Nuclear Power – Issue Summary Technical * Civil nuclear power technology is well developed and technically proven. Developments of existing designs (the AP1000) and new designs (e.g. the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) are available which could greatly improve safety and reduce waste. * The safety record of civil nuclear power is generally good in the UK (Dounreay and Calder Hall both had military motivations and were more experimental in operational controls). But accidents when they do happen (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) can have very serious consequences impacting on those well beyond well beyond the plant boundary. * As a result of its complexity build times are long – possibly ten years allowing for consenting. * Supplies of uranium for processing into nuclear fuel are readily available for current and some future plant in countries seen as politically stable (Canada, Australia, South Africa). Further supplies could be developed by new mining activities in a variety of parts of the world. * Nuclear power emits very little carbon dioxide in operation and comparatively little over its life cycle (including construction and mining). * A range of technical possible options exists for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste (temporary storage, deep storage, glassification etc.). In UK the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) is detailing options currently and will report later in the year. * Plant sizes are large (up to 1000MW per reactor) although they are frequently not flexible in operation – making them suitable for high load factor base load operation. Economic * Initial capital costs of nuclear are high but operating costs are low – and there is a reasonable degree of certainty surrounding these figures for standard reactor designs (this is less true of the UK Magnox and AGR stations where design changes were frequently made). Lifetimes are long – potential in excess of forty years and hence prices are stable and predictable. Nuclear is well suite to long-term low return rate investments – hence favouring large international companies etc. * Waste disposal costs however are uncertain and liability costs in the event of an accident could be considerable. * Nuclear power can compete favourably (e.g. in France, Finland, US and Japan) where the regulatory regime favours long lifetimes, offers regulatory certainty over that period and where there is some level of underwriting of liability by Government. These are not currently characteristics of the UK regime. Ethical questions * Whilst apparently technically manageable, nuclear waste will remain a legacy for many thousands of years. Would we be justified in leaving this legacy for future generations when we have other options? Is it morally acceptable to trade off landscape, climate, and behaviour change today against passing such a liability (with money to fund it) to future generations (who we have to recognise may easily be able to deal with the waste at much lower costs than we could)? . And if we do decide it is acceptable to leave some wastes is it better to leave those in highly concentrated form (and easier to monitor/control) than to leave large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? * If we do allow nuclear power developments, should we move quickly to the latest designs with lower waste arising and greater safety (e.g. PBMR) or should we opt for cheaper and proven technologies (such as AP1000)? * How should we regard the safety record of nuclear – application of well designed common design technology should produce a safer option than coal/gas/oil extraction and combustion. But the very small possibility of a very significant accident remains. How do we weigh up such alternatives? * Nuclear power could pose particular risk from terrorist attack. To what extent should we modify our behaviour as a result of such fears? Would it be justified to adopt other approaches, which might be more environmentally damaging now because of such risks? * Knowledge of nuclear technology and nuclear fuel refinement offers a potential route to nuclear weapon creation (and hence proliferation). On this basis attempts are being made (via IAEA) to limit access to the technology by nations ‘considered unsuitable’. To what extent is it morally justified to use ourselves a technology we feel that others cannot be allowed to have? Should it instead be our duty to develop new technologies we can transfer? Or should we use it very widely so that we much deeper CO2 cuts than others recognising they are being denied this option? Are we merely assuaging our own conscience with regard to climate change, instead of taking real steps to avert it, if we lower our CO2 emissions using a technology which we are not prepared to allow countries like China to copy? * The raw material for the production of nuclear fuel is limited – arguable less so than oil or gas – but finite nonetheless. Is it legitimate to use any finite resource when we could spend the same amount of capital on energy efficiency and renewables, which would deliver now? This question is of particular significance for nuclear, as build times are long and capital costs high. * As a result of its economic characteristics, long-term low return rates, high up front capital requirements etc. nuclear lends itself best to investment by major international companies, often with close Government links. Nuclear therefore could be driver for globalisation in energy and act against smaller scale local solutions. It could easy be accommodated in the current market as a ‘preferred Government solution’. But would be morally acceptable to pursue such a path? Such technology can (and arguable has already) produced a real sense of alienation in the public at large. Should we seek to overcome such alienation through education, or should we seek small-scale generation and demand management routes, which are more attuned to direct local involvement? * Communities who already host nuclear power plant are often comfortable with the technology – often because of the high paid employment it brings. Other communities however, where new plant is proposed, may oppose it violently. To what extent should the views of communities be accommodated where a technology is to be accepted as part of a national solution to a global problem? Church of Scotland, Church and Society Council - May 2006