According to the UK Independence Party website UKIP will try to achieve the following if they gain power at the 2010 general election:
Nuclear Energy is UKIP’s preferred solution
UKIP believes that nuclear generation is the only feasible technology available to meet Britain’s large-scale energy needs.
11.1 After some fifty years in commercial use, nuclear power generation is a well- proven technology, and because of the increasing cost of fossil fuel, and concern over carbon dioxide emissions, it is now undergoing a world-wide revival. This renaissance in various countries and the fundamentals of the technology are summarised by Professor Richter of Stanford University.
11.2 The economics of nuclear power, which is heavily capital dependent, were assessed some years ago by the Royal Academy of Engineering as broadly comparable with fossil-fuel generation. Today, with oil at a historically high price (approaching $100 per barrel and expected to rise further), nuclear power is highly competitive. The French nuclear programme, undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s, provides a model of a sensible, well-organised transition to nuclear power generation, taking full benefit of the economies of a large-scale programme. To help achieve its targets for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, Germany is presently considering reversal of plans to scrap its nuclear power generation. In Eastern Europe there are plans to replace former Soviet- built nuclear reactors with modern plant.
11.3 The UK currently has 19 operating reactors at 10 power stations providing about 19% of the electricity in the UK (7.5% of total UK energy needs) and reducing national carbon dioxide emissions by between 7 and 14%. However, nearly all the existing UK nuclear power plants are scheduled for closure within a few years (Appendix A) so that extending the life of existing plants where technically feasible should be implemented urgently. Around the world, a number of countries are now planning to keep nuclear reactors running for up to twice their original design-life. Necessary modifications to achieve this are thought to cost between 25% and 40% of that needed to commission new reactors19.
11.4 There are strong arguments for increasing nuclear generating capacity in the UK from the current level. Calculation (Appendix B) suggests that Britain should aim for about 50% of UK electricity generating capacity to be nuclear-based. Given an immediate decision, this could be achieved within 10-15 years. Although this proportion is lower than the 75% currently in France, it would allow UK nuclear generation to run at nearly full capacity throughout the year, giving maximum return on the high fixed investment. The UK would enhance security of electricity supply without discouraging investment in renewable energy sources for the future.
11.5 With modern designs and a strong regulation and inspection system, nuclear power is now safe16 and residual public concerns must be weighed against the dangerous consequences of potential electricity blackouts. Some of these concerns have a historical basis. Reactors of the Chernobyl type were of an inherently unstable design and confined to the former USSR, but even so the Chernobyl accident would not have occurred had not the operators disabled the reactor’s safety systems.
A new generation of light-water reactors has been designed to be simpler to construct, operate and maintain, and they have inbuilt passive systems which make them many times safer than the early reactors. Neither should nuclear plant be a focus for terrorist attack. Such plant is well protected by security barriers and procedures, and is heavily encased in a protective physical barrier that would be difficult to penetrate. None of the hundreds of such reactors operating worldwide has yet been the subject of terrorist attack.
11.6 To reverse the run-down of our nuclear capability and know-how, UKIP would support British involvement in new nuclear power plant construction contracts in the UK.
Some public investment will be needed to finance the decommissioning of existing plants, but this cost would be minimised through the building of replacements at the same site. We would accelerate planning permission by means of suitable Acts of Parliament for the building of new reactors on existing nuclear sites, with full local authority participation.
Decisions must be taken very soon on licences for new UK reactors, ideally to commence building by 2012 as the massive civil engineering resources built up for the Olympic Games become available for other works.
11.7 Revival of the nuclear power programme globally would be likely to drive up the price of uranium. UKIP suggests that the UK should restart a fast-breeder nuclear power development programme as a follow on to a thermal nuclear power programme, with the aim of constructing commercial breeder reactors some ten years hence (see Appendix C).
11.8 Controlled nuclear fusion requires no expensive fuel, has negligible need for nuclear waste disposal, and produces no greenhouse gas emissions. The rewards of achieving this on a commercial scale would be immense, though difficult technical problems remain, such as containing the ‘plasma’ (fusion material) whilst conducting away heat and developing suitable materials that can stand neutron bombardment over a sustained period.
UKIP believes that although the technology of nuclear fusion should be pursued, international collaboration to share the immense costs would be desirable, and we accept that large-scale industrial power generation may not be achieved for some decades and perhaps even generations.
11.9 Figure 2 shows the proportion of different sources for generating electricity in the UK by 2020 as a result of implementing UKIP’s energy policy. There are many uncertainties in making such forecasts (including the unknowable impact of future technologies), but the thrust of those changes which we believe are necessary is clear – much greater use of nuclear power, much less use of gas for power generation, an increase in the use of proven renewable sources in many forms, and coal remaining important but with greater use of UK reserves.
Figure 2. Comparison of source mix for generating electricity in the UK (by energy output) now (2004 data13) with approximate expected source mix by 2020 as a result of implementing UKIP’s energy policy
I would be interested to hear both positive and negative views on UK Independence Party’s Nuclear Energy policies in the comments below?
We need a strong nuclear power sector to give a secure and stable energy supply and support our heavy and chemical industries.
We should put efforts into better ways of storing off peak power as in done in japan using NaS batteries and similar technologies. This would allow us to increase our nuclear generation to more than 505 of total.
We should look at large scale users of hydrogen that don’t rely on hyrogen storage such as oil refineries. If hydrogen delivered, using off peak nuclear power isn’t cost effective, quite frankly it won’t be anywhere without huge subsidies.
We have over 200 tonnes of plutonium already separated and more being made in our thermal reactors. Large uranium supplies are coming online so we should only use breeders, which are definitely proven, when economically necessary.
Fusion is NOT proven beyond a few isolated breakeven events and has a terrible history of cost overruns with the outcome only ever to build a larger tokamak, use more power and funding, only to arrive at the same conclusion ( we need a bigger one again….). We should put the UK contribution to ITER to fund Generation 4 fast reactor research, especially at Dounreay and Cumbria. That funding would make us number one is the world within a decade in fast reactor research. Nuclear fusion needs a radioactive gas called tritium that is currently only proven to be made economically in a…wait for it….nuclear reactor.
As a small consumer of power in global terms we can always licence such technology later when it is proven.
Fusion, breeders.