Chief scientist backs nuclear power revival

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Chief scientist backs nuclear power revival

PM's adviser calls for new generation of reactors
· Relying on renewable energy 'tough challenge'

David Adam, environment correspondent
Friday October 21, 2005
The Guardian


The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday October 24

The use of the phrase carbon tax in the interview with Sir David King, below, was misleading. Prof King was referring to carbon emissions trading, a scheme which already exists.
.....................

The government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors.

He said nuclear power had "the safest record of all the power industries in the world". Professor King, who has previously said more nuclear power stations "may be necessary" to meet carbon dioxide emission targets, said the decline of North Sea oil and gas could tip the balance. "We need indigenous energy sources so we don't rely on imported gas from Russia. We're the last in the pipeline across Europe, so a second requirement is that we have a secure energy supply. Indigenous supplies include all renewables and nuclear."
Relying on renewable sources including wind, solar and wave power to replace lost capacity when existing nuclear power stations close would be a "remarkably tough challenge," he said. "At the moment 24% of energy on the grid comes from nuclear power; by 2020 that will be down to 4%. That gap of 20% is going to be very difficult to cover over the period 2010 to 2020 without new nuclear build."

More power stations burning coal and gas would give Britain little chance of meeting ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming. Generating electricity using the heat of nuclear reactors to turn water into steam to drive turbines does not produce carbon dioxide directly, though building and dismantling the plants and mining uranium fuel all do.

Prof King, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the public debate on nuclear power needed to focus on the environmental benefits. "It's important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate. That is why I'm trying to sell it - it's precisely because of the emissions."

He added that the possible introduction of carbon taxes would make nuclear power a cheaper option than coal. "People are concerned about nuclear energy in terms of its expense, but if we had just €23 [£15.50p] per tonne on carbon dioxide then you already switch the economic argument in favour of nuclear."

His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions.

"The British government's position is that we believe emissions trading is absolutely vital. We believe that capping processes are vital and we believe that declared objectives for 2010, 2020 etc are necessary," said Prof King. He criticised a partnership between the US, Australia and several Asian countries that relies on developing new technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.