Coal vs Nuclear

This is something I've been thinking since I started studying energy policy and it's one I'm still not sure about.

It's hoped - but increasingly not expected - that renewables will contribute significantly towards electricity generation by 2020 (target of 15% of energy, meaning around 30-40% of electricity). This still leaves the majority of electricity to come from other sources. Bearing in mind the lifespan of conventional plants (40-60 years depending on the type) and the need to reduce energy use emissions by 80% by 2050, these sources are going to need to be as low carbon as possible - ideally now, definitely then.

Gas (anyone else think very little has been said about gas recently, except for a little bit when Milford Haven LNG imports started in march?) is likely to continue to be a major source, but as we depend on imports more and more, it seems unwise to continue having it as the primary source of generation when its supply will probably be minimal as we near 2050. Fusion shouldn't be part of any plans, considering it has not been proved viable on a large scale yet - absolutely research and investment should continue, just it shouldn't be the basis of any sort of plan while it's nowhere near completion. Which leaves nuclear (fission) and coal (with CCS)

It's something that seems as a "lesser of two evils" kind of problem, and my preference has switched on more than one occasion as you learn more about each.


Both coal and nuclear are parts of a centralised system, whereas (most) renewables can be centralised or decentralised. While decentralised is potentially the preferable option (in some ways greater energy security, individuals more likely to be energy aware - helping demand reduction and other efforts) it is not a crucial aspect, e.g. consumers want cheapest energy and governments want secure supplies regardless of centralisation.

Coal:

There are large deposits of coal in many developing countries, providing them with a cheap, secure and long term source of energy with which to develop, which is why many countries are planning an expansion in their coal generation. But coal is one of the most carbon intense fuels around and so a huge contributor to climate change. These countries see solving poverty/hunger/disease etc as more important than the environment and that increased energy use - coal or not - will let them mitigate and adapt to climate change better than otherwise. I'm not sure I agree
with the strategy of making the problem worse before you fix it (as well as the assumption it can be fixed later on) but regardless, there is a moral obligation of sorts for the developed countries to help developing ones, as not only does it benefit the progression of their society, but reduces the danger of climate change to everyone, including the developed countries.

This help obviously takes the form of carbon capture and storage, simply capturing the carbon dioxide and piping it into holes deep in the ground (usually). Trouble is, it hasn't been fully demonstrated yet, it's likely to cost a fair amount (the government is spending billions on full scale tests), it reduces the efficiency of a plant, it doesn't capture all of the carbon dioxide, and then there's the whole legal, technical and ethical minefield of storage. Some sites may cross national boundaries; how secure is it; how is it monitored; who is responsible if it leaks after 30 years etc. But humans are rather ingenious and could likely solve many of these problems, some might not get solved as well as hoped, but nothing is perfect and considering the threat of climate change, perhaps it's needed regardless of the drawbacks.

Which brings me onto nuclear.

There are a lot of people who dislike of nuclear, and that's because there's a lot to dislike, Chernobyl, nuclear weapons and so on, but there are some misconceptions for and against nuclear to be wary of. Historically coal has been more deadly and environmentally damaging than nuclear due to mountaintop removal mining, local pollution problems, heavy metals, ash tailings and so on. Nuclear is not 100% full proof but nor is it ready to blow at any second. It is however expensive, barely a week goes by without mention of the new plant in Finland costing twice the estimate and years late, or how the industry. It is currently intrinsically linked with nuclear weapons.

Require baseload?
Need infrastructure as well in developing countries? e.g. straight to mobile phones in africa, no landlines
Proliferation risk comes from enrichment/reprocessing - use world nuclear fuel bank when exporting tech?
Capital costs greater than coal/gas, difficulty getting finance, premium on finance because of risk/delays - http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/20/nuclear-revival-still-on-hold-mit-study-says/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/19/eon-chief-paul-golby-interview smart man, various interesting arguments to cover
CCS costs more than cost of carbon - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/654/654.pdf

So just like coal it's a question of is it needed so bad that it's worth the drawbacks. I'd have say yes, but I would still much rather see more renewables instead. If you want a nuclear dominated future, you're going to need tens of gigawatts of energy storage solutions because of the day to day variation in demand. But if you're building so much energy storage then that takes away one of the biggest problems of renewables.

To be finished and references put in asap