Nuclear debate

Nuclear power fell out of favour in the 1970s and 1980s after a series of nuclear accidents and rising concern over radioactive waste. But with global warming high on the government’s agenda, the fact that nuclear power plants generate far less CO₂ than fossil fuel plants has given the industry a new selling point.

While nuclear scores favourably on its low CO₂ emissions, however, it is expensive once the cost of dealing with the disposal of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of generating plant is taken into account. And, in a post 9/11 world, security of nuclear installations and fuel is more of an issue than it was when the first generation of power stations were constructed.

There are alternatives to nuclear power. We could import more gas for example. We could build more windfarms. Or we could even invest in technologies to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations. But the cheapest and the most environmentally beneficial option would be simply to use far less energy in the first place through the promotion of energy efficient building design.

So what option should the government take? It is a question that the needs to be answered soon. As Julian Amey, CIBSE’s chief executive, points out on page 75, 10 of the 11 nuclear stations that deliver almost a quarter of the UK’s electricity output are slated to close over the next decade. Unless we dramatically cut our energy consumption over the next few years these power stations will need replacing. The question is with what?

That is why it is vital that the Energy Forum is being given a new impetus. This network of professional bodies, of which CIBSE is a key player, was set up to advise the government on energy policy issues. And building services engineers must ensure that they contribute to it, so that when the government makes a decision on the future of our energy supplies, it is based on an educated and reasoned national debate.

Andy Pearson