The SPRIng consortium led by Professor Adisa Azapagic looks at the techno-economic, environmental, social and ethical sustainability of nuclear power in the UK to show that nuclear power could make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. However, it would require a huge expansion of nuclear, constituting 35% of the electricity mix by 2035, or almost double the current contribution. 



Nuclear power closing
Given that most current nuclear power stations are due to close in this period, the scenario seems unfeasible, the authors claim.

simultaneously, expansion of nuclear power would worsen other sustainability aspects, including depletion of natural resources, ozone layer depletion, toxicity and radiation health impacts. 



SPRIng finds meeting UK carbon emissions targets would only be possible with a huge expansion of both renewables and nuclear electricity. By 2020, renewables would have to contribute 55% to the UK electricity mix and nuclear 35% by 2035.

The report also shows if energy consumption can be reduced significantly, nuclear power is not essential for meeting the UK climate change targets. But if energy consumption continues to grow as it has, the role of nuclear power becomes much more important to meet climate change targets.



Nuclear power expansion will depend on many factors, including availability of uranium fuel. Shortage could within a few decades constrain any significant global expansion of uranium nuclear plants, unless major new uranium reserves can be identified and exploited economically. 

Findings suggests that carbon taxation could play a significant role in promoting low-carbon electricity options, including nuclear.
 

Carbon price impacts economics
For example, a carbon price of £100 per tonne of carbon dioxide, would be sufficient to make nuclear plants of current designs highly profitable. 

Research also shows, even when the radiological consequences of a large accident are taken into account, nuclear power remains one of the safest sources of electricity. 

However, the research claims, nuclear power poses complex ethical questions regarding its intergenerational impacts as future generations, who will not benefit from today’s nuclear electricity, will have to bear both the risks and costs of nuclear decommissioning and waste management.



Professor Adisa Azapagic said: “Our research shows that there is no ‘best’ electricity option overall but the choice of sustainable options will depend on individual preferences of stakeholders, including the public and decision makers. 



“For example, our findings suggest that solar, hydro and wind are the most favourable electricity options for the UK public. Nuclear power is favourable for 42% of the UK public, while electricity from coal, oil and gas is least favoured.



“The Government should ensure that decisions on the future of nuclear power and other electricity options in the UK take into account a range of sustainability criteria, rather than being based solely on a market-led approach dominated purely by economics.



“However, a market-led approach could play a role, should it prove politically possible to set tight enough carbon targets, with high enough penalties for non-compliance. 

“Whether such leadership is possible is highly questionable. Even more doubtful is whether various stakeholders, including the UK public, would accept it.

“Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Power: An Integrated Approach” The full SPRIng report.