|
Letter to The Liberal Democrats |
|
|
|
|
Written by The Hon Sir William McAlpine Bt
|
|
Thursday, 10 September 2009 |
I am writing on behalf of Supporters of Nuclear Energy before your annual 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 both the Government and the Conservative Party have included nuclear power as an essential element in the mix of future sources of electricity, though not with any evident enthusiasm. However, we understand the Liberal Democrats remain antagonistic and the leadership wishes to see the end of both coal-fired and nuclear power stations. That would be a recipe for national economic, industrial and social disaster.
What is clear is that all parties are driven more in their approach to energy policy by environmental considerations than the urgent need to secure our energy supplies at lowest cost while reducing carbon emissions. This is frankly dangerous because already our electricity supplies are at risk with the closure of about 25 per cent of our generating capacity – roughly equivalent to 18 large power stations – over the next eight years.
We simply cannot afford any interruption in supply in a few years time, especially in view of the state of the economy and our massive indebtedness.
Energy policy needs to be primarily concerned with security of supply and value for money. Currently, that seems to be the least consideration in view of the massive subsidies being devoted to unreliable renewable sources of energy.
uSwitch.com, the respected price comparisons company, has given us some idea of the cost to the consumer. Over the past five years it says 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 10 years to £5,000.
If we are looking for security of supply as least cost we can be absolutely certain they can never be delivered by unpredictable and unreliable renewables – whether wind, waves, tides or solar – all of which require heavy subsidies, unlike nuclear, to secure their development and operation. Because they have to be backed up by fossil fuel power stations, their very intermittency also make 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 gas from volatile sources now that North Sea oil and gas are depleting rapidly. The Government’s own figures show that 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 parts 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 the recession.
We are also convinced that enthusiasm for micro-generation and smart metering is misplaced, especially in view of their cost, and little more than a gimmick. As with renewables, their implications for the security and integrity of the grid have been ignored. These aspects of energy policy seem to have been developed without any reputable practical engineering advice. Campaigners and theoreticians cannot suspend the laws of physics.
With the impending closure of old coal and nuclear power stations, we desperately need new coal and nuclear generating plant. And the more clean nuclear power stations we build the more coal firing we could tolerate.
It is, of course, desirable to establish the feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration at coal, oil and gas-fired power stations. But we should not overlook the inevitable heavy cost penalty for the consumer who is already being asked to carry the burden of renewables’ development. Energy policy is already exacerbating rather than alleviating what is called fuel poverty.
For all these reasons we look to Liberal Democrats to revise their thinking about energy policy. As things stand, your policy has no credibility and is positively dangerous in its naivete.
To repeat, the objective of energy policy should be to secure energy supplies at lowest cost while minimising carbon emissions. Nuclear is essential. We assume that as a rational party your manifesto will reflect this common sense approach. |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 06 October 2009 )
|
