Chair's Blog

Nuclear Power - Hinckley Point

Details

Published on Friday, 17 February 2012 13:21

The announcement that the French firm EDF are to build a new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point will have mixed reactions in the south-west.  Nuclear power generation has been happening on the site since 1965.  The current nuclear power station at Hinckley Point B generates enough electricity for 1.5 million homes.  The construction work will provide many badly needed jobs.  But nuclear energy can be dangerous - as we have seen in Japan.

There are two other nuclear power sites on the river Severn, at Berkley and Oldbury.  The Berkley site is being decommissioned.  This work started in 1989 and the site will not be safe until at least 2080.  Oldbury has had two reactors, one of which is closed and the other due to close at the end of this year.  It too will then need to be decommissioned - a process which will take about 100 years.  Oldbury is one of the eight sites earmarked for future nuclear power development.

All the UK's current nuclear generation capacity is reaching the end of its life and without replacement the burden will fall on fossil fuels, energy saving measures and renewables.  Fossil fuel generation in the south west is by gas powered stations at Indian Queens in Cornwall, Seabank near Bristol, Chippenham and Chickerell.  There has been a growth in both solar and wind generation in the south-west in recent years, but the scale of the generation is small in comparison to the nuclear plants.  There is also a little Hydro-electricity generation such as the Tavi-Tamar scheme at Tavistock/Morwellham.

Is there a Christian view on these nuclear developments?

I have sometimes, half joking said that God gave us a nuclear power source and put it at a safe distance.  We call it the Sun and it is 80 million miles away!  It is the sun's energy which powers all renewables, and is the historic source of all the fossil fuels we burn.  Nuclear energy is the only generation capacity we have which does not rely on the Sun.

We are all wedded to our lifestyles - which are energy intensive.  We travel more than any previous generation.  We gather and transport food from the ends of the earth.  We use internet technology - which has a significant energy cost.  It has been estimated that each web search uses as much energy as boiling a kettle does.  Unless we are prepared to live in a much lower energy culture we will need to replace our generating capacity.  As Christians we might need to adopt prophetically costly lifestyles, limiting our energy usage and increasing our energy efficiency.

If we continue to use energy at current rates we will need to either depend on the worlds limited gas and petroleum resources, go back to mining coal, probably by open-cast mining, increase our investment in renewables considerably or build nuclear.  Probably all of these.

Our fossil fuels come from the near east and Russia.  The growing economies of India and China are demanding more and more oil and gas to make the good we import from them.  Prices for these are sure to rise.

There is considerable opposition to on shore wind farms.  Many communities do not want them near them.  We would not want to live near a coal fired station like Drax in Yorkshire,  or a nuclear power station like Hinckley Point.   Yet we want our electricity.  Perhaps we need a policy that if a community will not generate some of their own power requirements they should pay more - with the money going to those who live near generation facilities!  If you don't want generation in your back yard why do you expect electricity in your back yard?

All this make nuclear seem more attractive than it has perhaps been in the past.  Yet the accident at the Japanese nuclear plant hit by the Tsunami reminds us that these plants need to be treated with care.  A similar accident at Hinckley Point would mean evacuating Bridgewater, Minehead and possibly Taunton and Weston-super-Mare.  I notice that the Thames Estuary has no nuclear stations similar to those on the Severn.

We are not, like the Japanese, on an earthquake zone, is there any danger of a tsunami on our coasts?

In 1775 the city of Lisbon was struck by an earthquake.  Three 35 foot tsunami waves hit the coasts near the city and travelled into the Atlantic.  In 1929 waves from seven to twenty one feet hit Newfoundland.  The most serious danger is from a Volcanic eruption in the Canary Islands.  Geological modelling shows the possibility of a large section of the coast of one of the islands slipping with an eruption producing waves which would reach the USA at heights of several meters.

In 1607 the Bristol channel flooded with waters reaching as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles inland.  The origins of this flood are not known, and such occurrances are rare, but what would the effect be?  the Bristol Channel acts like a gigantic funnel, a wave of a few metres at Land's End could have its height multiplied by the time it gets to Minehead.

According the United States Maine Geological Survey 'one of the world' Tsunami time bombs is ticking away in the Atlantic Ocean'  Such a 'time bomb' is speculation based on real evidence of instability on Las Palmas.  It  may not happen for thousands of years.  It may not happen in the worst way.  I hope someone is working out the risks!

For a deeper analysis of matters relating to climate change there is a Methodist Church report called 'Hope in God's future' which can be downloaded by clicking on the title link and a website www.creationchallenge.org.uk which relates to the report and is sponsored by the Baptists and URC as well as the Methodist Church.

Power Station photos from Wikipedia.

0 Comments