|
Written by The Hon Sir William McAlpine Bt
|
|
Thursday, 10 September 2009 |
I am writing to you on behalf of Supporters of Nuclear Energy before the conference season gets under way and manifestos for the next General Election are finalised to express our concerns about energy policy.
We do not believe Britain currently has a viable energy policy and that three things are lacking: security of supply at affordable cost and a sense of urgency.
We acknowledge that there is something of a bipartisan approach by Labour and Conservatives to the inclusion of nuclear power in a mix of sources of electricity supply, and we see this as a major improvement over recent years. We are also encouraged by the advocacy by Malcolm Wicks MP, the Prime Minister’s special energy representative, that nuclear should supply up to 40 per cent of our power.
But in our view the approaches of all parties, dominated by environmental concerns, fail to measure up to the impending loss on grounds of age over the next eight years or so of 25 per cent of our generating capacity – equivalent to 18 major power stations – and the serious implications for the consumer of current policies.
uSwitch.com, the respected on-line price comparison service, has just published two
figures that ought to be of major concern to all political parties.
The first is that the average annual domestic energy bill has more than doubled in the last five years to £1,243 and that if that trend continues will reach £4,185 by 2020. That projection does not take account of the cost of the massive energy investment proposed which could add £548 a year to household energy bills for the next 15 years. In other words – and this is the second figure - bills could quadruple in ten years to around £5,000.
This figure has to be set against Britain’s rising level of debt and huge budgetary deficit in a continuing recession of uncertain duration, with rising unemployment. This is not to mention the intensifying problem of fuel poverty.
Given our indebtedness, we simply cannot afford to waste our substance on uncompetitive sources of energy or have any interruption in energy supplies because of the disruption that would bring to national output. Hence our concern about the need for a sense of urgency in securing our supplies at affordable cost. We cannot have secure jobs without secure energy supplies.
It should now be clear to all concerned that heavily subsidised renewable sources of energy – whether wind, waves, tides or solar – cannot provide security of supply because of their unpredictability or intermittency, which in turn make them weak performers in reducing carbon emissions. They do not give value for money. It also seems likely that the most we can expect from a vigorous energy conservation policy is a shaving of rising demand as we come out of recession.
Only nuclear power ticks all the boxes – security of supply at competitive cost in environmentally the cleanest way available. We may pay a severe price for the long delay in embracing it. Let us not now compound that procrastination by perpetuating the lukewarm and complacent approach to its development.
We need to give investors confidence in nuclear’s development, especially in today’s economic conditions. That cannot be done unless the regulatory regime under which it will operate and its access to the market are clarified, given the preference being given on the grid to more expensive and intermittent power. Nor will investors be encouraged if the various parties remain so unwilling to argue the case for it publicly.
Nuclear is necessary and the manifestos of all serious political parties should advocate it robustly as an essential element in the mix of the supply necessary for the sustainable development of the economy and the creation of jobs.
We urge you to press this case.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 06 October 2009 )
|
