Podium: Nuclear power can help, not harm

FIVE YEARS ago, headlines such as "Nuclear Power Vital for Climate Targets" and "Scientists Want More Nuclear Power" would have been unthinkable. But these were in the press following last month's publication of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's research into the future of nuclear energy.

At last, some considered, timely and independent thinking into nuclear energy - "the unspoken option". Acknowledging the one area of energy policy where there continues to be a powerful urge to ignore the facts, the research studied the role of nuclear. Measured against the full range of current and potential technologies, their findings embody a growing realisation: it is vital to keep the nuclear option open.

Nuclear meets about 30 per cent of the UK's electricity needs. Nuclear is the largest single source of electricity in Europe - about 35 per cent. The UK nuclear industry is providing high-quality jobs for about 30,000 people, with a further 70,000 indirect jobs - adding up to considerable wealth creation. British Energy's generating stations are operating successfully within a competitive market.

What it does not generate is millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy is climate-friendly. It emits virtually none of the gases that cause global warming. About 63 million tonnes of CO2 would have been emitted last year if nuclear's generating output had been from coal and gas plant. This is the equivalent of nearly half the emissions from Britain's road vehicles.

Without nuclear energy, the UK would have found it very difficult to meet its Rio greenhouse gas commitment. Thanks to nuclear, we stand a good chance of being able to meet the Kyoto obligations in 2010. But what then? Unfortunately, that seems to be the limit to forward planning.

Over the next 20 years or so, all of Britain's existing nuclear stations, except Sizewell B, will have closed. By 2025, nuclear energy's contribution will have fallen from supplying 30 per cent of the nation's needs, to a mere 3 per cent. We approach a cliff edge.

We are going to see a yawning CO2 gap open up. Of course, renewables have an important part to play, but CO2 savings from energy efficiency, increased renewables and fuel switching will be swallowed up just attempting to close the gap, which will increase still further with a modest increase in electricity demand. The Commons Trade and Industry Committee recognised this and last year urged the Government to give serious consideration to the need for new nuclear building.

It is true that it is currently uneconomic for British Energy to start serious planning for a new station. New nuclear plant is at a competitive disadvantage compared with gas. A typical gas power station of around 800MW can be built within two to three years at a cost of about pounds 300m. A nuclear station, admittedly half as big again, would cost about pounds 1.8bn and, judging by Sizewell B, take well over a decade to complete the planning process and be constructed. No contest in terms of rate of return.

How could we make new build attractive? Government sympathy will be essential for anyone even to consider new nuclear construction. A streamlined version of the planning process will assist not only the nuclear industry but also renewables, and major engineering and construction projects.

The third point is perhaps the most interesting. There is no level playing- field for electricity generation. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale type of generation required to cover the costs of its environmental impact. We internalise these, via provisions for decommissioning and waste treatment and disposal. At the same time we are helping other forms of generation deal with their most significant environmental impact by making such a large contribution to limiting CO2 emissions.

If all fossil-fuel generators had to meet these costs, the economics would move in nuclear's favour. In fact, the costs of greenhouse and acid rain gases in terms of global warming, health impacts and so on, are simply passed to society.

So perhaps it is not surprising that we support both a carbon tax and carbon trading via an emissions permit scheme. Both could have a significant impact on CO2 emissions from electricity production because they would target the problem at source.

Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable and almost carbon-free source of electricity. With progress towards a consensus on waste management and recognition of the climate issues, just maybe Everest is beginning to look a little less steep.