|Foundations of Business|
In this case, we are going to look at the question of the viability
of nuclear energy. There are at least four key aspects of viability, each
of which is strongly disputed.
|Environmental viability||Nuclear energy is dangerous to the environment. There is a constant risk of radiation leaks, and the waste products must be kept in secure storage for hundreds of years.||Nuclear energy is in fact kinder to the environment than the use of fossil fuels, and will be sustainable long after we have used up all the fossil fuels.|
|Economic viability||Nuclear energy is far more expensive than other ways of generating electricity, and is not economically viable. It only makes economic sense when combined with a nuclear weapons programme.||Although nuclear energy has a very long investment cycle, it will eventually become profitable and cost-effective.|
|Social viability||Nuclear energy calls for a very large and tightly managed operation, and requires strong protection. This encourages the formation of socially repressive structures.||Terrorism threatens many aspects of modern society. The structures we put into place to protect nuclear power and other social assets from terrorism should not be blamed on nuclear power alone.|
|System viability||Because of the scale and timescale of nuclear energy programmes, nuclear energy systems are very slow to respond to changes in demand and competition.||This is true of all electricity generation to some extent.|
|The UK nuclear power company British Energy (formerly British
Nuclear Fuels Ltd, BNFL) was denationalized by the Conservative government
At the time, it was argued that this company was economically viable as an independent entity, although there was some strong dissent to this view.
By the end of 2002, the company was in serious financial difficulties and required a massive bailout by the Government.
Underlying this argument is the hypothesis that the efficiency of a technology can be graphed as an S-curve. New technologies may be relatively inefficient initially, because we don’t know how to exploit them properly. As these technologies mature, we learn to exploit them more effectively. However when these technologies reach maturity, the marginal gains from technical innovation are reduced.
Questions of viability depend crucially on how you scope the system of interest, what links (e.g. to weapons programmes) you regard as valid or meaningful, and what your time horizons are.
Questions of viability often lead to heated political debate – involving international relations and environmental policies as well as social issues. At the centre of such political arguments you will often find arguments about the viability or non-viability of some system. Conversely, arguments about system viability are often coloured by the political agenda of their advocates.
What are the factors involved in determining the viability of nuclear energy? Can you identify the differences in scope and perspective that result in different people arriving at very different conclusions? Your task here is not to determine the issue for yourself – although you may have strong views. Your task is to use this issue to get a better understanding of the multidimensional nature of viability.
A proper evaluation would require the collection and analysis of a large amount of detailed information. What kinds of information would be relevant? Where would you expect to get this information, and how reliable would you expect different information sources to be?
|Nuclear Power websites||British Energy http://www.british-energy.com|
|Environment Pressure Group websites||Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk/|
Copyright © 2003 Veryard Projects Ltd & Antelope Projects Ltd