The recent nuclear scare in Japan has done more than frighten the life out of Western European governments who were just persuading their populations that nuclear, afterall, was now a tamed monster.

It has thrown the whole energy debate out of kilter. Latest conceived wisdom is that the world has about 20 to 30 years left of comparatively cheap fossil fuels (before they become very expensive with higher production costs).

Nevermind for a minute that they might be harming the environment, the fact is that at today’s estimates, the current stocks are at the wrong end of the tank: nearing empty.

Now, okay, Russia has lots left (oil, gas, you name it), as does parts of the Middle East which appears to have discovered plentiful natural gas. But Russia has a tendency to sulk when it comes to supplying energy, and the Middle East is undergoing radical political upheaval which might not stop at Libya.

But if the West wants true energy freedom and comfort, the frozen wastes of the poles will have to fall to the oil companies, despite the environmental howls of protest, and the US might just have to start drilling off their East coast where it’s said there’s buckets of oil.

So politicians across the West saw nuclear as literally a great white light ready to save their problems. Three Mile Island was just an ugly memory (and some say not a bad movie) and Chernobyl thankfully happened in a part of the world where people don’t go on holiday.

And for the UK Government in particular, who see that in 20 years time the country is going to struggle to generate little of its own power, nuclear power was a God send. And when the French company EDF came along and started buying parts of the UK nuclear infrastructure, the Government took shelter in their upbeat PR machine which had well groomed men in suits saying that nuclear power was now nice and clean.

Oh dear. What a difference a Tsunami half way across the world makes. And for every day that TV stations focus on hissing steam coming from the stricken plant, you can strike a year off the time before nuclear power once again becomes the power of the future. Think of the bowed heads in the EDF Boardroom.

And the mother of all problems now confronts the politicians. Nuclear is back on the naughty step, shale gas retrieval is about as popular as killing badgers and wind power is fine as long as it’s about a hundred miles offshore and out of sight.

Yet the country’s population craves ever more energy to run their iPods, cars and every other conceivable gadget you can think of.

In other words, the UK populace can’t have its cake and eat it. Nuclear energy is out (given the fear of meltdown); the new wonder fuel shale gas is getting people onto the streets in protest and wind turbines either make too much noise, or kill too many birds.

But if the population of the UK don’t wake up soon, they might find their energy is more expensive than they ever had imagined, and that’s the true cost of not in my back yard.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

The horrific events in Japan have had one unfortunate side effect for the Government in the UK: it proves yet again that nuclear power is not without risk.

The Government had warmed to the idea that nuclear power, which currently accounts for around 10% of energy provision in the UK, should play a greater role over the coming years.

Centrica, which owns British Gas, has taken a large stake in the UK’s major provider of nuclear power and French energy giant, EDF, now mostly controls the country’s nuclear energy production.

The nuclear option is extremely tempting for the UK because it allows the country to meet its carbon emission levels (if all goes well, it is one of the cleanest fuels in the world) and also helps mitigate the fact that no longer does the country have large stocks of its own fossil fuels.

The UK has almost exhausted both its own oil and gas reserves, and has now even become a net importer of gas. This is coming from Norway and increasingly, via shipped liquid gas from the Middle East.

The obvious implications for the UK Government on relying on being a net importer of your energy is very clear. It’s population will have to pay more for their energy; individual nations can hold the country to hostage as regards the energy flow (take what happened to the Ukraine when they fell out with Russia) and should a natural disaster interrupt supplies from overseas (or a war situation), then the country will struggle to meet its own energy needs.

So the attractions of a clean fuel such as nuclear fission is obvious to see, but the industry doesn’t have a long term PR clean sheet. Just mentioning names of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are enough to send environmentalists mad with anger.

There are two big problems with nuclear power. The waste product is extremely dangerous and can have a shelf life of hundreds of years and, if something should go wrong with the actual process – as just witnessed in Japan – then it becomes very quickly an unstable energy generating process. And far from the problem being contained within a stone’s throw of the energy plant, the implications of having radioactive waste in the atmosphere and able to travel thousands of miles, is not worth thinking about for most people.

Ironically, the nuclear power solution has had a superb track record of late. The industry is far more aware of the power it has to harness and the modern stations are light years away from the flawed design in Chernobyl.

Yet even so, if Japan cannot eventually contain it, which country can. When a nuclear reaction cannot be cooled, it enters meltdown which can have catastrophic effects.

Now the UK does not sit in a earthquake zone, but there are worries that the same problem now faced by the Japanese could also occur through another natural disaster scenario (say a major storm), or indeed, perhaps more frighteningly, a major terrorist attack.

Whatever happens in Japan, the ugly side of nuclear power has again raised its head and that will once again give the nuclear doomsayers a chance to say nay to what is the Government’s great white hope for future energy sustainability.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The shortage of natural gas, as well as other energy sources in the West, has caused the UK government, amongst others, to reconsider the role of nuclear power in the overall scheme of energy provision.

Natural gas is overwhelmingly the fuel of choice for energy providers and governments alike, but with supplies dwindling in the UK (despite hopes that shale gas reserves will win the day), there is perhaps an inevitable drift back to the idea of nuclear power providing the answer.

The downside of nuclear of course is the risk of catastrophic explosion which, in the public’s mind, gives it a terrible reputation. It is of course a very clean fuel (effectively no carbon emissions), if you discount the dangers and waste product at the end. But it would appear that UK ministers will have to copy their counterparts across the English Channel and opt for more nuclear power stations.

And this is not a decision which can be delayed. A small number of Britain’s nuclear power stations are getting past their sell-by date and some are ready to be shut-down. New nuclear power stations, if the green light was given now, wouldn’t be ready until about 2018 at the earliest.

But whilst the UK Government is agonising over whether to commission new nuclear power stations, there remains the complicated task of safely decommissioning those power stations which are ready to be shut down.

And one of the first stations to finish its lifespan was the Berkeley nuclear power station in Gloucestershire. It has the distinction of being the first commercial nuclear power station and made use of a Magnox reactor.

It actually finished generating power in the 1980s, a trouble-free 30 years of service. Most of the radioactive material and waste was shipped to Sellafield around 20 years ago. But 1,000 tonnes of intermediate level nuclear waste was left behind.

It was first built in the 1950s on the River Severn and when at full power, could produce enough electricity to run a major City. Now it lies idle, with its huge cavernous buildings – around seven stories high – stripped clean of pipework and fittings.

Now the old reactor rooms have a new purpose – to store the reactor’s old casing and core. Indeed, once locked, the reactor rooms will not be opened for around 65 years, the time it takes for the nuclear material left to degrade to such a point when it can be safely handled and then deposed of.

Berkeley has now reached what they call in the industry as “…entering Safestore…”. This is the second stage of decommissioning a nuclear power plant and is just one of a number of stages that have to be religiously followed before a retired power station can be declared safe.

This sort of decommissioning process reminds the public just how dangerous nuclear waste is, when compared to say natural gas, although it seems likely that before long, the construction of new nuclear power stations will start.

Guest Article by Neil Camp