Where’s the logic? 10 awkward questions on energy policy

After the most positive month for nuclear power since the great nuclear U-turn of 2006, things are looking up with the announcement of ten conditionally approved sites for nuclear stations. But nuclear still needs the investment boost that a logical energy policy would bring. Accordingly, we have posed 10 questions, which we hope SONE members will put insistently to politicians of all parties: 

1. Is the objective of energy policy to obtain security of supply at affordable cost while seeking to minimise carbon emissions or to reduce carbon emissions at any cost?
2. When will security of supply, practicality and value for money – not to mention experienced power supply engineers – inform the formulation of energy policy?
3. How can current energy policy be reconciled with the need to keep those living in fuel poverty supplied with affordable electricity, especially when renewable energy is subsidised by the consumer, not the taxpayer?
4. Where is the logic in the massive commitment to renewables – effectively wind – when, according to E.ON UK, in evidence to the House of Lords, every 1,000MW of installed wind capacity requires 900MW of conventional thermal back up because of wind’s intermittency?
5. Given that the Government says there is more generating capacity in the pipeline than is to close in the next 10 years (20,000MW compared with 18,000MW), is it recognised that this potentially locks us into carbon intensive coal and gas for 30-40 years, not with standing the objective of reducing carbon emissions?
6. Is there any evidence that Britain has reduced its carbon emissions when the 1990s’“dash for gas” out of coal-fired power stations, the export of manufacturing overseas and the effect of the recession are stripped out of the figures?
7. Is the National Grid to be required to give preference to renewables’ supply, regardless of cost, and to use coal, gas and nuclear as balancing agents or is nuclear to be required, after 2018, to provide a rising base load?
8. Will politicians show enthusiasm for nuclear by demonstrating that, taking into account the cost of carbon, nuclear is the cheapest generating option, including all the costs from uraniummining to decommissioning and waste disposal,while emitting next to no carbon dioxide?
9. Given the need to encourage nuclear investment,what role will Ofgem, the energy regulator, play in future since, by squeezing wholesale prices under Government policy, it rendered power generation uneconomic in 2002 and bankrupted British Energy, the nuclear generator?
10. Will politicians acknowledge the continuing need for reprocessing of “spent” nuclear fuel to 1) make productive use of the vast store of clean power remaining in the used fuel; 2) reduce the amount ofwaste for ultimate disposal; and 3) promote the burn up of plutonium, thereby minimising proliferation risks?

Why we are querulous

We were moved to frame these questions by the difficulty of responding to a number of consultative exercises, notably on the Government’s National Policy Statements on energy, published on November 9, and the Ofgem Discovery Project aimed at getting a grip on the future energy situation.

This difficulty stems fromthe fact thatwe do not yet have a realistic and sustainable energy policy and do not look like acquiring one beyond the election. In broad terms, the Government and Conservative Opposition share a consensus about the need for diversity,with nuclear, renewables, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and, by design or implication, imported gas as its main pillars.

Only one of these pillars is proven, realistic and sustainable. And that is nuclear,which the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, the Scottish Nationalists and Greens would not touch with a bargepole.The potential of renewables, energy conservation and CCS seems to be as wildly exaggerated as are underplayed the risks attached to imported gas without adequate storage or any idea of its cost.

So what?
Some members are inclined to argue: “So what? The important thing is that nuclear is now firmly part of the energy mix”. So it seems, though there is still no reactor system licensed for use in Britain, no order for a nuclear power station and no idea how the new and perhaps dangerously undemocractic quangoised planning system will perform under pressure.

It is also true that themore the various other pillars of energy policy crumble, the more nuclear will be required. It might be argued we are in a win/win situation. But that ignores the desperate need for urgency to provide more nuclear power after a decade andmore of procrastination.The lack of urgency is perpetuated by a belief in the other pillars.

The sooner we get through to our politicians that to secure our mediumterm future we desperately need to get on with nuclear’s development the better. For this reason we hope that all members will use the front page of this Newsletter as a crib sheet for interrogating politicians and generally informing public opinion through the media.

SONE’S response
We intend to give SONE’s response to the Government’s consultation on itsNational Policy Statements in a future edition of the Newsletter and to put it on the SONE website. It is in course of preparation. At the same time two members of the SONE committee, Paul Spare, an energy consultant, and Geoffrey Greenhalgh; joint editor of Nuclear Issues, have separately responded to the Ofgem consultation which closed on November 20. Their papers will also be put on the SONE website.

Leave aside Ofgem’s methodology, we are concerned about the value of Ofgem’s Discovery exercise when it is based on an unsustainable energy policy. It says that up to £200bn may be required in energy investment over the next 10-15 years to secure supplies and meet carbon targets, more than doubling the recent rate.

In developing four scenarios for the next decade and beyond, it says each shows that energy supplies can be maintained but there are real risks to supplies, prices and carbon reduction.

Retirements of older nuclear plant and closures of coal and oil plant by the end of 2015 under European environmental legislation could pose a threat to security of supply. Increasing gas import dependency could be exacerbated by growth in gas fired power generation. And significant changes in the way we generate and consume powermay be needed tomanage the variability associated with increasing reliance on wind power.

This brings us back to the original question: what good can come out of any study of an unsustainable energy policy unless you say it is unsustainable? Ofgem does not do that. It merely identifies the risks. That is nonetheless a step forward, provided it is listened to in the election atmosphere that is likely to run until June. It would be very valuable if it froze the blood of next Energy Secretary.

Nuclear’s testimonial
This takes us back to where we began – the National Policy Statements on energy,which represent the high point in Government enthusiasm for nuclear since the departure of the former Energy Secretary, John Hutton.

In the nature of things in these leaky – indeed totally incontinent – days of government, the actual publication came as a bit of an anti-climax. But we now have 10 conditionally approved sites for nuclear development up to the end of 2025 –Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa. Surprisingly, Dungeness was not considered suitable for use before 2025 on ecological grounds and three others – Druridge Bay, Kingsnorth and Owston Ferry – were excluded.

This means that only two newsites are conditionally approved – Braystones and Kirksanton, both on the Cumbrian coast. Nonetheless, the 10 sites could host stations capable of generating up to perhaps a third of current maximumdem and of some 60,000MW. It’s a good start – provided they are built. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State, told the Commons that energy companies intend to build 16,000MW of new nuclear power.

The Government also states clearly that nuclear power is “lowcarbon, affordable, dependable, safe and capable of increasing diversity and reducing our dependence on any one technology or country for our energy or fuel supplies”. That’s a pretty comprehensive testimonial. It also says it is satisfied that “on the basis of the science and international experience, effective arrangements to manage and dispose of thewaste fromnewnuclear power stations can be put in place”. So far so good.

Avoiding another Sizewell
After a further period of consultation – until February – all the finalised paperwork will pass to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Indeed, that is what the publication of six draft policy statements on November 9, notably covering nuclear, renewables and “clean” fossil fuels, was all about.

The finalised statements will set out the policy background against which the IPC must pronounce its verdict within a year of receiving any application to go aheadw ith amajor project such as a nuclear power station.
The objective is to avoid the interminable process of a public planning inquiry entailed in getting clearance for Sizewell over 20 years ago. It will be successful if it frustrates the Green movement in its policy of delaying nuclear (and coal, to name only one other) development by any means available.

As Charles Hendry, Shadow Energy Minister, told SONE’s AGM in October, the Conservatives are worried about the bureaucratic nature of the process. They propose to bring in legislation to secure Parliamentary endorsement of the national statements and for the Secretary of State rather than the IPC to take responsibility for the final decision on any project. Meanwhile, we are in unexplored territory.

Stuck in the past
While our two main political parties nowinclude nuclear in their energy mix, surprising bits of the great British press seem determined to knock it. The Express chose to headline the reaction of Friends of the Earth to the announcement of 10 nuclear sites – “dangerous and expensive”.Butworst of all was the Daily Telegraph with a headline: “Nuclear expansionwill add £200 to bills”.

This was based on talk of putting a floor under the price of carbon to guarantee nuclear profitability and a claim by the Taxpayers’ Alliance that this would add £227 to the average household energy bill. The Daily Mail, under a headline “The price we will all pay for new nuclear stations” put the cost at £44. In our experience, arithmetic has never been been allowed to get in the way of a story.

As is the way of this Green world, £227 will probably be at the very outer reaches of credibility. Even so, it might turn out to be chicken feed compared with financing £100bn worth of wind turbines that work only a third of the time. At least, we should have electricity.

Incidentally, while we were preoccupied with new nuclear sites, Miliband stung us for reportedly another £9.5bn through a levy on electricity bills to support development of CCS and its retro fitting - if it works.

The daily press was redeemed by the Sun, The Times and – yes – TheGuardian.The Sunwas leftwishing Labour had seen the light sooner. The Guardian found it hard to dispute Miliband’s logic that, ifBritain is to meet its carbon targets, extra nuclear powerwill be required. And The Times, “emphatically” welcoming the Government’s Statements, said “renewables will never be able to plug the energy gap and carbon capture for coal is years away. With new nuclear power, the lights may yet stay on”.

Cost of nuclear
The time has come to revisit the issue of the cost of nuclear power. All kinds of figures are now being bandied about as to the cost of a new plant, perhaps because of the delays associated with the new Finnish nuclear station. We have seen anything from £3bn - £5bn per individual plant being cited.Not surprisingly, theDaily Telegraph put it at “at least £5bn”.

All this comes at a timewhen the pressure on energy bills is rising what with support for renewables, CCS, rising oil prices and taxes. We need a new authoritative estimate, endorsed by experienced engineers, to confirm two things:

1. the likely broad cost of a new nuclear power station, depending on its size; and
   
2. nuclear, taking into account the cost of carbon and all nuclear’s costs from uranium mining to decommissioning and waste management, is by any standards the best buy.

Nuclear cheapest – official
We know of nothing that has happened in recent years to invalidate that latter statement. Indeed, on November 12 The Times quoted an official of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) as saying: “The economics of new nuclear stack up as it’s the cheapest formof low carbon baseload in the UK.The fact that three consortia have now invested heavily in sites suitable for new build… shows that’s the case”.

He was batting away the idea of the Government exempting the nuclear industry from paying the Climate Change Levy (CCL).The Energy Intensive Users’ Group and the CBI have been lobbying for its removal. It is claimed it would be worth £300m a year to the nuclear industry.

Since nuclear emits next to no CO2, there has never been the slightest justification for forcing it to pay it. Its imposition owes everything to pre-2006 anti-nuclear prejudice. It should be lifted forthwith if the Government is in earnest about nuclear’s development.

Build, build, build…
While the Government was trying to get its planning ducks in a row, there were some pretty high powered demands for nuclear’s development. The CBI was first into bat with a distinct note of urgency about the need to build 16,000MW of new nuclear plant by 2030 to meet climate change targets and ensure energy security.

Then Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EdF Energy, said the Government needed to set a target for 30 per cent of electricity from nuclear power by 2030 to ensure cuts in carbon emissions.This seems to be in line with the call by Malcolm Wicks, the Prime Minister’s international energy representative, for 35-40 per cent of power from nuclear from 2030.

…Or put the clock back
For all Ed Miliband’s apparent new-found enthusiasm for nuclear, how are we to get a rational energy policy when its advisors are clearly off their rockers? Lord Stern wants us all to go vegetarian, regarding meat eating as anti-social as drink driving.

Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Government’s Climate Change committee, tells us we shall have to spend £10,000-15,000 to make our homes carbon efficient and wants a £3,300 carbon tax on new cars.
Lord Chris Smith,who is clearly singularly ill-qualified to be chairman of the Environment Agency, wants to see wind turbines “all over the countryside” and, along with, God save us, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, calls for every citizen to given a carbon ration book. Wouldn’t it be luvverly if the Commons and the Lords ground to a halt because the blighters couldn’t get there, having blown their rations on foreign trips.

All this is, of course, a prelude to December’s Grand UN Carbon Jamboree in Copenhagen which mercifully seems doomed before itmeets. If theBritish Government’s advisors are anything to go by,we shall be back toVictorian immobility in no time – presumably rendering nuclear power stations unnecessary.

A politician’s warning
Talking about going backwards, we have just had drawn to our attention a speech on September 21 by US Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) warning America of the dangers of not adopting nuclear power.

“Are we going to be able to competewith countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear powerwhilewe’re stuckwith a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or,more likely, notmuch energy at all? The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving technology that we invented iswhat I fear most about nuclear power”.

Wade Allison’s book
We are delighted to commend members to a book by a SONE member, Professor Wade Allison, Fellow of Keble College.He has published Radiation and Reason as an e-book but it appeared in paperback in October. (ISBN0-9562756-1-3 978-0-9562756-1-5.)

In his preface he says it is widely supposed that nuclear presents amajor problem of safety. “Is this long-held concern about radiation and nuclear technology fully justified?”, he asks. “Straightforward questions should have simple answers, and the simplest answer is NO. Explaining and exploring the question and this answer in accessible terms is the subject of this book”.

Obituary
We regret to report the death of JohnButton, a life member, of Maidenhead, who took a close interest in the presentation of nuclear power.

We also regret to record the passing at 93 of Brigadier Anthony Cowgill, former Chief Industrial Engineer for Rolls-Royce, who founded the British Management Data Foundation in 1979. This foundation, supported by major companies in the energy field, has acquired a substantial reputation for providing expert information and top-level liaisonwith government. Your former Secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, was associated with the foundation for some 25 years and, as such,was able to provide an independent nuclear voice at its regular energy reviews with Ministers and officials