The Minister for Energy, Charles Hendry, emphasised the Government’s commitment to nuclear power and said he was seeking not merely to secure new nuclear power stations but to develop an unsubsidised nuclear product that would be attractive to the world and a major boost for Britain’s industrial base. “We have the most ambitious nuclear build programme in the world”, he said, claiming that the nuclear developers could not cope with more than the proposed new 16,000MWby 2025.

He said he and his Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, saw “eye to eye” on nuclear’s development and on removing barriers to investment in it. Mr Huhne, he said, should be seen as “a great ally of the industry”. He stressed the importance of the new consultation this autumn on the National Policy Statements, which would underpin the new planning system, and confidently forecast a reformed electricity market with aWhite Paper in the Spring followed by legislation.

Earlier Paul Spence, EdF’s director of strategy and regulation, had set out six reasons for optimism that there would indeed be a nuclear renaissance in the UK (see below). They ranged from local support for new nuclear power stations at Hinckley Point and Sizewell to the strength of nuclear as a component in the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) pathways to a largely decarbonised Britain by 2050.


FORMAL BUSINESS

The meeting was attended 47 members with apologies 28. The details are given at the end of the Newsletter. SirWilliam McAlpine presided. Both the minutes of the previous AGM and the annual report and accounts were approved. Elections: The directors – SirWilliam McAlpine Bt, chairman, Alexander Center, Secretary, and TerryWestmoreland, Treasurer, were re-elected as directors of SONE.

The committee was also relected – the three directors, plus John Assheton, Adrian Bull, Neville Chamberlain, Gerald Clark, 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 B Vey and DrWLWilkinson FRS.

The auditors, Gary Sergeant & Co, were conditionally re-elected pending a further examination of the need for an independent accountants’ review. The committee undertook to re-examine the situation at its next meeting against the background of its long-standing conviction that an independent review, if not a legal requirement, was desirable.

Thanks were expressed by SirWilliam and Sir Bernard to those attending for their continued support; those members who steadily seek to promote nuclear power through the media; to Damon de Laszlo, a patron, for giving lunches in the autumn to keep his fellow patrons in touch; and to the Nuclear Industry Association, theWorld Nuclear Association, NucNet, StickyNewMedia, website managers, Nuclear Issues, and the Mullet Press, printers. In addition, thanks were also extended to Lord Jenkin and Lord Vinson, two members, for their efforts in the House of Lords to promote the nuclear cause as part of a rational energy policy.

The meeting extended its best wishes to the Secretary, Mr Center, who was ill in hospital.


ACTING SECRETARY’S REPORT – “DON’T KID YOURSELVES”

Before the meeting heard from the Minister and Mr Spence, Sir Bernard, acting secretary, sought to confront members with the reality about UK energy policy as he and many other members of SONE saw it. In his annual report he said we should not kid ourselves that a nuclear renaissance was necessarily on the road, notwithstanding last week’s energy policy statement by Secretary Huhne.

In spite of all SONE’s efforts as the only voluntary organisation promoting nuclear power over the last 12 years, nuclear still rather stank in the noses of politicians, even though both main parties had majorities of MPs in favour of it.

There was no enthusiasm for it – no willingness to go out and publicly advocate it – but every enthusiasm for everything that did not work, however expensively. This was not a secure base of the future.

It was especially insecure when those organisations that wished to build nuclear power stations did not stand up in public for their fuel and muted their criticism of existing energy policy. This was no doubt partly because they were forced into wind power by the Renewables Obligation and EU renewables targets.

Built on sufferance

“Having said that, I think some of you will live to see new nuclear power stations but they will be too few, too late and, as things stand, will be built on sufferance”, he said, “unless the coming decade brings proof positive that existing energy has failed so utterly that we have blackouts”.

That, however, seemed unlikely since the previous Government authorised the construction of 20,000MWof gas-fired plant and the EU had accommodatingly postponed the closure of some coal-fired power stations until 2019 to avoid potential shortages of power. Thus, whether SONE liked it or not, the pressure for nuclear’s development was less than it had been and the Coalition was proceeding at no greater pace than its predecessor. It was admitted that the programme was nine months adrift.

Mr Huhne tried to sound positive about nuclear but succeeded only in highlighting the negative – for example, through his claim that he was fed up with the stand off between renewables and nuclear “with the result that we have neither”. In fact, Britain had rather a lot of “expensively useless” renewable energy but not yet any reactor licensed for construction in the UK. Nor did we know how the nuclear opponents would approach planning applications under the new and untried planning system, though they were unlikely to be deterred by a Government and nuclear developers who did not speak up robustly for nuclear power.

SONE’s “tidy problem”

This raised a “tidy problem” for SONE’s committee. The organisation was set up to work itself out of a job by helping to secure a nuclear renaissance. Latterly, it had been able to continue to do this only through the generosity of members in response to the chairman’s appeals.Without further generosity, it faced running out of money in 2011-12. At the same time, there would have to be a Governmental conversion of Damascene proportions for a sense of urgency to be injected into nuclear’s development.

“It is a sad fact that so far we have received replies from only six MPs in urgency”, the acting secretary said. “One from the supportive Minister, Mr Hendry, three from supportive Conservatives, one from a supportive Liberal

Democrat and the sixth from a Labour MP who merely acknowledged receipt. “It’s a funny old world”

SONE would keep its members informed over how SONE resolved its “tidy problem” but what was clear was that, for the sake of nuclear power, if SONE were to go out of business, it should do so for the positive reason that the nuclear renaissance was under way rather than the negative reason of SONE’s bankruptcy.

The acting Secretary said that members would make their own minds up about the future after hearing the Minister and Mr Spence. But one would have thought that at a time when the nation was in financial extremis, it would, above all, seek value for money in energy policy. Yet, as things stood, it sought only to spend billions on either inadequate and costly sources of power or unproven mechanisms for containing carbon emissions instead of on nuclear, the one proven, safe, reliable and economic low carbon source of electricity.

“It is apparently OK for the consumer to subsidise wind and solar power to the tune of billions, since that is the only way we would get them”, he said, “but entirely out of the question for the taxpayer to subsidise a nuclear industry that is not even asking for handouts but delivers all that Government policy and the nation seeks. It’s a funny old world, as someone once said”.


THE DISCUSSION – SIZE OF PROBLEM EXPOSED IN MP’s LETTER

In the discussion following the acting secretary’s report, members puzzled over the lack of political enthusiasm for nuclear and what might be done to encourage it. The scale of the problem was underlined by Sir Bernard when he read out a letter from a Liberal Democrat MP to a member in April of this year. The MP wrote:

“Nuclear power is vastly expensive and there is no means of disposing of the highly toxic nuclear waste produced.We currently spend billions of pounds every year storing the waste from the last generation of reactors and, until we find a safe means of disposal, the waste will continue mounting.We must not add to the stockpile with a new generation of nuclear reactors.

“In addition, we know that a new nuclear plant could not be built before 2020. Construction takes a long time and the nuclear industry has a terrible track record of missing deadlines and exceeding budgets. The average reactor costs twice as much, and twice as long to build, as originally planned.

“Coal plants, without full carbon capture and storage technology, will emit response to our letter to 650 Ministers and MPs of all parties calling for more massive amounts of greenhouse gases rather than those dangerous emissions being trapped and stored safely. This dirty power would severely hamper attempts to meet emissions targets. Given this context, renewable energy and energy efficiency are the best and only options for our future energy needs”.

Some members felt the facts were well known, though not believed.While the degree of antipathy to nuclear had declined, there was no “positive push” for it. This was not necessarily a global condition – Australian students, for example, were more open minded - but a member who studied the German press said we in Britain did not know how lucky we were. Meanwhile, nuclear’s development was going ahead elsewhere, alliances and arrangements were being established across the world and Britain was effectively “out of the argument” – something we should come to regret in 20 years’ time.

Among the suggestions for future action were the encouragement of regional groups, highlighting the need for energy security and independence and campaigning on the cost aspects of current energy policy, with “green” measures already accounting for £80 of the average energy bill. Adrian Bull (Westinghouse), a member of the committee, in response to the LD MP’s letter, said new generation nuclear power stations would produce only 10 per cent (high level) and three per cent (lowlevel) of thewaste coming fromexisting reactors.


PAUL SPENCE EXPLAINS HIS REASONS FOR OPTIMISM

The first speaker, Paul Spence, declared himself an optimist about nuclear’s UK development at the outset.While acknowledging that Government and industry needed to do a lot to make it happen – in EdF’s case the equivalent in Hinckley Point and Sizewell of two London 2012 Olympic Games developments up to 2025 at a cost of £20bn - he listed the following reasons for optimism:

1 – Nuclear was at the heart of five of the DECC’s six pathways to a low carbon Britain in 2050; the one without it was the most expensive and the one where nuclear’s contribution was highest was cheapest. The case for it on security and climate change grounds was very strong.

2 – In EdF’s consultation, two-thirds of the people living around Hinckley Point were in favour of new build and 85 per cent believed it would bring positive economic benefit to Somerset. A similar response was expected at Sizewell.

3 – In the interests of re-building a supply chain and raising British productivity, EdF had established a £3.5m training centre at Barnwood, taking conference in London and 130 contracts had already been let at a cost of tens of millions of pounds.

4 – The NII and Environment Agency saw no reason why the EdF’s and Westinghouse reactor designs should not be approved by next June.

5 – A political and policy framework was being put in place encompassing the justification for developing nuclear power; the planning system and reformation of the electricity market, including establishing a floor price for carbon and possibly capacity payments, to establish a more level playing field.

6 – It was important to keep up the pressure on the Coalition to tackle the waste issue but it was encouraging that it had not, as part of recent economies, cut the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) allocation.

Under questioning, Mr Spence sought to reassure members that EdF was progressively and systematically learning the lessons from its first developments in Finland, China and France and ensuring that there was no repetition in Britain of each new reactor being effectively a prototype. It was also looking at more ways, following British Energy’s closure of visitor centres, of explaining its projects to the public. He was warmly applauded.



MINISTER: MAKING NUCLEAR PART OF BRITAIN’S FUTURE

The final hour of the AGM was taken by Mr Hendry who addressed the meeting a year ago as Shadow Minister for Energy. Very little, he said, had changed since then but the Coalition was getting on with making unsubsidised nuclear power part of the future. He explained what was happening as follows:

1 – There was no doubt about the need for nuclear with one-third of coal generating plant and much of nuclear’s existing fleet closing in the next 10 years, though where possible nuclear plant’s life would be extended. Overall, something like £200bn worth of investment was required in new energy infrastructure. Nuclear must be part of a balanced energy portfolio.

2 – In the last few days the Government had demonstrated with its energy policy statements its commitment to nuclear power. The £2.5bn increase for the NDA at a time when public expenditure was being slashed also demonstrated its determination to get to grips with the legacy of the past.

3 – The Coalition had felt it necessary to democratise the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) system of handling major projects. It was better to delay progress for a fewmonths than become bogged down in years of court reviews.

4 – Through the new consultation on the National Policy Statements, the Government had set out the justification for new nuclear power stations. That justification, along with NII/Environment Agency certification of reactors and 2,500 a year, and would provide two more. Some 600 attended a “supplier day” Government approval of sites, after extensive consultation, left the IPC to look at specific site issues and removed opportunities to prolong the planning process indefinitely.

5 – It was the Government’s job to remove barriers to investment. Unless nuclear operators were confident they would be making a profit in 2020, that investment would not materialise. He showed himself acutely aware of the consequences of failure for if the lights went out he said he would immediately be out of a job. 5 – Removing barriers to investment meant that reforming the electricity market was absolutely crucial and the Government had to get those reforms right over the next six months, leading to aWhite Paper in the Spring and later legislation. The Government was intensively engaged on consultations with the industry, investors and analysts.

6 – The universities were responding very well to the need to replenish skills since 80% of the people working in the British nuclear industry would have retired by the mid-2020s.

7 – While at present the UK had to rely on international companies to develop its nuclear power, he was aiming to create an unsubsidised UK nuclear industry that would be very attractive to a world seeking to build new nuclear stations. The result, he said, was that Britain was the most exciting market in the world for new nuclear and “people around the world are looking at us”. If the Coalition got it right, they would not only keep the lights on but provide cheap prices for consumers.

Ideally, I would not start here

Under questioning, Mr Hendry was pressed on various aspects of energy policy and notably subsidies for renewables. How long could they go on? He said there would always be the need for early stage support for some technologies, but there would be regular review of costs and the possibility of reductions. In an ideal world, he said, he would not be starting from the present position. He wished nuclear had been developed five years ago, but it had not been, a large slice of generating capacity was heading for closure and nuclear itself could not take up the immediate slack. There was no single silver bullet to provide for Britain’s energy needs. To be secure we had therefore to look across a range of technologies.

He emphasised this point by demonstrating the insecurity of the various elements of energy policy. Public confidence in nuclear would evaporate if there were a serious accident anywhere in the world. Carbon capture and storage had not been demonstrated on the scale required. There were doubts how renewables of various kinds would perform in hostile marine environments. Smart meters in themselves did not reduce demand but they could provide consumers with market information, which pointed the way to economy. Consumers had to be involved much more in tackling the demand side of the equation to reduce consumption.

Mr Hendry was also warmly applauded and stayed on to have discussions with individual members.


THOSE ATTENDING:

Members of the committee attending, apart from the chairman, acting secretary and treasurer, were: the Hon John Assheton, Adrian Bull, Gerald Clark, Jim Corner, Geoffrey Greenhalgh, Martin Morland, Ann Robinson and Peter Vey Patrons attending were: John Edmonds, Lady McAlpine and Lord Parkinson. Members who indicated their intention to attend or signed the attendance register were: Dr Gordon Adam, ProfessorWade Allison, Bernard Apter, Craig Arnold, Charlotte Assheton, Brian Barkes, Louise Barton, Dr Peter Chester, Michael Crookes, Ian Currie, Professor Kenneth Durrands, Michael Gammon, Sir John Guinness, John Haddon, E G Harling, Dr Nigel Holloway, George Jennings, Martin Jenner, Malcolm King, Dr Joseph Lambert, Jack Leeming, Derek Limbert, Robert MacLachlan, Brendan McNamara, John Maxwell, J J B Mills, GeorgeMuir, GMNissen, G Packman, Terry Price, Dr E J Robbins, Robin Smith, Commander Kevin Stagg, Geoffrey Stone, Roger Vaughan and TerryWynn



APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from the following members of the committee: Alexander Center, Neville Chamberlain, Robert Freer, Keith Parker, Simon Rippon, Paul Spare and DrWLWilkinson FRS.

Patrons who expressed their regret were: Giles Chichester MEP, Lord Maclennan, Lord Marsh and Lord Taverne

Members tendering their apologies were: Graham Brightman,AE Bunnell, Dr Vernon Eldred,Mrs Beryl Ellis, Gwyn Evans, The Rev Philip Foster, Ron Hargreaves, John Hole, Lord Hunt, David Jefferies, Lord Jenkin, D S Johnson, Fred Nicholson,Angus Ross, Richard Sargent-Manse, Lord Vinson and J P J van Vuren.