IS THE GOVERNMENT HALF WAY ALONG THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS?
No, this is not another article about the 26-day war in Iraq or the
mess that is the Middle East. Instead, we pose the question in relation
to nuclear power and, more specifically, what we in SONE need to do to
convert HMG to a sensible, practical and affordable energy policy.
The
pessimists would say that the Government is in the hands of a curious
and lethal combination of anti-capitalist “Greens”, currently deeply
attached to medieval micro-energy systems such as wind farms, and free
marketeers who see no risk in our becoming dependent on imported gas
for most of our energy.
The optimists would argue that such are the inherent contradictions in
this “Green”-free market alliance that it is unsustainable. Moreover,
the Energy White Paper (EWP) was merely a political fix to get Labour
past the next election. When it becomes clear that the
all-gas-renewables-and-conservation policy isn’t working, nuclear will
be in a much stronger position to mount a comeback. Hence the idea that
the Government is half way on the road to Damascus.
The reality no doubt lies somewhere in between, with the proviso that
difficulties with electricity supply, whether in the form of load
shedding or black-outs, would rapidly bring the body politic to its
senses and probably lead to a new nuclear ordering programme. We do not
rule out such difficulties. NETA, the new electricity trading
arrangement, is rapidly eliminating the safety margin in power supplies
and whatever margin remains is partly unserviceable because of
mothballing.
Over one of your chairman’s lunches this month in honour of SONE
patron, Professor James Lovelock, who has become a Companion of Honour,
the idea emerged that nuclear power needs a good novel which casts it
as the saviour of the Earth. Why should the devil – ie the “Greens” –
have all the best tunes? While we impatiently await synopses from the
novelists in SONE’s midst, let us recognise the force of the point: we
are – or should be – in the business of changing people’s attitudes.
If we accept that the EWP is unsustainable, then we might reasonably
argue that Harold Macmillan’s “events, dear boy, events” will
eventually take care of nuclear. But that ignores the Government’s
commitment to renewables, public hostility to nuclear power based on
ignorance and common claims that nuclear is uneconomic and has a
problem with its waste. The best excuse pro-nuclear Labour MPs could
come up with for the EWP was that it was politically unrealistic to
suppose we could go nuclear now. SONE’s role should be to make that
course politically realistic as soon as possible.
This was the main topic for discussion at a general meeting of members
at Sellafield on April 28, just after we had gone to press.
Those in Government associated with its dangerously irresponsible EWP
are telling us where we went wrong. Instead of opposing renewables,
SONE ought to have argued for a combination of nuclear and renewables
instead of gas and renewables. This is self-serving disingenuous
nonesense. It ignores:
1 – the hold anti-nuclear “Greens” have on the Government. 2 – the free
market argument which runs through all political parties that we need
have no worries about heavy reliance on natural gas because Russia and
the Arab producers have a vested interest in maintaining supplies. 3 –
the total control exercised by the Government over the nuclear industry
with the effective renationalisation of British Energy as well as the
public ownership of BNFL. 4 – SONE is NOT against renewables. They are
no threat to the nuclear industry. What SONE opposes is the fashionable
“Green”-cultivated idiocy that renewables are, given known technology,
anything more than a marginal (and landscape wrecking) energy source,
however heavily subsidised.
Our critics are really arguing that we should cynically and
opportunistically go along with the idea that future energy policy can
be built on uncosted renewables and conservation when we know:
1 – given the severe limits on developing hydropower (generating about
3% of our electricity), wind power (currently generating 0.3%) is the
only available option, apart from highly marginal landfill gas, waste
incineration and bio-mass, all of which are not clean. Yet wind is
intermittent, heavily subsidised, grossly expensive and meets with such
serious environmental objections that it is being driven offshore where
it is even more expensive.
2 – waves, tides, solar (perhaps never in our climate), bio-oil,
bio-alcohol, bio-gas and photvoltaic cells are pipedreams which may or
may not eventually deliver.
3 – hydrogen is not by a long way a viable option as energy for
transport and needs massive amounts of electricity to produce it.
4 – there is no evidence that greater energy efficiency and energy
conservation can avoid the need for new power stations to meet rising
demand.
5 – no responsible body can advocate a solution which ignores its cost
and so risks damaging the national interest in securing clean and
competitive electricity.
If SONE is to maintain credibility, it has to stick with the facts as
we know them today and not indulge in fantasy futures. We need to work
on two things:
* the economic case for nuclear vis a vis other sources of energy which carries credibility.
* a clear and simple answer to the charge that nuclear has a waste problem.
We also need insistently to ask why the nation is so determined to
search for alternatives to nuclear when nuclear has helped to power
Britain reliably, continuously, safely, economically and, not least,
cleanly for nearly 50 years. Why do “Greens” reject the super-green
fuel?
THE WAY AHEAD
Two of our members have weighed in to support recent Newsletter
comments on how we should present our case – by concentrating on broad
issues and playing on emotions.
Geoffrey Greenhalgh (Sussex) supports challenging the “Greens” on the
danger of electricity shortages, over-dependence on imported oil and
gas, atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels, the folly of
relying on inherently variable “renewable” energy sources and the
threat to our comfort, convenience, jobs and lifestyle.
“But”, he writes, “these should not be dismissed as emotions. They are
important issues which people can readily understand and on which they
will have definite views. They can be supported by a commonsense
appraisal of facts – for instance how can we possibly commission four
large 1MW offshore wind generators every day from now to 2010 to meet
the EWP target?
“The nuclear industry has over the past 40 years made the mistake of
getting bogged down in arcane disputes involving concepts and units
which are difficult to comprehend – Sieverts, Grays, Half-lives, Terra,
Giga, micro and milli – or in arguments over the performance of a waste
repository hundreds of thousands of years into the future, or with
predictions of nuclear accidents which concentrate on the consequences
rather than the probability, and in which glib halftruths, which cannot
be proven (or disproved) with scientific certainty, can be used
effectively as scare stories.
“Trying to counter this with more and better information policies will
only fail. There is a considerable body of psychological research which
shows that detailed discussion of and information on controversial
issues only reinforces pre-existing attitudes. We should concentrate on
the broad issues which can be understood, not on the minutiae which
cannot”.
Wanted: arty 20 year-olds
Maurice Ginniff (Wantage), agreeing with the idea of nuclear using
powerful and simple images, says we need to define the next step.
“Unfortunately, we cannot afford the modern racy images with full media
coverage. We could, however, trawl the sites and families of our
industry for the happy and wholesome events and pictures that abound
but which never get into even the local media because the local
management do not put PR at the right priority level. They and most
members of SONE will think it childish but so are the white overalls
and gas masks of the “Greens” but the image has its impact. At a higher
level, did not Walter Marshall hold a chess contest on a pile cap?
“You and I are not the folk to programme the image route. Nor are the
PR staff of our industry. We are all too soaked and marinated in
nuclear technology and its history. We want a group of 20 year-olds
with some sympathy for the nuclear future to let their images set the
scene and then to build a simple and widespread programme around those
images.
“We were young at the research stage of the industry and did sound work
but missed the significance of involving the public. The “Greens” were
also young and with simple images pulled the rug from under us. So
let’s get some arts, musical and other non-scientific young folk who
know today’s trends and listen to their ideas”.
CRITICISM IN THE COMMONS
The Labour-controlled Science and Technology Select Committee has
blasted the EWP for ducking the issue of the need for new nuclear power
stations. It says the void left by the closure of nuclear capacity
cannot be made up by renewable energy on which EWP initiatives are
inadequate.
Indeed, its chairman, Dr Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich N, said:
“The Government has ducked some tough decisions and while the White
Paper is green enough, it has a thick yellow streak running through
it”. His committee called for a carbon and renewable energy tax to make
the targets achievable.
He said that Brian Wilson, Energy Minister, “has failed to convince us
that he has any policies that will bring forward new British energy
technologies to combat climate change”. In fact, The Independent
reported that the pro-nuclear Mr Wilson will be shifted in the next
re-shuffle. We have some sympathy for Mr Wilson. He is in the classic
position of a junior Minister bearing responsibility for an area of
policy without the rank to steamroller opposition.
The House Magazine’s critics
Lord Walker of Worcester, a SONE patron and former Minister for Energy
and also the Environment, led criticisms of the EWP in The House
Magazine, Parliament’s house journal, with a two page spread headed “No
strategy – no energy”. He said that if we are to achieve our
environmental targets and have secure energy, a positive policy towards
nuclear power is essential. “It is easy to provoke fear about nuclear
safety but the record is staggering”, he said, pointing out the UK’s
record of total safety. “Our excellent nuclear industry now has
reactors that need to be replaced. The older reactors can be replaced
on the same sites with new reactors that are far more efficient,
producing electricity at lower cost, requiring less land, yielding
lower levels of nuclear waste and giving Britain a safe supply of
electricity at a competitive cost”.
Tory Shadow finds cowardice
Crispin Blunt, Tory Shadow Minister of Energy, who has been a lunch
guest of the chairman, said the “aspirational” EWP was not worth the
long wait. It left Britain without a coherent energy strategy just when
clarity and decisiveness were most needed. He accused the Government of
effectively killing off the nuclear industry without giving the public
an opportunity to assess whether the next generation of nuclear
reactors might be the economic answer for a low carbon economy.
“It is frankly incredible”, he added, “to suggest that a growth in
expensively subsidised renewable energy and energy efficiency is going
to set us on the way to a low carbon future whilst at the same time the
EWP deals a crippling blow to the nuclear fission industry.
“The EWP’s lack of courage is best exemplified by its approach to
nuclear power. A decision even in principle has been ducked despite the
overt support of the Energy Minister, Brian Wilson. This is an EWP
designed to get the Government around the next corner without upsetting
the anti-nuclear brigade – but this attitude has precious little to do
with long-term energy policy.”
Lib Dems critical too, but... Vincent Cable, Liberal Democrat Energy
spokesman, who has also been the chairman’s lunch guest, found the EWP
short on the detail of how aspirations are to be delivered. “All this
smoke and mirrors stuff”, he said, “is damaging because it continues to
stoke the very real uncertainty in the UK energy market that grew with
the repeated delay of the EWP.”
But Mr Cable welcomed the rejection of “irresponsible scaremongering”
about the security of imported gas. And he said Patricia Hewitt,
Industry Secretary, should have “shut the door on building new nuclear
fission plants for good; they are uneconomic, and the industry still
has no long term solutions to the issues of decommissioning and nuclear
waste”.
We clearly wasted our breath on Mr Cable.
ARGUING OUR CASE
Over the past month the chairman has hosted SONE lunches for the energy
institutions; Tim Yeo, Shadow Industry Secretary; Sir Robert Hill,
former RN Director of Submarines and an independent director of British
Energy; and Lord Melchett, former executive director of Greenpeace UK.
Some were more useful than others.
At least we can now say we have argued our case with Greenpeace as well
as Friends of the Earth, though without obviously getting anywhere. The
institutions represented at the EWP evaluation lunch were Energy,
Nuclear Engineers, Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers and the
British Nuclear Energy Society as well as the World Nuclear
Association. The discussions with Mr Yeo and Sir Robert Hill were
exceptionally valuable and constructive.
We managed to have at each of the lunches – and at the lunch in honour
of Professor James Lovelock – representatives of the ordinary
membership. The chairman asks any members who would like to receive
invitations to let the Secretary know on Fax 020-8668-4357.
SONE WINS – AGAIN
At the end of March your Secretary and Alan Shaw, a Norfolk member, won
a lunchtime debate on wind power staged by the Institution of Civil
Engineers in Ipswich. The admittedly nonsensical motion “That the
answer to East Anglia’s renewable energy crisis is wind power” was
rejected on a show of hands, even though East Anglia is bidding to
become the wind power location of the UK and the British Wind Energy
Association were strongly represented.
Both your speakers pointed out that there was no renewable energy
crisis anywhere. But there was an energy crisis in the making thanks to
the Government’s EWP. Your Secretary said that wind was “a trendy,
politically correct answer to the needs of the age which satisfies only
the brainwashed or the brain dead – and the companies which are trying
to make a subsidised killing out of its green tokenism”.
Mr Shaw said bluntly that wind could be the cause of major imbalance and system instability, leading to blackouts.
We are delighted to note that two members – Andrew Harris (Droitwich)
and Robert Freer (London) have had letters published in The Times.
FINANCES ROSIER
Thanks to donations of £2,000 each – one collectively from 34 members
and the other from an anonymous donor – SONE is in a healthier
financial position. Your Treasurer reports we have £12,000 instead of
£7,000 in the bank. Your generosity is greatly appreciated. We shall
try to use your money wisely.
ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE
The Adam Smith Institute is trying to define a strategic framework for
a significant long term role for nuclear energy which secures public
acceptance and cross-party political support. SONE has offered its help
and co-operation.
NEW LEAFLETS
New SONE promotional and recruitment leaflets are now available.
Members requiring copies please order from the Secretary, specifying
how many they would like.
Conference: In the March issue we noted an Institute of Physics
conference in London on nuclear power is being organised Terry
Jackson,a Bangor, NI, member on May 27. Unfortunately, we gave the
wrong e-mail address for Mr Jackson. It is:
