|
LETTER TO CONSERVATIVE PARTY |
|
|
|
|
Written by SONE
|
|
Wednesday, 26 August 2009 |
I am writing to you on behalf of Supporters of Nuclear Energy before the party conference and while you are formulating your manifesto for the General Election to express our concerns about the state of UK energy policy.
In doing so, we recognise that latterly the Conservative Party has, like the Government, included nuclear power in the mix of future sources of electricity, though not apparently with any enthusiasm. Preparatory work for the building of new nuclear power stations is certainly in train but the latest indication from the Government is that 2018 is the earliest a new nuclear station will feed power into the grid.
This has to be seen against the impending closure of roughly 25 per cent of our generating capacity – equivalent to 18 large power stations – in the next eight years.
It is clear that the energy policies of all our political parties are driven more by environmental considerations than by a recognition of the urgent need to secure energy and power supplies at lowest cost while at the same time minimising carbon emissions. As a result these policies lack credibility and the Conservative Party’s policies are no exception.
They certainly take no account of value for money at a time when energy bills are high, people are feeling the pinch of the recession and there are rising concerns about fuel poverty. Some estimates suggest that the cost of proposed Government measures, with which the Conservatives appear to be in broad agreement, could be 11 to 17 times any possible economic benefit.
Yet Conservatives above all should surely place value for money at the heart of energy policy. Currently, this fundamental requirement is to all intents and purposes ignored.
uSwitch.com, the respected price comparisons company, has revealed several startling facts in putting some figures to the cost. In the last five years the average annual domestic energy bill has more than doubled to £1,243. If that trend were to continue it would reach £4,185 by 2020. But that does not take account of the massive energy investment proposed. uSwitch says this could add £548 a year to household energy bills for the next 15 years and quadruple them in ten years to £5,000.
These figures have to be set against Britain’s rising level of debt and huge budgetary deficit in a continuing recession of uncertain duration.
It is one thing for voters to be faced with crippling bills. It is entirely another matter if those huge bills in a few years’ time are less than they might have been solely because of devastating interruptions in supply as the closure of old coal and nuclear power stations gets under way and a gap in supply opens up.
In all these circumstances, we simply cannot afford to waste our substance on uncompetitive and unreliable sources of energy and electricity or have any interruption in supplies because of the consequent loss of production. Hence our concerns about the need for a sense of urgency in securing our supplies at affordable cost and in a way that minimises carbon emissions.
It is by now demonstrably clear that security of supply can never be delivered by unpredictable and unreliable renewable sources of energy – whether wind, waves, tides or solar – all of which require heavy subsidies, unlike nuclear, to secure their development and operation. Because of the need for back-up from fossil fuel stations, their very intermittency also makes them weak performers in reducing carbon emissions, the sole justification for subsidising them.
Only nuclear power can directly ensure greater security of supply while also limiting the use of fossil fuels and our dependence on imported supplies of gas from volatile sources now that North Sea oil and gas are depleting rapidly. The Government’s own figures show nuclear is the cleanest form of power generation available. Other advantages which nuclear brings are economy in the use of land and grid connection and economic security for remoter areas of Britain. It also secures a place for the UK at the cutting edge of high technology.
We believe that the benefits to be had from energy conservation are vastly over-estimated, though we would like to see conservation promoted more vigorously since it could temper rising demand when we emerge from recession.
We are also convinced that Conservative enthusiasm for micro-generation and smart metering is entirely misplaced and little more than a gimmick. Their cost is likely far to outweigh their benefits and the implications for the security and integrity of the grid have been ignored. It is time energy policy was developed with practical engineering advice instead of relying on theoreticians.
It is, of course, desirable to establish the feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration for coal, oil and gas-fired power stations. But we should not overlook the inevitably heavy cost to the consumer who is already being asked to carry the burden of renewables’ development, mostly as a consumer but also as a taxpayer under the Government’s latest plans for wind power development.
For all these reasons we look to a Conservative Government to display far more determination to develop nuclear power and crucially to clarify its access to the market since current policies amazingly give priority to totally uneconomic and unreliable renewable sources.
We also desperately need more political commitment to expounding nuclear’s merits and exposing the myths about radiation and the grossly exaggerated costs of decommissioning and waste management.
Nuclear deserves and needs a firm commitment from the Conservative Party. Without this a new nuclear programme could be put at risk or suffer further potentially damaging delay because of the high level of investment required. For these reasons we urge you to put this commitment in your manifesto.
|
