Latest Channel 4 News:
Row over Malaysian state's coins
'Four shot at abandoned mine shaft'
Rain fails to stop Moscow wildfires
Cancer blow for identical twins
Need for Afghan progress 'signs'

Are renewables a viable alternative to nuclear power?

By Channel 4 News

Updated on 04 August 2006

FactCheck considers the evidence...


Wind power

The Claim "There is a low carbon, non-nuclear alternative - and it was backed by the Prime Minister only three years ago."
Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats
20 June 2006


Background
The majority of Britain's nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned over the next 20 years. That will strip Britain of 14 per cent of its generating capacity, leaving a sizeable gap between Britain's energy supply and demand.

This could be met by burning more natural gas, but burning gas will result in the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. It will also leave Britain increasingly dependent on imports from potentially unstable areas of the world such as Russia, Qatar or Algeria.

Is there another alternative, which doesn't have the downsides that bedevil nuclear power or gas?

Menzies Campbell believes there is. A combination of renewable energy, such as wind, wave, biofuels, and solar, combined with improved efficiency measures, combined heat and power, and microgeneration, could fill the gap too.

Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide emissions from power stations could be mitigated by capturing the emissions and preventing them from entering the atmosphere - a technology known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

So are the Lib Dems correct to say that there is a 'low carbon' alternative to nuclear? Or is the choice the country really faces a less attractive one - nuclear or some form of fossil fuel?

Analysis
The Lib Dems base their remarks on three sources. Firstly, the Energy Review of 2003 - this is what Menzies Campbell is referring to when he says, "it was backed by the Prime Minister only three years ago".

In fact, the 2003 Energy Review was more equivocal than this: "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."

But how about the alternatives for a low carbon future? The first source the Lib Dems draw on comes from Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.

This report analyses five scenarios for how the UK energy mix might look in 2050, with a 60 per cent cut in C02 emissions. Four out of the five see the UK using some kind of nuclear in the mix, but only one, the 'Red' Scenario, is a nuclear-free future.

It's certainly an ambitious vision, requiring a major fall in national energy consumption and a significant reduction in domestic energy use. It also sees an economy relying on coal for 61 per cent of its energy needs, and using CCS to make that cleaner.

The final source, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, does set its voice against nuclear power:

"Considerations of inter-generational equity embedded in the concept of sustainable development demand the solution of the waste management problem, to the satisfaction of both the scientific community and the general public, before new nuclear power stations are constructed."

But assuming that specification can be met, it does consider future scenarios with both nuclear and non-nuclear options for achieving a 60 per cent cut in carbon levels by 2050.

The non-nuclear scenarios are ambitious, but any approach to the energy supply problem has to be ambitious. As Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre puts it: "It's ambitious to think that we can deal with the extent of climate change if we don't take these options. There isn't a non-ambitious option."

(Contd.)

Looking 46 years into the future, in an area with as many variables as power generation and climate change, it's very difficult to prove Menzies Campbell's assertion right or wrong.

Optimists argue that if the money the Government plans to invest in nuclear power went into renewables, demand reduction and other projects, it could make up for the gap left when nuclear power is decommissioned.

However, the Government estimates that the cost of onshore wind power is greater than that of nuclear - offshore wind is almost double for each megawatt hour of energy generated.

Also significantly, Government forecasts already assume a significant increase in investment in renewable energy. The 'renewables obligation' sees renewable energy supplying 10 per cent of UK electricity in 2010, and 20 per cent in 2020.

Given the difficulties of getting renewables up and running - getting planning permission for sites, building turbines, installing tidal gear, and even extending the electricity grid to take power from wind farm sites - this is already a pretty optimistic programme.

With considerable investment scheduled for these areas anyway, there is a limit to the amount of investment each area could productively absorb.

FactCheck Rating: 4 (How ratings work)

Verdict
They may have many drawbacks, but there are alternatives to investing in a new generation of nuclear power stations. However many energy scenarios, including those put forward by the Treasury this year, see gas or coal taking up the slack left when the existing nuclear plans go offline. Meanwhile, the nuclear route has drawbacks of its own.

To say that Tony Blair backed a non-nuclear alternative three years ago is overstating the case, though - the 2003 Energy Review to which those comments refer is equivocal on the nuclear issue.

The Sources
Campbell warns nuclear power is 'the ultimate stealth tax', 20 June 2006
Energy Review, 2003 (PDF)
Energy Review, 2006 (PDF)
Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a Climate Conscious Future, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research report
Royal Commission on Environmental pollution report, June 2000 (PDF)

Your view
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment. Email factcheck@channel4.com

FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner, Readers should direct their enquiries to the Editor at the email address above.

How ratings work

Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.

The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largerly checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.

In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.

Send this article by email

More on this story

Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.


Watch the Latest Channel 4 News

Watch Channel 4 News when you want

Latest Environment news

Secrets under the sea

Roundnose Grenadier fish (Photo: Mar-Eco/Oystein Paulsen)

The ocean's hidden depths are revealed for the first time.

7-day catch-up

image

Watch Channel 4 News when you want to, from the last week.

Snowclouds

See how many times a word is used in key speeches, and in what context.

Twittering on

Start following Channel 4 News on Twitter today.

Click to launch.

Week in pictures

credit: Reuters

A selection of the best pictures from around the world.




Channel 4 © 2010. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.