UK Nuclear Consultation

The UK government has asked for comments about nuclear power. The consultation web site is:

http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/

The UK government nuclear power policy is summarized here:

The Future of Nuclear Power: Consultation Document

The UK government wants comments that add to the information in the Consultation Document. The document is organized around eighteen questions, with the government position summarized for each case. The questions are:

1. To what extent do you believe that tackling climate change and ensuring the security of energy supplies are critical challenges for the UK that require significant action in the near term and a sustained strategy between now and 2050?

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on carbon emissions from new nuclear power stations?

3. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the security of supply impact of new nuclear power stations?

4. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the economics of new nuclear power stations?

5. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the value of having nuclear power as an option?

6. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the safety, security, health and non-proliferation issues?

7. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the transport of nuclear materials?

8. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on waste and decommissioning?

9. What are the implications for the management of existing nuclear waste of taking a decision to allow energy companies to build new nuclear power stations?

10. What do you think are the ethical considerations related to a decision to allow new nuclear power stations to be built? And how should these be balanced against the need to address climate change?

11. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on environmental issues?

12. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply of nuclear fuel?

13. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply chain and skills capacity?

14. Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on reprocessing?

15. Are there any other issues or information that you believe need to be considered before taking a decision on giving energy companies the option of investing in nuclear power stations?

16. In the context of tackling climate change and ensuring energy security, do you agree or disagree that it would be in the public interest to give energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?

17. Are there other conditions that you believe should be put in place before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?

18. Do you think these are the right facilitative actions to reduce the regulatory and planning risks associated with such investments?


I am preparing my responses here, with a separate blog entry for each question. The answers are evolving as I think of better ways to express my ideas. If anyone has anything to add, or corrections, please send me comments at the appropriate blog entry.

1. Critical Challenges

To what extent do you believe that tackling climate change and ensuring the security of energy supplies are critical challenges for the UK that require significant action in the near term and a sustained strategy between now and 2050?

The UK must ensure that its population has enough energy for a good standard of living. Given the changes that are coming this means that much more energy will be needed - to repair storm damage, to evacuate people from weather disasters, and to cool urban centers. Combine these new challenges with the accepted needs for energy - employment productivity, health care, transportation, and communication - and it is clear that the UK should be striving for much higher energy availability than it has now. It will be a challenge to produce this much energy and the new equipment for distributing and using it.

The UK cannot do anything at home to influence the changing climate. Temperatures will continue to rise even if the UK immediately turns off all its carbon emitting sources. The UK can and should prepare for the difficult times ahead by building up reliable energy sources and infrastructure, using the most reliable, least expensive, safest, and cleanest technology - namely fission originated heat and electric energy distribution.

The UK government may choose to believe that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere by human activity. Even so, there is no evidence that reducing the amounts of carbon dioxide will lessen planetary heating. For example, if we choose to reduce carbon dioxide by burning less coal this will also reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere, making it clearer and allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. The effect may be increased heating. Without proper preparation and analysis it is irresponsible to rush into technology shifts believing that the global effects of these changes are simple, known, and controllable.

By developing advanced nuclear power systems, using them widely, and making them available to the world, the UK can lead by example, and influence the people who can mitigate climate change: US, Chinese, Indian, and African industrialists. These aspiring business developers will be more inclined to use clean nuclear power if they see that it works, and they can afford it. The UK can help this happen. The UK initiative should also be driven by a clear moral imperative to change the coal industry. It kills thousands of its workers every year to deliver dirty energy that kills thousands of users. The moral imperative can be extended to reduce the burning of wood and dung which makes millions of people sick, and seriously harms the environment. The positive impact of a vigorous nuclear power renaissance can be large if it solves these problems.

I don't see any reason to pick 2050 as an end date for this brave, new, and clean life style. I think this shift in focus is fundamental, and permanent.

2. Carbon Emissions

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on carbon emissions from new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The UK government states that nuclear power carbon emissions are about the same as wind generated electricity. This estimate is much too pessimistic for nuclear power. Wind stations have to be fully backed up - typically with coal. When the wind turbines are producing power the backup coal system has to run in idle mode which releases dangerous fossil fuel waste. When the wind turbines are not producing power the backup system has to run in full production mode which releases even more dangerous fossil fuel waste. Any national system with a significant wind generation capability releases a lot of dangerous fossil fuel waste to keep the wind system backed up. A national system with a significant nuclear generation capability does not release any carbon dioxide due to the nuclear component. Nuclear power is much cleaner than wind power.

The claim could be made that wind could be backed up by nuclear, and then wind power would be as clean as nuclear. This is not reasonable. If we have a full capability based on fission as needed to back up wind, then there is no need for the wind system in the first place. It should not be built - it will only add cost and destabilize the distribution system.

The UK government states that nuclear power alone cannot tackle climate change. Why not? It is politically expedient to say that other technologies have a role, but there is no technical justification for this. All the electricity needed for a modern culture can be drawn from a fission source. Further, once one reactor has been built the decision has been made that the consequences are not catastrophic. From that point the only logical path is a full conversion to nuclear power.

The UK government states that new nuclear production could mitigate climate change, without any evidence that this is so. Reducing carbon dioxide pollution by eliminating coal will also reduce particulate pollution, making the atmosphere clearer, allowing more sunlight to reach the ground, and probably making the world hotter. On the other hand, heat released from new nuclear plants could be used to make very white clouds that would reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. The UK government has no idea how to work with all these variables.

The entire discussion about carbon emissions is disingenuous, and reduces people's trust in the UK government. The UK government should make clear the amount of carbon released by the UK, and the total amount being released in the world. From this it would be seen that the UK government is powerless to do anything to mitigate climate change. The UK government can cooperate with international efforts to set a good example, but this is all. Given this reality, the mandate of the UK government must be the provision of stable and reliable energy as needed for a modern life style. The UK government's attempts to side step these frank discussions make it appear devious, and increases distrust.

3. Security of Supply

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the security of supply impact of new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. Diversity does not improve energy stability if inferior technologies constitute the diversity. Each candidate technology for a diversified energy mix must first of all stand on its own as a reliable, clean, safe, and inexpensive possibility. For example, the diversity argument makes sense if it is used to justify continued interest in fission and fusion, since both are clean, and presumably reliable. Or the argument could be used to justify the development of both uranium and thorium fuels. But invoking the diversity argument to justify wind power is muddled thinking. Wind mills are not reliable nor inexpensive, and they cause extensive environmental damage. Security of supply is reduced by including wind power in the mix because the variable input from wind farms causes failures in the distribution system. Bitter experience has proved this to be the case in Alberta. The UK government is using the diversity argument to rationalize spending for wind power, but this approach will only make UK energy more expensive and less reliable. The argument being used to increase security of supply will in fact reduce it.

The UK government goes to great lengths to argue that a diverse approach is needed, and then fails to include the most important factor for a diversified nuclear power industry, namely the use of thorium fuel. Thorium is easier to obtain than uranium, and it offers politically valuable characteristics related to spent fuel management and weapons proliferation. India has an advanced program of research and development for thorium fuel, and Norway is starting such a program. The UK government just cannot claim to want diversity of supply and not include thorium fuel in this mix.

The full capability of fission technology for security of supply has not been accounted for. Fission fuels, uranium or thorium, are compact, easy to handle, readily stored for long periods, and inexpensive. Large quantities of these fuels could be purchased now and kept on site, guaranteeing an energy supply for decades. Then the spent fuel could be used in fast reactors built during these initial decades, guaranteeing supply for centuries. This is complete energy supply security - the UK would never again have to purchase energy from any external organization.

Security of supply is usually discussed in a political context where the fear is that other organizations or national groups will restrict fuel sales. But the problem can occur if the supply is keyed to any process that is not controlled by the UK government. Weather is such a problem. Making major portions of the energy supply dependent on weather will cause supply interruptions, especially in the more extreme weather expected with global warming. Wind and hydro power must be taken out of the supply mix for this reason.

4. Economics

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the economics of new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

The economic value of a new nuclear power station is determined by non-technical factors. If frivolous legal challenges are allowed to delay construction then new power stations will not be built. If excessive radiation protection standards are mandated then new power stations will not be operated. If schools fail to teach math and physics at a high enough level then new power stations will not be staffed. Factors such as these are controlled by the UK government. Therefore, the UK government can make new nuclear power stations worthwhile. In fact, they have an obligation to do so since the UK government is expected to protect the well being of the citizens.

Nuclear power stations produce inexpensive electricity, as shown in many studies from all over the world. These studies have not even considered improvements that could be made to further reduce costs. For example, the turbine exhaust from today's reactors is vented out into the environment. It could be sold to heat buildings, reducing the cost of the generated electricity even further.

There is a widespread misunderstanding that nuclear reactors can only be used for baseload power. In fact, CANDU reactors in Ontario have demonstrated that power output can be quickly adjusted between 60% and 100% of full power, and the reactor can continue running at any of these levels for extended periods. These adjustments are automated and can take place in real time in response to changes happening on the grid. Many of the constraints affecting the time needed for these changes are due to the turbine design, and could be different. The point here is that the UK government should not assume that other fuels need to be used to provide load following. The complexity of managing an electrical system with many different kinds of generating stations can be reduced by using nuclear power for load following as well as baseload power, and lower costs will result.

There are other benefits that are not quantified but make nuclear power attractive. Some reactors dissipate the exhaust heat from their turbines by evaporating water. These reactors could be fitted with sprayers that use this dissipating heat and water to form clouds containing very small water drops. Such clouds are extremely white and reflect sunlight back into space. Reactors fitted in this way could contribute to global cooling, going beyond merely being a zero carbon energy source. This has a significant economic value.

There are political costs associated with nuclear power. The association with military use has to be broken. For instance, the UK government should get rid of its nuclear weapons so it can develop commercial nuclear power without the distortions introduced by military requirements.

5. The Nuclear Power Option

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the value of having nuclear power as an option? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The future need for energy and electricity is easy to predict - a lot more will be needed. The UK government claims that this is difficult to foresee. I think it is obvious. Moreover, the UK government has a responsibility to make this increase happen. More energy is required to keep industries competitive, to cool and heat urban complexes, for transportation, and to run the computers that will coordinate our world. Energy provides a standard of living that makes human life tolerable. Failure to understand this fundamental tenet of modern life would be a cultural catastrophe, a step down, a betrayal of all the hard work of our predecessors who wanted to improve the human experience.

Facing this challenge, the UK government has some technical options that are proven and reliable, some that are questionable, and some that are liabilities. Preparations for the increased energy future should be based on the proven and reliable technologies at hand, and could perhaps include some small experiments with the questionable forms, but should avoid the liabilities. The UK government is not doing this, in fact is doing the opposite. The liabilities such as wind and carbon capture are being emphasized, the questionable forms such as hydrogen are being encouraged, while proven and reliable fission is being shunned. What is the point of modeling an energy supply mix without nuclear power? What should be modeled is a mix without wind power.

The UK government does not have criteria for measuring the success of renewables and carbon capture. Such criteria are required so that an objective decision can be made to end the effort being wasted on these liabilities. The following measures could be used:

- safety should be better than nuclear (this eliminates coal even with carbon capture, wind, and hydro),

- cost should be better than nuclear (this eliminates wind),

- animal killing should be better than nuclear (this eliminates wind and hydro),

- land use should be better than nuclear (this eliminates wind and hydro),

- green house gas emissions should be better than nuclear (this eliminates coal even with carbon capture, wind, and hydro),

- the need for transmission lines should be less than nuclear (this eliminates wind and hydro), and

- load following and grid disruption should be better than nuclear (this eliminates wind).

The UK government has modeled a future that does not include nuclear power and assumed that such a model is sensible. It is not. Wind mills do not work on their own and no one will invest in them in a market that does not allow wind farms to be backed up with coal. The investment money expected by the UK government model will not be there - it will be put into more reasonable opportunities in other countries that are moving ahead with pragmatic energy policies. The UK will be left behind, a ruined and failed state. Common sense has to be used when modeling.

6. Safety, Security, Health and Non-proliferation

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the safety, security, health and non-proliferation issues? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The UK government has not considered radiation hormesis in its assessment of the risks of radiation exposure. Increasing low dose radiation exposure improves health.

http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Rad_hormesis.html

Low Doses of Radiation Reduce Risk In Vivo
http://www.pacificnuclear.org/pnc/2004-low-dose/08-Mitchel%20.pdf

The exclusion of these facts shows that the UK government's risk assessment criteria have been set to meet political objectives, not measurable health objectives. The criteria have been set to deflect the propaganda of groups who are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. The criteria are too stringent and unnecessarily increase the cost of nuclear power, much to the satisfaction of these opposition groups.

For example, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation should be conducting studies looking for the benefits of low dose radiation exposure and using these findings to promote widespread acceptance of fission sourced energy. Instead, they conduct studies looking for cancer and only increase public fear, no matter what they report. The whole approach is negative and unscientific.

Note that placing new reactors underground will improve safety, security, health, and non-proliferation factors. These kinds of solutions, and these new levels of safety, just are not possible with other technologies. Coal cannot be burned underground in the middle of a city, uranium can. This is extremely good news; it amounts to a revolutionary step in our standard of living. The UK government should educate the population about this advance.

The UK government should state clearly that safety is compromised by not using nuclear reactors. When reactors are not used then fossil fuels are consumed instead, releasing dangerous waste products.

The UK government believes that the regulatory framework does not provide a reason to prevent private investment. This is wrong. The regulatory framework causes intolerable delays, is subject to frivolous manipulation from pressure groups, and increases the cost of new nuclear plants. A regulatory framework based on scientific knowledge and a positive approach would result in a rush of investors. The primary factor preventing the widespread use of nuclear power is the crushing government oversight burden. This situation has been created by unrelenting and unreasonable lobbying from small groups who are making a living from their anti-nuclear campaigns. The UK government should take charge of the situation and reframe the discussion in a manner that exposes the whole truth about nuclear power, thereby neutralizing the propaganda of the lobbyists. The health and well being of the population requires energy, clean energy can only be made by fission, and the UK government should provide the confident leadership needed to reach these goals.

The regulatory framework needs to be changed so that new nuclear plants can be built faster.

7. Transport of Nuclear Materials

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the transport of nuclear materials? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The UK government's approach is based on theories of radiation exposure that have been experimentally shown to be wrong. Low dose exposure is not harmful. So the risks are not "low" or "very small", they are negative - in other words the measures being used are excessive, making transportation much more expensive than necessary. If the UK government refuses to apply the proven facts about radiation hormesis for its assessment of transportation risks, then it is not being scientifically honest. The UK government is trying to appease the strident opponents of nuclear power, people who view science as an impediment to be overcome in their quest for political advantage. Appeasement is not the best method for determining the optimal transportation policy - scientific, objective honesty works much better.

I don't see any reason for emphasizing in this section that fuel reprocessing will not happen. It seems that the UK government is trying to set up as many roadblocks as possible to prevent a nuclear power renaissance. At every turn the UK government emphasizes that the new nuclear industry will be hampered and restricted. This attitude will seriously reduce the benefits that could be obtained.

The UK government's assessment of transportation does not address theft. The public should be told truth about this, namely that the materials being moved cannot be used to manufacture bombs. It should be noted that widely publishing these truths will have a discouraging effect on people whose ignorance might cause them to attempt such acts.

It is also worth pointing out that the nuclear power industry requires much less transportation than other industries such as coal, oil, and biofuels for an equivalent amount of electricity production. So the risks for conventional accidents are greatly reduced by the transition to nuclear power.

The transition to nuclear power will reduce or eliminate the need for much of the transportation infrastructure currently used for fossil fuels. Oil pipelines, coal trains and ports, and automobile fuel stations will no longer be needed. The UK government should be clear about how the costs of removing these systems will be addressed.

Since there are no risks involved in transporting nuclear material, it should be allowed to happen as necessary. If reprocessing turns out to be feasible then it should be possible to move material around for this reason or any other.

8. Waste and Decommissioning

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on waste and decommissioning ? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Vigorously disagree. First, anyone who describes spent fuel from thermal reactors as "waste" just does not understand nuclear power. The term "waste" has been pushed forward by nuclear opposition groups who think that this negative terminology will promote their cause. It is a loaded and pejorative word that makes a realistic discussion of the issues impossible. If the UK government really wants to disseminate the truth about this material it should stop describing it as "waste".

Spent fuel from thermal reactors is a treasure. It contains lots of energy, energy that can be released using fission. The spent fuel from one year of operation of a UK light water thermal reactor can run a fast reactor for more than twenty years.

See
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

To manage the spent fuel from today's thermal reactors the UK government should build fast reactors and power them with today's spent fuel, and with the depleted uranium left over from enrichment.

The UK government intends to burden new nuclear build projects with an up front cost meant to address full decommissioning. The very fact that the nuclear industry alone bears these penalties indicates that the UK government really does not want new nuclear projects. If this burden was equally applied to other technologies the position of the UK government would not appear so conflicted. For instance, wind turbine complexes should be forced to restore bird populations and pay for this up front. Or coal mines should be forced to replace all the lost husbands, and pay for this up front. Or hydro forced to restore lost environments and drowned cities. In truth, the muddled thinking of the UK government shows that they do not know what they are doing, and causes people to be suspicious about new nuclear development.

The UK government should rethink the whole concept of decommissioning. The wasteful idea that one site can be abandoned and another selected when an upgrade in reactor technology is warranted is not sustainable. Once a reactor site has been selected it should be viewed as permanent. The site should be managed so that reactors can be maintained and improved there forever.

The UK government has to consider extending the operating life of its current nuclear power plants. A false sense of urgency is created by constantly referring to the current plants as having a very limited life span. The situation is not that dire and the UK government should point this out.

9. Existing Nuclear Waste

What are the implications for the management of existing nuclear waste of taking a decision to allow energy companies to build new nuclear power stations?

Some of the new reactors must be fast reactors that will burn the spent fuel accumulated to date from thermal reactors. That is the most advantageous means for exploiting this spent fuel treasure. Today's spent fuel must not be buried; it must not become difficult to retrieve it for use in fast reactors.

10. Ethical Considerations

What do you think are the ethical considerations related to a decision to allow new nuclear power stations to be built? And how should these be balanced against the need to address climate change?

The ethical considerations are overwhelming - similar to throwing a rope to a drowning person. Energy is needed to make human life less destructive. The burning of coal, wood, and dung has to stop. Nuclear power makes this possible. It has to be used as quickly and as extensively as possible. Failing to do this displays a lack of understanding of the value of life. Such lapses in compassion are monstrously immoral, even perhaps insane.

Future generations do not want to inherit a world of ruin, decay, poverty, starvation, and warfare, especially if we have the clean energy resources to do otherwise. People opposed to nuclear power like to imagine a future population that is upset because we left behind a pile of spent fuel. Given the choice between a world in poverty without spent fuel storage or a world of wealth with some spent fuel repositories here and there, it is clear that the wealth alternative should be pursued. This can be framed differently to illustrate this point - future generations want life expectancies of one hundred years, not thirty years. If we can set them up with one hundred year life spans we should do this. Using nuclear power achieves this, not using it dooms our descendants to much shorter and more miserable lives. Morally, we have to give them the better alternative.

11. Environmental Issues

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on environmental issues? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The Government has wrongly assessed the impact of nuclear power stations. New stations can be built underground, leaving the surface intact, undisturbed. Moreover, this can be done in the middle of towns and cities, eliminating power transmission lines. Technically, the impact of new stations could be zero, or even less than zero by improving the current situation with fewer stations and transmission lines on the surface.

Building zero impact nuclear plants would be more expensive. I think it would be worth it.

I realize that this fact is not politically convenient. The howling of the enviro-alarmists will probably force us to adopt environmentally destructive approaches such as building plants above ground and far away from cities. I find it curious that those who claim to care about the environment are the ones causing us to damage it.

Building new plants underground eliminates the bogus airplane attack threat.

Nuclear power does not kill animals as do wind turbines and hydro dams. It does not kill people as do coal mines. It does not occupy huge expanses of land, and it does not create noisy, dizzying distractions in our view of the landscape. It does not have to be big and centralized in a manner that destroys local features. It does not leave ash piles behind, nor oil spills. It eliminates other other infrastructure such as pipelines, railways for coal, oil wells, and electricity transmission lines since reactors can be placed close to their users. The UK government has really underestimated the environmental benefits of nuclear power, to an alarming degree.

The most significant factor missing in the UK governments assessment of the environmental impacts of nuclear power is the revolutionary simplification in technology that it makes possible. With the abundant electricity that nuclear power provides it becomes feasible to heat and cool buildings or even cities, to power all forms of transport, to extend automation, and to enhance communication using electricity. There are all sorts of advantages in this approach - electric motors are easier to maintain making transportation less work than it is today. Electric cars are cleaner and quieter. The story goes on and on. The UK government has shown a serious failure of optimism and vision in this area.

Consider cooling as another point. Heat can be moved from a reactor and used for less intensive purposes before being released into the air. Entire cities could be kept warm in this way, reducing all kinds of pollutants. Heat from a reactor could be used to create very white clouds that could protect a city from excessive sun light, keeping it cooler. This kind of use is just not possible with low intensity technologies such as wind turbines and hydro dams. The UK government seems determined to drive its population right passed the open doors to Paradise, and down into the pit of low energy poverty.

12. The Supply of Nuclear Fuel

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply of nuclear fuel? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. The UK government has not adequately considered several factors that significantly increase the availability of fission fuel. First, thorium can be used to produce heat from fission. Second, fast reactors can extract more than one hundred times as much energy from a unit of ore than today's thermal reactors. Third, the spent fuel stored in the UK represents a large fuel source just sitting there waiting to be used. Fourth, the ocean contains an inexhaustible supply of dissolved uranium. The UK government insists on discussing the fuel problem as something that represents difficulties and restrictions, but the truth is that the UK government has an embarrassment of riches in this area.

Mining companies are investigating the extraction of uranium from the ash produced by coal fired electricity plants. Burning the coal concentrates the uranium in the ash, making it feasible to extract. Further savings result from the fact that exploration and mining are not required. This is one more example of the many novel means being used to obtain uranium.

Further, researchers in Japan have recently demonstrated that uranium can be extracted from sea water using simple plastic filters. Enough uranium is washed into the oceans every year to power the entire planet. Fission fuel in an inexhaustible resource. The cost of extracting uranium from sea water is already low enough to show that the mining of low grade ore on land will not be necessary.

http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html

The negative attitude of the UK government seems to indicate that they are looking for every excuse possible to avoid using nuclear power. I don't understand why they are so determined to follow this suicidal path. If they want to succeed as a nation, i.e. if they want to adopt nuclear power, they must reframe these discussions in a much more positive light, emphasizing the ways to be successful.

13. Supply Chain and Skills Capacity

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply chain and skills capacity? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Agree. However, the UK government appears to be analyzing the situation with the assumption that today's technology will be used exclusively for new nuclear plants. This pedestrian approach will severely curtail the benefits of investing in nuclear power. It is well known that fast reactors can achieve one hundred times as much energy extraction, that supercooled transmission lines can transport power without losses, and that reactor operations can be totally automated. An aggressive research and development program is needed to make nuclear power a historically significant benefit. This kind of research is taking place in other countries, e.g. India and Japan. The advantages gained by the UK from its nuclear initiative will be second rate compared to these other centers if the UK continues with its half-hearted and hesitant approach.

The vigorous research and development program needed will have to be supported with extensive and in-depth education. To attract new students to these challenges the picture of nuclear power will have to be positive, financially attractive, and interesting. The moral component will have to be high, which will mean that the nuclear power solution will have to extend to international regions. World wide, the burning of coal, wood, and dung will have to be stopped as a result of the nuclear renaissance, so that new students will want to have a role in this nuclear solution.

The UK government constantly stresses that long lead times are needed to build a new nuclear plant. This does not have to be the case if several plants are built at once, all using the same design. The UK government seems to think that new plants will only be built serially, as independent, unique projects. This serial approach will not deliver the new energy needed in time. However, the shortages looming for personnel and supplies may force serial development. The UK government appears to be seriously underestimating the impact of these shortages.

The negative, inconsistent, and discouraging policies of the UK government concerning nuclear power are not helping. The UK government will have to start promoting the truth about nuclear power if it wants to attract the talent needed to realize its benefits. No one is going to sign up for work in the miserable, dangerous, dishonest, undependable, failure of an industry that the UK government currently pictures as its nuclear partner.

14. Reprocessing

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on reprocessing? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?

Disagree. Reprocessing to cycle plutonium back into thermal reactors is not practical. It does not close the fuel cycle, and increases resource utilization by no more than 20%, while making the spent fuel harder to deal with. Instead, fast reactors should be built to burn all the accumulated spent fuel and depleted uranium. The appropriate mix of thermal and fast reactors should be established for a sustainable fuel cycle.

A comprehensive discussion of the optimal fuel cycle can be found here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

The UK government has chosen a fuel cycle based on initial fuel enrichment because it wanted to build up both a military and an electricity generating capability. This is now proving to be a liability. The people do not want to live in a world frozen by a nuclear weapons standoff. The UK government should get out of the nuclear weapons game, and concentrate on building up a clean, safe, and reliable electricity generating sector. This would allow the introduction of nuclear reactors that consume natural uranium fuel, combined with fast reactors that fully utilize all the uranium. Reprocessing should be confined to these needs only. Similarly, thorium fuel should be used. This is the kind of electricity industry that people want, one that is not confounded with weapons.

People opposed to nuclear energy routinely distribute articles that associate nuclear powered electricity with nuclear weapons proliferation. Here is an example:

Quote: One can start with the simple fact that WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, THERE WOULD BE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Hydrogen bombs all use tritium in addition to plutonium and / or uranium, and both the plutonium and the tritium always come from nuclear power plants.

Such statements are so wrong they are difficult to take seriously, but they shift public belief when they are not opposed. The UK government must outlined the fuel cycle that it will allow, including fast reactors and small reactors, and show that this fuel cycle does not support nuclear weapons production. The UK government must prove that its approach prevents weapons proliferation, while extending the international use of nuclear energy. The anti-nuclear lobbyists are claiming that the choice is between having the lights on or dieing in a nuclear Armageddon. The UK government must prove that this is not the choice, and vigorously publicize its strategy so that people can make good decisions based on accurate information about nuclear electricity. Participation in GNEP seems like a good way to further these goals.

The UK government's assumption that only a once-through fuel cycle will be used is short-sighted and wasteful. It raises questions about the amount of uranium available. The UK government would have to show how enough fission fuel will be obtained if this assumption is followed. Instead, a more efficient fuel cycle should be planned for, one that includes fast reactors.

15. Investing in Nuclear Power

Are there any other issues or information that you believe need to be considered before taking a decision on giving energy companies the option of investing in nuclear power stations? And why?

Yes. The positive benefits of rational and scientific thinking need to be defended. Many groups are putting forward poorly thought out ideas with the intention of misleading large numbers of people, and gaining political power as a final result. Groups that claim that wind mills can provide all the electricity we need offer typical examples of this cult thinking. A much more positive and morally sound future can be envisaged and can be achieved. Nuclear power is one of the many benefits of science that can contribute to this positive future. But truth needs defenders. If no one speaks up for truth it will be lost. The current UK government approach is hesitant and implicitly negative. It does not inspire anyone to get involved in the process of making the world a better place. If the UK government intends to face the future with this glum and gloomy outlook it might as well quit now - it will not succeed.

The UK government has made many assumptions about the nature of nuclear power. Most of these assumptions are not warranted, and they curtail needlessly both the uses of nuclear power, and the benefits that can result. The worst of these is the view that nuclear power has to be implemented as a large, centralized facility that delivers only baseload power. There are no technical justifications for this assumption. All ships could be powered with small nuclear engines. Nuclear batteries such as the one being considered for Galena, Alaska can provide electricity to remote towns. Individual factories that use a lot of energy could be driven by their own local reactors. The supply of energy could be much more robust as a result of such distributed generation.

The UK government should recognize that there are many spin-off activities associated with nuclear power. One such activity is the production and use of radiating isotopes. Isotopes are used in medicine for diagnostic imaging, in agriculture for insect control, and in industry for applications such as reducing static electricity. All this expertise and benefit is associated with a robust nuclear power industry. A nation that does not use nuclear power will not develop the expertise and will not realize the benefits of isotope applications.

The UK government should include the value of international sales in its assessment of nuclear power. Companies that have invested in nuclear power successfully will have services and products that can be sold to Africa, India, China, South America, and Australia. The resulting income and job creation could be sizable.

16. Climate Change and Energy Security

In the context of tackling climate change and ensuring energy security, do you agree or disagree that it would be in the public interest to give energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?

Clearly, the UK government has to have new nuclear power stations built. Not doing so would be suicidal and irrational. It is obvious that the public benefits from these developments.

However, the approach outlined by the UK government for controlling and restricting new nuclear plant construction is excessive and onerous. This approach makes it impossible to build anything quickly, when rapid development is precisely what is needed.

All this new development can be rationalized as a response to climate change, but this is wishful thinking. The UK government on its own cannot do anything to affect climate change. Even shutting down all the carbon emission sources in the UK overnight would not make one whit of a difference. If the UK government wants to deal with its citizens as adults it would make this clear.

What the UK government can do is provide energy to the future population - the energy needed to keep their economy competitive, to maintain their health, and improve the local environment. For example, cities no longer need garbage dumps. As proven in Ottawa, Canada

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/?l=en

garbage can be eliminated by melting it in a plasma torch, powered by electricity. These kinds of new energy applications can significantly improve the lives of future populations, and their environment. The UK government can make this happen - can provide the needed energy and the new applications. Nuclear power is the best technology available to guarantee this positive future.

The UK government should also encourage companies to use small nuclear engines where this is optimal. Such engines are described at:

http://www.atomicengines.com/

These engines could be used to power ships, or to guarantee electricity for a Google server farm. The UK government needs to break out of the stereotype thinking that restricts nuclear power to large, baseload facilities. Nuclear power can be used in many other ways.

17. Other Conditions

Are there other conditions that you believe should be put in place before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations? (for example, restricting build to the vicinity of existing sites, or restricting build to approximately replacing the existing capacity)

Yes - new nuclear power stations should be built underground, in the middle of towns and cities. This eliminates the need for ugly and inefficient transmission lines, and makes available the heat released from the turbines for uses within the city such as heating buildings. It also makes it easier to monitor and protect the reactors from terrorist attacks. The UK government operates nuclear powered submarines, where people live safely, close to the reactor. This proves that it is feasible to place new reactors in the middle of towns.

The openness of the nuclear industry should be increased. Full information about how nuclear reactors work must be provided on the internet giving enough details to be thoroughly reassuring. The UK government should review such sites for completeness and accuracy. Tours should be given regularly, and curriculum material should be prepared for schools. A much more open approach would really help the public accept this technology.

The UK government intends to force nuclear power companies to pay for decommissioning and waste management up front. That would be fine if the same rules applied to all the other energy producing technologies. For example, wind turbines should be forced to retain the carbon dioxide released by their coal burning backup systems, and pay for this containment technology up front. Wind turbines should be forced to have bird kill rates similar to nuclear power, and to pay exorbitantly up front if they fail to achieve this. And all hydro electric systems should be hit with complete site restoration charges in advance. Coal should be forced to have its fuel produced without killing miners, and forced to pay for this safety up front. It is OK to collect this money in advance, as long as every technology is required to be as safe, clean, and sustainable as nuclear power.

What people do not want is the fear of nuclear weapons. The UK government has not made clear how it will realize the benefits of commercial nuclear power without facilitating the proliferation of weapons. The UK government should abandon all development of new nuclear weapons, and focus on the research needed for commercial power. This dramatic step forward would be more significant than anything that could be done on the global warming front.

The nuclear power industry is international in scope. The UK government must be actively involved in international activities to ensure the success of its domestic nuclear initiatives. The key requirements are outlined at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-022.html

Briefly, the requirements are:
- global cooperation on safety and security
- shared information about component quality
- workforce development
- infrastructure development in other countries
- Multinational Design Evaluation Program

18. Regulatory and Planning Risks

Do you think these are the right facilitative actions to reduce the regulatory and planning risks associated with such investments? Are there any other measures that you think the Government should consider?

The proposed actions are incomplete, contradictory, impractical, and uncertain. They will delay the development of clean, safe power for much too long, and will result in serious economic losses.

For example, forcing companies to meet the full costs of spent fuel management in advance is contradictory. Spent fuel from today's reactors is stored energy. The companies know how to burn this fuel and collect significant profit from it. What does it mean to say that they have to pay for its management in advance?

Decommissioning is another example. Why would a design that requires decommissioning ever be approved in the first place? The UK government cannot move about the country, abandoning reactor sites whenever a reactor upgrade is required. This is too difficult in terms of public consultation. New reactor sites must be viewed as permanent installations. If a reactor has to be replaced with a better one, then that should happen on site. The decommissioning myth, i.e. restoring pristine old growth wilderness, has to go. This has a number of ramifications. The public has to understand that pristine conditions cannot be reproduced. The industry has to understand that it cannot leave its garbage behind.

The measures proposed by the UK government favor the development of large reactors. Small reactors are also needed. Ships should be powered by nuclear engines. Islands should be energized with small, local power generators. Load following on the grid is facilitated if small units can be turned off and on easily. The UK government has stated over and over again that nuclear power plants have long construction lead times. This is not so for small systems. The benefits could begin immediately, and if some creativity is applied this could facilitate public acceptance. For example, a small nuclear engine running a plasma torch could melt all the garbage flowing out from London, totally eliminating a major environmental problem. See:

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/?l=en

As it stands now small systems will not be approved or developed. This will deny many of the benefits of nuclear power to the UK population.

The negative bias of the UK government colors every facilitative action. For example, the Justification process compares benefits with health detriments. What health detriments? In fact there are overwhelming health benefits to be investigated if radiation hormesis findings are accounted for. But the UK government insists on going on and on about fictional health detriments. With this kind of negative support the nuclear industry is guaranteed a dismal future in the UK.

The UK government appears to be doing everything that it can to make its nuclear initiative fail, with incomplete analysis, half hearted initiatives, and proposals that seem to be manipulative and devious. I would like to see a much more positive approach, based firmly on cold facts, and focussed on a brighter outlook for the future.

I Like "Nobodys Fuel".

I purchased the "Nobodys Fuel" DVD from

http://www.nobodysfuel.com/

It is excellent. You should buy several copies and give them to everyone interested in energy.

The author is H. Douglas Lightfoot, Canadian, and a member of the Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre at McGill University in Montreal. He has been working on this presentation since 1992, as a self financed and independent project.

The DVD runs for 2 hours and 25 minutes. It outlines the issues and then presents a solution. It is reasonable, clear, easy to understand, and optimistic. You will want to watch it several times. It works as a conversation guide too, when viewed with a group that has questions and comments to share.

The program is divided into sections:

1: Prisoner's Dilemma: fossil fuels & what energy means to us
2: Aladdin's Lamp - how much fossil fuel is left?
3: Core of the Matter - carbon dioxide & the environment
4: Solving climate change & energy supply
5: Can renewable energy replace fossil fuel?
6: The Hydrogen Economy: NOT a simple chemistry experiment
7: Nuclear energy - power to the people
8: Conclusion

I didn't agree with every detail of Mr. Lightfoot's solution. Nor was I surprised by anything he said - he does not offer any magic bullets. What made the DVD excellent was its careful walk through of all the issues in a reasonable order, showing what can be done and how this contributes to a realistic plan. Eliminating poverty is the key concept - we have to pull people out of environmentally destructive poverty to control population growth and mitigate global heating. I think this is the right answer, both technically and morally. To make it happen we need fast reactors. There is lots of work ahead of us.