The various party election manifestos are neither a surprise nor a
disappointment. They are what we expected. They all but ignore the
security of energy supplies and nuclear power in their enthusiasms for
renewable sources of energy and only one – Labour – offers anything
approaching a positive mention for nuclear. It says:
Our wider energy policy has created a framework that places the
challenge of climate change – as well as the need to achieve security
of supply – at the heart of our energy policy. We have a major
programme to promote renewable energy, as part of a strategy of having
a mix of energy sources from nuclear power to clean coal to
micro-generators.
Not even nature’s optimists among SONE members will take that as a sign
that Labour has got the message: a secure future is a nuclear future.
But at least it does mention the n-word. The Conservatives promise to:
Guarantee the security and sustainability of Britain’s energy supplies.
We will do this by supporting the development of a broad range of
renewable energy sources. We also recognise that energy efficiency must
play an increasingly important part in our energy policy.
Tory policy action back-up papers on the internet would replace the
climate change levy, imposed on nuclear even though it emits next to no
greenhouse gases, with incentives for energy efficiency. But you
wouldn’t think that for them a nuclear industry existed.
It won’t if the Liberal Democrats or the Greens have anything to do with it. The Liberal Democrats state:
Finally, given their long term problems of cost, pollution and safety,
we will not replace existing nuclear power stations as they reach the
end of their safe and economic operating lives. We will use renewables
and save energy instead.
To try to prevent the nation sleep-walking into disaster, SONE is
launching a post-election educational campaign with a leaflet which is
to be sent to Ministers, MPs and targeted peers as well as the media.
Copies will also be sent to SONE members. You can order new
supplies by e-mailing the Secretary on
SELLAFIELD GENERAL MEETING
It is SONE’s practice once a year to hold a general meeting out of
London. This time it is Sellafield’s turn – on Tuesday, May 24 at the
Visitor Centre from 12noon to 3pm, courtesy BNFL.
We have secured two speakers. The first, from about 12.15 (after SONE
business has been transacted) will be Dave Barker, managing director of
Gravatom Engineering Systems, the nuclear and radiology firm. He will
tell us the story behind West Cumbria’s good news in the form of his
firm’s recent expansion there.
After a buffet lunch from 1.30-2pm, Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow
at Chatham House and a member of SONE, will give us his challenging
post-election assessment of where the nuclear industry stands in
Britain. Malcolm gave an excellent presentation on nuclear’s PR
problems at SONE’S AGM last October.
We hope that Cumbria and the North West will rally to make this a
successful, forceful meeting. Coffee will be provided from 11.15am. For
catering purposes, would all those proposing to attend please let the
Secretary know on 0208- 660-8970 or via
MARCH 27, 2005 – GO NUCLEAR DAY
As the tumult and shouting dies over Eatanswill, we shall see whether
those curious pre-election forecasts of a nuclear renaissance had any
substance to them. They were persistent and a certain expectation has
been engendered while the Greens grow dismissive. Their latest ploy is
that nuclear has missed the bus, it’s just too late for it to play a
part, given the time it takes to build a nuclear power station – a time
they would seek to extend at every opportunity.
The Independent reported on March 27 that a small group of senior
officials in the DTI, known as Future for Nuclear, had made “in effect”
an economic case for up to 10 new reactors. The drive, it said, was
coming from Tony Blair rather than Patricia Hewitt (which is no
surprise). Geoffrey Norris, Blair’s special adviser on industry and
business, and the Government’s Chief Scientist, Sir David King, were
said to be pressing the case.
The Independent rehearsed the idea that any Government U-turn would
require Hewitt and Margaret Beckett to be reshuffled and possibly a new
Energy Minister since Mike O.Brien has been “neutral” on the issue.
That, in our view, is a curious way of describing his stance.
All this followed Martin O’Neill, chairman of the Commons’ Industry
Committee, saying “Nuclear’s time is about to come. I expect there to
be a nuclear White Paper laying out all the goods on the various
stalls. My feeling is that the political mood is changing towards
nuclear”.
Then – again on March 27 – The Business claimed British Energy was
talking to City institutions about private funding for a nuclear power
building programme “to solve the UK’s looming energy crisis” in
anticipation of a post- election nuclear programme.
Scotland on road to Damascus
Just before this flurry the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Committee
suggested a renewed role for coal and nuclear because of a possibility
of the lights going out. It said that “nuclear power does have a proven
track record and a new-build power station could take less than five
years to complete, but people do have fears about nuclear power. The
solution could be a new generation type of nuclear power stations”.
UK Ministers would privately welcome a Scottish move to nuclear, said
the BBC. This suggests that they would like to have their hand forced.
But the Lib Dems, Scot Nats and Scot Greens are not in any plot. They
promptly shot down Westminster’s nuclear notions and thereby revealed
the tensions within the Scottish Executive.
By March 27 – again – The Sunday Times told us there was strong support
within the Scottish Executive for a new generation of reactors in spite
of resistance from their Lib Dem coalition partners.
Where we might be
All this sounds to us like testing the water with a view to creating an
atmosphere. You condition thinking to the idea that a nuclear future is
on the cards so that when you move – if you move – it doesn’t come as a
terrible surprise.
In any case, Civil Servants, if they have any use left in them, will
have to review current energy policy because it is not delivering
security of supply, CO 2 emissions reductions, the ability to compete
in this world or credibility. So why not make a virtue out of that
necessity by talking up nuclear a bit? You can also see where 10 new
reactors come from – the sort of number required to maintain a notional
25% nuclear contribution.
But let us not throw our caps over the windmill. An enormous amount of
work is required to get anybody in a position to place a firm order for
a reactor. That is why SONE is embarking on its post-election education
exercise.
BACKGROUND PRESSURES
If you look at British energy policy, no one thinks it adds up to much.
The Greens are restive and feel let down and those who are worried
about security of supply develop ulcers. There are all kinds of, often
conflicting, pressures for ending drift.
One is a further rise last year of 1.5% in CO 2 emissions after the
2.2% increase in 2003. They have risen in five of the last seven years.
We are going backwards although Labour’s manifesto claims it has
already met its Kyoto obligations (though without saying it was done
before it came to office by switching from coal to gas- firing of power
stations).
The very active Martin O’Neill, chairman of the Commons’ Industry
Committee, thinks we have been “sailing very close to the wind” when it
comes to gas supplies. MPs are inclined to blame the gas industry for
inadequate storage capacity.
Huge investment required
PriceWaterhouseCoopers have been anything but rays of sunshine in
estimating the huge investment required up to 2030 in electricity
generation and transmission and storage of gas. Europe, it suggests,
will require over 16% of world investment if it is to avoid power
blackouts.
Security of supply is a major concern of 72% of the utility executives
surveyed world-wide. But it’s an ill wind.....more than half the
respondents said they expected new nuclear power stations, even in the
face of popular opposition, because of the need to replace ageing coal
and nuclear plant.
All this is not to mention the wind power industry’s turbulent present
with the public rising up routinely against proposed developments – the
latest on Dartmoor - as a Government inspector gets down to hearing the
massive opposition to the Whinash plan on the edge of the Lake District
National Park. Anything from funding costs of grid connections to
seabird colonies are hampering offshore development. The failures,
contradictions and fundamental inadequacies of British energy policy
cannot be ignored for much longer. SONE needs to bring things to a head
this year.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES
It may be a sign of the times that Birmingham University is advertising
a postgraduate diploma block release course in radioactive waste
management and decommissioning. But it is a negative sign. We have this
year to switch the emphasis from nuclear decommissioning – necessary
though it is – to commissioning More positively, Strathclyde University
has won a £6.5m contract to research the potential for nuclear power.
It might usefully read a few newspapers.
The City editor of the Evening Standard, Anthony Hilton, has been
thinking about the financing of private sector nuclear reactors. He
fears this might be a bigger challenge than convincing the public. That
will, of course, depend on the investment environment created by the
Government.
Neil Collins, City Editor of the Daily Telegraph, has his fingers
crossed. The Government’s strategy, he says, has been to set up “the
impenetrable maze of carbon trading and emission limits, throw money at
proposals for wind farms and hope for the best. The glimmer in the
brown-out is for a change of mind on nuclear energy, the only possible
alternative to fossil fuel. Once the election is safely won, noises
from Whitehall suggest that Labour will face reality and restart
investment in nuclear. Let’s hope so”.
And so says Patience Wheatcroft in The Times. “Sadly, these turbines
have become political statements rather than economic investments – a
diversion to delay reversing the decline of nuclear power, which is the
only practical way to secure future supply while burning less fossil
fuel”.
Even DEFRA’s monitors think nuclear
Why, even the Commons’ select committee covering DEFRA affairs says the
Government should clarify “the role it believes nuclear could or should
play in achieving the carbon reduction targets”. It wants a Minister
for Climate Change. “A climate change czar won’t do”, said Michael Jack
MP, the chairman.
And just to remind the globe what should happen, Professor James
Lovelock CH, a SONE patron, uses the May edition of Reader’s Digest, to
say, once again, that the Greens are “plain wrong” to oppose nuclear.
MIXED SIGNALS FROM RGS
Two of our patrons – Lord Parkinson and Bishop Montefiore – spoke for a
motion “Nuclear energy must power our future” in a Royal Geographical
Society debate on April 19 along with Bruno Comby, of the European
Environmentalists for Nuclear group. They were opposed by the Greens,
Zac Goldsmith, Tony Juniper and Mycle Schneider.
The debate was attended by 600 people who divided 43/26% in favour of
nuclear on entering the hall, with 31% undecided. By the end it was
50/39 in favour of nuclear with only 11% still to make up their minds.
In other words, the debate did not go nuclear’s way.
Martin Morland, a member of SONE’s committee, who attended, reports:
“Martyn Lewis, the moderator, began by saying a major debate on nuclear
energy in the UK was certain to open within six months of the election.
What I found most interesting was that Juniper and Schneider attacked
nuclear not so much on economics and safety but for being too late and
too little to affect global warming. Most reactors, they said, were
near the end of their useful lives, there were safety dangers in
extending those lives to 40 years and lead times for new build were
impossibly long. Nuclear generally was on its way out. Goldsmith was
all over the place.
Comby, who spoke last, said France had built 80 reactors in 26 years.
The world should do likewise.” All this suggests to us that the Greens
know they are losing the nuclear argument and their last, desperate
throw is to kid the world that nuclear has had it because it is too
late to replace nuclear reactors.
If that were so, you would be advised to kiss good bye to your
lifestyle, prosperity, comfort, convenience and personal security and
prepare for hard times. We may still experience them thanks to the
fanaticism of the likes of Goldsmith and Juniper.
THE WORLD HELPS
Last year was a tremendous year for increasing global nuclear capacity.
Seven large new reactors were connected to grids and another re-started
after major refurbishment. Five small reactors closed down, with a net
increase in capacity of 7529MW.
France generated a record 426.8 TWh (up 1.7%) taking nuclear’s share to
78.1%. So did Sweden – up 15% to 75TWh. Barseback-2, which the Swedes
want to close, never produced more with a load factor of 91%. Municipal
officials are challenging the Government’s decision to close this
reactor in the courts next month.
The USA is also believed to have chalked up a record 786.5TWh nuclear
generation last year, well ahead of the 780TWh generated in 2002.
Mohamed ElBareidi, director general of the IAEA, says fast-growing
energy demand, security of supply and risk of climate change are
driving a reconsideration of nuclear power. Bang on cue came news that
Sweden’s Centre Party has dropped its opposition to nuclear. The
four-party opposition coalition now see eye to eye on nuclear.
The US Nuclear Energy Institute says nuclear energy can now help reduce
the country’s over- dependence on gas just as it reduced its reliance
on oil in the 1970s and 1980s. “The US faces a critical need for
investment in emission-free, next generation nuclear power plants to
relieve pressure on natural gas supply, to help preserve fuel and
technology diversity, to help make our air cleaner and to strengthen US
energy security”, said John Kane, senior vice president.
UK-JAPAN CONCERNS
The UK-Japan 21stC Group, which has just met in Nagoya, says there are
strong arguments for a return to nuclear power generation. It was
cheap, safe, stable and environmentally friendly. The problem was the
public perception of the risks but Governments would soon have to make
a choice. Its members are clearly alarmed that existing sources of
energy supply are in areas of political instability and that existing
capacity is stretched to the limit with “insatiable” demand for fossil
fuels from China and India. This could lead to “serious clashes” with
developed countries in search of supply.
It is recommending closer dialogue between the UK and Japanese
Governments on new nuclear technology, recruitment and training of
nuclear engineers, disposal of nuclear waste and funds or incentives
for research into alternative energy and new technology, including
hydrogen.
OUR CORRESPONDENTS
We are extremely grateful to our members who week by week argue the
nuclear case through the press. SONE posts the texts of those who send
them to the Secretary on bernardinghamcom@aol on our website.
Dr Peter Wilson, of Seascale, has been particularly active this month.
He has referred Good Energy to the Advertising Standards Authority for
claiming it “gives you the power to make a difference by reducing your
personal impact on climate change” through using only renewable sources
of electricity. He says the company can only deliver “an illusion of
what its advertisement promises”.
He has also asked those claiming that Reading University has detached
itself from the power grid how come? Surely, what they mean is that
they are paying for green electricity but drawing it from the general
mix. It is about time we, as supporters of the greenest fuel,
challenged the spurious claims of lesser, pretentious greens.
