« Low Impact Food | Main | Globalism & Regionalism »

Coal verses Nuclear

So, here are the offending words:

"I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen – as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future most be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be."

Source: one George Monbiot, scourge of literally all and sundry, especially of those who are perceived by him to be "betraying the cause."

Context: George is (probably even now) at the Climate Camp outside Kingsnorth in Kent, energetically supporting the campaign against E.ON's proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth – with or without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) built in.

Common ground: this is a campaign with which I am in total agreement – planning permission for E.ON at Kingsnorth would usher in a new and utterly disastrous lease of life for coal in the UK. There may be up to eight further coal-fired power stations in the pipeline. The fact that BERR would appear to be minded to go ahead with such a proposal tells you all you need to know about the Government’s head-long retreat from what we now know to have been the high point of sustainable energy thinking in the 2003 Energy White Paper.

Disagreement: as George says, a horror story. But does one’s horror at one horror story justify turning a blind eye to another – equally horrifying – horror story? "Yes", says George, because our every sinew must now be strained to combat the threat of resurgent coal. "No", say I, because a resurgent nuclear industry constitutes (almost) as grave a threat to the emergence of truly sustainable energy strategies as coal does.

I am putting the 'almost' in there to build a bridge back to George's startlingly irresponsible and throw-away 'green light' for nuclear. As you can see, he is trying to hedge that improbable endorsement with a few conditions that both he and I would agree are all but impossible for the nuclear industry to comply with.

But a communicator as astute and clever as George should (and surely does) know the difference between a 'Yes … If' position and a 'No … Unless' position.

Does all this mean an irrevocable split in the Green Movement? Yes and No. Yes, because there are indeed widely diverging views about the potential contribution that nuclear might make to a low-carbon world. No, because there always have been such diverging views, and we are all (for the most part!) united in our anger and disgust at the sheer stupidity of something like Kingsnorth.

So please do check out the Climate Camp 08 website. It's excellent.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 8, 2008 10:39 AM |

Comments (12)

In the interest of averting conflict between the two big beasts in the green cage, may I suggest that George's conditions can be presented as insurmountable blocks to the development of nuclear?

To insist that nuclear avoids solves the problem of diversion to military use, solves the waste problem, becomes economic in an unfiddled way, meets its own insurance and decommissioning costs, proves that it has a significant part to play in meeting the world's full energy needs, can keep its head above water when faced with rising sea levels, etcetera, (http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Nuclear.htm) is pretty much the same as reciting the mantra "Nuclear Power? No Thanks!".

Posted by Richard Lawson | August 11, 2008 3:41 PM

I think George is just facing up to the reality of the situation, which a lot of people still refuse to do.

There is no easy answer, but to take an altruistic view requires some hard choices and maybe some sacrifices. I don't have any children of my own, so I can easily say "I don't care what happens, as long as it's after I'm gone". But I'm an uncle and also my partner has children and now a grandson. So I'd like to think that there'll be a world worth inhabiting when my nephews have children of their own. If that means we have to embrace some concepts or technologies we'd rather do without, then that's the way forward... until a better solution comes along.

Coal is a finite resource, already getting scarce. To take a backward step in relying on something we know is going to cause multiple problems further down the line is idiotic. At this moment, and given the codicil in George's statement, nuclear IS a viable option.

Posted by Ironspider | August 12, 2008 10:25 AM

Our campaign materials being circulated extensively in Bolton West constituency (home to Ruth Kelly MP) suggest that a return to coal is acceptable provided we have CCS from the outset.

The argument I found convincing was that India and China are unlikely to shut down their coal fired stations in response to the climate threat. Yet the only prospect we have of tackling CO2 from these sources is from add on CCS technology (bolted on after the plants have been built). The fact of the matter is that this technology will have to be developed in the more affluent west and then made available to the developing world.

So, in order to tackle the coal problem in China and India, we need to burn coal with CCS here.

Like George I don't like open cast mining and the other health problems associated with coal, but we have our backs against the wall.

Posted by Jon Fuller | August 13, 2008 11:43 AM

Why oh why is there still so much talk about how to generate more energy and so little about how we should cut our need to do so through energy efficiency and conservation? It seems that growth-focussed economics means growth-focussed energy energy generation.

Superinsulate all the properties in the country, beginning with the most inefficient as well as the poorest households. Wouldn't this measure quickly pay for itself? Save energy, save money, gain choices.

Posted by Glenn Vowles | August 16, 2008 2:39 PM

"I feel I need to point out that I have not become an advocate for nuclear power. My position is that environmentalists should stop trying to pick technologies for electricity generation. Instead we should demand a maximum level for the carbon dioxide produced per megawatt-hour, impose a number of other public safety measures, then allow the energy companies to find the cheapest means of delivering it. Otherwise we are in danger of backing the solutions we find aesthetically appealing and delaying the massive carbon cuts that need to be made. If nuclear power meets the very tough conditions I proposed last week, we should no longer oppose it; though that remains a big if. This is too subtle a point for Arthur and other commentators, who are shrieking that Monbiot has gone nuclear."

You probably read this, being an informed sort, but I thought I ought to put it up here in case anyone reading your blog missed it.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/11/picking-up-the-gauntlet/

Ironspider, coal is not at all "already getting scarce". This is just wrong.

Jon Fuller, you're arguments would hold water if coal was the only viable generation technology available. But its not. There's a whole swathe of renewables being developed which are a lot cheaper and more sustainable.

Posted by punkscience | August 19, 2008 11:06 AM

There is a premise missed in the nuclear debate. The assumption is that nuclear energy provides an energy source, and so the debate revolves around whether the benefit of its relatively low carbon footprint outweighs its other obvious disadvantages. In the context of our present climate emergency it is reasonable that some thinkers consider all other problems relatively insignificant.

However, Dr. Fleming's "Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy" convincingly challenges the initial assumption, showing that on a full life-cycle analysis of nuclear energy production (including decommissioning and waste management) nuclear is becoming an energy *sink*, not an energy source.

In other words nuclear makes our energy challenge even harder and thus makes our climate challenge even harder, as well as creating its own unique brand of problems.

For those who haven't seen it the report is available here: http://tinyurl.com/22djno

Posted by Shaun Chamberlin | August 19, 2008 6:18 PM

Jonathon, you're absolutely right that Monbiot is savvy enough to know how his message will be perceived. The 'yes if/no unless' point hits the nail squarely on the head.

The scary thing is that George is cagey elsewhere in it too. In the Guardian and on Newsnight he talked of being clear who would pay. That leaves the option open for it to be public money.

Surely a clearer position, and the fair one, would be to say that the energy company must pay all costs including decommissioning, monitoring of the sites and libility for accident for as long as the materials remain hazardous. As this would be a period of many millennia, it would take nuclear off the table at a stroke.

The same conditions should apply to CCS - the energy company must be responsible for the monitoring and liability. In the case of CO2, it remains hazardous for all eternity. Thus, a fair approach to CCS would instantly price that out of the market too.

This is before we deal with questions such as how we'd know if the CO2 was seeping, and even if we did find it how we might stop it. The parallels with nuclear waste are startling.

Ironspider, coal may be finite (as, incidentally, is uranium) but it is not 'already getting scarce'. There is enough to keep us going for many centuries to come, more than enough to cause catastrophic climate change.

Jon Fuller, CCS has been dangled by the coal industry to distract us so we permit stations to be built 'capture ready'. There will be no obligation to install CCS even if - and it's still an if - it can be made to work.

As the idea of CCS takes a battering, the industry is telling us we need to develop it to give to China and India. firstly, the massive deployment of CCS required will, in all likelihood, be impossible in China. Power stations far inland don't have many options for places to store it.

Secondly, why do we think we're the vanguard? It appears that China will be the first country to have a full-scale CCS plant. The idea that we'll sell it seems to be yet another decoy.

The industry knows it only has to distract us temporarily and the stations will be built. Once they're built we're committed to 40 or 50 years of burning coal, and so the money rolls in to the company.

Posted by Merrick | August 23, 2008 4:11 PM

OK Punkscience - change 'scarce' to 'finite' (and toss in 'polluting' while you're at it!).

The point is do want want to take a backward step and relying more heavily on fossil fuels, or go forward and embrace other technologies? The UK Government needs to push developments in the energy sector toward speading the generating load between all options, coal, oil, gas, renewables, nuclear. We don't want to wait until we're sitting in a cold, darkened room for someone reinvents the candle. We need to start tackling the problem of our power consumption now and perhaps start educating the consumers better.

So, keep digging up the coal 'til it's all gone, but at least let's discuss and develop some alternatives in the meantime.

Posted by Ironspider | September 3, 2008 2:51 PM

The only safe place for a nuclear power station is around 93 million miles away and there is one there already, it's called the sun.

If sunbeans could be transformed into weapons of war we have solar power research to the same scale as the goverment financed research that went into nuclear power rather than the minimal financing there is at the present.

Posted by Fr. Peter | September 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Fr. Peter:
You demonstrate that a little knowledge is dangerous. Perhaps you don't realise that a nuclear power station produces power from nuclear fission and the sun produces power from nuclear fusion. Did you know the two processes are entirely different, in fact the complete opposite?

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 11, 2008 10:01 PM

Point taken Philip, but I would still be happier if any nuclear energy facility was 93 million miles away...

Posted by Fr. Peter | September 12, 2008 6:32 PM

Shaun Chamberlin:

I looked at the paper by Dr Fleming and found so many errors in the first couple of pages that I decided it wasn't worth reading any further.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 13, 2008 8:14 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/70

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]