The previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat government stated that “We need to make our economy and businesses more sustainable… and also reduce our environmental impact” (Gov,2015) and one of the ways to achieve this would be for the UK to find a way of producing energy in a more sustainable and environmentally sound manner. For energy production to be sustainable, it must be affordable and available for the current UK population and also viable for the future generations and to be environmentally sound, environmental damage caused as a result of generating energy must be on a small scale. The possibility of nuclear power being the solution to the problem of providing energy to meet the demands of the world’s growing population at the same time as conserving global biodiversity is being proposed by some scientists (Brook and Bradshaw, 2015). However other scientists (IES, 2011) and campaign groups (Greenpeace, 2015) question the environmental safety of nuclear power, and to fully assess whether nuclear power is the most sustainable method of producing energy, other forms of energy production, especially renewable methods, need to be evaluated.
One of the main advantages to Nuclear power is the fact that almost no carbon dioxide is produced in the generation of energy. With global warming being one of the biggest environmental challenges facing the UK, any method of generating energy that is carbon-neutral is highly beneficial. Global surface temperatures are increasing by 0.13 degrees C per decade (NOAA, 2007), and if this continues, sea levels will rise, which will affect coastal regions of the UK. The Thames Estuary 2100 Project predicts that over the next century the Thames may rise 90cm, which would put parts of London at risk of increased flooding. The fact that less carbon will be emitted per year to the atmosphere if Britain adopts a greater dependence on nuclear power clearly highlights that nuclear power can be environmentally sound, certainly more so than coal-powered stations, the DRAX Selby plant being an example, which emits 20,500,000 tons of CO2 per year (CARMA, 2009).
However, other scientists mention that although during operation nuclear power is practically carbon neutral, (Nature, 2008) carbon dioxide is still emitted during; the commissioning of the plant, the mining of the Uranium, transportation and decommissioning (Nature, 2008). Sovacool, 2008 estimated the mean amount of CO2 produced by nuclear power at 66 gCO2e/kWh taking into account the above sources of emission. Sovacool argues that money would be better spent investing in renewables such as wind and solar photovoltaic power which, over their operating lifetime emit two and six times as less CO2 respectively (Sovacool, 2008). Certainly from the point of view of carbon emissions, solar photovoltaic and wind power are more environmentally sound. Furthermore, CO2 emissions are not the only environmental drawback to nuclear power, the other major issue is radioactive contamination.
Radioactive contamination can be caused from spent fuel which has to be securely stored for and nuclear disasters like the Fukushima accident in 2011, which released large amounts of radiation into the surrounding environment (Worldnuclear). Radiation can cause genetic deformities in local wildlife populations as can be seen around the Chernobyl exclusion zone. A large nuclear explosion at a power plant would have the capacity for widespread environmental destruction through the devastation caused by the shockwave. However, this is unlikely, and as Brooks and Bradshaw (2015) state, new developments in nuclear technology are looking promising in increasing the safety of nuclear power. One such solution is fast breeder reactors which use up the majority of waste fuel and have the capacity to shut them self’s down in the event of a control systems failure (Brook and Bradshaw, 2015).
Wind and solar photovoltaic power are not without their environmental impacts either. Firstly, for solar farms to generate sufficient electricity for the UK, with its relatively low levels of sunlight compared to; for example, the Mediterranean, large areas of land will be needed to house the large panels, and a certain amount of habitat will need to be destroyed. However as Solar-trade, 2015 point out, wildflowers can be grown around the solar panels and this provides a valuable nectar source for bees, thus offsetting some of the habitat destruction. The environmental impact of wind power is similar to that of solar photovoltaics in the fact that on-shore wind farms will involve some habitat destruction. Another negative environmental impact of wind power is the threat to bird like raptors which can be killed flying into rotating blades (Boyle ed. Taylor, 2004). This has happened in the UK with the re-introduced White-tailed Sea Eagle suffering at least one mortality (Fifetoday, 2014). However, on average the bird mortalities from a single turbine are at worst 1-2 birds per year (Boyle ed. Taylor, 2004) which is a negligible impact, only severe if apex predators or endangered species are killed. So compared to nuclear power, renewables are more environmentally sound. However, their sustainability also needs to be assessed.
For nuclear power to be sustainable it must meet the needs of current and future generations. Currently, nuclear power is available relatively cheaply to UK consumers at £80/MWh (2012 10% discount rate) compared to solar £170/MWh and offshore wind £118-130/MWh.(GOV,) So in terms of cost nuclear power is more readily available to the general UK population at levels which the more people can afford. Moreover, the UK currently generates 18% of its electricity from 16 nuclear power stations (Worldnuclear, 2015) and the fact that complete fission of 1kg of uranium-235 produces 2-3 million times as much energy than 1kg of coal which has undergone complete combustion (Euronuclear, 2015), it is clear that nuclear power is very accessible to the general UK population and thus fulfilling the first criteria of sustainability.
However, the long-term future of nuclear power is far from certain. Currently the UK is due to close all but two of its nuclear power plants by 2023 (World nuclear, 2015) and re-commissioning and building new plants is going to come at a high price with a new plant at Hinckley Point costing as much as £18bn to build (BBC, 2015) for which China has had to supply 1/3 of the cost. Moreover, there is uncertainty about whether supplies of uranium will last in the future and if a global shift to nuclear power occurs, uranium will be used up at an increased rate with statistical models (springsustainability, 2011) predicting that reserves may be unsustainable by 2016, therefore being unavailable for future generations. However fast-breeder reactors will prolong the use of uranium by a factor of 50 so if more of these power stations are built, nuclear power may be sustainable for the future, and if nuclear fusion is made available for power generation the fuel can technically be unlimited (SETIS, 2011).
In contrast, the UK will always have sunlight and wind so in terms of future availability wind and solar power seem more certain. However, to meet energy demands substantial amounts of energy will need to be generated by solar and wind power which will require a large amount of land thus causing widespread habitat destruction. Also there are problems with the uncertainty of wind and solar power as the UK may not have sufficient wind speeds during the summer for large scale wind power generation to meet the needs of the UK (OXFORD UNIVERSITY, and this problem would be exuberated if a high-pressure system covers the UK (Laughton, 2002) Finally demand may outstrip supply if a surge is needed at night when solar photovoltaics can not generate electricity. Therefore, on their own wind and solar power are unlikely to be sustainable.