The conversation: Is nuclear power still the answer to our energy problems?

As we move to reduce our reliance on high-carbon energy, George Monbiot believes nuclear is the best option. No, says Caroline Lucas, renewables should be the priority. Susanna Rustin chairs the debate

This week George Monbiot wrote that the Fukoshima disaster had won him over to nuclear power. Green MP Caroline Lucas believes the technology is costly and dangerous. Susanna Rustin brought them together, and heard the arguments.

Caroline Lucas: There are cheaper, faster, safer, more effective ways of getting our emissions down than going nuclear.

George Monbiot: But we're asking that renewables replace our fossil fuel-based electricity system. We're asking that they replace much of our domestic heating, and supply much of our transport. If, added to all that, we are requesting that the current nuclear generation is replaced with renewables, then we make that task a whole lot tougher. And one of the things Fukoshima has done for me is to show that the side-effects of nuclear power are less grave than I had imagined them to be in a disaster of this magnitude.

CL: In what George has just said, and in his article, the most extraordinary omission is any reference to demand reduction, energy efficiency or conservation. I think those three things are going to play a huge role in any sustainable energy scenario, and I'm frankly quite shocked that George isn't putting more stress on them. There is recent modelling suggesting demand could be reduced by 35% by 2050, and we know that our UK homes are so poorly insulated that �1 in every �4 spent heating our homes is wasted.

A second thing is George's assumption that nuclear and renewables can coexist relatively happily. I would assert very strongly that they cannot ? first of all there are huge opportunity costs. In other words, if the signal being given to investors is that the government is serious about nuclear, then that is where they are more likely to come from. EDF and E.ON are on the record as having said they do not think nuclear can happily coexist with significant renewables ? they want to keep renewables small. We've got a government that is explicitly designing electricity market reform regulations so as to make renewables less viable than nuclear. It is far too soon to say the side-effects of Fukoshima are not grave. There is a huge debate around the dangers of low-level radiation.

GM: It's true I didn't mention energy consumption, and there are two reasons for that. One is that I've said it so often. But even if we were to reduce energy consumption by 20 or 30 or 40%, we still have to ask ourselves: where is our energy going to come from? Regardless of the cuts we make, we're going to need a major expansion both of renewables as a percentage of the total electricity supply and of the total supply as a whole, because we want to replace other fuels with low-carbon electricity. So let's not make this hill that we have to climb any steeper than it needs to be. As for the dangers, I'm beginning to feel that there's as much nonsense talked about low-level radiation as there is about the undetectable health impacts that doctors can't see but homeopaths can.

CL: I've simply said there is a debate going on about the impacts of low-level radiation. But I am basing my argument on economics, and you've not yet addressed the fact that nuclear power is completely impossible without government subsidies. The costs of decommissioning are upwards of �73bn, and we know that if there's an accident it will be up to the taxpayer to bail nuclear power out, because no insurer is going to. Are we trying to look at how we use energy today, and asking simply how we replace it? Or are we asking how we could redesign the way we live in order that we can live in a sustainable and safe way into the future?

GM: Taking the costs issue ? we're not looking at cheap sources of electricity any way we do this. When you have a relatively low penetration of renewables on the grid ? 10, 20, 30, even 50%, the costs will not be that high. But once you get beyond 50% or maybe 70%, they are likely to escalate dramatically, because you need a lot more redundancy and storage. So while you can say wind at the moment costs less than nuclear, it's much harder to be confident that wind, once we've got 60% of all our electricity being produced by renewables, will cost less than nuclear. My guess, because I haven't yet seen a comparative study, and I don't believe one exists, is that when we get up to those sorts of levels, nuclear is likely to be quite a lot cheaper.The other issue is that there are lots of extravagant ways of producing low-carbon electricity, and I hope Caroline will agree with me that the current arrangement whereby rooftop solar power is being subsidised ? to the extent that householders are receiving 41p per kilowatt-hour ? is grossly inefficient.

CL: There is a world of difference between giving support to emerging new technologies, and subsidising a technology that has been around for decades. We are blessed in the UK with some of the best renewable energy resources in the world, and I would put my money in technologies where we know the potential is there. You are deliberately provocative and that's great, but it's misleading to suggest that rooftop solar is wasteful. There is a role for micro-renewables. You were saying you thought when you got to 50-70% penetration of renewables on the grid, they would be more expensive than nuclear. Now I've gone away to try to find some evidence for that assertion, and I can't find any.

GM: Are you seriously trying to tell me that the cost of wind at 5% penetration is the same as at 70%?

CL: I am not trying to tell you that, George, but neither have I found the evidence to back up your assertion.

GM: Beyond a certain proportion of renewable energy on the grid, the environmental costs as well the financial costs escalate. One of the questions we must ask ourselves is, are those costs a price worth paying for replacing our nuclear power stations with renewables?

CL: I'm afraid I think George has lost all sense of proportion here. Of course when we're talking about big offshore marine developments there are some negatives, but when you compare that to the fact that we are, with nuclear power, creating waste that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years, you're not comparing like with like. The next 10 years are going to be critical, and we're not going to have new nuclear power stations in the next 10 years. We could be investing massively in renewable energies and energy efficiencies, but you're going to have the money from the green investment bank supporting nuclear when it could be supporting proper house-to-house insulation.

GM: The tougher we make the task of decarbonising the electricity supply, the more climate change is going to escalate to truly dangerous levels and cause suffering out of all proportion to that we are talking about today. Climate change is far more dangerous than any of the issues we're talking about, and the tougher you make it, by rejecting nuclear power, the more likely it is that runaway climate change takes place.

Susanna Rustin

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds