Energy
This SCPO
Briefing comes out of work done for the Church of Scotland's Church &
Society Council towards their response to the recent consultation on
future energy policy. Prepared largely by Fred Dinning, there are four
sections (Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Fossil Fuels and Carbon
Capture, and Nuclear Power); each section has some technical and economic
background and outlines some of the ethical issues which arise. Although
the consultation period has now ended (the CofS response is available on
request from SCPO), this is an ongoing discussion of high importance, and
we think these form an excellent, accessible introduction to the debate.
1.
Energy Efficiency
(a) Technical
The term energy efficiency is used to cover both energy savings and
technological improvements, which result in the same amount of useful work
being achieved with less energy input. Energy can simply be wasted (lights
left on in unattended rooms); used for questionable purposes (TVs on
standby so that they come on more quickly); or used inefficiently (use of
incandescent light bulbs instead of compact fluorescent lamps or CFLs).
A
wide range of established technologies are available to reduce energy use
across all sectors – these include more efficient lighting (CFLs), more
efficient appliances (‘A’ rated refrigeration), higher standards of home
insulation (the SAP rating – on average in the mid 80s in the UK for all
housing, in the 90s for new housing – but around 140 for the best new
houses in Sweden) and improved industrial processes (dynamic motor speed
control).
There have been steady gains in energy efficiency both in terms of useful
output (better electrical appliance efficiency) and in terms of decoupling
economic growth from increased energy use in commerce and industry
(interestingly the US, in spite of roughly double the energy use per
capita of the UK, have performed better than most of the rest of the
world in that regard). However the development of new products and
services has led to increased demand for energy (more widespread use of
computers and higher consumption flat screen TVs in the home; ‘always on’
INTERNET server farms in offices and commerce). The overall trend in
electricity and gas use in UK therefore continues upwards at 1-2% per
annum.
A
range of studies suggests that the widespread adoption of energy
efficiency could result in up to 40% reduction in current energy use
(covering both domestic and industrial/commercial sectors). Indeed the
background work by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit for
the 2002 White Paper suggested a 20% target by 2010 and a 40% target by
2020 should be adopted.
Future technology developments offer the prospect of much more intelligent
control of appliances, which - linked with small-scale renewable
generation in the home - could greatly reduce the load on the electricity
network. As an example, refrigerators currently cycle electricity use via
a thermostat, but can hold their temperature within safe limits for much
longer – intelligent control (possibly via ‘smart’ metering and Bluetooth technology) could be
used to reduce peak demand in a city so as to avoid central despatch of
large and inefficient coal fired generation.
(b)
Economic
A
very wide range of studies point to the adoption of energy efficiency and
energy savings as the economic ‘no-brainer’ solutions – with savings of at
least 20% being available at no cost or with often substantial cost savings.
Energy savings (some coin the phrase ‘negawatts’) are by far the most
economically rational solution and would make the rest of energy policy much
easier to implement (for example the 2002 White Paper recognised that
renewables would be more expensive and prices would therefore rise, but
bills would be held constant or drop if energy efficiency measures were
adopted).
Many
studies have focused on the failure of the economics to drive energy
efficiency gains. The conclusions are that some of these barriers relate to
lack of knowledge, some are due to lack of management time, some due to lack
of capital to make the up-front investment and some simply due to apathy.
For example, some firms may be focused more on short term survival than
making a saving based on a payback period as low as three or four years. In
the domestic sector, the motivation to improve house insulation may be low
as the owners may intend to move in four or five years (less than the
payback period) and such improvements do not add as much resale value as a
‘dream kitchen’ with the latest (inefficient) 12V ‘spot’ lighting and the
‘walk in’ US style fridge/freezer/ice maker.
The
greatest energy efficiency gains could probably be made in the areas of
worst housing, where fuel poverty is commonplace. These areas are however
the ones most affected by lack of knowledge, lack of capital and distrust of
companies/government. Additionally, most of the savings, which are made in
this sector, are taken as ‘comfort gains’ – energy use does not reduce,
comfort levels are simply raised to acceptable standards via similar energy
use (the ‘re-bound effect’).
Since the beginnings of the focus on energy efficiency in the 1970s,
Governments have consistently driven for savings and more efficient use, via
a wide range of campaigns and interventions in the form of obligations on
suppliers, capital grants, free consultancy, improvements in building
regulations, appliance labelling, the Climate Change Levy etc. Currently the
Energy Savings Trust (in the domestic sector) and the Carbon Trust (in the
industrial/commercial sector) operate grant schemes, awareness programmes
etc. Suppliers are obliged to secure certain levels energy savings across
the domestic sector (with particular focus on the fuel poor) - these
additional costs are passed to the customer base as a whole. These
obligations, together with other grant measures (Warm Front) and action by
Local Authorities etc. are aimed at the elimination of fuel poverty by
2015.
(c)
Ethical Questions
Energy efficiency appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ in any energy policy. It
makes any energy policy route easier to deliver, avoids waste, improves the
lot of the fuel poor and adds to economic prosperity – yet it continually
fails to be accepted by the public (not only in the UK but across the
industrialised world). Governments have tended to shy short of ‘forcing the
issue’ because of lack of public uptake. Should the initiative in this area
come from Government (‘strong leadership against the will of the people but
for their own good’) or through bringing some kind of moral pressure to bear
through awareness (as for ‘drink driving’ or the wearing of seatbelts) – and
if so can the churches via such measures as Eco-Congregation make the
difference?
Much
of the problem appears to relate to increased energy use rather than better
appliance standards per se. As an example, many households buy a new fridge,
deliberately seeking out an ‘A’ rated appliance because they are
environmentally conscious – but then put the old one in the garage to keep
the beer cool; patio heaters have made our gardens available and enjoyable
over a larger part of the year; outdoor Christmas lights cheer the dark
season; security lights (500W each) make us feel safer; we like the
convenience and better access to information given by broadband and ‘always
on’ internet access. Some of this use is profligate and a product of the
‘conspicuous consumption society’ but some genuinely does add to our sense
of well-being. How far might we be able to go in persuading the public to
‘use less’ as well as ‘use wisely’ without adoption of the ‘hair shirt’ or
‘nanny state’ approach?
Some
argue that price increases are the way forward (‘energy is too cheap’) – but
increased taxation will drive more into fuel poverty and the better off are
unlikely to change their behaviour (c.f. fuel price increases and the
continued growth in 4x4 use) – and what would Government do with the
increased revenues. We also need to recognise that Governments have had a
bad experience with taxation as a driver to behaviour change in the light of
the fuel protests by truck drivers and farmers against the Fuel Duty
Escalator. Just how much should we advocate or rely on price as an
appropriate signal to ‘do the right thing’?
How
comfortable are we that energy policy is being used as the vehicle to tackle
fuel poverty via obligations on suppliers? On the surface this seems fair,
but it is a wealth transfer from those who use more energy to those who use
less – and sometimes those who use more might not be better off (they may be
older people still in the larger family home after the children have left,
they may live in a listed building which cannot readily be made more
efficient etc). In any event, how comfortable should we be that energy
suppliers are used as the instrument of social policy (acting through large
and faceless multinational energy companies) rather than tackling the
problem directly via low pay legislation, the social security system,
housing standards etc?
2.
Renewable Energy
(a)
Technical
Renewable energy, by definition, is energy which can be extracted directly
from the ecosystem and which renews itself on a short/medium term basis.
This most obviously involves energy from wind, from rainfall via hydro
generation, from solar radiation by conversion to heat (passive solar) or
electricity (solar photovoltaics) and the action of the wave and tides. It
also can include energy from burning of timber wood or woody crop resources
where these can be re-grown relatively quickly (biomass) or from the natural
heat contained in the ground or water bodies (geothermal energy).
The
theoretical resource available from renewable sources is very large, and if
it could be harvested could easily supply global energy needs. Studies
suggest (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution) that UK could use this
route to a 60% carbon dioxide reduction. Recent work by the Forum for
Renewable Energy Development suggests Scotland could easily meet 40% of its
electricity needs from renewables by 2020 – using technologies currently
developed and at market.
Unlike coal, gas and nuclear, the resource is very much dispersed and does
not occur in a highly concentrated form (e.g. coal is highly compacted woody
material formed over millions of years). More advanced technologies for the
extraction of these dispersed renewable energy are not in general highly
developed – with the notable exceptions of hydro and wind power at large
scale. Extraction of energy from wave and tide are in very early stages of
development. Solar photovoltaics is moving from early to more advanced use
of material technologies. Biomass is the most widely used form of renewable
energy in the developing world (wood and animal dung combustion) but more
advanced technologies are beginning to be developed in the industrialised
world. Much technical work remains to be done to bring renewable
technologies to the level of advancement enjoyed by coal, gas and nuclear.
Renewable energy can be turned into a variety of other forms – most usually
electricity, but also hydrogen (through electrolysis) which can later be
burned or used in fuel cells for homes or vehicles. Biomass can also be used
to manufacture transport fuels (biodiesel or ethanol).
The
output of renewable energy sources can be intermittent (or more correctly
‘variable’). The wind does not always blow, tides turn around every twelve
hours etc. Since electricity cannot be easily stored (battery technologies
are not highly developed in spite of over 150 years of use) managing the
variability is a major issue. This could be technically addressed by use of
a range of sources and by more sophisticated demand management and by
greater use of the storage technologies we have in homes and on the network.
The
electricity network was not developed with small scale, highly dispersed,
variable output renewable energy sources in mind. If the full renewable
potential of Scotland were to be developed considerable extension of the
network to accommodate wind, wave and tidal energy would be required (these
resources are most abundant in the north and west whereas the population is
in the central belt and east) – development of this resource will inevitably
require major new network development. The network is currently controlled
through matching supply and demand by the central co-ordination of a small
number of very large generating stations. Extensive use of large amounts of
small variable output energy sources (whose output depends on wind, tide
etc.) will require new control technologies to be developed and implemented
– involving much network development at local and national level.
(b)
Economic
Renewable energy is a ‘free resource’. However as it occurs in a less
concentrated form, the capital cost of the plant for its extraction is in
general more extensive and hence more expensive per unit of installed
capacity (to get the same energy output over a year, one nuclear reactor
equates to 1,200 100meter high wind turbines). The total cost of renewable
energy per unit is therefore generally more expensive (with the clear
exception of large scale hydro power and possibly on-shore wind on a large
scale).
Since technologies for extracting most forms of renewable energy are not
well developed, considerable up-front investment will be needed to make them
truly competitive with coal and gas.
There is a strong body of argument that as coal and gas do not have to cover
the cost to society of the environmental damage they cause (climate change,
acid rain damage, reduced life expectancy due to air pollutions etc.) and
that if these costs – known as externality costs – are included then
renewables become competitive.
Economic instruments such as carbon taxes and carbon trading are being used
to attempt to correct the failure of the market to take into account of the
cost of environmental damage – however these will drive up the cost of
energy and potentially give Government large additional revenues (the
proceeds of the tax). They could also act in a regressive fashion – having a
disproportionately large impact on those less well off, who spend a larger
percentage of disposable income on energy needs.
Governments currently use a range of other mechanisms to directly support
and promote renewable energy – obligations on suppliers to source (using
competition amongst renewable generators large and small) a certain
percentage of energy from renewable sources (the Renewables Obligation in
Scotland requires an additional 10% by 2010 and 15% by 2020) with the
additional costs being passed by the supplier to customers in general. Other
countries pay a fixed premium price to all renewable generators and offer
free network connection (again with extra cost being passed to customers).
Grant schemes to cover part of the capital cost of equipment can be used
(Scottish Household and Community Renewable Initiative) as can technology
grants to developers (some £15m are being made available to develop marine
renewable technologies in the UK). These are funded from general taxation.
(c)
Ethical Questions
Electricity
generation from renewables is more expensive than from coal or gas – so long
as the cost of environmental damage is not included. But if the cost of
environmental damage is included energy prices will rise and will impact
more heavily on the less well off. Similarly UK industry will be made less
competitive than countries which have not taken action to address climate
change (with potential job losses etc.). Should we seek to protect the
environment at these costs? If so should fuel poverty and loss of
competitiveness be addressed via energy policy or social and taxation
policy?
Extensive use of renewable energy could meet a substantial percentage of
Scotland’s energy needs – but it would have a profound impact on landscape.
Tens of thousands of wind turbines up to 150m in height, considerable
amounts of agricultural land (15-20%?) turned over to growing new crops for
biomass (in monoculture, regular harvesting, large scale machinery etc.),
small wind turbines and solar panels on many roofs and gardens in our
suburbs altering the skyline etc. Unlike coal, gas and nuclear where a
handful of power stations in a limited number of locations can supply
Scotland’s needs without the vast majority of the populace being conscious
of their existence, a renewable future will be clear and obvious to all.
Should we preserve the landscape as it is by adopting a coal, gas or nuclear
route, or should we welcome the landscape change as it signals our personal
involvement with the energy we use?
Renewable energy sources are often most plentiful in remote and wilderness
areas – with low population density areas. These areas will be most affected
by the change. Similarly new electricity transmission lines will be required
to carry such energy to the centres of population and to manage the
variability of output. Those most affected by these changes might question
why their locality is being ‘disproportionately affected’ to provide for the
needs of others – but of course cities have little chance of being energy
self sufficient because of population density. How comfortable should we be
that some groups will suffer more to allow renewable development for society
as a whole?
Wave, tide and wind turbines placed far offshore (>20 miles) should reduce
considerably in cost and will have a lesser impact than onshore wind. But
these technologies are currently considerably more expensive and will not
converge in terms of price until developed at large scale via subsidies and
grants (some would say similar to those nuclear and coal used to attract!).
However some note also Scotland’s potential to be a leader in these new
technologies (and grow the kind of export industry Denmark did with onshore
wind). Should we be willing to push up energy costs or general taxation now
with a view to developing these technologies rapidly and hence benefiting in
the longer term?
Whilst it might seem unjustified to use any resource which will run out when
we have a resource which is unlimited, to what extent should we see it as
justifiable to use a limited resource as a ‘stepping stone’ to developing
long term solutions? Should we be content to use coal, oil and gas rather
than current onshore renewable technologies (with high environmental impact)
as we develop new renewable technologies with less impact? And in
extremis could some regard nuclear, with its small amount of controlled
waste as being a price worth paying to preserve the landscape?
3.
Fossil Fuels and Carbon Capture
(a)
Technical
Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas and peat) provide stores of
carbon/hydrocarbons produced by natural processes, but laid down over
geological periods of time – and hence not renewable in anything other than
the very long term. Estimates vary from source to source, but at projected
rates of usage we probably have reserves of the order of 50 years of oil, 80
years of natural gas and 200 years of coal. This of course does not allow
for major new sources (e.g. gas held in clathrate form in oceans) or highly
advanced extractive techniques not yet developed (e.g. in situ coal
gasification) – and hence could be regarded as a very conservative estimate.
The geographical distribution of fossil fuels reserves varies
considerably. Coal deposits are widespread, whereas those of oil and
particularly natural gas are rather more limited (in the case of natural
gas, the North Sea, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and parts of
North Africa hold the vast majority of reserves). The UK has been in the
fortunate (and comparatively unique) position in the EU of being self
sufficient in oil, gas and coal. This position is now being reversed as
coalmines have closed, North Sea oil has peaked and as we become a net
importer of natural gas via pipeline and ship import.
The
combustion of any fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide – in proportion to the
carbon content of coal. Therefore coal produces half as much carbon dioxide
per unit of output as natural gas, with oil in the middle of that range.
Emissions per unit of useful energy will depend on theoretical process
efficiency (determined by the second law of thermodynamics). Current
electricity generation from coal using Rankine cycle technology is around
38-40% efficient (close to the theoretical limit), whereas natural gas burnt
in a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine could achieve conversion efficiencies of
approaching 55%.
Technical developments could increase the useful energy output from the use
of fossil fuels. For example use of the waste heat from Rankine Cycle
electricity generation (Combined Heat and Power) could raise the efficiency
from 40% to the high 80s% (provided coal fired plant were built in city
centres and a heat distribution network developed) – similarly for gas
generation either centrally or in small ‘micro-generation’ units in the
home. Improvements in material technology can also increase the efficiency
(supercritical steam technology) yielding up to a 25% carbon dioxide
emission reduction in coal fired Rankine cycle generation. More advanced
combustion technologies (fluidised bed combustion or coal gasification and
combustion of the gas in Combined Cycle) can also reduce emissions per unit
output still further. There therefore is considerable scope for emission
reducing if existing plant were replaced by new technology plant burning
fossil fuels.
The
possibility exists to capture the carbon dioxide created during the
combustion of fossil fuels using a range of physical or chemical processes.
That captured carbon could then be disposed of in a variety of ways – piped
to and stored in exhausted oil and gas wells (where arguably it will be held
as was the original oil/gas reserve over geological periods of time) or
disposed of to deep ocean where the pressure at depth would hold it in solid
form. Disposal to depleted oil reserves (sometimes with extraction of
further reserves of oil – Enhanced Oil Recovery) has been proven at small
scale in the Norwegian North Sea (Sleipner and Barents) and in the US/Canada
(Weyburn) and is in trial in the North Africa (Salah). This could represent
a major opportunity for the UK in the light of the North Sea infrastructure
and potentially extend the life of certain reserves.
Carbon extraction technology also offers a route to the creation of hydrogen
for use as a clean fuel. Such a demonstration project is proposed by BP
using gas form the North Sea with power generation from hydrogen at
Peterhead and carbon dioxide disposal to the Miller field. Such technology
could also provide hydrogen for use as a road vehicle fuel. A similar
project has just been announced by Shell for gas fired generation and
methanol production at Tjeldbergodden in Mid Norway. Both are dependent on
Government funding.
(b)
Economic
The economics of
coal, oil and gas are highly dependent on world markets and geopolitics.
Coal is widespread and can be stored and hence its price is relatively
stable over time. The price of oil tends to be set by demand pattern and so
can be very volatile in times of shortage or even simply fears of shortage.
Oil majors (and pure economists) argue that such decoupling from production
cost produces price spikes which trigger new (and highly costly)
exploration. Longer-term natural gas prices have been based on long-term
contracts (gas has been seen as a by product of oil production) with
short-term natural gas prices linked to oil and hence more volatile. With
market liberalisation in the UK, run down in North Sea production and the
coming to an end of long term contracts we have recently seen considerable
and unaccustomed gas price volatility (this has been made more noticeable
here as markets are more liberalised in UK than Europe).
Fears now exist that with increasing demand for all fossil fuels (even coal
prices have risen somewhat as China and India use more of their vast
reserves internally and export less) price increase and volatility will be
the norm. Others fear that perverse (or collusive) action by suppliers will
lead to price spikes or shortages – this is particularly true of natural gas
with Russia and a few key pipelines being projected to be critical to
European supply by 2020. Some (the US) argue strongly for domestic energy
self sufficiency (and in the US case are boosting investment in domestic
coal mining and generation) whereas others (the EU) stress that trade is the
binding force that creates mutual benefit and hence political stability.
Capital costs for coal fired generation plant are higher than gas or oil,
but the fuel cost (and carbon emissions) is lower. As gas and oil prices
rise, existing coal-fired plant is used increasingly (driving up carbon
dioxide emissions). Applying carbon dioxide costs (via carbon trading under
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) should redress this balance, and indeed
drive the costs of coal – and eventually gas – towards the costs of nuclear
and renewables. Similarly this mechanism should in time make it economic to
close older coal fired plant and build gas, adopt higher technology coal
fired plant and in due course to adopt carbon capture and storage
technologies.
The
UK Government place great confidence in ‘the market’ to deliver the correct
generation mix and have thus far refused to intervene (albeit renewable
energy and energy efficiency have specific support mechanisms as Government
see failure to adopt these as evidence of market failure). The mix of coal,
gas and use of Combined Heat and Power (either small or large scale) – and
arguably nuclear - are therefore highly dependent on the view of the future
adopted by generators and suppliers. The cost of carbon emissions (driven by
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) now has come on the scene – but the future
targets and scope are uncertain beyond 2012. It is arguably therefore very
difficult for an investor in new power plant with a payback period of up to
twenty years and a lifetime of forty to make an informed decision – and as
is always the case, investment risk means that a higher rate of return will
be required.
The
development of new technologies – advanced coal combustion by gasification,
carbon capture and storage etc. will require considerable ‘up front’
investment. Countries such as the US and Japan have been and continue to be
willing to channel large sums to industry and utilities for these purposes,
whereas the UK have made only limited sums available (UK £20m for the Carbon
Abatement Technology project as opposed to $2bn for the US FutureGen project
to construct and demonstrate a zero carbon emission coal plant with
production of hydrogen as a road transport fuel).
(c)
Ethical Questions
Fossil reserves (particularly coal) remain comparatively abundant; at least
for the lifetime of the next generation of plant build. Would it be
justified to continue to use these reserves, recognising they would not be
available for future generations, so long as we use that opportunity to
develop the next generation of carbon free and low resource use technologies
– renewables or nuclear and energy efficiency?
Should we seek to be self sufficient in providing our energy needs, or
should we recognise that trade could build a more stable political
framework, increase prosperity and well being in parts of the world with few
other resources and so add to the broader aims of Sustainable Development?
Carbon capture and storage offers the ability to use coal as a fuel for some
considerable time to come – and could be a viable alternative to large-scale
nuclear development (indeed the Royal Commission Report details just such a
possibility). How comfortable would we feel about leaving carbon dioxide in
stored form in exhausted oil and gas wells or in deep ocean? Are there
parallels with nuclear waste (indeed the volume of nuclear waste and hence
the task on keeping tabs on it would be much simpler) and should we reject
leaving any waste for the future? …. Or could we regard carbon dioxide in an
underground reservoir as similar to natural gas (a potent greenhouse gas
too) or the naturally occurring pockets of carbon dioxide in the earth’s
crust as a perfectly acceptable land use (take out the hydrocarbon, put back
the carbon dioxide – it was there anyway).
How
comfortable are we that the market should be allowed to deliver the mix of
fuel use and control the trajectory towards lower emissions generation?
Market design and emissions trading are complex ways to so do – but have
Governments been very good at such central planning in the past? How
confident could we be that Government would get it right?
Countries such as US and Japan are using R&D spend as a way to develop
skills and new technology for political ends in their energy infrastructure,
but also to give their manufacturing industry a competitive advantage
(indeed the US led ‘Kyoto alternative’ is based on such technology
transfer). However this will drive up the general burden of taxation and
energy costs internally – given the risks involved in developing new
technologies is this a justifiable approach?
4.
Nuclear Power
(a)
Technical
Civil nuclear power technology is well developed and technically proven.
Developments of existing designs (the AP1000) and new designs (eg 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.
(b)
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 suited 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.
(c)
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 achieve 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 a 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 it 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.
However, other communities, 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?
5. Conclusion
The
Church of Scotland consultation response expressed support for the following
broad principles, which follow lines similar to those set out by the
Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy:
Duty to care for the disadvantaged and less well off. (healthy and just
society);
Need to adopt a ‘stewardship’ approach to resource use and preservation of
the environment. (living within environmental limits and using sound
science responsibly);
Duty to make best use of resources and our own talents for ‘the greater
good’. (achieving a sustainable economy and ensuring a just society);
Respect for all
people and the desire to ensure broad community and individual involvement
to key issues both in Scotland and throughout the world.
(achieving a sustainable economy and ensuring a just
society);
Addressing intergenerational equity, not taking a benefit today at the
expense of leaving a difficult legacy for future generations. (living
within environmental limits).
