Is this the end of the nuclear renaissance?

 By redjar

While the world watches on, aghast at the horrors unfolding in Japan, two explosions at Japanese nuclear reactors triggered by the earthquake is making an already desperate situation worse. But the events have also re-ignited discussions about the future role of nuclear in the global energy mix. Already, for example, the Swiss have suspended nuclear plant replacement approvals in order to revisit safety standards and there are reports that Germany’s plan to extend the life of 17 aging nuclear power plants may be shelved.

Similarly yesterday, Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, while attempting to play down fears that a similar crisis could occur in the UK, also promised a review into the implications of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe:

We take this incident extremely seriously even though there is no reason to expect a similar scale of seismic activity in the UK. I have called on the Chief Nuclear Inspector, Dr. Mike Weightman for a thorough report on the implications of the situation in Japan and the lessons to be learned. I want to make sure that we are absolutely looking at the Japanese experience and applying all of the lessons that we need and can apply because safety is our number one concern.

It's good to see that the government is at least concerned about what the Japanese situation means for the UK's nuclear programme. But Mr Huhne shouldn't dismiss safety issues just because we have a low risk of earthquakes in the UK. Nor should he simply assume that new designs of nuclear reactors would prevent the cooling malfunctions that happened in Fukushima. What we are seeing in Japan is the difficulty of preparing for unpredictable events that threaten the safety of nuclear power generation.

As Mr Huhne knows all too well, increasing concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is making our climate system more variable and more likely to generate extreme events, such as inland and coastal flooding and drought. These events have the potential to affect the operation of nuclear reactors and storage of high-level waste. But while we can be certain that such changes will occur in the future, that timing and magnitude of these changes are less clear. Given this, decisions we make today must take into account the risks posed by a warmer more volatile future.

Nuclear power, also poses serious unsolved problems to do with long-term waste, cost, inflexibility and international security. In any event, there’s no way that we could build nuclear power plants fast enough to meet targets for cutting carbon emissions. And I don’t mean targets set by governments, but rather the non-negotiable target set by the atmosphere of getting CO₂  concentrations down to 350 parts per million as soon as possible.

If Mr Huhne is serious about energy security and climate change, he will opt for a renewable rather than a nuclear future.