Climate Change and Nuclear Power - 3

**This is an essay I have written as part of my Physics degree at Imperial College, London. All rights on its use are reserved.Note to Imperial markers: if, in your check to make sure I haven't plagiarised anyone, you come across this, I am the same person!**
This essay is also hosted at my wesbite: www.howtopowertheworld.com
This is page 3 of 4. References can be found on page 4.

The Tipping Point

For now let us assume that the beliefs against nuclear power are not going to be shifted easily. What would it take to cause a sudden change in perception? At the moment the supply of energy from fossil fuels is adaquate; power cuts are few and electricity is still relatively cheap and abundant. The current gas situation in the UK is summarised by "Oil & Gas UK" as:

"On balance, the UK currently produces more gas than it consumes over a year and the country has been a net gas exporter since 1994. However, to meet peak demand during the winter months, supplies from our fields are supplemented by gas imports from Europe, as well as gas put into storage during the summer months. This has been the case for several years."[14]

Suppose, however, that something were to happen to one of the various gas pipelines feeding the UK from overseas during one of those winter months. A scenario dramatised by the BBC Programme "If... The Light's Go Out" saw terrorists attacking a gas pipeline in Russia, causing a shortage in gas availability in the UK [15] - a feasible possibility [now more so than ever]. This would result in widespread power cuts and mass panic; consider the effect on the London Underground to judge the level of disruption which would be caused.

The scenario depicted does not reflect reasons to switch to nuclear power, nor does it reflect the reasons why fossil fuel usage should stop. It does, however, demonstrate the need for other sources of energy in case one fails, and shows how undesirable a failure in energy production would be. If the need is great enough, nuclear power would be considered more seriously. During a gas crisis in the winter of 2005, Russia disconnected the supply of gas to the Ukraine. As Robert Davies, of French nuclear energy consultancy Ariva, commented,

"When Putin turned off the gas, it did more to boost the case for nuclear power than any worthy letter about the advantages of clean fuels. It was better than any advert we could have paid for."[16]

Shifting perception is hard, but does happen. Hopefully we are more enlightened than waiting for a catastrophe to prompt us into action.

Delaying Tactics

Nuclear fission is not a solution to all our energy woes. Unless we act appropriately in securing other forms of energy, it will only delay the problem by a comparatively short time. A recent New Scientist article suggests that the Uranium supply will last longer than previously thought [17], but if use of nuclear fission intensifies, Uranium will run out eventually. When this happens, another alternative will take over. If we decide to switch to nuclear power to replace fossil fuels in the short term, we will need to be prepared for these alternatives when the time comes. There are a multitude of options.

The ideal candidate is nuclear fusion. While currently not a viable source of energy, there is steady research in the field. Fusion is the exact opposite of fission; where fission splits large unstable nuclei into smaller ones, fusion fuses two light nuclei into larger ones. The fuel is deuterium (hydrogen with one neutron), which is abundant in the world's oceans. The waste products would be the fused nuclei, i.e. helium nuclei, which are perfectly safe and not radioactive. The first operational (experimental) fusion plant (ITER) will go online in France towards the end of 2016 and is expected to generate more power than it uses. [18]

While fusion is the aim, we cannot rely on it becoming widely available in time. Besides, a diverse range of different energy sources would be ideal, reducing dependence on any one type of fuel, nor could the energy supply be so easily tampered with. Reducing dependence on oil and branching into many different energy technologies would also reduce consumer energy prices - tidal water, sunlight, and wind do not come from politically unstable regions, after all. Thankfully we have a plethora of alternative energy sources available.

The current plan is to invest heavily in the renewable energy sector, to improve efficiency of renewable technologies, and to implement them as widely as possible. If we invest in a stable energy supply such as nuclear fission, we will be able to continue development in renewable sources which are most relevant to us here in the UK. More than 50% of days in the UK are overcast, so solar photovoltaic cells are perhaps not as good an idea as tidal or offshore wind power. Other countries would be able to do the same; more equatorial countries with less access to naturally flowing water would be able to invest more heavily in a solar infrastructure. Development into various different renewable technologies aside, nuclear fission would provide time to develop any significant energy contribution from other sources.

3 of 4