Despite numerous anti-nuclear protests which took place in many countries this week and were timed for the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl catastrophe and recent events at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, most governments are not going to abandon nuclear energy.
This opinion was proved by Charles Hendry, British minister for energy and climate change, who visited a conference on Chornobyl in Kyiv and explained why he still saw a future for nuclear energy.
Bogdan, right, stands next to a picture from the city of Pripyat, Ukraine at an exhibition commemorating 25 years since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Bucharest, Romania, Tuesday, April 26, 2011.
Kyiv Post: When Chornobyl nuclear power plant exploded in 1986, everybody thought it was a bad luck or the fault of Soviet authorities. Thus, 25 years later, an accident repeated in a highly developed state such as Japan after the huge earthquake damaged Fukushima plant. Has it occurred to you that people will suffer more and more from radiation pollution in the future and the next accident is only a matter of time?
Charles Hendry: Our top priority in looking at nuclear is going to be safety. The types of reactors which we are looking at are 50 years more modern than the ones at Fukushima and Chornobyl. We have asked our independent inspector to look at what lessons should we learn in Britain from what is happening at Fukushima. If there are any lessons which we can learn on safety we will do so.
KP: Do you think that the mankind should refuse using nuclear energy at all after Chornobyl and Fukushima if we don’t want life on Earth to disappear some day?
CH: No I don’t think. We believe that nuclear is first way to see a good low carbon source of electricity. It enables us to meet our climate change requirements. It’s also the most affordable large scale low carbon technology. We do think it has an important role to play especially with the ever increasing focus on safety.
KP: Is there an alternative to nuclear energy?
CH: In Britain we are looking at a range of different technologies, we are not going to become reliant on one. So that we think that the nuclear will be a part of that mix. We want to see a major role out of renewables. We are looking at onshore and particularly offshore wind. At the moment 6 percent of our electricity generation comes from renewable sources. We are required by the EU directive to reach a situation by 2020 where 30 percent of our electricity has to come from renewable sources. We are very keen to develop the carbon capture technologies for coal, oil and gas which enable decreasing carbon emissions significantly.
KP: Is it possible that some day alternative sources of energy will substitute nuclear energy?
CH: We have looked at a number of ways in which we can reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. That’s a very demanding goal but we are legally required to do it. Nuclear is an important part of that. We can get that without it but it would be more expansive. So, in terms of the low carbon electricity, which nuclear can provide and at a more affordable cost for consumers, we see continuing case for nuclear. The renewables cannot provide the base load. While the nuclear can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week whereas for wind we can’t stall the electricity for the moment. Nuclear has an ability to be predictable.
KP: So, as I understand there is no alternative for nuclear energy?
CH: If it was felt that nuclear couldn’t be a part of future because of safety concerns there are other ways in which we can make those low carbon objectives but they are more expensive in most cases. So, yes, there is an alternative but we are still committed to trying to take forward nuclear.
KP: Hundreds of nuclear power plants are being built now in the world and hundreds are planned to be built. Whether these plans will be suspended after the recent events at Fukushima?
CH: I think different countries will take different approaches. To some extend it depends on where nations are in terms of needing to rebuild their energy infrastructure. A lot of the British electricity plants are old and needed to be replaced in any case. It’s old coal, old nuclear. So we are looking at a major rebuilding program, perhaps 200 billion pounds of new investment over the next 15 years. We have looked at 8 potential sites for new build which have two or three reactors on each site and could be developed by 2025. A very different approach is being taken in Germany from other countries. Germany has more spare capacity in the system and they need not this new building. It will close most of their nuclear power plants by 2021.
KP: Who can guarantee the same won’t happen in any other country what happened in Ukraine or Japan?
CH: I think what happened in Ukraine was because of the way technology. But technology has now moved on and that could not happen in the same way again. The issues in Japan were very large earthquake and tsunami which particularly affected the backup which had a catastrophic effect on the nuclear plant itself. There are lessons which we need to learn how one protects plants against extreme weather conditions but nuclear otherwise has very strong safety record. It has one of the strongest safety records than any other electricity generating supply sources, comparing to the thousands of people who are killed every year in coal mines. The difference between the safety records for nuclear comparing to anything else is something which is still very positive. We won’t cut cones. We are not going to take risks of this respect. Safety will be absolutely our top priority.
Читайте об этом на www.kyivpost.ua
Kyiv Post staff writer Oksana Faryna can be reached at [email protected]
