Turning off nuclear is a climate disaster

What role should nuclear power play in meeting the 2050 net zero target? As part of our Countdown to COP series, Tom Greatrex of the Nuclear Industry Association discusses the lessons from countries that have failed to replace lost nuclear capacity and issues a plea for the UK not to follow the same path.

A question. What if the UK never built another nuclear power station? “So what?” some might say, “we don’t need it. We’ve got plenty of other zero-carbon sources, they’ll get us over the line.” That line is of course net zero by 2050. But, what if they can’t? What if, when we look back and realise the gamble didn’t pay off, that in the end, all forms of low-carbon technologies were needed.

But of course, we already know this. Just look at the damage being done in countries which are failing to replace lost nuclear capacity.

Sweden is a world leader in wind and hydro, but its success over recent decades has been its ability to balance its renewables with a strong nuclear showing. Forty per cent of the country’s zero-carbon electricity comes from its nuclear stations. But people were told not to vacuum this winter because of genuine concerns that the grid was cracking at the seams.

The low temperatures, little to no wind and the closing of another nuclear reactor – the fourth in five years – led to the firing up of a 52-year-old oil-fired power plant, and a sharp increase in imported electricity from coal and Russian gas.

Another country has been trying the coal and Russian gas route to decarbonisation without success. Unlike Sweden, Germany is aiming to decarbonise in a different way, without nuclear. Because of that it will remain the largest carbon emitter and largest consumer of coal in the European Union. Once a strong proponent of nuclear, it chose to rethink its strategy after growing public pressure in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident.

It is now paying the price.

Had the nuclear phaseout in Germany not happened, it could have prevented up to 4,600 deaths and 300 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions between 2011 and 2017. It is even shutting down its Grohnde power station early, which has generated more low-carbon electricity than any other plant anywhere in the world. Had it not been for Grohnde, a further 400 million tonnes of carbon emissions would have otherwise been produced by coal and gas.

Like Germany, Japan is also feeling the damaging consequences of shutting down its nuclear stations following Fukushima. Its carbon emissions skyrocketed in the years after the disaster and is now the world’s largest importer of Liquefied Natural Gas, relying heavily on coal to plug the gap left by a reduction in nuclear generation, from 30 per cent before the accident, to 6 per cent now.

Even so, the Japanese government is fully aware that to reach its climate goals, it will have to turn on its remaining reactors, and invest further in new capacity. “I think nuclear power will be indispensable”, the country’s energy minister said earlier this year after a cold January led to high electricity prices and tight supplies in some areas of the country. “Solar wasn’t generating. Wind wasn’t generating” he said, “I’m trying to persuade everybody that in the end we need nuclear power.”

The same thing is happening in the UK, and we must learn from the experiences of other major energy users as we forge our own path to net zero. In less than a decade, only one out of eight nuclear stations currently producing zero-carbon power in the UK will still be operating. Just one. Yes, Hinkley Point C is under construction, which will power 6 million homes, but if we are serious about hitting our decarbonisation targets, we will need even more firm clean power. Switching off nuclear without replacing means reliance on fossil fuels will soar.

The UK grid had the dirtiest week in a year at the beginning of March, as low renewable output and high demand saw coal and gas use reach their highest levels in at least 14 months. The National Grid issued another supply warning and the electricity system price spiked to almost £500/MWh. All the while, the nuclear fleet was by far the leading source of zero-carbon generation. And more recently, in April, the grid was 20 per cent dirtier than the same month a year ago, and after a coal free May in 2020, there were 19 coal burning days this May. Our fossil fuel dependency when renewable capacity is down is unstable, unsustainable and unaffordable.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says the UK will need four times as much clean power by 2050 to hit net zero. Nuclear currently provides 35 per cent of the UK’s clean energy. Take that away and you are left a big hole.

The prime minister’s 10-point plan made it clear that nuclear has a key role to play in helping the country reach its climate goals. The challenge will get harder too, as we try to decarbonise heat and transport, a much more difficult task.

The spotlight is very much on the UK this year as it co-hosts COP26. So, let’s make sure we take the opportunity to champion all forms of zero-carbon energy. We do not want to look back one day and realise we didn’t do enough.