Britain: a nuclear renaissance?

If you remember, last week I focused on how France has used nuclear energy as a key tool to increase it's energy independence and boost electricity generation. The same story is starting to emerge in Britain in my opinion. Successive British governments have not really been too keen on nuclear energy, with one government White Paper in 2003 titled 'Creating a Low Carbon Economy' stating that 'current economics make nuclear energy an unattractive option'. Given the fluctuating nature of politics, however, government intentions have since changed. Speaking at the World Nuclear Association Symposium in London during 2013, the former Minister of State of Energy (now Secretary of State for Defence), Michael Fallon gave a long speech outlining the Coalition governments energy agenda. Amid all of the political posturing in the speech, three quotes really caught my attention:

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

I would like to use these three quotes to analyse whether Britain has made a turn towards nuclear energy, or whether these words are just plain political talk and nothing else.

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

The government has sent positive signals in regards to investment in energy infrastructure. As part of the Autumn Statement in 2016, Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced a £23 billion funding in order to boost energy infrastructure, including funding for nuclear power plants. Such investment is not just restricted for building energy infrastructure, but also for maintenance and innovation. UK and China have also promised to co-fund a £50 million nuclear research centre called Joint Research and Innovation Centre (JRIC) in Cumbria which will help to develop new nuclear reactors and aid research in power generation systems.

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be a part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

Signs since 2009 suggest that the UK government is trying it's best to be seen as an attractive location for nuclear investment. As Lee (2009) explains, the government has established the Office for Nuclear Development which brought forward stakeholders such as engineers and scientists together in order to facilitate a nuclear plant building programme. This has since borne fruit, as the government confirmed the building of the Hinkley Point C power plant project in Somerset through agreements with EDF and the Chinese government on 15th September 2016. This £18 billion project through international cooperation is certainly a signal for other foreign investors that the British government is open to investment in it's nuclear sector as subsidies are being provided for nuclear plants which should encourage other countries/organisations.

Plans for the Hinkley Point C plant 

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

Payne and Keep (2011) have argued that British policy has often focused too much on boosting the supply of workers rather than working on skills and what employees want. For some time that indeed has been the case, however that has now started to change. The governments Skills Funding Agency has collaborated with nuclear energy providers such as EDF to offer training in radiation monitors and nuclear power plant management which has helped many people, particularly young people in their search for well-paid work and training (have a look at my earlier post about nuclear power providing jobs for more information).

Future direction

By reviewing these three quotes from Michael Fallon in 2013, it is clear that the UK is experiencing a nuclear renaissance. The government now seems to be focused on investing in energy infrastructure, whilst at the same time trying to build skills to ensure the long term sustainability of the nuclear industry. The real question is how these plans pan out alongside the uncertainty resulting in the form of the Brexit vote. Another interesting observation by Harris et al. (2013) is that the cost of building a nuclear power project can increase during construction and sometimes the construction time can lengthen. This could have implications for current and future projects so the government must make sure that it considers these factors.

France: a nuclear paradise?

I was recently researching countries which used nuclear energy as part of their electricity generation and was quite surprised to find that France, our neighbour, generated 75% of it's electricity from nuclear energy - higher than any other country in the world.

Share of nuclear energy as a percentage of electricity generation

This development of nuclear energy in France essentially started right after World War Two for military purposes, however due to the oil shock of 1973 which saw rising oil prices, France decided to use nuclear energy in order to boost it's energy independence (Wiliarty 2013). Many years later, France now has 58 nuclear plants in total - overshadowing many of it's European countries including the UK. Some may ask: has there been any benefit? Well, the evidence certainly suggests so. France has one of the cheapest energy prices in Europe; on average, each kilowatt hour (kWh) that is used costs 8.02p, whereas the figure is 14.78p in the UK. Not only that, but a study by Accenture and the World Economic Forum rated the French energy system 3rd best in the world, awarding it high marks for sustainability in terms of it's nuclear sector. All the signs suggest that France is a successful example of how nuclear energy can be harnessed for positive electricity generation. Perhaps countries such as the UK should learn from this French example and try to replicate the success.

The two trump cards that nuclear energy has

Chances are that you have probably heard of the phrase 'peak oil', coined by Marion Hubbert in 1956 to describe the point in global history where resources of oil start to deplete. Where concerns regarding the viability of oil and other resources such as coal start to emerge, I think nuclear power is best placed for our global energy future for two main reasons - jobs and lower emissions:

Lower greenhouse gas emissions

As compared to energy resources such as oil and natural gas, nuclear energy releases zero, if not minimal gases such as carbon dioxide and methane which cause the greenhouse effect. As the graph below shows, nuclear energy has one of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (29 tonnes/GWh) as compared to coal (888) or oil (733). In the presence of such carbon intensive resources, nuclear energy could really become the real alternative and ensure clean energy production. 

Greenhouse gas emissions by energy source 

With global temperatures increasing at a steady rate as the Mauna Loa graph shows, nuclear energy could really benefit countries around the world. Nuclear energy could especially help countries who are more susceptible to climate change such as UAE and Saudi Arabia by providing them with a low-carbon energy system that could help stabilise levels of CO2 (Al Farra and Abu-Hiljeh 2012).

Monthly mean CO2 concentrations (ppm)

Job opportunities

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. It is something every living person must do throughout their life in order to earn money and live a happy life. Guess what? Nuclear energy provides just that. According to a white paper in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear plants create some of the largest economic benefits in terms of providing more employment than any other electricity generating technology - each plant requires at least 400-700 permanent workers on average. Not only do nuclear plants create direct jobs, but there are also many indirect jobs that are created. By 2020, nuclear related industries in the US are expected to create around 250,000 indirect jobs through sectors such as operations, construction and management (Kenley et al. 2009 study based on 40 nuclear energy suppliers). 

Job creation through nuclear power in USA

If the production of nuclear energy is increased, imagine the impact that would have on unemployment across the world, especially in the developing world! The impact of nuclear energy on employment is not just prominent in the US, but also back home in the UK. 65,000 people are estimated to be employed in the nuclear industry in the UK, and almost 2000 are on apprenticeship programmes. In a time where many coal power plants are closing down, the rise of nuclear energy could be used to retrain the skills of many workers and help them have careers where there is long term sustainability and job security. I particularly like this video of 21 year old, Ben Lewis who has been working as an apprentice on the Hinkley Point C power plant in Somerset. He explains how he has worked towards qualifications, whilst at the same time worked in roles such as construction and regulation. Have a look at it below:

Cold Fusion: scientific utopia or revolution?

Despite the environmental and security risks associated with nuclear energy that I have talked about, not everything is doom and gloom. There are many innovative and interesting developments that are taking place in nuclear science which show a positive way forward. One of these developments is called cold fusion - something which has caused a massive stir in the scientific community. Cold fusion is the theory in which nuclear fusion can occur at or close to room temperature. Nuclear reactions normally occur at high temperatures, however a 1989 experiment by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, two American scientists supposedly showed that fusion could occur at low temperatures. The experiment basically involved a chemical reaction between deuterons (stable isotopes of hydrogen) which caused the release of helium, alongside tritium (radioactive element) without causing substantial levels of radiation (Storms 2010). The most interesting thing, however, is that the two scientists conducted the experiment using quite simple equipment. A normal flask was filled with a solution of deuterium and a cube of palladium metal was inserted into the water alongside an electrical current which turned the metal into vapour and apparently caused radioactivity (see image below).

An illustration of how the initial cold fusion experiment was carried out

At first this experiment made headlines in the scientific community,  even featuring in a US government report, however as reported in 'Nature', it was quickly was dismissed as a mere joke.
Why was this the case? The reason is that many scientists repeated this experiment with varied results  and quite a few reported that there was no obvious detectable radiation present - even if there was some level of radiation, it should have led to some health consequences, but it didn't. Similarly, Platt (1989) reported in a study that not all cells present in the experiment had the same effect. Despite this scientific ruckus, such experiments are still being carried out across the world where some people have claimed success - have a look at this video below by JL Naudin who carried out a cold fusion experiment:

Benefits of Cold Fusion

Hoax or not, the theory of cold fusion could be revolutionary if proved true. Deuterium, the element used in cold fusion, is quite abundant around the world, and in the words of Daviss (2003), 'a cubic kilometre of ordinary lake or ocean water contains enough deuterium to rival the combustion energy in all the world's known oil reserves'.  Not only would it conserve oil and gas resources, it could provide a real solution to the global warming crisis (Storms 2010) as it would create no harmful gases and could lead to cheaper energy access. That could truly be a game changer for many people, especially many in the developing world in my opinion who are more susceptible to the risks of energy insecurity and climate change. Win-win situation! To some, cold fusion may still seem like a scientific utopia. However, scientists have achieved bigger things in the past so this cold fusion theory may not seem as far-fetched as first thought. Plus, it could even power our cars - that would really benefit me! 

Threat from North Korea

The threat from nuclear proliferation (which I discussed in my post last week) is quite strong from North Korea, a state that has made headlines through the past couple of years. At the time of writing this post, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) issued a statement which expressed a 'grave concern' regarding North Korea's missile launches. North Korea, according to Nikitin (2012), has around 50kg of plutonium which could be used to create at least 6 nuclear weapons, many of which can be used to attack it's arch rival South Korea at will. The start of North Korea's nuclear program can be traced back to around 1956 where Soviet assistance helped the country to set up it's first nuclear reactors. Another striking news investigation report surfaced in 2002 by the New York Times which claimed that Pakistan supplied the North Korean government equipment such as centrifuges and uranium which was crucial in the development of it's nuclear program. If such reports are correct, then this is a massive embarrassment in the face of nuclear non-proliferation and a key failure of international institutions in their attempt to regulate nuclear trade around the world.

Map of North Korea's nuclear facilities 

The striking thing is that North Korea has the capability to produce both uranium and plutonium weapons - plutonium is considered to be more strong than uranium. Despite repeated trade embargoes and sanctions placed by organisations and countries, North Korea has not halted it's nuclear program. Instead, it has repeatedly provoked South Korea (who does not possess nuclear weapons) by threatening it with nuclear attacks through speeches and loud speaker broadcasts. Not only that, but it has provoked it's neighbour militarily through regular shelling and military drills (see the timeline below). 

North Korea's history of provocation

In a analysis of media sources, Park (2013), writing for the Journal of Media and Communication Studies argues that the level of nuclear threat posed by North Korea has often been exaggerated by the mainstream media outlets that are present. I personally disagree with this study, as military provocations and regular speeches by Kim-Jong-Un, the leader of North Korea, are certainly not exaggerated by the media - in fact these are credible threats that would shock any country around the world. The fear is that countries such as Japan and South Korea, countries that have been threatened by North Korea, might be forced to start their own nuclear programmes (Hughes 2007). If that is the case, then surely this is a downward spiral towards greater insecurity and risk - both of which will undermine the positive uses of nuclear energy that I will discuss later in my blog.

Nuclear weapons: a geopolitical threat?

In my earlier posts, I have talked about the risks posed by nuclear energy which is primarily used for generating electricity. However, we must turn our attention towards nuclear weapons which are becoming a more prominent geopolitical threat for our global society. In a normal nuclear reactor, the chain reaction (splitting of the uranium atom) is controlled and moderated (see my second blog post for more information) however in a nuclear bomb the chain reaction is uncontrolled. We have all probably heard of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 by American forces which led to the death of around 200,000 innocent people. Ever since then, nuclear proliferation has increased rapidly and many nuclear powers around the world have increased their nuclear arsenal. A yearly study by Norris and Kristensen (2009) has reported that Russia and the United States possess 96% of the world's global nuclear inventory. Apart from that, other countries have also developed their own nuclear weapons as I will explain below.

Worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons

Nine countries are reported to possess nuclear weapons globally, however Israel has not acknowledged the existence of it's program.

Countries with nuclear weapons worldwide 

This worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons for military purposes is not the only thing which we should be concerned about. The second aspect is to look at the number of nuclear warheads that each country possesses: 

Nuclear warhead inventory (by country)

Essentially, nuclear warheads are weapons that can be fitted into missiles and rockets for the purpose of attacking. Technological advancements have meant that warheads are becoming more minituarised and sophisticated (O'Nions 2002) meaning that they can be fitted onto smaller devices.  The danger which arises is the fact that many countries such as North Korea (which I will talk about next week) are developing the ability to produce miniaturised weapons that are used to attack neighbouring countries. The threat to neighbouring countries can also be seen through the Pakistan-India example. In order to confront the threat posed by arch-rivals India, Pakistan is developing it's short-range nuclear arsenal and is expected to have around 250 warheads by the end of 2025 (Kristensen and Norris 2015). And in many cases this nuclear arsenal can go into the hands of non state actors....

Terrorist access to to nuclear weapons

It seems like the stuff out of a Marvel superhero movie - but the threat is real. Barack Obama, speaking at an International Security Summit in April 2016 has warned that ISIS and other terrorist organisations might be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Whilst some of you may dismiss this threat as simple fear-mongering, I would disagree completely. Many of the world's nuclear installations are located in 'global trouble spots' according to Hynes et al. (2006) and this means that the chance of rogue employees working in the nuclear selling nuclear equipment in the black market remains highly probable. Compounding this problem is the fact that many countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and this means that any high-ranking official within these countries could export nuclear expertise or equipment to anyone. The possibilities in my opinion are endless. An ISIS magazine in 2015 claimed that it was close to buying a nuclear weapon from Pakistan through it's links with the Pakistan military establishment - have a look at this news story from the Indian channel 'Indian Today':

Chernobyl: the mother of all nuclear disasters

Any discussion regarding the risk of nuclear energy is incomplete in my opinion without the discussion of the Chernobyl disaster which took place on 26 April, 1986. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so I thought I would share these emotional images taken by British photographer Michael Day who visited the ghost town of Pripyat in Northern Ukraine in 2011 to witness the horrors of the disaster. Looking at these pictures, it it hard to believe that this bustling town was home to 40,000 people at some point in history.

An abandoned room inside the Palace of Culture in Pripyat

Empty lecture theatre

Empty town of Pripyat

Causes of the Chernobyl disaster

The cause of the disaster have been hotly debated and still remains a cause for concern for many scientists around the world. Essentially, stress tests were initiated in order to see how the nuclear plant would react to a power failure, however the reactor capacity was dropped to around 20%. On top of that, Kortov and Ustyantsev (2013) claim that the insertion of protection rods led to an immense increase in reactivity which led to a blast. The immense scale of the reactor explosion could be blamed upon the lack of equipment which was present at the site according to a report commissioned by the Ukrainian government (edited by Baloga in 2011). Staff did not have adequate access to radiometric equipment which meant that the radiation levels around the plant could not be measured straight after the accident struck according to the Nuclear Energy Institute's investigation - this caused the death of 28 reactor staff.

100 times more radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear disaster was released by the fire which raged for over 10 days. As the figure below shows, increased radiation doses were recorded all across Europe on a scale which had never been witnessed before.

Increased radiation dose all across Europe in the aftermath of the disaster

I found this video online from the BBC 1 documentary called 'Surviving Disaster' (2006) which shows a reconstructed version of how the Chernobyl disaster happened from the perspective of a scientist called Valeri Legasov, one of the staff working at the plant. Personally I found it quite interesting, however it has received quite critical comments on social media for not having consideration for the reality of what happened. Have a look for yourself and let me know what you think:

Thyroid cancer in children 

Not only did the disaster affect adults, it also ruined the lives of many young children. According to a report by the United National Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2003), 2000 cases of thyroid cancer were reported in children under the age of 18 during 1900-1998 in Belarus, Ukraine and the former Russian Federation. As the intake of milk is higher in children and their thyroid gland is more sensitive to radiation (Hatch et al. 2005), children were the most affected. And every since then, the number of cases of thyroid cancer have risen to around 5000 according to the World Health Organisation.  

Social effects from Chernobyl

We have all probably lost a loved one, maybe a friend or one of our close relatives. However, the sheer social trauma of Chernobyl is something that needs to be highlighted more often in the public sphere. In total, 330,000 people had to be resettled as a result of the disaster and approximately seven million people are still reliant on benefit payments due to their illness or other mental conditions. Not only that, but the sudden trauma of the event and the aftermath has led to a plethora of issues such as suicide, victimisation of the survivors and state repression of people who want to come out and express their feelings (Barnett 2007). I believe that social media is a key force which can help the survivors of Chernobyl bring their voices out across the world. I found this particular quote from the book 'Voice from Chernobyl' by Svetlana Alexievich published in 1997 quite strong as it includes a real story from a father who lost his daughter in the aftermath of the disaster:

'We put her on the door....on the door that my father lay on. Until they brought a little coffin. It was small, like the box for a large doll. I want to bear witness: my daughter died from Chernobyl. And they want us to forget about it'. 

Stories like these truly bring forward the human tragedy that was felt as a result of the disaster on 26th April 1986. Chernobyl should be seen as a clear lesson for governments across the world in terms of nuclear safety and governance. However, the sad fact is that lessons have still not been learnt. Despite the official Exclusion Zone (18 miles) around the power plant, the town of Pripyat is gathering the attention of tourists who want to see the town which is stuck in time. The sad fact is that Pripyat will never be the same again...