THE SUMMIT TEST – MORE NUCLEAR OR MEANINGLESS GUFF?
The Government faces the first test in this Parliament of the
seriousness of its intent over climate change at the forthcoming G8
summit. Will it produce a waffly communique or persuade the advanced
nations to commit themselves to developing nuclear power?
The early signs are not encouraging. Greenpeace and Friends of the
Earth dismissed a leaked early UK presidential draft of the 2,000-word
communique as “lacking substance” and “a mush of warm words carefully
crafted by civil servants to make sure no one is committed to
anything”. They would have been even more up in arms if nuclear had
been mentioned positively.
Guff is, of course, par for the summit course. Carefully crafted words are all that are left when views diverge.
Perhaps more ominously, Margaret Beckett, our anti-nuke Environment
Minister – surely a contradiction in terms - tried a month in advance
to finger the Americans. If there were flaws in the Kyoto process, she
said, the Americans must tell us what would be a better one? In fact,
President Bush already has: technological solutions that do not damage
the economy.
Even Mrs Beckett had to admit that the US administration is doing more
than people give it credit for in terms of new investment in
technology, notably in carbon sequestration and reducing the US
greenhouse gas emissions/GDP ratio. But President Bush, as we show
below, has come out strongly for nuclear’s development. He is no
obstacle to a forthright, practical and cost-effective G8 communique.
Given the risk of fine words that butter no parsnips, SONE has warned
Tony Blair of the incredulity with which a communique on climate
change would be greeted if it failed to commit the developed world to
nuclear power. If the developed nations are serious about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, they must embrace nuclear energy as the
central component of any strategy for combating climate change. To do
otherwise would be just plain irresponsible – and pure humbug.
SONE’S SUMMIT CONTRIBUTION
SONE’s letter to the Prime Minister took its cue from a statement
adopted by SONE’s patrons at a lunch given by the chairman on June 8.
It stated:
“You have made climate change and its consequences one of the two major
issues for the forthcoming summit at Gleneagles. We take the view that
there has been a surfeit of fine words on the subject and a lack of
effective action.
“The Kyoto process is widely viewed as structurally flawed and an
inadequate response to what you see as a major threat to mankind. This
being so, expectations of the Gleneagles summit have been raised. They
cannot be met unless the development of nuclear power is put at the
centre of a new strategy to combat global warming and further climate
change.
“This is underlined by the fact that the world’s existing 440 nuclear
power stations avoid the production of more greenhouse gases than is
expected to be realised from the Kyoto protocol, even assuming the USA
were committed to it. Nuclear energy is manifestly a serious,
practical, proven and economic response
“Any Gleneagles communique which does not commit the developed world to
an expanding nuclear programme will be viewed with incredulity and
scorned for its irresponsible humbug.”
NEW LIGHT ON BUSH
Perhaps limbering up for the G8 summit, President Bush has over the
past month brought together two strands of an effective attack on
climate change. He visited a US nuclear power plant to support the
building of more for “a cleaner, safer nation” and told Tony Blair of
the need to share technologies to combat climate change, including
nuclear.
During Mr Blair’s pre-summit visit to Washington, President Bush said
the USA was spending a lot of money to diversify away from a
hydrocarbon society. America needed to do that for reasons of national
and economic security.
“And one of the issues we have got to figure out”, he added, “is how we
share the technology with developing nations. You cannot leave
developing nations out of the mix if you expect to have a cleaner
world. I strongly believe the world needs to share technologies on
nuclear power.”
A fortnight later President Bush visited the Calvert Cliffs nuclear
power station in Maryland – the first to earn a 20-year extension of
its operating licence and one of the six “finalist candidate sites” for
building a new advanced nuclear power plant.
Nuclear helps environment
After reminding his audience that US nuclear plants annually avoided
the release of 700m tonnes of CO 2, he said: “Across this state,
Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their lights on and to
keep their land, air and water clean.
In other words, you’re generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time...
“People have got to understand that advances in science and engineering
and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer than ever before.
Workers and managers are trained and committed and spend hours working
on nuclear safety.
“There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a
cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look
at the facts. One of the reasons I’ve come to this plant is to help
people understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet even
though there has been a growing consensus over time, America has not
ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. In the 21st Century our nation
will need more electricity, more safe, clean, reliable electricity. It
is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again”.
That is called leadership. Why doesn’t Mr Blair visit a nuclear power
station and say something similar? And why is it that after a month we
still await a reply from Malcolm Wicks, the new Energy Minister, to our
invitation to lunch with SONE? Not one of Mr Wicks’ five predecessors
since SONE was formed in 1998 agreed to meet us. Lepers have been
treated better.
THE LOOMING ENERGY CRISIS
We included with our G8 summit letter to Mr Blair a copy of SONE’s
leaflet “The looming energy crisis” which has been sent to the Cabinet,
MPs, selected peers and officials and the media as well as SONE
members. The leaflet has been well received by MPs, a number of whom
have acknowledged in reply their enthusiastic support for nuclear
power.
We are being asked for bulk supplies of the leaflet for educational
purposes at meetings, to inform members of organisations about the
arguments and as a SONE recruitment tool.
Members wanting extra supplies should ring the Secretary direct on 020-8660-8970 or e-mail him on
NUCLEAR FUSION – AGM
One of the arguments being used to try to head off the development of
electricity generation by nuclear fission is the forthcoming
availability of nuclear fusion.
SONE clearly needs to be properly briefed on the subject and we are
delighted to announce that Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith,
director of the UKAEA’s Culham Division, has agreed to speak at SONE’s
annual general meeting on Wednesday, October 26 at the Royal Academy of
Engineering.
Please make a note of the date and time – 12 noon-3pm, including buffet lunch, courtesy British Energy.
IS THE POLICY CONFUSION?
Meanwhile, we marvel at the confusion being generated in Government
circles. Alan Johnson, the Industry Secretary, told the Financial Times
in May the Government would examine its options some time this year.
The Government, he said, could decide that the loss of the 20% of our
electricity provided by nuclear’s “clean fuel...can’t be made up by
renewables. If we were to come to the conclusion that we weren’t making
any progress [without new nuclear], we have to make that decision in
plenty of time - [the stations] have a 10-year lead in”.
This sounded encouraging. Then the Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury,
excited SONE members in the Lords with his tone during questions. Lord
Jenkin, a SONE member, asked him if he recognised “that I would not be
alone in regarding a review of energy policy which has nothing to say
about new nuclear build as nothing short of farcical?”
Lord Sainsbury replied: “I think the Prime Minister would agree. He has
already said there cannot be a debate on climate change without giving
nuclear serious consideration, and that is absolutely correct.”
When Lord Tomlinson said the Government must grasp the nuclear nettle
sooner rather than later, Lord Sainsbury saw two issues – energy
security and environmental goals – “whether we are happy with a large
proportion of our energy being provided in the form of gas supplies and
the great difficulty of meeting our environmental goals if by 2020 all
we have done is replace at the very best our nuclear energy sources
with renewables.”
At the same time Lord Sainsbury thought the 10% renewables target by
2010 as “not impossible” with the DTI Energy group forecasting 8.7% and
the National Audit Office anything from 7.3-10.3%.
Intensifying the fog
To intensify the fog, the Financial Times then reported Mr Blair was
anxious to correct the impression that the Government was poised to
order a new generation of nuclear reactors. He let it be known he was
considering appointing a commission to examine the case for nuclear -
perhaps one of those which Harold Wilson said take minutes and spend
years.
Not surprisingly, Mrs Beckett saw no early decision on a new domestic
nuclear power programme. She pointed out nuclear could not be the
solution to meeting Britain’s goal of a 20% CO 2 reduction (on 1990) by
2010. That is true. But it isn’t the point. Nuclear is needed for
security and cleanliness long term.
And Gordon McKerron, chairman of the much discredited CORWM inquiry
into the handling of nuclear waste – which has just lost two experts,
one through sacking and the other through resignation – weighed in with
his reason for delay into next year: “wait until I have reported”.
It will be a seductive argument for nuclear opponents. According to the
Financial Times, Labour MPs have threatened “a mass rebellion” if the
Government goes nuclear. “We must be crazy to do something that would
be highly unpopular, enormously costly and would create massive amounts
more of nuclear waste” said a Ministerial voice from the past, Michael
Meacher, the leading exponent of do-nothing-about-nuclear and
distort-as you-don’t-do-it school.
The problem is not, of course, nuclear power or nuclear waste. It is
politics. The solution to political problems is leadership and that
takes us back to the G8 summit. We conclude Mr Blair has been all over
the show on this, as they say.
His weathervane, his chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, told
Limerick University that the UK Government would not be investing in
new nuclear reactors, though commercial companies could make a case to
do so. The Government had been advised to work from a broad menu of
solutions, including wave, wind, biomass and photovoltaic sources...
“and nuclear fusion is a possibility in about 30 years time”.
YOUR SOURCES, PLEASE
Talking of Gordon McKerron, we have written to him asking him to
justify his claim that there is enough nuclear waste lying around to
fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. Writing in the Nuclear
Industry Association’s Nuclear Link, he said there were 470,000 cubic
metres of radioactive waste “with no long term management strategy”.
Leave aside whose fault that is, we asked our experts to look into
these figures. The most they could find in store is 74,500 cubic metres
of intermediate and high level waste which would far from fill one
Royal Albert Hall. Even with expected future arisings we couldn’t fill
three Royal Albert Halls – even after 60 years of military and civil
use of nuclear materials. We think we should be told, Mr McKerron. We
will keep you posted.
LET’S GET ON WITH IT
Amid all this confusion and manoeuvring, we were heartened to learn
from the Financial Times that the nuclear industry is gearing up for a
nuclear programme. BNFL-owned Westinghouse, it said, was talking to UK
suppliers capable of building its AP-1000 reactor. The UKAEA had been
approached by companies interested in putting together consortia and
engineering and construction groups able to manage large projects were
drawing up plans.
Lord Broers, chairman of the Lords’ Science and Technology Committee
and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, bluntly wrote: “We
have to reopen the nuclear option and without delay.
We need to reintroduce nuclear generation as a subject in our universities and to start the licensing processes for new plants.
“Ironically, British Nuclear Fuels, through its Westinghouse
subsidiary, already builds nuclear plants for other countries but it
would take three years to licence these in Britain under the present
rules.
“The UK needs to pursue a balanced energy policy that makes the most of
all the opportunities at its disposal – gas, clean coal, renewable and,
yes, nuclear. Whatever we choose, in whichever combination, there will
be associated costs, but the costs will be far greater if we delay
action”.
Rubbing in cost of delay
Max Hastings, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, told Guardian
readers that nobody could propose a credible alternative energy source
to nuclear that is anything like as environmentally acceptable. But the
anti-nuclear lobby was so impassioned and the public’s instinctive
inertia so great that it might be years before a new commitment was
made to nuclear power.
Every British business and household would pay for delays in
formulating and executing a new energy policy. “But”, he said “I will
bet my socks that half a century from now our children will depend
heavily on nuclear power to keep their lights burning – because there
is nothing else that is clean, affordable and works”.
That was also the view of Neil Collins, City Editor, Daily Telegraph,
commenting on the £1.5bn plan for 270 wind offshore turbines in the
Thames Estuary. “The only real alternative to oil and gas is nuclear”,
he wrote. “And now the election is won, Ministers have no excuse.” No
excuse, that is, for further costly delay.
NUCLEAR REALLY IS CHEAP....
The world has got so used to the idea that nuclear is expensive that
any claim that it is competitive seems to be greeted with a horselaugh.
The Royal Academy of Engineering’s comparative figures, showing nuclear
almost level pegging with gas at 2.3pkWh, are a case in point.
Yet we are assured that the RAE’s figures are supported by the Scherer
Institute and Finnish projections. And now an OECD survey of generation
costs at 120 plants in 19 countries backs them up. The results are
sensitive to the discount rate used and the RAE used 7.5%.
Using a 5% discount rate, the OECD found nuclear came in at
11.7-17£MWh, coal at 13.67- 27 and gas at 20-32.7£MWh. With a 10%
discount rate the range was: nuclear 16- 27£MWh, coal 19-32.7, and gas
21-34£MWh.
BUT NOT THAT CHEAP
We are often asked the source of the quote “electricity too cheap to
meter”. We are indebted to a Norfolk member, Alan Shaw, for tracking
down the culprit via the internet. It was an American not a British
nuclear man.
Lewis Strauss, chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, told a 1954
science writers’ convention: “It is not too much to expect that our
children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to
meter”.
UK REACTOR CLOSURES
In response to those members who want to find basic facts in the
Newsletter, we set out below the latest published closure dates for the
UK’s nuclear power stations.
MAGNOX (operated by the British Nuclear Group): Sizewell A, 2006; Dungeness A, 2006; Oldbury, 2008; Wylfa, 2010.
AGR (operated by British Energy): Dungeness B, 2008; Hinkley Point B,
2011; Hunterston B, 2011; Hartlepool, 2014; Heysham 1, 2014; Torness,
2023; Heysham 2, 2023.
PWR (operated by British Energy): Sizewell B, 2035.
British Energy plans to see whether the operating lives of its power
stations can be extended but there is no assurance that they will be.
