is operated by the Ministry of Defence, but its future is inextricably linked to Dounreay. The Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre, based in East Kilbride, was deactivated in 1995 and fully dismantled by 2003. Sites can only be delicensed when they meet the relevant HSE criteria (2005). Figure 1 – Nuclear reactor facilities in Scotland Site Operator Generating Start generation 1959 1955 End generation Delicensing expected 2128 Chapelcross Dounreay British Nuclear No Group UKAEA No 2004 Hunterston A Hunterston B British Nuclear No Group British Energy Yes 1964 1976 1994, but 2036 reprocessing activity continued until late 1996 1990 2090 Torness British Energy Vulcan Nuclear Reactor Training Establishment (VNRTE) Ministry of Defence, though neighbouring UKAEA provide emergency cover 2011 though Depends reports suggest on whether British Energy station life seeking to extend extended station life to 2021 (BBC 2006b) Yes 1988 2023 Depends on whether station life extended 5 No . Not First tests in Current contract 2036 1965 between MOD connected and Rolls-Royce to grid, runs to 2014. operates as Plans to integrate test centre Vulcan with for reactors Dounreay site destined for decommissioning nuclear submarines DEVOLVED AND RESERVED RESPONSIBILITIES Overall energy policy and law is, for the most part, a reserved matter. However, the permission of Scottish Ministers is required for all power stations with a capacity of over 50MW (whether nuclear or not) under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, which in turn gives deemed planning permission, under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The 5 Personal Communication Rolls Royce providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 7 relevant powers were transferred to Scottish Ministers under The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 19996. Section 57 of the 1997 Act states: On granting a consent under section 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 in respect of any operation or change of use that constitutes development, the Secretary of State may direct that planning permission for that development and any ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction. The UK Government position7 was outlined in the following Parliamentary questions, answered in the House of Commons on 7 June 2005: Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): What responsibilities are devolved, and which reserved, in relation to any decision to commission and locate a new nuclear power station in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): New power stations in Scotland require consent, under the Electricity Act 1989, from Scottish Executive Ministers. Nuclear energy and installations, including nuclear safety, security and safeguards, are reserved, subject to exceptions set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that reply, but it does not make it entirely clear what the planning position is as regards nuclear power stations. The Minister will know that there is huge opposition to new nuclear power stations in Scotland and to nuclear dumps in Scotland. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the United Kingdom Government will not seek to impose a new nuclear power station on Scotland without the express consent of the Scottish Parliament using its planning powers? Mr. Darling: The position is absolutely clear, and if the hon. Gentleman had given the matter even the slightest investigation, he would see that. At the end of the day, because the Scottish Executive would have to give planning permission, it is for them to decide whether a large nuclear power station should be built. The matter rests with them. It will be up to the Scottish Executive, and the Ministers in that are, of course, answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Because there are already some nuclear licensed sites in Scotland, the question has been raised as to whether the consent of Scottish Ministers would be required should nuclear new build be proposed on an already licensed site. The following written answer details the position: Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether planning permission would be required to build a new nuclear power station on the site of a former nuclear power station. (S2W-16963) Allan Wilson (7 June 2005): The construction of a nuclear power station with a capacity in excess of 50 MW, whether or not on the site of a former nuclear power station, would require a consent under s.36 of The Electricity Act 1989. The consent application process involves wide consultation, including with relevant local authorities. In the event of such a consent being granted, ministers would exercise their powers under the act to deem planning permission. However, as set out in the partnership agreement, the Executive will not consent any new nuclear power station while radioactive waste management issues remain unresolved. A further written answer clarifies the position with regard to the role of Scottish Ministers in decisions to extend the life of an existing nuclear power station, or for new construction. S2W-21573 - Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged 9 December 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive to what extent it would have a role in any decision to extend the life of existing nuclear power stations and whether any further consents would be required should any such decision involve refurbishment or new construction. Answered by Allan Wilson (21 December 2005): Any decision to allow an extension to the life of an 6 7 SI 1999/1750 see Schedule 1 Confirmed by personal communication DTI, 12 April 2006 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 8 existing power station would be for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the independent body which sets the duration and conditions of the relevant operating licences. The consent of Scottish ministers, under Section 36(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, would be required for new construction or to increase the output capacity of an existing generating plant to exceed 50 Mega Watts. Investment in the refurbishment of an existing nuclear plant in order to comply with the terms of an operating licence extension would not require Scottish ministers’ approval. A full breakdown of civil nuclear responsibilities is available on the DTI website (DTI 2006c). A Memorandum of Understanding between SEPA and HSE is in place (HSE 1998). SCOTTISH POLICY As illustrated above, once a new design has been licensed, Scottish Ministers have some powers in relation to approving new nuclear power stations. The Scottish Executive position is detailed in the Partnership Agreement (Scottish Executive 2003) and the First Minister has restated the position in the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions8: “…we will not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved.” The First Minister was questioned further on this point on 12 May 20059 where Shiona Baird MSP asked for a definition of “resolved” in this context: The First Minister: Decided upon, preferably by independent bodies. Shiona Baird: I will give the First Minister a choice of two possible answers. Would he define the issue as resolved when the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management produces its report in July 2006, or when a poor community has been identified and a facility has been built for nuclear waste? It is quite simple. The First Minister: I think that Shiona Baird is trying to get at whether the decision is made when the general principle of handling nuclear waste is resolved or when the specifics of where nuclear waste might be stored on a permanent basis are resolved. [….] The general principles of the handling of nuclear waste will be resolved when we see the recommendation on the general principles and the best method of handling from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. The individual sites will be resolved when they have been identified and agreed properly by Government. On 1 December 2005 the First Minister developed things a little further in the Scottish Parliament, stating10: A whole range of issues must be taken into account in the United Kingdom Government's energy review and in any consideration that we may give in Scotland, both during that energy review and afterwards, to the long-term decisions that are required. It is a fundamental point that waste issues need to be resolved in advance of any consideration of further development of nuclear power stations in Scotland, but I am sure that there are a number of other issues that we will also want to consider, not least of which is the financial implications. The matter was last discussed at First Minister’s questions on 19 January 2006 (Scottish Parliament 2006a). Nuclear power, as a specific subject, was last debated in the Scottish 8 9 S2F-1953 S2F-1634 10 S2F-1956 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 9 Parliament on 14 April 2005 (Scottish Parliament 2005) though it has been a key theme of more general energy debates for example on 26 January 2006 (Scottish Parliament 2006b) and 9 March 2006 (Scottish Parliament 2006c). To assist its development of energy policy, the Scottish Executive commissioned an extensive study into Scotland’s energy use and needs. In January 2006 the first two volumes (Scottish Executive 2006a and 2006b) of the five volume study were published. The two published volumes focus on energy statistics from 2002 and 1990. Future volumes will be published through 2006. Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy Choosing Our Future was published on 14 December 2005. The document makes no mention of nuclear power or radioactive waste. The Scottish Executive’s updated Climate Change Programme Changing Our Ways (Scottish Executive 2006c) makes little reference to nuclear other than to restate the Executive policy position. On 26 February 2006 the Scottish Labour spring conference backed a motion from the union Amicus which called for the Government to, amongst other things: Support the fact that immediate plans must be started to replace or renew our existing coal fired and nuclear generating stations where required. At their spring 2006 conference the Liberal Democrats reiterated their opposition to the construction of new nuclear power stations (Scottish Liberal Democrats 2006). The Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party, and the Scottish Socialist Party are all against new build nuclear power. The Scottish Conservatives believe plans must be started to replace existing nuclear generating stations as required. UK POLICY AND THE ENERGY REVIEW In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report on Energy (2000) stated: While UK carbon dioxide emissions are falling at the moment, they are expected to begin rising again. All but one of the nuclear power stations, the main source of carbon-free energy at present, are expected to close by 2025. The government should set out, within the next five years, a programme for energy demand reductions and development of alternative energy sources that will prevent this from causing an increase in UK emissions. On the nuclear question the Commission stated: Nuclear power could continue to play an important role in reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions. We do not, however, accept the arguments of those who hold that it is indispensable. We do not believe public opinion will permit the construction of new nuclear power stations unless they are part of a strategy which delivers radical improvements in energy efficiency and an equal opportunity for the deployment of other alternatives to fossil fuels which can compete in terms of cost and reduced environmental impacts. The procedures for weighing up these issues will need to allow for debate of a high standard, and at the same time be capable of articulating deeply held values and beliefs. We have suggested in our previous report, on environmental standards, how that might be achieved. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 10 In 2002 the Prime Minister’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) published The Energy Review as a report to Government. The 2002 Review talked about a culture of low energy prices, but with a realisation that increasingly the UK would rely on energy imports, and looked to the example of the vulnerability of the Californian energy market in 2001 as a warning. On nuclear the Review stated: “The immediate priorities of energy policy are likely to be most cost-effectively served by promoting energy efficiency and expanding the role of renewables. However, the options of new investment in nuclear power and in clean coal (through carbon sequestration) need to be kept open, and practical measures taken to do this” The PIU report drew on the assistance of 12 experts to review Government support for energy research, development and demonstration activities. The report called for the Government to lead a national public debate on the role of nuclear and renewables. After a public consultation (DTI 2002) based on the PIU report, which included a number of questions on nuclear, the Government responded by publishing the 2003 Energy White Paper Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy (DTI 2003). On nuclear the White Paper states: Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity. However, its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. These issues include our legacy waste and continued waste arising from other sources. This white paper does not contain specific proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets. Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there will need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a further white paper setting out our proposals. The 2005 Labour Party manifesto stated (Labour Party 2005): We have a major programme to promote renewable energy, as part of a strategy of having a mix of energy sources from nuclear power stations to clean coal to microgenerators. On 29 November 2005 less than three years after the White Paper, the Prime Minister announced another energy review. The Prime Minister stated (10 Downing Street 2005): I can today announce that we have established a review of the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals. The Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks will be in the lead, with the aim of publishing a policy statement on energy in the early summer of 2006. It will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. The review (DTI 2006a) was formally launched on 23 January 2006 with the consultation concluding on 14 April 2006. The review re-opens the debate on the possibility of new nuclear build, which was marginalised a couple of years ago. The 2006 energy review team will work closely with the Stern Review team working on the economics of climate change for HM Treasury (DTI 2005a). The Minister leading the review, Malcolm Wicks has stated (DTI 2005a): Things have changed since 2003 so the time is right to be reviewing energy policy. The reality is that we are now competing for energy supplies with countries like India and providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 11 China. This is a wide-ranging energy review and is not a nuclear review. There is not a single solution and it is not a choice of nuclear versus renewables. In looking at the nuclear option there are a number of key factors such as the economics, safety and nuclear waste. For too long governments have dodged the issue of what to do with nuclear waste. Now we have to make decisions quickly because we have an urgent timetable. By next summer we expect to present the Prime Minister with judgments about the future of energy policy. Wicks has also stated (Observer 2005): I nevertheless go into this review nuclear-neutral, keen to see what today's more advanced civil nuclear technologies can offer. I want to sweep away historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science. It is about time we grasped the nuclear nettle and decided one way or another. The answer could be yes. But it could be no. The Energy Review document itself states: In this context the Review will look again at the role of nuclear electricity generation. Nuclear currently provides around 20% of the country’s electricity needs, but most of our existing nuclear power stations are scheduled to close over the coming twenty years or so. The 2003 Energy White Paper recognised that replacement nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets, but concluded that its then current economics made it unattractive and that there were also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. The Review will examine whether recent changes in energy prices have changed that assessment and at the other issues that would be raised by building new nuclear power stations. These other issues include all the characteristics of nuclear, including its creation of long-term liabilities such as nuclear waste; and how these liabilities should be managed and paid for. The government is clear that, in making important decisions about energy policy including nuclear power, there should be the fullest public consultation. This consultation paper is part of that process. The government is not at this stage bringing forward policy proposals. The PIU report had predicted some of the energy issues which brought about the need for a further energy review, and made the point at the time that there was an urgent requirement to promote energy efficiency and renewables. The Energy Review makes specific reference to nuclear as a technology stating that key considerations are: • • • • • • • • • Carbon profile Reliable access to fuel Flexibility Safety and security Proliferation risk Waste Cost Decommissioning and long term management Skills The reason a decision needs to be taken now on the future of nuclear relates to the lifespans of existing large power stations, both nuclear and thermal, and the perception that renewables are not developing quickly enough to fill any impending ‘energy gap’. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 12 Best estimates for the scheduled loss of capacity of the 5 main power stations in Scotland are given below11: • • • • • Hunterston B (nuclear) Cockenzie (coal) Longannet (coal) Torness (nuclear) Peterhead (gas) 2011 (though may be extended to 2021) 2015 2020s 2023 2030 (approximate) For the nuclear stations, Hunterston B and Torness, the dates quoted relate to ‘accounting lives’ that is, how long the company believes it can run the plants, bearing in mind safety, technical, operational and commercial factors. Any decision from directors of British Energy to seek an extension will require consultation with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). British Energy cannot guarantee extensions, partly due to significant technical challenges and uncertainties. That said, media reports (BBC 2006a) indicate that British Energy will seek an extension to the licence for Hunterston B perhaps to 2021. British Energy considers that these reports were highly speculative12. Scottish Power has decided to spend £170m installing relevant equipment to extend the life of Longannet beyond 2020 (Scottish Power 2006). SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS In March 2006, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), advisors to the UK Government and the devolved administrations, published the results of its work on nuclear power. The SDC appraised nuclear power against the five new sustainable development principles which were published by the UK Government and the devolved administrations in March 2005, and concluded that “Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply”. The work is presented in a position paper The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy (SDC 2006b) which is supported by a series of evidence base papers (SDC 2006a). A commentary (SDC 2006c) by SDC Chair, Sir Jonathan Porrit and a Questions and Answers (SDC 2006d) section were also published. SDC cite five key reasons to support their case: • • • • Long-term waste - no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste Cost - the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever. Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency. 11 12 Personal communication, Scottish Executive Personal communication, British Energy providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 13 • International security - if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology13. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks. One question from the FAQ section is particularly relevant: Q: Do you suspect that the UK Government has already made up its mind on nuclear power? A: We are taking the UK Government at its word, and welcome the DTI’s Energy Review on the basis that it will be a genuinely impartial process, dispassionately reviewing the evidence. The Nuclear Industry Association (2006a) welcomed the SDC recognition of the benefits of nuclear power and stated that they were glad: …to see that the Commission have confirmed that nuclear is a low carbon source. I am also pleased they have recognised the industry’s safety record, especially in comparison to other forms of electricity generation And that SDC: …have lain to rest the old chestnut that the issue of nuclear waste can’t be solved, with Mr Porritt having recognised in answer to journalists questions, that Finland has found an acceptable solution14. We certainly hope that the government moves forward in a positive way to solve the waste issue as the Finnish government has after the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management reports in the summer. A motion15 from Sarah Boyack MSP supporting the conclusions of the Sustainable Development Commission has received support from representatives of all main parties apart from the Scottish Conservatives. THE CASES FOR AND AGAINST There has been nothing of an official or regulatory nature stopping an energy company applying to build a nuclear power station over the last decade. There is a combination of factors as to why this has not happened. These include economics, public perception, the lack of a waste disposal route for high level radioactive waste, and the structure of the market. Whilst the SDC have come out against new nuclear power, other stakeholders have put forward views supporting new nuclear build in the UK, and considering the obstacles to that new build, in terms of policy, finance and the like (for instance Westminster Energy Forum 2005 and James Lovelock in Reader’s Digest 2005). Deloitte have published two analyses which map out a possible future for nuclear power generation. In September 2005 they published Clearing the Air (Deloitte 2005) which concluded that whilst other climate change policies, such as emissions trading, might swing a balance in favour of nuclear, the industry would require long term commitment to such policies, in order for investment to be forthcoming. Deloitte (2006) published another analysis 20-20 Vision, which gives the view that new build of some sort is required, and that nuclear should be part of the mix. Deloitte further offer the opinion that long term stability in the market is necessary to allow investment. 13 14 Under the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) More on the Finnish example on page 22 15 S2M-4061 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 14 This section of the briefing seeks to give a flavour of the debates for and against a new generation of nuclear power stations. PUBLIC OPINION Public opinion on nuclear power is varied. The results of opinion polls vary depending on the subtleties of the questions being asked. In addition, responses tend to reflect current events, such as increasing gas prices, or the weather. A summary of some recent opinion polls include: • MORI (2006) which concluded that in the UK: o There are high levels of concern about climate change among the British public o While polls over the past four years have shown a gradual lessening of opposition to replacing nuclear power stations, the new results still show more opposition than support o Higher proportions of people are prepared to accept nuclear power if they believe it will contribute to climate change mitigation. However, very few would actively prefer this as an energy source over renewables or energy efficiency, given the choice The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2005a) ran a poll in 18 countries: o 60% support for continued use of existing nuclear power stations, but 60% of people were against new build European Commission Eurobarometer on Attitudes to Energy in Europe (2006b) o 12% of respondents felt national governments should focus on developing the use of nuclear energy to reduce reliance on imports • • The latter survey highlights the need to be aware of the questions asked in opinion polls. The question compared nuclear power with renewables, but specific conventional electricity generation through coal or gas, was not considered. The Sustainable Development Commission published some background evidence on public perception of nuclear power (SDC 2006f). SDC conclude that: • • • • “Analysis of recent opinion surveys – both quantitative and qualitative – suggests that currently there is only limited (less that 30%) support for a new programme of nuclear power stations, particularly when compared with other, renewable technologies. There is some sign that the climate change issue may be encouraging new reflection, but this is over-shadowed by the continuing problems of secure radioactive waste disposal, decommissioning, and industrial secrecy. The current lack of salience of nuclear issues for many people suggests that some of these opinions could change. But any potential for increased support appears conditional on first resolving the waste issue convincingly. This leads to discussion of how attitudes might evolve, whether nationally or locally, as the nuclear option receives increased political and media attention. ECONOMICS Some argue that the nuclear industry is seeking government funding and will only apply to build new nuclear power stations when this comes about. The organisation Supporters of Nuclear Energy state: providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 15 “the [nuclear industry] does not [want a subsidy]. It wants fair play. It recognises that it will have to compete in the market and that the future generation of nuclear reactors will be built by the private sector, not by Government agencies” Bearing this view point in mind the main arguments for and against new build or extending existing nuclear power stations are summarised below: Arguments for: • Operating costs low • Long station lifetimes • Can compete where regulatory regime supports over long timescales and some underwriting by Government (as in e.g. France) • Companies, for instance E.ON are beginning to express interest without recourse to government financial support, though only if the planning process is streamlined, a waste solution is in place and public opinion and political consensus is supportive (E.ON 2006 and Nuclear Industry Association 2006b) • Local economic and social benefit • Uranium costs only a relatively small amount of overall costs so price increases may not affect generation costs too adversely • Industry argues that even when conservative costs factored in for dealing with radioactive waste, nuclear remains competitive on a cost per electricity unit basis • Industry further argues that waste and decommissioning costs are built into the operating costs of British Energy16 (though this does not pay for the historic legacy) Arguments against: • High initial capital costs • Unpredictable electricity market • Uranium costs are predicted to rise (Money Week 2006). In 2005 prices were the highest they had been since the 1980’s, though uranium is only small part of operating costs • Costs of radioactive waste extend way beyond lifetime of reactor. UKAEA (2006) estimate cleaning up current legacy will cost £56 billion • Finite fuel – uranium is not renewable – will influence price in long term • Waste disposal costs uncertain • High liability costs if an accident (though many should be covered by insurance) Powering the Nation – A Review of the Costs of Generating Electricity (PB Power 2006) gives an interesting discussion of the economics of electricity generation. ETHICS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management say that they “put considerable emphasis on the importance of ethics in assessing options for long-term management of radioactive wastes” (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management 2006). Whilst there is less of this type of consideration in the public domain from Government with regard to the options for new nuclear build, the arguments are played out in many discussion forums. Arguments for: • Existing nuclear provides employment and direct and indirect investment, and could continue to do so in same areas 16 Personal communication British Energy providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 16 • • • • Reduces the legacy of climate change impacts Perception on safety is changing with new generation of nuclear stations Provides a degree of medium term security of supply UK nuclear expertise abroad actually helps improve safety and operational records of the nuclear industry abroad Arguments against: • Allows for increased possibility of nuclear weapon creation and proliferation, though global position would change relatively little with new UK nuclear build • Negative perception reducing house prices etc • Thousands of years of radioactive legacy, with associated costs • High risk for small fraction of global energy needs • Requirement to weigh up good safety record with possibility of catastrophic accident • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) states that there should be no barriers to exporting technologies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so difficult to keep technologies from other countries • Electricity policy based on a finite resource (and so applies to not just nuclear) may be perceived as unsustainable • Cost of developing and operating nuclear power may need to be underwritten by government, (and so cost to public) either at the front end or in dealing with waste • Lack of trust of nuclear industry • Nuclear is suited to multi-nationals so could act against smaller community scale solutions THE ENVIRONMENT Arguments for: • Low greenhouse gas emissions at point of generation • Low lifecycle carbon emissions. The nuclear industry says they are comparable with renewable technologies • Centralised electricity generation – little landscape impact • New build likely only on existing nuclear sites • Single largest proven source of low carbon generation Arguments against: • Not emission free. Emissions produced elsewhere in nuclear fuel cycle • Ongoing radioactive waste production • Radioactive waste legacy • Risk of catastrophe • Based on finite resource TECHNICAL AND SAFETY A statement on incidents at nuclear installations in Britain which meet Ministerial reporting criteria is made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland and is published quarterly by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Freedom of Information legislation has led to the release of other types of information relating to incidents in nuclear sites. For instance, the Sunday Herald (2005) recently reported that there had been “more than 200 ‘abnormal events’ at Scotland’s two nuclear power stations” since 2000. The information this article is based on is available to Members in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), as is similar information relating to other nuclear sites in Scotland. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 17 The Nuclear Industry Association (2006C) state: The UK nuclear industry has a thorough safety strategy which identifies all the conditions which might lead to an accident, then sets up fail-safe systems and multiple barriers to combat them. The safety record of nuclear reactors in the UK is excellent. Some types of nuclear technology have a better safety record than others. The Chernobyl disaster was diagnosed as being partly due to design flaws associated with the light-watercooled graphite-moderated reactor in place. According to Chernobyl.info (2006) this type of reactor has been criticised because it lacks a containment structure and requires large quantities of combustible graphite within its core. A SPICe Briefing on Chernobyl (Cook 2005) is available. Arguments for: • Established UK safety record • Provides a source of nuclear material - tritium / plutonium (if UK policy is to support nuclear weapons) • Mature and reliable base load technology • Existing expertise • Technical options exist for waste e.g. deep underground, surface storage Arguments against: • power stations are a potential terrorist target • Source of nuclear material - tritium / plutonium could be used by ‘renegade’ states or terrorists • Shortage of qualified and experienced nuclear engineers (though initiatives such as the World Nuclear University seek to rectify this) • Whilst risk small, consequences of an accident could be catastrophic • Practicalities of dealing with radioactive waste. For instance geological storage may be best theoretical option, but suitable site may not exist • New generation of reactors have yet to be completed anywhere, though one is under construction in Finland (see page 22) • High initial capital cost POLICY There has been considerable debate as to the likelihood of a future ‘energy gap’. The term ‘energy gap’ has yet to be defined, and it is not easy to determine whether this actually means an ‘electricity generation gap’. If so, and there is a link to climate change reduction targets, then there is a need to consider whether nuclear could deliver the required generation capacity and emission reductions over the next 10-15 years (bearing in mind build times etc). Arguments for: • Security of supply. Reduces dependency on imports, in particular, gas, to generate electricity • If the uranium price stays stable, it could be a buffer against, e.g. fluctuating gas prices • Current nuclear stations reaching end of life so new build or extensions would fill any ‘generation gap’ • Allows for renewables and energy efficiency technologies to make real inroads over the next 20-30 years providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 18 Arguments against: • ‘Electricity generation gap’ may not come about if energy efficiency and renewable sources utilised properly • Long lead in and build time. • 2003 Energy White Paper expected half of carbon dioxide emissions reductions to come from energy efficiency not new generation • New worldwide nuclear will increase uranium demand, and price • Negative public perception and reaction • Focuses debate on generation rather than efficiency The Royal Institute of International Affairs (2005) has published an analysis entitled The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build. THE NEXT GENERATION? Should the decision be taken to build new nuclear power stations, existing technology will not be used. A number of new technologies are under development, though whether they will be licensed in the UK, commercially available and generating after the planning process over the next 10-15 years is debatable. The Sustainable Development Commission (2006e) provides a detailed analysis of current and developing technology. Six different designs are at varying phases of US licensing (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2006a). This briefing cannot cover all emerging technologies, however two high profile developing examples are: The AP1000 (Advanced Passive 1000) nuclear plant is designed by the company Westinghouse which is itself part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL). However, on 1 July 2005 BNFL put Westinghouse up for sale (BBC 2005 and Power Engineering International 2005) and on 6 February 2006 the Toshiba Corporation and BNFL reached agreement (British Nuclear Fuels plc 2006) subject to clearing regulatory hurdles. Designed to be the next generation of nuclear plant, progressing from the AP600, the AP1000 is an advanced pressurized water reactor. On 26 October 2005, Duke Power, an American company, announced (Duke Energy 2005) that it is preparing an application for new nuclear generation in the US using two AP1000 reactors. This has been reported as the first application for new nuclear power in the US for 30 years. On 30 December 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted (Westinghouse 2006) a design certification for the AP 1000. More on this process is available online (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2006b).This is the first of the new generation of nuclear power designs to receive such certification, based on safety, independent of a specific site. The AP 1000 would need to be assessed in the UK. The AP1000 would provide for 450-500 permanent jobs per year of operating life17. Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a developing technology that does not use water either as a coolant, or within the reactor itself. Instead it uses an inert gas, and graphite, respectively. The technology has not reached a commercial level and some criticisms include the fact that encasing in graphite could pose a fire risk, and that some designs lack a 17 Personal Communication British Nuclear Group providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 19 containment building. Reprocessing of fuels used in PBMR is more difficult than that from conventional nuclear reactors. Other types of reactor are more developed. For instance the Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) technology is used in over 30 power stations around the world, CASE STUDY – FINLAND Finland is often cited as a case study by proponents of nuclear power. Electricity use is very high in Finland (Der Spiegel 2004), and is rising. With a population of five million, Finland has four nuclear power stations, providing 28% of the country’s electricity (BBC 2006b). Construction of a fifth, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station is under way – this will be a 1600MW power station and is being constructed close to existing facilities. By law, the Finnish Parliament has the final say on the construction of new nuclear power and voted by 107-92 in favour in May 2002. Crucial to the development is construction of a waste disposal site. As with other countries, Finland was faced with the question of what to do with radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. A cave on the Olkiluoto site acts as a repository for low and medium level radioactive waste. In 2004, construction of a research facility began with a view to assessing the suitability of bedrock at the Olkiluoto site for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel (TVO and Posiva 2006). The Finnish electricity utility Teollissuuden Voima OY (TVO) has a contract with a consortium formed by the French state controlled company Areva and Siemens. The actual plant (i.e. the reactors etc) is to be supplied by Areva, whilst Siemens will provide substantial parts of the non nuclear plant, such as turbines. There are though, concerns about the project. In January 2005 the European Commission launched an investigation into potentially illegal state aid for the new plant. This was on the back of claims from the European renewable energies federation (Eref 2004) that there were problems relating to: • • • • • A loan to buy the reactor A ‘generous’ export credit guarantee Financial support from the Swedish Export Agency Price dumping (which can distort the market) Long term obligations for Finnish communal authorities to buy the electricity generated What these concerns amount to is that there is a view that public funding might have found its way into what is being portrayed as a private project. Greenpeace (2005a) are further concerned that a permit was given by the Finnish Government even though the matter was under investigation at European level. Greenpeace published analysis that they claim proves that the new plant has not undergone stringent enough safety tests (Greenpeace 2005b). Some are calling for further development of the industry in Finland (Finnish Youth for Nuclear Energy 2006). CASE STUDY – GERMANY In June 2000 the German Federal Government took the decision to phase out nuclear power from their electricity mix. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 20 A coalition is now in place in Germany. The coalition parties do not agree on the future direction of nuclear energy and the coalition agreement states that the June 2000 decision will not be revisited (Press and Information Office of the Federal Government 2005). However, reports are beginning to suggest that the nuclear industry is beginning to put pressure on the German Government to revisit the agreement (Euractiv.com 2006). FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Didn’t British Energy almost go bust a couple of years ago? British Energy was in serious trouble in the early 2000s though is more stable now after Government assistance. More on this is available on page 32. Where does uranium come from, how big are reserves? There are two sources. The first, primary production, involves mining from the ground. Secondary production involves use of historic stockpiles, dismantling of some warheads and reenrichment of spent reactor fuels (Kitco 2004). The price of uranium has started to increase as more nuclear power stations are planned in India and China, and the secondary sources described above begin to deplete. Broadly, exploration tends to be driven by price and need, and it is anticipated that uranium exploration is likely to increase soon. Australia holds 30% of the world’s known primary uranium reserves. There are three operating mines, exporting around 11,000 tonnes per year, and only for electricity generation, not weapons (Uranium Information Centre 2006). Australia has a nuclear reactor for research, but no nuclear power industry. Canada too has large uranium deposits. In South Africa uranium has long been a by-product of gold mining though it is now mined in its own right. Niger and Namibia have deposits too. In 2001 a publication from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (2001) entitled Analysis of uranium supply to 2050 examined uranium reserves based on projections of use. The report stated: “As we look to the future, presently known resources fall short of demand. However, if significant and timely exploration is conducted and sufficient resources are discovered, there could be an adequate supply of lower cost uranium to satisfy demand. Nevertheless, if the exploration effort is insufficient, or is not implemented in a timely manner, it will become necessary to rely on very high cost conventional or unconventional resources to meet demand as the lower cost known resources are exhausted. Therefore, to ensure maximum utilization of newly discovered resources, exploration must begin relatively soon.” The ‘red book’ published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Atomic Energy Agency (2001) is considered the definitive guide to Uranium Resources, Production and Demand, though the latest version is five years old. A further International Atomic Energy Agency publication (2005b), entitled Recent Developments in Uranium Exploration, Production and Environmental Issues details some recent developments. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 21 There is a theory that uranium extraction from seawater may be possible on a commercial basis. The 2005 report referred to above states that “at the current costs sea water as a potential commercial source of uranium is little more than a curiosity”. The Sustainable Development Commission background paper (2006g) on Uranium Resource Availability makes some relevant points: • • • • global demand for uranium is set to increase as a result of new reactors in China, India, South Korea and Japan demand is expected to fall in western Europe industry institutions are confident that reserves exist for the next 100 years a short term shortfall in supply is expected over the next few years, unless there is significant effort and investment On the price of uranium SDC states: The uranium market is going through a period of adjustment. Secondary supplies – from inventories built up during the 1970s oil crises and weapons decommissioning – are beginning to run out, but continue to contribute 40% of total supply. Primary production must increase to meet both the decline in secondary supply and increasing demand. The supply response is limited by the high cost of exploration and development of new mines. There is also concern that the uranium price is undervalued – analysts argue that there are signs of serious market failure. Isn’t plutonium used as well? According to the World Nuclear Association (2005a) a third of nuclear electricity generation comes from plutonium. Plutonium does occur naturally, but only in trace amounts in the Earth’s crust. Plutonium used as a nuclear fuel actually originates from the uranium nuclear fuel cycle. Can nuclear weapons be used as fuel, and vice versa? Uranium and plutonium used in nuclear weapons is enriched to far higher degrees than are required in nuclear power station reactors. The technology exists for this to be diluted for use in electricity generation (World Nuclear Association 2005b). The technology exists to turn uranium and plutonium from nuclear reactors into nuclear weapons. Are there any other possible fuels? Thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel by converting to uranium-233. Thorium is a naturallyoccurring, slightly radioactive metal, and is available in larger amounts (estimates are three times as much) than uranium. The largest amounts which are economically extractable are in Australia, India, Norway, USA and Canada (World Nuclear Association 2004). Thorium gives a greater return per unit mined, as all of it is potentially useable in a reactor compared with 0.7% of natural uranium. This begs the question as to why it has not yet been exploited economically. The World Nuclear Association highlights many areas where research in this area is ongoing but also states: Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 22 Research has only ever taken place at a much smaller scale than relating to uranium or plutonium. In particular though the main problems in developing a thorium nuclear fuel cycle are: • High cost of fuel fabrication due to the high radioactivity of uranium-233 • Problems in recycling thorium • Weapons proliferation risk of uranium-233 • Unresolved technical problems relating to reprocessing Is nuclear power free from greenhouse gas emissions? Carbon emissions at the point of nuclear electricity generation are low. However this does not tell the full story. All electricity generating technologies have greenhouse gas emissions associated with them. For instance, the generation of electricity from renewables may be emission free, but the design, construction and decommissioning of renewables technologies requires energy input (e.g. concrete, turbine construction) and so will produce emissions. Similarly, fossil fuel electricity generation has extensive emissions at the point where electricity is generated, but other emissions are produced in construction, decommissioning and in getting fuel to where it needs to be burnt. In order to fully evaluate carbon emissions from different technologies, it is necessary to carry out a full life cycle analysis. This type of thinking has been developing for at least a decade. In 1997 the Institute for Applied Ecology published Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life Cycle Perspective. The Nuclear Energy Institute has published some more recent material (NEI 2005) on life cycle emissions. The NEI states: Nuclear power plants do not produce emissions when they are generating electricity, but certain processes used to create and fuel the plants do. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with the construction of the plant, mining and processing of the fuel, routine operation of the plant, the disposal of used fuel and other waste by-products, and the decommissioning of the plant As is indicated below, such an analysis with regard to nuclear power has not been carried out by the UK Government: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the lifecycle carbon emissions of a nuclear fission plant; and if he will make a statement. [17345] Malcolm Wicks (answered 17 October 2005): The Department has undertaken no assessment of the lifecycle carbon emissions of a nuclear fission plant. This question too, is relevant: Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to establish the full economic life cycle costs of nuclear fission; and if he will make a statement. [17283] Malcolm Wicks (14 Oct 2005 : Column 637W) The Department has undertaken no research to establish the full economic life cycle costs of nuclear fission. British Energy has recently published a life cycle analysis of Torness power station. This technical report (British Energy 2006d) and accompanying executive summary (British Energy 2006e) state that: The total emissions of CO2 from electricity generated at Torness power station, calculated on a lifecycle basis, are estimated to be just over 5 g/kWh. This compares to providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 23 emissions of CO2 from a typical UK coal plant of around 900 g/kWh, based upon the operational stage alone. Typical gas power station CO2 emissions are around 400 g/kWh. British Energy has previously stated (2006a): British Energy’s nuclear stations play an important role in minimising CO2 emissions, since without them the electricity would have to be generated by fossil fuel stations. In 2003 our nuclear stations prevented the emission of about 39 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) – the equivalent to removing half of the UK’s cars. Since they were commissioned our stations have avoided a total of 800MtCO2. And (2006b): Options for future zero-carbon technologies to reduce emissions further are greater energy efficiency, renewables, fossil generation with carbon capture and storage, and more nuclear power. In practice all of these may have a role. The Sustainable Development Commission agrees (2006a) that emissions related to nuclear plant construction and operations are low. However it says that emissions from decommissioning and treatment of waste are more difficult to calculate for two reasons: • • in the UK, decommissioning of existing plant is highly complex and involves plant that was not designed with decommissioning in mind the UK has not decided on its approach to waste management, which makes it difficult to assess the associated CO2 emissions A recent article18 in the Guardian on the uncertainties of waste management stated: Production of nuclear electricity is not carbon free, because the production of nuclear fuel for these reactors is significantly energy intensive. While it is true that most nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 at the point of generation, reactors are a small part of the nuclear fuel cycle, which emits large amounts of CO2. These arise from the so-called front end of the fuel cycle - uranium mining, ore milling, uranium hexafluoride conversion, fuel enrichment and, finally, fabrication of the fuel rods. Moreover, nuclear waste management at the "back end" is already energy hungry in treatment, conditioning, transportation and final disposal in some future repository (if ministers ever give the green light). Some commentators are of the view that as recoverable reserves of uranium begin to deplete, lesser quality raw material will be used, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions. Published in April 2005, on the no2nuclearpower website, ‘Is nuclear power a solution to climate change?’ states: All activities, even generating electricity with nuclear power, result in the emission of carbon dioxide due to the combustion of fossil fuels. So, although nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide directly, associated emissions occur during construction, the manufacture of components and the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle. As the grade of uranium ore falls, the amount of energy used in mining and processing rises, and hence the amount of carbon dioxide released. Consequently if the grade of ore being mined 18 Published 20 October 2005 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 24 falls below a certain level we could find the nuclear power cycle releasing almost as much carbon dioxide as a fossil fuelled power station. Some take these arguments even further. For instance Van Leeuwen and Smith (2005) state: The production of electricity by nuclear reactors, as long as rich uranium ores are still available, leads to considerably less CO2-emission than does the use of fossil fuels for the purpose. In the course of time, as the rich ores become exhausted and poorer and poorer ores are perforce used, continuing use of nuclear reactors for electricity generation will finally result in the production of more CO2 than if fossil fuels were to be burned directly. A long running debate between Van Leeuwen and Smith, and the nuclear industry, is available on the nuclearinfo.net website. Are nuclear power stations a terrorist target? In July 2004 the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) published a report into Assessing the Risks of Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities (POST 2004a). The accompanying four page POST note (POST 2004b) gives a useful overview of this subject. The report concludes that: • There is sufficient information in the public domain to identify possible ways terrorists might bring about a release of radioactive material from a nuclear facility. However this information is not sufficient to draw conclusions on the likelihood of a successful attack, or the size and nature of any release After September 11th 2001 additional protection measures have been put in place to increase security and to strengthen emergency planning at and around nuclear facilities. However, full details are not in the public domain Nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand some forms of terrorist attack, such as large aircraft impact, but existing safety and security regimes provide some defence Published reports suggest that, in a worst case scenario, the impact of large aircraft on certain facilities could cause a significant release of radioactive material with effects over a wide area. However, some analysts question the accuracy of these reports, and argue that accurately targeting these facilities would be difficult A successful attack would be highly unlikely to cause large numbers of instant fatalities. Although it would have the potential to affect extensive areas of land and cause large numbers of cancers, its impact would depend on how effectively appropriate contingency plans were implemented Even an unsuccessful attack could have economic and social repercussions and affect public confidence in nuclear activities such as power generation Published reports draw widely different conclusions about the consequences of attacks on nuclear facilities, due to differing assumptions about the size and nature of the release, weather conditions and efficiency of countermeasures Media coverage of the risk of releases of radioactive material from nuclear facilities focuses mainly on the consequences of worst case scenarios, without discussing the likelihood of their occurrence or explaining assumptions made Analyses carried out by UK nuclear operators to investigate the consequences of accidents at nuclear plants could be used to further understanding of the potential consequences of terrorist attacks. However these analyses are largely not publicly available. The scope of further work would be limited without such information. • • • • • • • • providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 25 Greenpeace (2006a and 2006b) recently made known its view that nuclear power stations are vulnerable with a video montage showing an aeroplane flying close to such a site. The World Nuclear Association (2006) state: The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. What can we do with the radioactive waste? Whilst it is necessary to be aware of the legacy of all types of generation, nuclear power leaves a legacy which needs managed for thousands of years. The nuclear industry maintains that a generation of new build would not add significantly to the current radioactive waste stockpile. The Scottish Executive website states: Regulation of the environmental impacts of radioactive waste management is devolved, and is undertaken under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 ( RSA 93), with amendments noted in the Environment Act 1995, The Food Standards Act 1999 and the Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, and is undertaken by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA). The current Scottish Executive line is detailed as: Our current policy on the disposal of radioactive waste is to use disposal routes where they exist. There are existing routes for Low Level Wastes, but not for Intermediate or High Level Waste, which are currently in safe storage. What about nuclear fusion – isn’t that the future? Nuclear fusion is a different type of reaction than that used in conventional nuclear power stations. The reactions are similar to those which take place in the sun, but the key for reproducing this on Earth is to design a reactor that does not use more energy than it generates. In theory, fusion could provide abundant energy with very low environmental impact, using abundant fuels. However it is still in the early stages of development - for instance at the ITER site in France – and is unlikely to be commercially viable for some decades. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 26 ANNEX I - KEY PLAYERS IN THE NUCLEAR SECTOR The following table details the key players and their role in the nuclear industry in the UK. ORGANISATION DESIGNATION STATE CONTROL COMMENT Policy Department of Government Yes Department Trade and Industry Scottish Executive Devolved Yes Government Nuclear cleanup, decommissioning and development British Nuclear Holding company Yes. Government is only Fuels Plc (BNFL) shareholder Overall responsibility for nuclear policy Consents power for power stations over 50MW Holding company for British Nuclear Group, Nexia Solutions and Westinghouse. Provides strategic guidance for BNFL Group. Contracted to NDA to manage cleanup and operations at the NDA sites formerly owned by BNFL including 4 generating Magnox stations Provides technology services across nuclear fuel cycle. Public and private customers Role is to ensure that the 20 civil public sector nuclear sites under their ownership are decommissioned and cleaned up safely, securely, cost effectively and in ways that protect the environment for this and future generations Uranium enrichment organisation British Group under Nuclear Generator, site Yes, manager and holding company nuclear clean-up BNFL Nexia Solutions Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) Nuclear technology service provider Nondepartmental public body Yes, under holding company BNFL Yes Urenco Ltd UKAEA Westinghouse Electric Company Partly. Consortium overseen by British, Dutch and German Governments Decommissioning Yes. Non company departmental public body responsible to DTI under Nuclear design Yes, and servicing holding company BNFL, but company negotiation of £5.6 billion sale to Toshiba is under way Under contract to the NDA. Works on sites including Dounreay. Provides fuel, services, technology, plant design and equipment for nuclear industry. Currently developing AP1000 model for new generation of nuclear build providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 27 Private generator British Energy Generator Group plc No Private company - took over from Scottish Nuclear in 1996. HQ in Scotland British Nuclear Group operate the older Magnox power stations Regulates the safety of nuclear sites through site licensing Regulator Health and Safety Regulator Executive’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (HSE/NII) Health and Safety Executive Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NUSAC) SEPA Regulator Yes Yes Advises on nuclear safety policy Yes UK Safeguards Office (UKSO) Yes, office of DTI Regulates radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 Works on nuclear safeguards in the UK and UK and international policy on nuclear safeguards and related nuclear non-proliferation issues Established in 1962. Learned body for all interested in nuclear energy Trade association for the nuclear energy industry in Europe Membership organisation with 96 members Fronted by Sir Bernhard Ingham Societies & membership organisations No British Nuclear Energy Society Foratom Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) Supporters of Nuclear Energy Research and advice Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) Health Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division No No No Yes Yes. Previously the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) Yes, controlled No UN Membership organisation promoting nuclear power International organisations International Atomic Energy Agency World Nuclear Association providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 28 Radioactive waste management Nirex Committee on Other Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) Yes, supports Jointly owned by department for Environment, Food and Rural Government Affairs (Defra) and DTI. Mission policy is: “In support of Government policy, develop and advise on safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive materials in the UK." Independent, but Tasked with investigating long established by term radioactive waste solutions UK Government Independent, but In abeyance until CoRWM has established by reported UK Government providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 29 ANNEX II – THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Source: http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=251 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 30 ANNEX III - DEVELOPMENT OF THE UK NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1950s and 1960s - Magnox plants and Fast Breeder Technology In the 1950s, research into nuclear technology had been ongoing for many years, though this had focused more on nuclear weapons technology than electricity generation. In their early lives, both Calder Hall in Cumbria, and Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway operated on short cycles to produce plutonium for use in weapons with electricity as a by-product (Institute of Electrical Engineers 2003; Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 2006). Connecting to the grid in 1956 Calder Hall was, though, the world’s first commercially generating nuclear power station. Chapelcross was generating commercially by 1959. The Chapelcross Processing Plant produced Tritium (SEPA 2004). Tritium is a component of nuclear weapons – it has a short halflife and so needs replaced. (Environmental Protection Agency 2006). An answer to a 2002 Parliamentary Question at the House of Commons (2002a) stated that: “Sufficient stocks of tritium are held to meet the needs of the Trident programme. Any decision on a replacement source of tritium, should one be required, will not need to be taken for many years.” A further 9 larger scale Magnox power stations were built, including Hunterston A, described on the British Nuclear Group website as “Scotland's first civil nuclear generating station and, at the time of opening, the largest in operation anywhere in the world”. Hunterston A and Chapelcross are no longer generating. Two further Magnox stations were built in Japan and Italy. The Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment, situated near Thurso, Caithness, was established in 1955 primarily to pursue the UK Government policy objective of developing fast breeder reactor technology. Dounreay never contributed a significant amount of electricity to the grid, but one legacy is a stronger grid to the north coast than might otherwise have been the case. More on the history of Dounreay is available in SPICe Briefing 01/03 Dounreay (Cook 2001). 1960s to 1980s - Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor technology (AGR) The next generation of nuclear power stations in the UK were Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) design. Torness and Hunterston B are both AGR stations. Another 5 AGR power stations were built in England. The entire output of Hunterston and Torness is sold to electricity suppliers in Scotland under a long term agreement (DTI 2005c). 1980s and 1990s - Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) Only one PWR power station was ever constructed, at Sizewell B in Suffolk. Plans had been drawn up for three more, but these were never progressed. 1990s - Privatisation and the nuclear industry Consideration had been given to privatising the nuclear industry in 198819, but this was ruled out due to higher costs associated with nuclear compared to newer coal, gas or oil fired stations. In 1994 a further Government "Review of the Future Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK" concluded that the more modern AGR and PWR power station be moved to the private sector. The older Magnox stations were not considered to be appropriate for transfer. State owned Scottish Nuclear plc (which ran the stations at Hunterston B and Torness), along with Nuclear Electric plc (which had run the non Magnox stations in England), were restructured to form the new private British Energy plc on 31 March 1996 (House of Commons 1996). The technicalities of this sale saw the Department for Trade and Industry sell 88.5% of its shares in British Energy through a stock market flotation. This raised £1.26 billion. DTI had intended to In 1988 the Government published proposals for “Privatising Electricity” and “Privatisation of the Scottish Electricity Industry” providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 31 19 sell all of the shares but in actual fact the remainder were sold in December 1996 raising a further £198 million. At the time of the flotation, the Treasury also owned ‘marketable debt’ worth £600 million due to the Treasury from British Energy (House of Commons Public Accounts Committee 1999). In its report ‘The Sale of British Energy’, published in 1998, the National Audit Office stated: “given that British Energy's nuclear liabilities are large and that many costs will arise in the very long-term, it cannot be excluded that the company might at some future date encounter difficulties in meeting these costs” The older Magnox stations were transferred to the state owned Magnox Electric plc. This was later integrated with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, which was already responsible for Calder hall and Chapelcross (DTI 2006b). Now operating under the British Nuclear Group, there are only four Magnox stations still generating (none in Scotland). 2000s – British Energy restructuring British Energy faced severe financial difficulties partly as a result of price deregulation in the UK electricity market throughout the early part of this decade. This situation came about partly as a result of lower overall output from British Energy (Torness had generation problems) and lower electricity prices. The latter had been considered by the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Accounts. In oral evidence (House of Commons 1998), the Committee heard from Michael Scholar, Permanent Secretary to the DTI that: “The prospectus for the sale said that the company expected electricity prices to fall, and they have fallen since that time. I think that it is likely they will fall further. The company has shown itself able to perform financially strongly in the last two years notwithstanding a fall in electricity prices. Whether it will be able to continue to do that, I do not know, but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that simply because the prices are falling the company's financial performance will deteriorate.” British Energy was in a vulnerable position as generation margins had collapsed and only those companies which were supplying customers as well were risk free. British Energy unlike, for example, Scottish Power or Scottish and Southern Energy, was a generation only company and did not supply customers. British Energy recognised it was in trouble in 2002, and the timeline below sets out some key dates and events since then. Figure 1 - British Energy timeline 2002 – 2006 Date Summer 2002 13 August 2002 5 September 2002 Event British Energy attempts bond issue in United States, which proved unsuccessful Reactor goes offline at Torness (costing the company an estimated £56m) British Energy initiates discussions with UK Government to seek immediate financial support, and to allow longer term restructuring UK Government grants British Energy a credit facility of up to £410m. British Energy’s assets were security for the credit providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 32 9 September 2002 26 September 2002 27 November 2002 28 November 2003 14 February 2003 24 February 2003 Credit facility increased to £650m (British Energy 2002) European Commission approves UK Government aid, subject to some conditions (though not published until 18 February 2003) British Energy announces restructuring plan; Government announces support package British Energy announces agreement with key creditors. Government statement to Stock Market announces credit facility extension and that Government was preparing to seek state aids approval from the European Commission for British Energy restructuring plan Energy White paper published stating: “Under [British Energy’s] restructuring proposal, announced on 28 November 2002, which is subject to the approval of the European Commission, we are taking on financial responsibility for the company’s historic spent nuclear fuel liabilities. We are also, to ensure safety and environmental protection, underwriting new and enhanced arrangements by the company to meet decommissioning and other liabilities. On 14 February 2003, British Energy secured the agreement in principle of its financial creditors to its restructuring proposal.” 7 March 2003 October 2003 September 2004 January 2005 February 2006 Government announces that state aids submission was being sent to the European Commission; BE had repaid to Government all outstanding amounts under the credit facility; on a contingency basis, it would continue the credit facility to BE, with the maximum amount being available being reduced from £650 million to £200 million British Energy formally agrees deal with its creditors which would allow for restructuring of the company (DTI and BBC 2003) European Commission approves the Government’s restructuring aid to British Energy Restructuring complete. British Energy relisted on the Stock Exchange British Energy returns to the FTSE 100 for first time since December 1999. Recent results (British Energy 2006c) show improved performance, partly as a result of higher electricity prices Main sources: DTI (2006b), answer to Parliamentary Question 29085, House of Commons, 10 May 1996, statement to the House of Commons by Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 28 November 2002 (House of Commons 2002b) and statement to the House of Commons by Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 18 January 2005 British Energy’s online share price calculator does not extend back past January 2005 and its online press archive does not go back beyond March 2004. providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 33 SOURCES BBC (2003) British Energy clinches http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3154272.stm BBC (2006a) Nuclear plant life http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4678650.stm BBC (2006b) Viewpoint: Finland's http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245298.stm set debt deal. Available at: to extend. Available at: new reactor . Available at: BBC (2005) BNFL plans to sell http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4640411.stm British Energy share price calculator [Online] Available at: http://www.british-energy.co.uk/pagetemplate.php?pid=111 British Energy Hunterston B [Online] Available at: http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=90 British Energy Torness [Online] Available at: http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=95 British Energy press archive [Online] Available at: http://www.british-energy.com/pressarchive.php?pid=124 Westinghouse. Available at: British Energy (2002) Interim Results 1 April – 30 September 2002. Available at: http://www.british-energy.com/documents/interim02_part1.pdf British Energy (2006a) The electricity sector's contribution. Available at: http://www.britishenergy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=185 British Energy (2006b) Action in the energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=186 British Energy (2006c) Q3 05/06 long term. Available at: http://www.british- Results. Available at: http://www.british- energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=228 British Energy (2006d) Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from Torness Nuclear Power Station - Technical Report. Available from: http://www.britishenergy.com/opendocument.php?did=340 British Energy (2006e) Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from Torness Nuclear Power Station - Summary of Results. Available from: http://www.britishenergy.com/opendocument.php?did=341 British Nuclear Energy Society. [Online] Available at: http://www.bnes.com/ British Nuclear Fuels Plc http://www.bnfl.com/index.php?pageID=1 (BNFL). [Online] Available at: providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 34 British Nuclear Fuels Plc (2006) BNFL, Toshiba Agree to Sale of Westinghouse. Press release 6 February 2006. Available at: http://www.bnfl.com/content.php?pageID=69&newsID=248 British Nuclear Group [Online] http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/content.php?pageID=23 British Nuclear Group Chapelcross http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/content.php?pageID=264 British Nuclear Group Hunterston A http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/content.php?pageID=269 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (2006). http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/scotland/bombs Canada Deuterium Uranium http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html (CANDU). [Online] Available at: Available at: [Online] Available at: Chapelcross. Available at: [Online] Available at: Chernobyl.info (2006) [Online] Available http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=12564930&navID=9&lID=2 at: Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) [Online] Available at: http://www.comare.org.uk/comare_faq.htm Committee on Radioactive http://www.corwm.org.uk/ Waste Management (CoRWM) [Online] Available at: Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) (2006) Statement detailing CoRWM position on new nuclear power. Available at: http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-1009 Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) (2006) Ethics: Summary Note for Holistic Assessment. Available at: http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-1021 Companyannouncements.net (2003) Government statement to stock exchange – British Energy. 14 February 2003. Available at: http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=200302141606305333h Cook, G (2001) Dounreay. SPICe Research Note 01/03. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-03.pdf Cook (2005) Chernobyl: Nineteen Years On. SPICe Briefing 05/27. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings05/SB05-27.pdf Deloitte (2005) Clearing the Air. http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid=32050&cid=93285,00.html Available at: Deloitte (2006) 20-20 Vision - Meeting UK power generation objectives – a strategic insight. Available at: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid=2855&cid=109003,00.html Department of Trade and Industry (2002) based public consultation providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 35 Department of Trade and Industry (2003). Economy Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Department of Trade and Industry (2004) Government Restructuring Aid to British Energy Approved by the European Commission. Press release 22 September 2004. Available at: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=130324&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedF romDepartment=False Department of Trade and Industry (2005a). Difficult decisions for energy review head Wicks. Press release 29 November 2005. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/news/newsarticle291105.html Department of Trade and Industry (2005b) Energy http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_trends/dec_05.pdf Trends. Available at: Department of Trade and Industry (2005c) Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2005. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/dukes/dukes2005/index.shtml Department of Trade and Industry (2006a) Our Energy Challenge: Securing Clean Affordable Energy for the Long-Term. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/energy_review_consultation.pdf Department of Trade and Industry (2006b) Nuclear power generation development and the UK industry. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/technology/history.shtml Department of Trade and Industry (2006c) Distribution of responsibilities in the area of civil nuclear safety [Online] Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/safety/safety_responsibilities.shtml Der Spiegel (2004) Locations of Finnish Nuclear Power Plants [Online] Available at: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,grossbild-545943-386451,00.html Duke Power (2005) Duke Power Preparing Combined Construction and Operating License; Selects Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor Design. Press release 26 October 2005. Available at: http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2005/oct/2005102601.asp Environmental Protection Agency 2006). http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm Tritium. Available at: E.ON (2006) Operating successfully in today’s utility market – speech at Adam Smith Institute conference on the Future of Utilities. Information available at: http://www.marketforce.eu.com/index.cfm?obj=conferences.programme&confid=83 Euractiv.com (2006) New nuclear debate in German government coalition. Available at: http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-153809-16&type=News European Commission (2006a) European Green Paper on http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/green-paper-energy/index_en.htm Energy Available at: European Commission (2006b) Eurobarometer on Attitudes to Energy Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_247_en.pdf providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 36 European Commission (2002) State Aid NN 101/2002 – United Kingdom Rescue aid to British Energy plc. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/industrie/nn101-02-public.pdf European renewable energies federation (Eref 2004) EU investigation requested into illegal aid to Finnish nuclear plant. Press release 13 December 2004. Available at: http://www.erefeurope.org/downloads/pdf/2004/EPRFinland.pdf Finnish Youth for Nuclear http://www.ydinenergianuoret.fi/eng/fin6.shtml Energy [Online] Available at: Foratom [Online] Available at: http://www.foratom.org/ Greenpeace (2005a) New-generation reactor for Finalnd depends on contested French public cash - Helsinki green light disregards ongoing EU investigation. Press release 17 February 2005. Available at: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/energy/PRonFinnishEPR.pdf Greenpeace (2005b) Nuclear safety in Olkiluoto questioned by British specialist. Press release 9 September 2005. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.se/np/s/NP_onepr.asp?g=nuc&number=3845&lang=F Greenpeace (2006a) Nuclear power and http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/fridaythe13th/ aircraft video montage. Available at: Greenpeace (2006b) Nuclear Power and http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/fridaythe13th/mediabrief.pdf Terrorism Available at: Guardian (20 October 2005) There is nothing green about Blair's nuclear dream. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1596232,00.html Health and Safety Executive (1998) Memorandum of Understanding between the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and HSE. Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/hse/policy/sepamou.htm Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Quarterly statements of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations. [Online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/quarterly-stat/index.htm Health and Safety Executive (2005) HSE Criterion for Delicensing Nuclear Sites. Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/delicensing.pdf Health and Safety Executive’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (HSE/NII) [Online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/nsd1.htm Health and Safety Executive Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NUSAC) [Online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/hsc/iacs/nusac/ Health Protection Agency http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/ Radiation Protection Division [Online] Available at: House of Commons. (1996) Hansard 10 May 1996. Col 294. London: House of Commons. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960510/text/60510w07.htm providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 37 House of Commons. (2002a) Hansard 15 October 2002. Col 546W. London: House of Commons. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021015/text/21015w06.htm House of Commons. (2002b) Hansard 28 November 2002. Col 488. London: House of Commons. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021128/debtext/2112813.htm#column_488 House of Commons. (2005) Hansard 18 January 2005. Col 33WS. London: House of Commons. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050118/wmstext/50118m02.ht m House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. (1999) The Sale of British Energy. London: House of Commons. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubacc/242/24202.htm Institute for Applied Ecology (1997) Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life Cycle Perspective. Available at: http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf International Atomic Energy Agency. [Online] Available at: http://www.iaea.org/ International Atomic Energy Agency (2001) Analysis of uranium supply to 2050. Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2005a) Global Nuclear Survey: Public Support for New Power Plants Remains Tentative. Press release 14 December 2005. Available at: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2005/prn200516.html International Atomic Energy Agency (2005b) Recent Developments in Uranium Exploration, http://wwwProduction and Environmental Issues Available at: pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1463_web.pdf International Energy Agency (2005) Key World Energy Statistics 2005. Available at: http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2005/key2005.pdf Institute of Electrical Engineers (2003) Nuclear http://www.iee.org/Policy/Areas/EnvEnergy/Nucdec.pdf Kitco (2004) Column by Paul Van http://www.kitco.com/weekly/paulvaneeden/sept242004.html Decommissioning Available at: Eeden. Available at Labour Party (2005) The Labour Party Manifesto 2005. Available http://www.labour.org.uk/fileadmin/manifesto_13042005_a3/pdf/manifesto.pdf Money Week (2006). Why the uranium price is set to soar. Available http://www.moneyweek.com/file/9349/why-the-uranium-price-is-set-to-soar.html at: at: MORI (2006) Attitudes Towards Nuclear Energy And Climate Change. Available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/2005/uea.shtml providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 38 National Grid (2005) GB Seven Year Statement. Available at: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/library/documents/sys05/default.asp?action=&sNode=3&Exp=Y Nexia Solutions [Online]. Available at: http://www.nexiasolutions.com/section.php?pageID=31 Nirex Ltd [Online]. Available at: http://www.nirex.co.uk/ no2nuclearpower [Online]. Available at: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/index.php Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) http://www.nda.gov.uk/About_the_NDA_(9).aspx?pg=9 [Online]. Available at : Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2006). Strategy for cleaning up the nuclear legacy. Available at: http://www.nda.gov.uk/Our_Business--Strategy_(782).aspx?pg=782 The Nuclear Energy Institute (2005) Life-Cycle http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=260 Emissions Analysis. Available at: The Nuclear Industry Association (2006a) NIA welcomes the Sustainable Development Commission’s recognition of the benefits of nuclear. Available at: http://www.niauk.org/cgibin/news_ssi/db.cgi?db=artmanfull&uid=default&listnew=1&view_records=1&inc=yes&sb=1&so =descend&nh=3&mh=1 Nuclear Industry Association (2006b) NIA launch a major new report. Press release 21 March 2006. Available at: http://www.niauk.org/cgibin/news_ssi/db.cgi?db=artmanfull&uid=default&listnew=1&view_records=1&inc=yes&sb=1&so =descend&nh=2&mh=1 Nuclear Industry Association (2006C) http://www.niauk.org/article_12.shtml Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: Nuclearinfo.net [Online]. Available at: nuclearinfo.net Observer. (4 December 2005) Grasping the nuclear http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1657153,00.html nettle. Available at: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Atomic Energy Agency (2001) Uranium 2001 Resources, Production and Demand. Available at: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?TAG=XQYO78XX4X6X3969XCI3OR&CID=&L ANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5LMQCR2K6K0X Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2004a) Assessing the Risks of Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpr222.pdf Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2004b) POST note - Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn222.pdf PB Power (2006) Powering the Nation – A Review of the Costs of Generating Electricity Available at: http://www.pbpower.net/inprint/pbpubs/powering_the_nation.pdf Pebble Bed Modular Reactor [Online] Available at: https://www.pbmr.com/ providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 39 Posiva [Online]. Available at: http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/ Power Engineering International (2005) Westinghouse shines for BNFL. Available at: http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=237715& VERSION_NUM=2&p=17 Press and Information Office of the Federal Government (2005) Coalition agreement. Available at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/en/Federal-Government/-,12961/Coalition-Agreement.htm Prime Minister’s Performance and Innovation Unit (2002) The Energy Review. Available at: http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/energy/TheEnergyReview.pdf Radioactive Waste Management http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/ Advisory Committee [Online]. Available at: Reader’s Digest (2005) Our nuclear lifeline http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/Nuclear_lifeline_en.pdf by James Lovelock. Available at: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2000) Energy - The Changing Climate. Available at: http://www.rcep.org.uk/newenergy.htm The Royal Institute of International Affairs (2005) has published an analysis entitled The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build. Scottish Executive [Online]. Amount of electricity generated by energy source 2000 – 2003 Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/envonline/select.asp?id=98&cat=15&des=Supplementary+Tabl es&Loc=Internal&chart= Scottish Executive (2003) Partnership Agreement http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/government/pfbs-00.asp Available at: Scottish Executive (2005) Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy ‘Choosing Our Future’ Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/12/1493902/39032 Scottish Executive (2006a) Scottish Energy Study: Volume 1: Energy in Scotland: Supply and Demand. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/0 Scottish Executive (2006b) Scottish Energy Study: Volume 2: A Changing Picture: Comparison of 2002 Energy Study findings with an earlier study using 1990 data. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19093058/0 Scottish Executive (2006c) Scotland’s Climate Change Programme Changing Our Ways Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/30091039/0 Scottish Executive Radioactive Waste Management [Online]. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Waste/16293/rwm Available at: providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 40 Scottish Executive Energy Consents Unit [Online]. Available http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/infrastructure/19185/20804 at: Scottish Liberal Democrats (2006) Motion on nuclear power and radioactive waste. Available at: http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/conference/6 Scottish Parliament. (2005) Official Report 14 April 2005. Col 16007. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/Col16007 Scottish Parliament. (2006a) Official Report 19 January 2006. Col 22558. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-06/sor011902.htm#Col22558 Scottish Parliament. (2006b) Official Report 26 January 2006. Col 22725. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-06/sor012602.htm Scottish Parliament. (2006c) Official Report 9 March 2006. Col 23810. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-06/sor030902.htm#Col23810 Scottish Power (2006). Scottish Power Announces Decision to OPT Longannet Power Station into LCPD. Press release 3 February 2006. Available at: http://www.scottishpower.com/pages/Media_Feature?document=6a8ff4_10930781dc3_7ffb0a026463?rev=3 SEPA [Online]. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactivity/index.htm SEPA (2004). Chapelcross Power Station - Application to transfer the Radioactive Substances Act Authorisations for Chapelcross Power from British Nuclear Fuels plc to Magnox Electric plc. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/consultation/closed/2004/chap_huntA/chapelcross_app.pdf Sunday Herald (2005) Over 200 ‘abnormal events’ at nuclear plants since 2000. Available at: http://www.sundayherald.com/53177 Supporters of Nuclear Energy (2006) Nuclear - The green route to secure and reliable power Available at: http://www.sone.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/briefings/2006-sone-briefing-notenuclear.pdf Sustainable Development Commission (2006a) Series - Is nuclear the answer? Available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html Sustainable Development Commission (2006b) The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy. Available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344 Sustainable Development Commission (2006c) Commentary - Is Nuclear the Answer? Available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=345 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 41 Sustainable Development Commission (2006d) The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon EconomyQuestions and Answers. Available at: http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications.php?id=349 Sustainable Development Commission (2006e) Nuclear Paper 1 - An introduction to nuclear power – science, technology and UK policy context. Available at: http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications.php?id=336 Sustainable Development Commission (2006f) Nuclear Paper 7: Public Perception and Community Issues. Available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=342 Sustainable Development Commission (2006g) Nuclear Paper 8: Uranium Resource Availability Available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=343 TVO [Online]. Available at: http://www.tvo.fi/485.htm Ten Downing Street (2005). Speech to the CBI conference. Press release 29 November 2005. Available at: http://www.10downingstreet.gov.uk/output/Page8606.asp UKAEA Dounreay [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/dounreay_site.htm UKAEA [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukaea.org.uk/index.htm UKAEA Vulcan Nuclear Reactor Training Establishment [Online]. http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/dounreay_related_locations_caithness.htm Available at: UKAEA (2006) Major new alliance is first to compete in UK nuclear market. Press release 16 January 2006. Available at: http://www.ukaea.org.uk/news/2006/16_01_06.html Uranium Information Centre (2006). Australia's Uranium and Who Buys It [Online]. Available at: http://www.uic.com.au/nip01.htm UK Safeguards Office [Online]. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/non-proliferation/ukso/ Urenco Ltd [Online]. Available at: http://www.urenco.co.uk/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006a) Backgrounder on New Nuclear Plant Designs [Online]. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plantdes-bg.html U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2006b) Design Certification Application Review - AP1000 [Online]. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/ap1000.html Van Leeuwen and Smith (2005) Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance [Online]. Available at: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ Westinghouse [Online]. Available at: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ Westinghouse (2006) NRC Grants Design Certification to Westinghouse AP1000 [Online]. Press release 30 December 2006. Available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgibin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=127481&TICK=WE&STORY=/www/story/12-302005/0004240715&EDATE=Dec+30,+2005 providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 42 Westminster Energy Forum (2005) Event on Nuclear New Build : Key Investment Issues & Implications for Strategic UK Energy Policy. Available at: http://www.westminsterenergy.org/events_archive/nuclearfinancing.asp World Nuclear University. [Online]. Available at: http://www.world-nuclear-university.org/ World Nuclear Association nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm World Nuclear Association nuclear.org/info/inf15.htm (2004). Thorium. Available at: http://www.world- (2005a). Plutonium. Available at: http://www.world- World Nuclear Association factsheet (2005b) Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.htm World Nuclear Association (2006) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.htm providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament 43