Sustainable Development Programme

1. Sustainable Development Programme Social Science ResearchPriorities for Nuclear Power Malcolm Grimston Associate Fellow PSI Conference: Projects and Policies for Step Changes in the Energy System March 31, 2003

2. The nuclear challenge • Level of dispute higher than other low-carbon energy options. • Considerable body of opinion with fundamental (‘political’? ‘theological?’) opposition. • Only one of today’s option which may have no future role.

3. Public Perceptions and Decision-making THE ADVOCATES • Belief that major elements of the future are predictable; certainty about general projections of various energy sources. (For example, renewables demonstrably have the practical potential to remain only relatively minor players in world energy supply.) THE OPPONENTS • Belief that major elements of the future are predictable; certainty about general projections of various energy sources. (For example, renewables demonstrably have the practical potential to dominate world energy supply.)

4. Public Perceptions and Decision-making THE ADVOCATES • Absolutely certain about the future role of nuclear power (a major and important one), and about issues such as nuclear waste (not a difficult technical problem). THE OPPONENTS • Absolutely certain about the future role of nuclear power (no role at all), and about issues such as nuclear waste (a technically insoluble problem).

5. Advocates and opponents THE ADVOCATES • Arrogance born out of belief in infallibility of own analysis. THE OPPONENTS • Arrogance born out of belief in infallibility of own analysis.

6. Advocates and opponents THE ADVOCATES • Belief that the public is irrationally frightened of nuclear power. If only people could be properly educated they would become more pronuclear and support the nuclear industry. THE OPPONENTS • Belief that the public is irrationally complacent about nuclear power. If only people could be properly educated they would become more antinuclear and support antinuclear campaigns.

7. Advocates and opponents THE ADVOCATES • Characterisation of opponents as either fools or ill-intentioned. THE OPPONENTS • Characterisation of opponents as either fools or ill-intentioned.

8. Advocates and opponents THE ADVOCATES • Belief that government is not to be trusted to take wise decisions as it is too much influenced by the antinuclear media and pressure groups. THE OPPONENTS • Belief that government is not to be trusted to take wise decisions as it is too much influenced by the nuclear industry and its supporters.

9. ‘Step change’? • Not purely, or perhaps even predominately, a ‘technical’ issue. • ‘Step change’ already occurred, e.g. in France in 1980s: French emissions of carbon dioxide per unit electricity generated less than one fifth of those in UK or Germany. • So integration of economic and social science research into technical research all the more important.

10. Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity produced (tonnes per GWh)

11. A new technology • Nuclear fission first demonstrated in 1942. • ‘Traditional’ nuclear technology emerged in centralised markets – large units, heavily capital intensive, relatively inflexible output. (Mirror image to renewables – with wind we don’t get energy when we want it, with nuclear we get energy when we don’t want it!.) • Has been subject to centralised decision-making. • Disposal of waste not yet essential for operational reasons.

12. Key challenges to ‘traditional’ nuclear technology • Economics – capital intensive, inflexible, chequered history of project management. (BNFL Westinghouse – costs of electricity from AP1000 3.0p per unit for the first, 2.2p for fourth+ of kind in a series.) • Public perceptions – waste, safety, proliferation. • ‘Fit’ with modern society – decision-making, e.g. problems obtaining planning permission. • Declining skills base.

13. World nuclear generating capacity (GW)

14. Other nuclear technologies? • There are as many ways of making electricity from uranium as there are of making energy from water. • We have been using waterwheels for centuries – does not mean that wavepower is a mature technology. KEY QUESTIONS • Can nuclear technology be developed which is more appropriate for modern circumstances – competitive markets (if these survive), more distributed democracy replacing DAD and DADA etc. • How can we find out?

15. Research questions (1) ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL • How can the resources needed for commercial demonstration be raised? • What kind of markets will pertain in future, and what characteristics of plant would be attractive within them?

16. Research questions (2) SOCIAL AND POLITICAL • What characteristics of nuclear power would be necessary to make it ‘acceptable’ in various countries? • What methods of decision-making would allow progress with technologies such as nuclear power, e.g. in finding sites for waste repositories or new reactors? • How can such decision-making process be developed so they do not introduce fatal delays into the planning process?

17. Research questions (3) SKILLS • How can the skills base be maintained and updated to retain the option for a major nuclear programme in the absence of new orders in the short term?

18. Iterative relationship between physical and social sciencesMust avoid the ‘technocratic’ origins of nuclear power – ‘too difficult for society’ so policy driven simply be engineers and physical scientists