For as long as most of us can remember –
at least the last 60 years or so – nuclear fusion reactors have been the great
promise for the future, and they’ve always been just 20-30 years in the future.
Based on experience to date, and the problems still to be overcome, I will
confidently predict that, 20-30 years from now, operating fusion reactors will
still be just 20-30 years away. Only in the land of make-believe (otherwise
known as Global Britain) would local authorities be putting time and effort
into bidding
to host a power plant which we don’t yet know how to build and which is
unlikely to be built for at least half a century. In the meantime, the only type
of nuclear power generation which we do know how to build and operate is the
fission reactor, and any realistic talk of expanding nuclear power production is
inevitably going to be based on that technology. And whilst there has long been
talk of alternatives to uranium and plutonium (such as thorium), switching to a
different technology would itself add time and cost to the development of the
first power stations.
When nuclear energy generation started in
the 1950s, the promise was that the electricity would be ‘too cheap to meter’,
a forecast which has been proved spectacularly wrong. As things stand, I don’t
believe that there is a single nuclear power project, anywhere in the world,
which is not both much-delayed and running hopelessly over budget; pinning the
hopes for future energy generation on this technology looks like a triumph of
hope over experience and reality (which is at least, I suppose, a good match
for the PM’s natural temperament). To add to the uncertainty, the UK government
seems to be pinning its hopes on building a new type of reactor, or Small
Modular Reactors as they are known. Whilst it would be unfair to refer to this
as an entirely untested technology, it is nevertheless true that there is only
one such reactor actually operating in the world today. And – ooh, look, it’s Russian.
I’m sure that they’ll be willing to share their experience to help us free ourselves
of dependence on Russian fossil fuels. They’ll probably see it as an
opportunity to sell us their uranium instead. Even with the best will in the
world, and a great deal of luck, the idea that these power plants will be
rolling off a production line somewhere within the next few years is credible
only to those who believe in unicorns and the benefits of Brexit. Which brings
us, of course, to the current UK government. Today’s announcement of what it refers
to as an ‘energy strategy’ (a title chosen, presumably, because it is neither a
workable strategy and nor will it generate much electricity anytime soon) talks
of there being 6 or 7 new power stations operating by 2050 – by the time the
sunlight hits those uplands, it will have been filtered through so many
sky-borne pies as to leave us in almost total darkness.
Even if the timescales were remotely
achievable, and even if the unsolved problems of dealing with the radioactive
waste could be solved (I assume that Ynys Môn council will be volunteering to
host at least its share of the waste for a few thousand years in the meantime,
given its enthusiasm for the technology), the proposals put forward today would
still be, at the very best, a long-term solution to an immediate problem. And a
very costly solution at that. It’s a huge missed
opportunity; there are plenty of other quick and effective things which the
UK and Europe could and should do to bring to an immediate end the dependence
on Russian fossil fuels, including more energy-saving measures.
There are a number of possible reasons for
the failure to act now. One of them is the attempt to minimise the pain felt
domestically; but all of the so-called ‘crippling’ sanctions on Russia will
have little impact whilst European countries continue to pay Russia billions
for oil and gas. Trying to stop the war ‘painlessly’ is a recipe for the
continuation of the slaughter. Another is the continued insistence on
competition rather than collaboration as a guiding principle. Germany drags its
feet over cancelling gas contracts, the UK has been slow to impose penalties
which would impact its financial sector; both are looking after their own
interests rather than working together. Sharing available resources – and the
pain involved in a reduction in availability – would be much more effective.
But I can’t help but wonder whether there
isn’t another, more Johnsonian, element to the publication of today’s ‘strategy’.
His whole career is littered with the remnants of grand and expensive plans,
announced to a great fanfare, which solve nothing in the short term but can be talked
up incessantly for a year or two before being quietly abandoned before they
start to cost serious money. Being seen to ‘act’ (i.e. talk) now is a way of doing
nothing in the end. It’s his whole modus operandi – why would he change now?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment