How green is the Government’s nuclear energy strategy?
The UK Government has pledged to boost the country’s nuclear energy capacity, setting itself a target to power a quarter of the national grid with nuclear energy by 2050.
But i has revealed that the transition to nuclear energy has been beset by delays, prompting former Prime Minister Boris Johnson to urge Rishi Sunak to “get on with it”.
Mr Johnson has been a vocal supporter of nuclear energy and has championed the development of new small modular nuclear reactors. (SMRs).
SMR have been touted as a key solution as the world transitions towards a net zero future, but some have raised questions regarding the green credentials and viability of the technology.
Here i fact-checks the key claims with regards to SMRs.
Nuclear is low carbon
True or False: True
Nuclear power is considered to be a low carbon source of energy. It has a minimal carbon footprint of around 15–50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (gCO2/KWh), compared to an average footprint of around 450 gCO2/KWh for a gas powered generator and 1,050 gCO2/KWh for coal.
According to the International Energy Association (IEA), over the past 50 years the use of nuclear power has reduced CO2 emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions.
While nuclear produces far less CO2 than fossil fuels, environmentalists dispute nuclear’s green credentials, not least due to the high volume of radioactive waste created as part of the fuel cycle.
SMRs will be play a key role in the UK’s energy transition
True or False: Jury’s still out
Small modular reactors have many potential benefits that overcome some of the hurdles of traditional nuclear reactor sites. Their smaller size means that can be placed in locations not suited to large power plants and the modular nature of their design means they should be cheaper and quicker to build.
But as of 2023, only Russia and China have successfully built operational SMRs, and neither are in commercial operation. Mr Johnson’s plan to have the UK’s first SMRs contributing to the grid by 2030 looks increasingly unlikely. Rolls-Royce, which was one of the winners of a Government competition to develop SMRs in the UK, recently told MPs its project could be contributing to the grid by 2031-2 at the very earliest.
MPs sitting on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee recently published a report that described the Government’s nuclear strategy as more of a “wish list” and said ministers need to make it clearer what role SMRs will play in the energy transition.
SMRs are cheaper to build
True or False: Unclear
One of the largest hurdles to the deployment of nuclear energy are the huge costs of developing new plants. In theory, SMRs should be cheaper to build due to their size and modular nature, allowing for prefabrication.
However, it is not known exactly what the cost will be to the public purse of developing new SMRs in the UK.
The Environment Audit Committee recently launched an inquiry into the topic as it said it is “currently unclear what financing models will be used to fund SMRs”.
Critics of nuclear argue it would be wiser to spend money on the deployment of renewable energy, which is cheaper to build.
SMRs are safer
True or false: True in theory
Safety has proved to be a massive issue preventing wider uptake of nuclear energy in the past. Incidents such as the 2011 Fukishima nuclear accident show raised fears regarding the vulnerability of plants during a natural disaster, while nuclear stations can also be a risk during times of conflict.
Proponents of SMRs say they are safer than traditional reactors, partly because their smaller core produces less heat, reducing the likelihood of overheating. A number of other innovations exist in the design of SMRs, which in theory should reduce the risk of failure.
While safer than large plants in theory, SMRs are still associated with many of the same safety risks as traditional nuclear.
