|
2003 Jan, Newsletter No.54 |
|
|
|
|
Written by SONE
|
|
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 |
OUTLOOK: UNCERTAIN, CHANGEABLE, POSSIBLY STORMY
To many members,
your Newsletter may sometimes seem to be pessimistic. We prefer to call it
realistic. Call it what you will, the outlook for 2003 is not exactly rosy.
North Korea’s nuclear provocations, the prospect of war with Iraq, falling faith
in the Government’s economic competence, the certainty of higher taxes, a
serious pensions crisis and problems across the board of public services are not
the background we would have prescribed for the formulation of an energy White
Paper which serves the national interest.
To many members, your Newsletter may sometimes seem to be pessimistic. We prefer
to call it realistic. Call it what you will, the outlook for 2003 is not exactly
rosy. North Korea’s nuclear provocations, the prospect of war with Iraq, falling
faith in the Government’s economic competence, the certainty of higher taxes, a
serious pensions crisis and problems across the board of public services are not
the background we would have prescribed for the formulation of an energy White
Paper which serves the national interest.
A Government preoccupied with
public opinion would have to summon up all its reserves of political courage to
produce a relevant energy policy – ie one that contains a substantial nuclear
element – even with a favourable political wind behind it. One such facing dirty
political weather tends to batten down the hatches and play safe. The balance of
advice within Government will be to do just that since the “Greens” have the
inside track.
SONE members may well feel that going for renewables and
conservation, importing more gas and doing nothing about the several
discriminations against nuclear such as the climate change levy is running
serious risks with the nation’s power supplies. But to politicians, whose
horizon usually stretches no further than the next election, it represents
safety. If, in spite of playing safe, they lose the election, then the other lot
can take the odium for the hard decisions. In any case, there’s no rush, they
would say, since we’ve a big margin of safety in our electricity supplies – some
20% -provided they keep British Energy in its new semi-nationalised state.
All this may seem to us impossibly cynical. But politics is a cynical
game. And none of us in SONE should be under any illusion at the outset of 2003.
As things stand, the British nuclear industry is being phased out just as surely
as is Germany’s, Belgium’s and Sweden’s by their present crops of politicians.
Our task is to change that. Against the background set out above – and the view
held in all parties that Russia and Algeria are eternally reliable suppliers of
gas – we may not secure decisive change this year. But it cannot be long delayed
if we keep plugging away at the reality – namely, that a nuclear future is the
only viable future. The rest is pie in the sky. That might be our one-liner for
2003.
COMPANION OF HONOUR
Our warmest congratulations to
one of our patrons, Professor James Lovelock for his elevation to the Order of
Companion of Honour in the New Year Honours List for his services to global
environmental science. The honour is limited to 65 distinguished living
individuals. Professor Lovelock, 83, scientist, inventor and author won
international fame for developing the Gaia theory which considers the planet
Earth to function as a self-regulated living being. He was the first scientist
to identify choloflourocarbons in the air, using one of his inventions. He now
lives in Cornwall but is a regular guest at the chairman’s lunches.
YOUR CHAIRMAN WRITES.......
Below, your chairman, Sir
William McAlpine writes a personal letter to all members of SONE. Please respond
generously.
SELLAFIELD MEETING
The general meeting for
members at Sellafield Visitor Centre on April 28 is scheduled for 12 noon to
3pm. Professor Ian Fells has accepted an invitation to give us an up-to-date
analysis of the state of energy policy.
PRINCIPALITIES & SOCCER
PITCHES
One of the slides in Dr Richard Mayson’s BNFL talk on the
availability of nuclear reactors at SONE’s AGM has become a great talking point.
It is jam packed with debating barbs for those of us whose blood sport is the
renewables lobby. It stems from Dr Mayson’s fascination with the power that
nuclear packs into a very small area. So, what is required to generate the same
amount of electricity – 1000MW – as the average nuclear power station?
Wind? Well, at least 3,000 wind turbines of 1MW each, allowing for their
intermittency. That would require a land area equivalent to inner London. Waves?
Theoretically, 30 miles of Salter’s Ducks – that is, stretching, for example,
from Liverpool to Fleetwood. But....we haven’t much yet by way of proof and the
ducks would be a hazard to shipping. Sun - ie solar power: For solar voltaics,
using the Shell system installed at the Munich Trade Fair Centre, half as much
again as inner London. But the DTI guide to solar power states: “The UK’s
climatic conditions appear to make this thermal solar power technology
impractical here”. Biomass - ie wood: 30,000 sq kms of forest – one the size of
Wales.
Bio-oil? 24,000 sq kms of rape seed – that would turn an area
equivalent to the Highlands of Scotland yellow and have millions of people
sneezing their heads off.
Bio-alcohol? Here you have a splendid choice.
You can devote the whole of Devon (6,200 sq kms) to sugar beet; the whole of
Sussex and Kent (7,400 sq kms) to spuds; the whole of Yorkshire (16,100 sq kms)
to corn; or the whole of the UK (272,000 sq kms) to wheat. And don’t complain if
you go hungry.
Bio-gas? This is the piece de resistance of renewables.
To provide the gas to generate 1000MW you’d need to keep 800million chickens
with regular digestive systems. Best practice chicken keeping allows 10-11
chickens per sq m. So the biogas farm would cover about a third of inner London,
not counting the midden. But just think of the pong. On the other hand, don’t.
Nuclear? Why, a measly 10 soccer pitches. Perhaps our slogan for 2003 should be:
Get real.
SONE’S WINTER WISDOM
Two SONE members –
Professor Sir Fred Holliday (a patron) and Hugh Collum, chairman of BNFL –
played prominent roles in the December BNES/BNIF/InstNucE Energy Choices
conference in London. We summarise their papers below.
Professor
Holliday, speaking as an environmentalist, said he was seriously alarmed at the
medium- and long-term prospects of achieving either global protection of the
environment or the sustainable management of the world’s ecosystems and species.
Indeed, he believed the future was being betrayed. And a substantial part of the
blame lay with people who regarded and presented themselves as
environmentalists.
He charged too many of them with an unrealistic view
of human nature – at its best and at its worst. They also failed to appreciate
just how much reliable, 24-hours-a-day energy a world run on sustainable
principles would require in the future. The culture of the West was imposing
itself world wide. Global communication networks and tourism aided the process
and world wide governments were responding to their people’s aspiration for
cars, air conditioning, hospitals, schools, overseas travel etc.
Against
the background of the steady spread of democracy, governments could not long
resist the aspirations of the voting majority. So, selfinterest was pushing
governments towards Western standards and Western expectations and would not be
deflected by the exhortations of minorities.
On climate change,
Professor Holliday said we had passed a critical point. We were faced with the
strong possibility that, through inundation by the sea, we should have to
relocate millions of people. Currently, refugees presented political and social
problems enough. Future changes would exacerbate matters, perhaps dramatically.
Putting together the forces of globalisation and climate change, he saw
a need for huge amounts of energy both to advance living standards and protect
the world and its inhabitants. A sustainable world in which mankind could live
free of want and fear would be an energy-hungry world. And, taking into account
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, the case for boosting nuclear power
was overwhelming. Unreasonable fears of nuclear power and its security should
not be placed ahead of our care for the global environment.
Nuclear
NOW
Hugh Collum, speaking on “Why Britain needs the nuclear option –
now”, said we could not just tinker with existing policy because 10 years ahead
we faced, on current policies, the real possibility of energy rationing or
regular power cuts and a steady deterioration in the quality of the environment.
The age of security of the UK’s energy supply was ending. It found us
with very limited gas storage, a declining safety margin in electricity supplies
which would be below 20% by 2007-8, and falling nuclear capacity. With the best
will in the world, renewables would never be able to fill the gap we faced.
Nuclear power was the only answer if we required both security of baseload
supply and a reduction in emissions.
It was now time for a decision to
that effect – not another fudge. What was standing in the way of that decision
was perception. Nuclear was suffering from a massive and unjustified PR
hangover. BNFL’s surveys showed that the public were not so much worried about
the message as the messenger. They were not concerned about nuclear energy as
such but about the industry as messenger. They were suspicious. Industry and
Government now had to convince a sceptical audience that they were serious, that
vital decisions had to be made for Britain’s future and would be made openly
with honest debate. “I firmly believe that the nuclear industry is an industry
of the future, not of the past”, Mr Collum added, “and that we can win the
argument. But we need to go out and make it.
Only three things will
determine our industry’s future – perception, perception, perception. And only
three things will convince our audience to change their perception – honesty,
honesty, honesty. We have nothing to hide. Let us all be proud of that”.
THE CALIFORNIA CATCH
Graham Brightman, a St Bees
(Cumbria) member, sends us his up-to-date report on California’s wind power.
It’s declining – as wind energy firms go bankrupt. The state’s 13,000 wind
turbines generate a mere 1.2% of California’s total electricity output. And the
San Francisco Chronicle’s writers are getting the wind up. Mr Brightman, on
holiday there, found one of the most favourable geographies in the world for
wind power generation: a long Pacific coastline, steady winds of the right speed
and plenty of wide open spaces. Yet its output is marginal. More alarmingly, he
found certain parallels between California and the UK. Like us, its electricity
generation relies increasingly on gas. Like us, its nuclear generation is
decreasing. But marginal though its wind power is, it is three times more than
ours. And it has vastly more hydropower, generating nearly 10% of the state’s
electricity. Yet it has experienced “brownouts” through lack of investment in
new generating plant.
“The UK will soon be more dependent on gas than is
California (42.7%),” Mr Brightman adds. “So, UK prospects for a sensibly
balanced mix of sources are increasingly dire.” Unless, of course, the British
Government heeds this Newsletter, Professor Holliday and Mr Collum.
SCOTLAND: IT AIN’T ON
By now the Scottish Executive
should have got the message. SONE and its members have pretty bluntly told it
that its idea of generating 40% of its electricity through renewable sources is,
to be polite, fanciful or likely to be painful.
Alan Shaw, an Aylsham
(Norwich) member, has told the Executive that the UK grid has no experience of
the technical and economic impact of the rapid introduction of large amounts of
intermittent, variable and uncontrolled output on a day to day basis. The need
for politicians to work through engineers on such highly complex technical
matters was absolute in the national interest.
But even if they did,
they wouldn’t get an instant answer. Mr Shaw says it is not at present possible
to define the maximum percentage of Scottish electricity likely to be provided
by wind power at reasonable public cost and at no risk of destabilising part or
the whole of the national system. Terry Jones, a Carlisle member, reckons that,
given commitment, it should be possible to get 40% of Scotland’s electricity
from renewables by 2020. But, oh, the sting in his tale. Exports to England
would have to be ended, he says; large scale hydro would have to be developed as
well as the Pentland Firth’s large-scale tidal potential; and it would cost a
lot of money.
And if exports of electricity to the rest of the UK had to
be ended why should English and Welsh consumers contribute, as proposed, to the
upgrading of the Scottish grid? The only sustainable strategy for wind power is
to use it locally. So move the Forestry Commission’s HQ from Edinburgh to the
forests of NW Sutherland. That in turn would relieve pressure on Edinburgh
property prices and enhance the fragile community of NW Scotland.
I
suspect that the Scottish Executive now thinks SONE and its members are
altogether too damn logical and practical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 2003
Dear Member
I am writing to you at the
beginning of the most crucial year in several decades for nuclear power to seek
your further help in reinforcing our efforts to secure a rational and
sustainable energy policy. Some of you have, I know, already sent generous
contributions to the Treasurer and I want to thank you personally for them.
I am, however, charged by SONE’s AGM to address the wider membership.
Our total assets are down to some £7,500. This is a pitifully small amount
measured against the need for a sustained campaign for nuclear power. Yet
however flimsy our resources, I do believe that, on the basis of my experience
as your chairman, that we have made a difference over recent years. We do
provide nuclear power with an independent voice, teeth, bite and debating power.
Nuclear cannot be ignored while SONE exists.
The fact remains that,
however carefully we have husbanded our funds, we have run SONE at a loss of
some £2,000 a year. We now have barely enough left for three more years’
operation as a limited company provided we retain existing members, continue to
recruit and keep down costs. Your committee has considered ways of securing
SONE’s future while at the same time retaining an enthusiastic membership based
on committed individuals. I would therefore ask you, as one of those committed
individuals, whether ordinary, life or patron members, to do two things this
year: first, to make a donation over and above the basic annual £25 subscription
to help with immediate financing. As one member from Cumbria put it in donating
£25: “If everybody did that our troubles would be over”.
second, to
recruit one new member each in the course of the year. Together, your donation
and a doubling of the membership would secure our future and enable us to raise
our game at this crucial time. Thank you, and may 2003 be crowned with success
for you.
Yours faithfully,
Sir William McAlpine chairman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 09 September 2005 )
|
|
|
|
Join SONE |
|
We need your support To become a member of SONE download the application form by clicking the button below  |
|
