The July snowstorm of policy papers, led by The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, proved conclusively Hegel’s claim that governments have never learned anything from history and that this one continues assiduously to avoid any exposure to independent engineering advice.

Of course, the Government made the right noises about nuclear power (see below) but the emphasis of the media coverage suggests it does not matter much in the scheme of things. This is because we still do not have an energy policy concerned with security of supply at affordable cost in a way that most effectively reduces carbon emissions. Instead, we have an environment policy focussed on giving the impression of purposive action to reduce carbon emissions in the most spectacular, fashionable – and sadly ineffective - way.

The situation is quite simple. The Government has committed itself to three unattainable targets: to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent (on 1990 levels) by 2020, en route to an 80 pr cent cut by 2050, and to obtain 15 per cent of our energy (40 per cent of our electricity or about eight times more than now) from renewable sources by 2020.
It is proposing to achieve these aims by building by 2020 only one new nuclear power station (though more later), requiring any new coal-fired power station to be retrofitted with as yet unproven but inevitably expensive carbon capture equipment, constructing another 7,000 wind turbines on and offshore – well over twice as many as now - and introducing smart meters, feed in tariffs and microgeneration so beloved of the Conservatives as well as trying to moderate demand.

We can state without the slightest fear of contradiction that much of this is illiterate in engineering terms and pie in the sky. It will bring neither security of supply nor do much to cut carbon emissions by 2020.Worse still, it will cost the earth – money in our hugely indebted state we cannot afford to blow on gash remedies. Abandon all hope you who enter………

COMPLACENCY
There will be some SONE members – perhaps many – who think this is a little churlish, given the positive references to nuclear in theWhite Paper. It has, however, very little new to say about it, mostly bringing together announcements already made across departments. It confirms that we cannot expect a new nuclear power station generating electricity until 2018, though it claims companies are committed to building 12,400MW of new plant.

Thanks to all the past procrastination, nuclear is not going to do much more for security of supply or carbon emissions reduction by 2020.

The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the White Paper, saying it reaffirmed nuclear power’s crucial role as part of a low carbon future. It was currently the largest source of low carbon electricity in the UK and vital it retained its place in the generating mix, especially as 50 per cent of carbon cuts by 2020 had to come from the power sector and transport would require more electricity if it was to meet its carbon reduction target.
This is all very well but, like Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON, the nuclear builder, we found precious little urgency. Indeed, there is a new complacency. TheWhite Paper says the UK is likely to have sufficient generating capacity in the mid teens of the next decade in spite of closures.

It does so on the basis that 2,000MWof new power stations are to be commissioned this year, 8,000MWis under construction, 10,500MWhas planning consent and agreement to connect to the grid and another 7,500MWis seeking it. Unfortunately, it does not specify how all this – 28,000MW- will be fired. It looks as if another dash for relatively dirty and increasingly expensive gas is under way.

THE PROBLEM IN 2009
This brings us to what SONE is up against in 21stC Britain.We have moved in a few years from outright official hostility to nuclear by both the governing and main opposition parties to its acceptance as part of the generating mix. But there is no evident enthusiasm for it and no willingness to go out and explain to the people why it is necessary. Indeed, on the basis of the power station orders above, they may feel no great compulsion to do so.

This does not apparently gel with the mad rush to build another 7,000 wind turbines, or 10,000 in all, on land and offshore at a cost of £100bn.Why go for such a grossly expensive and unreliable form of power that cannot match nuclear as a reducer of carbon emissions when it is not needed? The answer is that wind, unlike nuclear, is officially classed as a renewable and what seems to matter is renewable generation rather than necessarily carbon suppression.

The EU requires 15 per cent of our energy (or 40 per cent of our electricity) to be obtained from renewables by 2020. Hence the irrational determination to demonstrate the nation’s green credentials while wrecking our unspoiled hills and shores with forests of turbines at enormous expense.

The cynic would say it does not matter much since there is no hope of building those 7,000 turbines by 2020 – a hope not improved by the recent closure of Vestas’wind turbine plant on the Isle ofWight. Power station orders show the lights will stay on. In any case, wind’s contribution would be far less than suggested since wind generates only 25 per cent of its rated capacity. And, of course, the politicians who plumped for wind won’t have to answer for any failure to meet targets in the years to come.

In the meantime, they pay lip service to nuclear while, like Mr Micawber, hoping that something will turn up to avoid the need for a major nuclear programme. Nuclear’s future access to the grid is still far from clear. Given the grid’s requirement to take renewable energy, is nuclear ludicrously to be left to fill the gaps when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too hard?

One thing is clear: SONE may have won a battle but it most certainly has not won the war.

YOU COULDN’TMAKE IT UP
Again some members of SONE may well think this is unduly cynical and pessimistic. But hold hard. The National Grid reportedly believes it can handle up to 35 per cent or so of unpredictable renewable power, even though experts we consult doubt whether the figure in Britain’s largely closed system is much beyond eight per cent.

The truth is that nobody knows because we are in unexplored territory. Others wonder whether the National Grid is playing games since wind capacity rated to produce 35 per cent of Britain’s power requirements would, in practice, generate – wait for it – only about eight pr cent of the nation’s needs across the year.

But this does not take account of the peaks in wind turbine generation. What is going to happen when on a perfect, blowy day every blade is turning? Unlike the Danes, we cannot give it away across the Continent since our link is limited. (Incidentally, latterly that 2, 000MWlink has been feeding France because a heat wave put some of their nuclear power stations built on rivers out of action).

Well, the man from Poyry has the answer. Dr Phil Hare, one of its analysts, who may not have heard of cash flow, says it’s simple: if the wind were to drop everywhere around the UK other generators would make their money by switching on backup fossil fuel for a short time and charging extremely high prices. These back up generators might stand idle for years without making a profit, “so the Government might need to find a new way of ensuring they were funded”.

He added: “Nuclear power stations will have to be built with variable output so they, like gas and coal plants, can occasionally cut their power when the wind is blowing most strongly. It does look as though nuclear, coal and gas are competing for the same share of the market”.

Guess who Poyry produced their report for.Why, the National Grid, Centrica and others. You couldn’t make it up? Nobody, it seems, has asked the question why we need to accommodate to wind at all when it is grossly uneconomic and intermittent and therefore not very good at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

AVOIDING THE OBVIOUS
We wish – and how! – we were able to write more about nuclear’s development and less about wind, renewables and all the other crackpot ideas that are regularly touted as a solution to global warming. But, as we are in business to secure a new generation of nuclear power stations and these ideas are presented as an alternative to it, we have to respond. If we do not destroy their performance as compared with nuclear’s, we are in danger of being swamped.

Throughout SONE’s eleven-year existence there has been an official determination to look anywhere but at nuclear for a remedy – to avoid the obvious solution. That search continues and an enormous effort is being expended to persuade us that renewables are the answer to all our prayers.

In a report commissioned by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, RSPB andWWF on July 8, a socalled energy expert, David Milborrow, reported there is no technical reason why a significant amount – a “high proportion” – of wind could not be assimilated on the grid without the lights going out. He said variations in wind power were considerably less than other demands caused by the weather and even TV programmes. This followed a Carbon Trust report suggesting the UK could create 250,000 jobs and gain up to £70bn in revenue from offshore wind and wave technologies. Needless to say, Milborrow’s report was welcomed by the National Grid as well as Greenpeace who said it “scuppers the final arguments against wind power”.

One of the ironies as we approach the UN Copenhagen climate change conference in December is that the virtues of the most effective reducer of carbon emissions – nuclear - are being written down if not entirely off.We shall continue to argue nuclear’s case and, while recognising there is going to be a mix of sources of electrical power for years to come, demonstrate why other sources cannot hold a candle to it.

SONE’S LIKE MINDS
Fortunately, we have our allies, though they may baulk at the term. Before publication of the Government’s low carbon strategy, the CBI, backed by a McKinsey report, called on the Government to scale back “over-ambitious” wind power targets and boost nuclear and coal. It said that “if we carry on like this we will end up putting too many eggs in one basket”. It worried about wind crowding out investment in nuclear power stations and, in doing so, felt it necessary to deny it had been captured by the nuclear lobby.

Energy Policy then published a report from a former Rolls-Royce engineer, James Oswald, saying wind is too volatile to provide reliable energy. He said: “The problem is that wind power volatility requires fossil fuel plants to be switched on and off, which damages them and means that even more plants will have to be built. Carbon savings will be less than expected because cheaper, less efficient plant will be used to support these wind power fluctuations. Neither these extra costs nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in Government figures for wind power”.

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at Oxford University, also weighed in saying through The Times that it was obvious that if all the wind turbines the government and Conservative Opposition want are built, they will not make even a tiny dent in the atmosphere’s carbon concentration. Moreover the emphasis on renewable energy and the commitment of £100bn or more to it could make things worse by sending energy intensive industries to countries such as China and India.

BACK TO VALUE FOR MONEY
Let us therefore take stock. Primacy is being given in our so-called energy policy to heavily subsidised investment in unreliable sources of energy, unproven technology and economies that depend crucially on personal behaviour to the relative neglect of proven nuclear technology that is the cleanest form of generation now available.

It is being done at the expense of the consumer who is largely unaware of the actual or likely cost. To be fair, Ed Miliband, Secretary of Energy, admits it will not come cheap but there is as much fog about the eventual impact on bills as there is mist swirling around the sources of the massive investment required.

We have had a stab at trying to clarify the position for SONE members. uSwitch.com, the on-line price comparison service, puts the current average domestic energy bill at £1,243, more than double the figure five years ago. It says that if that trend continues it will be £4,185 by 2020 and, if you add in £548 a year for the next 15 years to cover the investment required, bills could quadruple to £5,000 by 2020.

This may be more indicative than precise but it contrasts pretty sharply with the Government’s White Paper estimate of a six per cent impact on household energy bills and 15 per cent on business energy costs. The Government’s figure is, of course, the net cost for its measures, though it does not take account of any benefits from British leadership in new industries and services or the long-term cost of failing to tackle climate change, assuming it exists. It is also true that the Government’s estimate relates only to the effects of its measures and not, like uSwitch’s, to a view of total influences on the energy market.

On investment, it is clear that the Government’s £100bn figure relates only to renewables. But uSwitch gives a detailed breakdown over and above that totalling £233.5bn to 2020 made up of renewable generation - £112.5bn; other power plants, including nuclear - £52.1bn, upgrading pipes, networks and gas storage - £39.8bn; carbon emissions reduction - £15.7bn; and smart metering - £13.4bn. And that, it says, will put £548 a year on to household bills for next 15 years.

We conclude that while global warming may not be the greatest scientific hoax in history, as one scientist recently put it, the response to its supposed risks is the greatest and most expensive folly man has ever perpetrated. It is wholly irrational and pays not the slightest regard to even the most rudimentary concepts of value for money.

If the response were rational, nuclear, God’s gift to security of supply at economical cost while doing more than any other fuel to minimise carbon emissions, would have been resurgent more than a decade ago. SONE’s battle is as much for common sense as it is for nuclear.

HONORARY DEGREE
We are delighted to announce that one of our oldest and most active members, Alan Shaw, of Norfolk, has been awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Engineering at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, in recognition of his services to the electricity generation industry and his advocacy of the university.

OBITUARY
We regret to announce the death of a life member, Alexander M B Lawrie, of Lybster, Caithness.

DATE FOR DIARY
A reminder that SONE’s annual meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 20 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers at 1 BirdcageWalk, SW1, 12-3pm. Charles Hendry, Shadow Energy Minister, is to speak.