Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea! A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’. A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...
‘All of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, announcing an extra £14.2bn allocation for the proposed new Sizewell C reactor. Putting it charitably, he seems to have been poorly informed. As I noted in an earlier post, there are many expert studies suggesting that there is no need for nuclear and that, in fact, it is a poor choice compared with renewables - which are cheaper as a way to respond to climate change . At least one of the submissions that I have seen to the ongoing Nuclear Roadmap Inquiry , run by the energy security and net zero Select Committee, takes a similar line- nuclear is too costly, slow and unreliable, with offshore wind being a better option. However, it seems that the Select Committee will not start work on its report until later in the year, so it may be a while before we can see the results of its deliberations and all the submissions. And, meanwhile, the ...