Q&A: energy white paper
Updated on 23 May 2007
The contentious issue of finding secure energy supplies for the future leaves nuclear power in the spotlight.
The latest energy white paper, overseen by Trade and Industry Minister Malcolm Wicks, consults on a number of energy-related issues, including reducing the UK's CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 and ensuring homes are heated affordably.
But it is its findings in relation to renewing a nuclear power programme that may prove most controversial.
Why nuclear and why now?
There are currently 16 nuclear power plants in Britain, most of which will be retired by 2020. Tony Blair believes building new plants is necessary for a stable energy future in the UK.
Today gas-fired power stations account for 40 per cent of our electricity, but depleting gas stocks have led to rising prices for consumers.
Because this has now become so expensive, nuclear power plants are seen by some to be an economically competitive option.
There is also concern about what has been coined the 'energy gap': future demand for electricity is estimated to be greater than the future supply. Partly this is due to an EU directive which rules that coal-fired power stations will have to close due to emissions.
Another factor is concern over being reliant on overseas supplies and volatile energy markets.
But how green is nuclear power?
Carbon efficient being something of a buzz word (or two) at the moment, nuclear power stations gain brownie points for producing virtually no CO2 when generating electricity.
The government may see this as an added bonus in its efforts to cut its 1990 levels of CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.
Nuclear reactors are similar to other thermal power stations in that they heat water to make steam which is then used to drive turbines and generate electricity.
But instead of coal or gas, nuclear power stations use uranium, which is turned into pellets which are encased in metal rods and inserted into the reactor in clusters; one pellet (about 2cm long), can produce the same amount of electricity as 1.5 tonnes of coal.
And is it cost effective?
Although regarded as competitive in terms of energy prices, a report commissioned by Greenpeace found that the average nuclear power station costs up to three times more than expected and takes four years longer to build than planned.
Why have none been built for the last ten years?
Two words: radioactive waste. Used fuel from a nuclear reactor is stored to allow most of the radioactivity to decay. It is then either reprocessed to recover the reusable portion or disposed of directly as waste.
This waste can remain dangerous for centuries. Some experts have suggested that burying waste deep underground would work, but the cost of cleaning up the UK's nuclear waste could top £70bn.
Are other countries turning to nuclear fuel?
Finland has already approved a new nuclear power station - the first to be built in western Europe since 1991.
What are the alternatives?
Windfarms are often suggested as a greener alternative without the complications of nuclear waste and radioactivity associated with nuclear power stations.
But there are opponents, who believe turbines blot the landscape and threaten wildlife.
