There is an interesting debate in the UK at the moment concerning the role of nuclear energy in a future low-carbon society. A recently published cross-party report finds that Ministers misled parliament about the need for new nuclear plants.
According to the government’s own figures, “there is absolutely no need for any more nuclear power stations to deliver energy security (‘keep the lights on’) and achieve 80% reductions in carbon dioxide by 2050,” the report states. According to the Guardian, “In part, it says that this is down to the fact that the government stated that the UK’s electricity supply will need to “double or even triple” in order to achieve a low-carbon economy. But the report states that this was based on flawed information and assumptions about electricity “needs” by 2025 and beyond.”
EiD will keep out of this debate on achieving a low carbon society for the moment, but here is an interesting contribution to the debate from the Guardian blog on this topic written by the newspaper’s features writer and editor Leo Hickman:
Meeting the government’s decarbonisation targets by 2050 without nuclear power is clearly technically possible, as the various scenarios highlighted today display. But, in a way, that’s not really the point. The far harder question to answer is whether it is possible politically and financially.
I’m not much of a gambler. Hence, I heartily agree with Professor David MacKay [editor’s note: Professor MacKay is a Professor at the University of Cambridge and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change] that it is a “wise idea to keep our options open”. I have always favoured as broad an energy mix as can be delivered, with an emphasis on phasing out the most carbon-intensive sources of energy – most notably coal – as fast as we can. It also seems wise to work hard to reduce demand and increase efficiencies, wherever possible.
But I think we need to be realistic about what is achievable. In the short- to mid-term, I really cannot see per capita electricity consumption falling in the UK, especially if electric cars become popular in the coming decade or so (still a big if). My beef with nuclear power has always been the dishonesty of its advocates about its unpredictably high construction and legacy costs. But, as with the push to increase our mix of renewables, we have to be honest with ourselves about these costs and square up to them. However, I personally feel there is too much idealism in the argument that we can completely do without nuclear energy. But perhaps the Germanys of this world will prove me wrong?
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
There is a key reason why Germany has the confidence to go down an entirely non-nuclear route, even with the same 2050 objective of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases as does the UK.
The difference between where the Chief Scientist at the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change believes our electricity consumption will be by then – twice, even three times, present levels – and where the German government thinks electricity demand can be via a purposeful and consistent efficiency programme (25% below present levels) is so vast, that it does beg one obvious question.
And that is, naturally, why have the Germans got it all so economically wrong yet again?
We’re going to hear a lot more about this before this story ends. There was a good discussion at the last eceee summer study comparing the UK and German approaches. And I know you have also had some articles on this. One has to believe the Germans will succeed because when they put their minds to it… But no one can sit idly on the sidelines. Hopefully all MS are giving this serious attention.
Perhaps we should reflect upon which country has the better record regarding appropriate levels of investment planning, and which has a history of backing extravagant white elephants.