Furthermore, demand for energy is constantly growing in developing countries such as India and China, as their economies grow larger, and living standards and consumerism increases. The demand for oil in developing nations was 26% in 1970, and had risen by a further 14% by 2000. The forecasted growth in energy consumption is 300 quadrillion Btu (British thermal units). This will put further strain on the remaining reserves of oil, coal and gas; reducing the energy security of countries such as the UK. All of the above factors are underpinned by the rapidly depleting reserves of fossil fuels. Current demands for oil are predicted to empty reserves in only 40 years, and only 65 years for gas – only contributing further to energy insecurity and demand for remaining reserves.
From this, it is clear a viable alternative is required over fossil fuels to provide long term energy security, in order to maintain western economies. The challenge is determining which energy source is the best for the situation, and concocting the right balance between the various energy sources. There are several factors which may place nuclear energy above other sources based on energy security. Firstly, Nuclear energy is partially renewable, as a proportion of the waste material can be ‘recycled’ to produce more energy. This will increase the amount of energy that can be extracted from a given amount of uranium, increasing the longevity of reserves. Longer lasting reserves mean greater energy security.
Nuclear energy does not produce any greenhouse gases, and so does not contribute to climate change. This can also increase energy security compared to greenhouse gases; production of nuclear energy will not be affected by any potential mitigation by governments against climate change. Also, only a small quantity of uranium is required to produce comparable amounts of energy produced by large amounts of coal, oil or gas. One kilogram of uranium can produce 20 terajoules of energy; hugely contrasting the relatively meager quantity of only 47 megajoules for gasoline oil. Once again, this increases the longevity of reserves and energy security as a result.
Unlike how the majority of oil in the UK is imported from politically unstable regions of the world, there are large reserves of uranium in politically stable, trading nations such as Canada, Australia and the USA. All of these have strong trade links with the UK, ensuring demands for uranium are met and further increasing the energy security that would result in future investment in nuclear power.
However there are many arguments to counter the advantages of nuclear power. Firstly there is the issue of nuclear waste and how best to deal with it. Uranium 238 (the main resource used to produce nuclear energy) has a half-life of around 4.5 billion years. It is not an issue that will go away with time; there needs to be a method of sustainably disposing of the waste materials, in a way which will not cause any great environmental damage. The disposal of nuclear waste makes nuclear power vulnerable to mitigation and protest, reducing the energy security it would initially provide for countries such as the UK.
Also, there is the issue of nuclear disasters and the resulting opposition and fear of those that would live nearby to a reactor. Images of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, as well as the recent issues with the reactor at Fukushima in Japan are still fresh in the minds of those that protest expanding the number of nuclear power plants in the UK. The classic case of wanting change, just not in your ‘back yard’ arises, as the number of locations for potential plants grows smaller as more protest. The counter argument to this is that new reactors have far greater safety precautions and are much less likely to result in explosions or meltdowns; only the ‘old generation’ of plants are prone to malfunctions that would result in a leak of radioactive material. However in this case it seems the fears of the people speak louder and in greater numbers than those representing the nuclear companies. Difficulties may arise in the future in obtaining litigation to build such plants, considering they cost several billion pounds and spark such fierce debate among local residents.
It is possible that nuclear power, due to the above disadvantages, may not have a great impact on future energy security. Viable alternatives, for example renewables such as wind, biomass and solar may all play even greater roles in the future energy security of western countries such as the UK. The UK has a large capacity for wind energy; it controls vast areas of sea which are ideal locations for wind farms, as well as mountainous, windy regions such as those found in the peak district and the mountainous regions of Scotland. Solar energy may also be viable in developed countries which receive more sunlight, such as southern parts of the USA, Spain and Australia. Finally, biomass can be an ideal method of gaining something positive out of the huge waste caused by western consumerism. Using the gas emitted from the decay of waste materials can greatly lessen the demand on other sources of energy such as oil which promote energy insecurity. For example, the New Hope Power Partnership plant in the USA reduces dependency on oil by over 1 million barrels a year. Perhaps due to the availability of such alternative sources of energy, there is not a requirement for such a shift in energy production patterns that would place nuclear at the top. It is entirely possible that greater investment in renewable energy sources will be the preferred method of dealing with current energy security issues.
It is entirely possible that nuclear power will play an important role in the future energy security of countries such as the UK, simply due to the vast amount of energy it can produce and the stability of nations in which reserves are found. Although there are issues with it as a source of power, I feel once the innovation to dispose of the radioactive waste without causing significant environmental damage is discovered, then there will be very few disadvantages with it as an energy source. However, the question is whether such an innovation will be found in the next 65 years, before our reserves of oil and gas are completely depleted. Renewables such as wind, biomass, solar as well as others may also play an important role in future energy security, however it is uncertain whether they can produce the sheer quantity of energy required to meet growing energy demands.