SONE’S AGM EDITION: AN ENCOURAGING POLITICAL SURPRISE
SONE’s well-attended AGM on October 20 was entertained to an encouraging political display. Conservative Shadow Energy Minister, Charles Hendry,impressed members with his grasp of the issues and praised the contribution of former Labour Ministers, Energy Secretary John Hutton, and Malcolm Wicks, Minister of State, for their role in promoting a nuclear renaissance.

In an essentially optimistic separate presentation, Mr Wicks, now the Prime Minister’ special representative on international energy, reiterated his view that nuclear should generate 35-40 per cent of the nation’s power from 2030.He urged SONE to maintain pressure on the Conservatives to preserve a united front on nuclear’s development.

The chairman, Sir William McAlpine, thanking members for generously funding another two years’ of SONE operations following his appeal, asked them to let the Secretary, Alexander Center, have their views on SONE’s priorities for the next crucial 12 months. His remarks are summarised below. Members should let the Secretary have their comments by December 1 so that the committee can consider them on December 8.

The Secretary said the fact that 89 per cent of the membership was either attending the meeting or had conveyed their apologies spoke volumes for their commitment to the cause. The formal business of the meeting unanimously:

• Approved the minutes of the previous AGM and the annual report and accounts;

• Re-elected the directors – Sir William, the Secretary and Terry Westmoreland,Treasurer;

• Re-elected the committee comprising the directors plus A J Bull, Neville Chamberlain, James T Corner, Robert Freer, Geoffrey Greenhalgh, Sir Bernard Ingham,Martin Morland,Keith Parker, Simon Rippon, Ann Robinson, Professor J A Simmons, Paul H Spare, Peter Vey and Dr W L Wilkinson.

• Re-elected the auditors, Gary Sergeant & Co.

The chairman paid tribute to thework for SONE of three late members -Lord Gregson, a patron, and Dr David Fishlock, a member of the committee, who had died recently; and Sel Ghalib, a member whose death at 95 was reported that morning. The Secretary expressed thanks for their help during the year to EdF (particularly for sponsoring the AGM and buffet lunch); the Nuclear Industry Association and World Nuclear Association; Nuclear Issues,The Mullet Press (which prints and distributes both the SONE Newsletter and Nuclear Issues) and Sticky New Media, SONE’s website managers.

The next two years
In a statement focusing members on SONE’s future priorities, Sir William said that, thanks to its members, SONE could now fund operations to June 2011. The bad news was that we still did not have a single order for a nuclear power station or a reactor system licensed for use in Britain, let alone with planning permission. While he had no doubt there would eventually be a nuclear renaissance, politicians seemed to be preoccupied with every form of power, unconventional or otherwise, appart from nuclear, even though it had been successful for 50 years. At the same time, it seemed there had been a massive “stealth dash for gas” of up to 20,000MW, regardless of the future price or security of supply.

Chairman’s priorities
In these circumstances, SONE must decide what it wanted to achieve over the next two years, given its limited resources. In his view SONE needed to:

• step up arguing the case for nuclear; we had already begun by writing to around 100 leaders of the three main political parties and the TUC to try to influence party manifestos; these letters are downloadable from the SONE website (sone.org.uk) and he said he would like members to send the appropriate one to their MP and use the text to write to the media.

• identify more natural allies such as large energy users, who face an uncertain future.

• identify publicly and if possible eliminate any obstacles to progress towards new nuclear build.

• try to secure a sense of urgency over nuclear development and security of supply among the powers that be. Sir William said those against new nuclear power stations were at their most vulnerable when asked to explain why they excluded the safest, most reliable and cheapest generating option - nuclear – that emits next to no carbon. Are they in favour of reducing carbon emissions or not? And are they in favour of securing value for money or are they not?

Needs – and problems
In the course of a brief discussion before the first speaker took the floor, members made the following points:

1 – Difficult though it might be, SONE needed to bang home its messages through the national aswell as local media.

2 – SONE had to face the fact that the more renewables – and notably wind and solar – fell apart, the more vituperative the anti-nukes became against nuclear.They were not willing to listen to reason but unfortunately had a very effective PR operation. SONE needed to capture the attention of the relatively few national journalists who approached the issue with reasonably open minds.

3 – Leaders of the nuclear industry as well as politicians seemed reluctant to speak up for nuclear power and SONE should encourage them to stand up for their fuel.

4 – It was estimated that a wrangle with the Treasury over how much nuclear inspectors could be paid had delayed nuclear’s development by 18 months: SONE clearly needed to promote a sense of urgency all along the line.

5 – It was a matter of concern that the imminent Government statement about suitable sites for nuclear development would include very few new ones.

6 – Whatever optimistic noises were being made, skills required by the nuclear industry should be identified as an obstacle to progress - as the Finnish reactor under construction demonstrated. Sub-contractors able to weld to the requisite high nuclear standards were in short supply.

The Wicks’ analysis
Malcolm Wicks has the distinction of being the only Energy Minister to address SONE in its entire 11 years existence. He was therefore warmly welcomed back by the chairman to elaborate on his August report to the Prime Minister – Energy Security – a national challenge in a changing world.

Mr Wicks argued that historians looking back on the 21st Cenergy situation would see two major factors in operation: global warming and the geopolitics of energy insecurity once the world emerged from recession. On different scenarios, the International Energy Agency saw energy demand rising between 2006-30 by anything from 22 to 45 per cent. In the West energy demand was flattening and the developed nations should be able to demonstrate it was possible to grow economically while reducing energy demand. But demand would soar in the developing countries.

At the same time the UK was no longer self-sufficient. The North Sea oil and gas province was declining by 6-8 per cent a year and by 2020 we could be importing 70-80 per cent of our gas. Nuclear was in decline and we imported roughly two-thirds of our coal.

UK at risk
On this basis the UK could be geopolitically at risk. As the century unfolded we could see nation states using their muscle to command energy resources. This meant that Britain needed to focus far more on energy security alongside global warming. We should not put all our eggs in one basket but we should have much more active bilateral arrangements with energy suppliers.

His programme of action provided for the serious pursuit of:

a) greater energy efficiency on the basis that the energy we did not usewas its cleanest, cheapest and most secure form

b) the development of renewables, recognising that the EU target of 30 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020was a tough one

c) clean coal – and getting it applied in China as a top priority

d) unsubsidised but “facilitated” nuclear power to make sure that it generated anything from 35-40 per cent of UK power after 2030 because of the enhanced energy security and reduced carbon emissions it would bring.

In an essentially optimistic summing up, he argued that, while there was a lot to do, British public opinion had moved towards nuclear power. At the same time, the Government had created a momentum towards nuclear’s development by establishing the Office of Nuclear Development; facilitating the generic assessment of reactors and EdF/British Energy takeover discussions; bringing in a new Planning Act and getting close to a solution to the “problem” of nuclear waste.

Renewables
In the following discussion it was argued that there was a danger of a loss of focus over nuclear’s development because there were so many players on the nuclear scene. It was delivery that counted and there was a case for an overriding delivery authority.

It was perhaps on renewables that Mr Wicks found the going hardest. Dr Johnny Ball pointed out that there was little public opposition to nuclear yet no new power stations were being built where as wind farms were being installed all over the country in the face of much opposition. How could this be explained?

Others asked how it was possible to defend renewables – meaning effectively wind – when they had to be heavily subsidised, did not provide secure supplies, were poor reducers of carbon emissions because of their intermittency and simply did not represent value for money. It was also pointed out that policy was not even handed when renewables were heavily subsidised by the consumer while the political class resolutely opposed any subsidies for nuclear, even when they were not necessarily sought.

Mr Wicks acknowledged that wind was relatively expensive and clearly hoped formore from diversification into wave and tidal power. John Edmonds, a SONE patron, argued that it was important that SONE should not get in a false position over renewables. SONE would be best advised to concentrate on making the most of nuclear’s advantages and potential instead of attacking a form of energy that was not a competitor.

Hendry’s challenge
Charles Hendry said he had been Shadow Energy Minister for four years during which time the Government had had eight Energy Ministers. In fact, there had been 15 Energy Ministers in 12 years – and that might be part of the problem. He hoped there would be greater continuity in the future.

There was now a genuine risk of the lights going out in the next Parliament or the Parliament after that and the public needed to be involved in the debate about the scale of the “incredibly expensive” challenge to put matters right. Security of supply was crucial and the Government must become more engaged – aswere Governments in Europe - in achieving it after a period of energy plenty.

There needed to be a change of ethos from that which ruled when North Sea oil and gas were in full flow and the market was left to provide. In electricity supply we had been left with artificially low prices as a result of sweating assets and a big hole in supply, little gas storage compared with the French and Germans – 15-16 days compared with 100 and 120 days respectively – and “amazingly ambitious” targets for renewables, plus the potential of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and nuclear.

He praised the efforts of John Hutton (“without whom we would not be where we are”) and Malcolm Wicks in facilitating discussion to take nuclear out of politics, as he hoped would be possible.The Conservatives had moved a long way since they described nuclear as “a last resort” and were now seeking to remove obstacles to its development. While the UK was one of the most exciting places for nuclear build, he warned that we could not assume that enough had been done to lock the nuclear developers into a new nuclear programme.

Carbon price
In reviewing the state of play in generic design assessment, the planning system, skills, supply chain and the handling of nuclear waste, Mr Hendry drew particular attention to Conservative plans to democratise the Government’s reformed planning system. He said they intended that the Secretary of State should take the actual planning decision (not the appointed planning commission, which would make a recommendation) to secure a degree of account ability and that there should be Parliamentary endorsement for the national nuclear policy statement to provide some protection against judicial review.

He also emphasised the importance of removing barriers to investment in nuclear by providing reassurance, including a fair regime for the treatment of new waste. In this context he hinted at converting the climate change levy into a carbon price or tax, even to the extent of going it alone, like France, if necessary, though international agreement was preferable.

Finally, he believed that communities in Britain were “crying out” for new investment in nuclear. Sellafield certainly wanted to be part of the new nuclear future and some of the sites that might be left off the list for future development were likely to be angry.

Praise
In the course of the discussion, several members praised Mr Hendry for his grasp. In response to questions, he made the following points:

• There was little profit in setting targets unless they were reasonably achievable and responsibility for securing them was clear; at present there was a proliferation of targets set by people who would not be responsible for securing them.

• We needed a mix of power sources, including gas (for which more storage was required), coal with CCS; renewables and nuclear along with a serious effort to try to reduce the amount of energy the economy required.

• He expected the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate’s generic design assessment to be back on track next year and took the view that there should be a much wider sharing of expertise across the world.

• So far as the grid’s obligation to take all the renewable energy available, there had to be a sensible approach to the provision of base load for which nuclear was eminently suited.

• As for subsidies for renewables, there would always have to be subsidies for emerging sources of energy just as there had been for nuclear, but beyond that the likely return on investment had to be the guide. In this respect he hinted at a graded range of subsidies.

• When challenged about the Government’s sale of the nuclear industry, with the prospect now of unloading the UK share in Urenco, the nuclear fuels company, he pointed to the nation’s indebtedness and latterly the tendency to sell off public assets at the bottom of the market. This he saw as the cost of “bad governance”, without commenting one way or the other on the merits or otherwise of national ownership.

After thanking the speakers, the chairman reminded members to let the Secretary have their views by December 1 on the priorities SONE should pursue over the next two years and especially during the year ahead. Communications should be sent to Alexander Center at 45 Church Way, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 0JU; e-mail:

Attendees
Exceptionally, we do not propose to list those apologising for their absence from the AGM because 150 informed the Secretary of their inability to attend. Apart fromthe three directors, those who indicated their intention to be present were: Patrons: Gordon Adam, John Edmonds, Lady Mc Alpine, Ann Robinson Committee: Adrian Bull, Neville Chamberlain, James Corner,Robert Freer,Geoffrey Greenhalgh, SirB ernard Ingham, Professor Jack Simmons. Members: Bernard Apter, Craig Arnold, John Assheton, Dr Johnny Ball, Phil.D Barnard ,Louise Barton, F Chadwick, Peter Chester, Gerald E Clark, Cyril Clarke, IanC urrie, Dr P Dore, Michael Durham, Michael Gammon, Geoffrey Green, Sir JohnG uinness, Ray Hall, E G Harling, Dr Robert Hawley, G P Haythornethwaite, David Hodgkiss, Robert F Jackson,D avid Jefferies, Martin Jenner, G M Jennings, Max King, Dr Joseph Lambert, Derek Limbert, JohnL Maxwell, Ian McFarlane, Brendan McNamara, Brian Mills, George Muir, G Packman, Terry Price, Richard Sergeant-Manse, Robin Smith, Lt.Cdr Kevin Stagg, Craig Stevenson, Geoffrey Stone, John Taylor, Roger Vaughan and Barrie J Yates. In line with the chairman’s request at the meeting, members are urged to download and send to their MP one of the letters, as appropriate, recently posted to political leaders to influence party manifestos. The letters are downloadable from the SONE website – www.sone.org.uk

Scaremongering and sanity
October was marked regularly by competition to frighten us out of our skins about the threat from global warming – led by the Prime Minister. There will be a lot more of it in November in the run up to the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, our spirits were lifted by the CBI immediately after SONE’s AGM. It has clearly got the AGM’s message. Its report, Forging a nuclear renaissance, sought to inject a sense of urgency into nuclear’s development. It wants at least six new nuclear stations by 2030, providing 16,000MW with 10-12 reactors.