|
2003 May, Newsletter No.58 |
|
|
|
|
Written by SONE
|
|
Thursday, 01 May 2003 |
TRICKS, RISKS AND PROFLIGACY OF THE ENERGY WHITE PAPER
The Energy White Paper (EWP) gets worse, if that is possible. One
alarming new element and more flesh on the bones of two existing
elements of criticism of it have come our way this month. At a general
meeting of SONE members at Sellafield on April 28, Professor Ian Fells,
Professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, accused the Government of playing fast and loose with its very
own market model in formulating the EWP.
Second,
the supply situation for gas and electricity is much tighter than is
generally realised. In confidential industrial discussions to which
SONE has been a party, it is clear that the next few winters – and
especially 2005-6 – are going to be tight for gas, given that we have
little strategic storage. For electricity, last winter’s 21% generating
plant margin had us within a whisker of power cuts. This winter that
margin is expected to be down to 15%.
Third – and here we are indebted to Alan Shaw, a Norfolk member – there
is the vast expenditure being contemplated to enable Scotland to become
the renewables hero of the Western world. Mr Shaw has written to
Scotland on Sunday taking issue with the idea of spending £1.7bn on
reinforcing the grid to enable 6000MW of Scottish hydro and theoretical
wind power (at 30% load factor) to supply the southern half of England
when two interconnectors with the Continent are being planned.
We set out more about each of these issues below. But the more we look
at it the more the EWP is a shambles. At least SONE described it as
irrelevant, incompetent and positively dangerous when it appeared in
February to largely uncritical acclaim. On the basis of present
evidence, the winter of 2005-6 is as good a bet as any for proving SONE
right – if supply difficulties do not prove us right before.
SO WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
This was the question addressed by more than 40 members and prospective
members who attended SONE’s general meeting on April 28 in the visitor
centre at Sellfield, courtesy BNFL. The discussion took place against
the background of Prof. Fells’ extensive review of British energy
policy over recent decades and the EWP.
He said the Government was misleading the nation about its energy
options by claiming that nuclear is uneconomic. It had ignored the
findings of its own market model established to guide policy making.
This showed that, if there were to be a 60% cut in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050, new nuclear power stations were necessary. If
nuclear stations were not replaced, renewables would have to be
responsible for 70% of our electricity at 250% greater cost. “They have
used the market guideline selectively”, Prof Fells charged.
It was not the only thing the Government had treated cavalierly. It had
received 6,000 responses to the consultation process leading up to the
EWP which would have taken 10 man-years to read. Among those ignored
(or unread?) were papers from the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of
Engineering and Professor Sir David King, the Government’s own chief
scientist – all of whom advocated a nuclear replacement programme.
Prof. Fells said the prospect of relying on imported gas at an
uncertain price for 80% of our electricity was “reckless” in terms of
security of supply and expensive in terms of the investment required
for up to five new inter-connectors from the Continental mainland. As
for renewable targets, he quoted Tacitus: “That which is unknown is
assumed to have great potential”. He also quoted Adam Smith in relation
to a free market in energy: “Injuries to society can arise from free
enterprise which the State must control”.
Scandalous
Keith Parker, a member of SONE’s committee and director of
communications at the British Nuclear Industry Forum, added that
another scandalous aspect of the EWP was the minimal attention paid to
nuclear power – a few paragraphs in 120 pages. This cursory treatment
followed his participation in a working party to assist Government
policy making which had identified eight major issues which would need
to be tackled for nuclear to be developed. Nothing was likely to change
now for several years – unless there were electricity cuts.
So, Sellafield concluded, we are stuck with the EWP unless things go
drastically wrong. How best then to change political and public
sentiment? Among the ideas canvassed were:
Half a dozen ideas
1 – the nuclear industry should engage more with the public
2 – we should not refer to new nuclear build but replacement build
3 – we needed a much clearer understanding of the truly comparative costs of different forms of electricity generation
4 – to that end, Sellafield should have its own wind farm
5 – a serious TV documentary on energy supply and its nuclear component
– the Secretary pointed out that serious TV was now a contradiction in
terms
6 – a film about the day in the life of a housewife without electricity supply
This is not to mention Maurice Ginniff’s proposal to recruit students
to help give nuclear a new, more appealing image and Professor James
Lovelock’s call for a nuclear novel, both of which were mentioned.
UK’s structural problems
Sir Christopher Audland, one of SONE’s Cumbrian patrons and a former
Director General of Energy in the European Commission, said the UK had
never had a serious energy policy and the EWP certainly did not provide
one. Nuclear in the UK was up against two structural problems: the UK’s
chronic short-termism, which was particularly inconvenient in terms of
energy supply; and the difficulty of getting anything positive about it
in the media.
Summing up, the Secretary said that he would add massive public and
media ignorance about risk as a further structural problem. There were
also problems with politicians and their advisers. Labour MPs had told
him that it was simply not politically possible to replace nuclear
stations now. In fact, that was a cop out, even though strictly true.
A serious EWP would have identified the work necessary to enable
replacement nuclear construction to start in the future – eg by
clearing the way for licensing a new reactor; identifying sites for
replacement stations; preparing the way for planning applications;
treating public opinion; and, last but not least, ending the political
log jam over the long term storage of nuclear waste. None of that had
been done. Instead, nuclear had been parked on the shelf,
notwithstanding our 50- year experience of its reliability and
contribution to reducing atmospheric pollution.
SONE’s subtle line
The Secretary acknowledged that trying to scare people into backing
nuclear by curdling their blood over the prospect of power cuts could
be counter-productive, especially if they never occurred. But there was
a more subtle way of playing on public fears. He suggested the
following SONE approach:
1 – Those who support nuclear power are the greenest of greens; alone
they offer a solution to the modern problem of reconciling the need for
reliable electricity without greenhouse gases. Nuclear is also safe and
economic as well as clean.
2 – We’ve had nearly 50 years accident-free nuclear power in Britain; why reinvent the wheel?
3 – We are not against renewables; but we can’t rely on their
theoretical contribution, only their proven capacity – and here there
are real problems with wind, waves, tides, solar, hydro, fuel cells,
hydrogen and the various bio-fuels. You can’t run a great economy on
theories, hopes
or even expectations.
4 – No one can ignore electricity’s cost because we have to compete in
this world – yet we are ignoring costs in pursuit of politically
correct dreams.
5 – we can’t ignore security of supply because a modern economy on
which our lifestyle depends simply cannot do without electricity – yet
we are dangerously, almost suicidally, complacent about supply.
6 – We don’t lack the technology required for a nuclear future – only the will to go for it. We may well pay dearly for this.
SONE recruited several new members after the Sellafield meeting over which our chairman, Sir William McAlpine, presided.
STRETCHED SUPPLIES
SONE is regularly invited to take part in confidential research
discussions about energy policy through a foundation. We encounter
three distinct views about the EWP – those who see a serious risk of
power cuts or a steep rise in gas prices in the short to medium term;
the theorists who find security and insurance in the very existence of
liberalised markets; and the complacent who rudely dismiss the
pessimists and also rejoice in the efficacy of the market.
Well, we have it from the horse’s mouth that UK gas supplies peaked in
relation to demand with the dawn of the millennium, It’s now downhill
all the way, with last year’s estimate of gas import dependence now
updated from 38 to 50% by 2010-11 and from 45 to 70% by 2012-13.
Sources of imports in 2010 are listed as EU 32%; Russia 30%; Norway
16%; North Africa 9%; Caspian and Middle East 8%; and others 5%. It is
is also noted that, if 2005-6 is the trickiest winter for supply, more
nuclear power stations will have closed by then on grounds of age,
thereby exacerbating the problem.
There are those who believe that if the electricity grid loses another
2000MW – and that is by no means impossible, given the financial
problems of Drax and Eggborough – we are into blackouts. After all, we
have not merely parked nuclear but also rendered all forms of
electricity generation uneconomic. How much of next winter’s 15%
operating margin will be operational?
COME ON OFGEM – EXPLAIN
Alan Shaw, an Aylsham (Norfolk) member, is calling on Ofgem, the energy
regulator, to explain to Parliament and consumers its costly plans to
reinforce the grid to carry Scottish renewable electricity generation
south to where most consumers are.
In a letter to Scotland on Sunday, he says the centre of gravity of UK
energy demand lies below a line from Bristol to the Wash. The idea of
spending £1.7bn on grid reinforcement to carry 6000MW of mixed Scottish
hydro- and wind power at an annual load factor of 30% to below that
line “seems a pointless waste of money”, bearing in mind transmission
losses and annual capital charges.
The 17 year-old cross-Channel interconnector had reliably imported
2000MW greenhouse gas free electricity at 100% load factor (10% more
than Scotland proposes to export). There were also advance plans for
two new North Sea electricity inter-connectors from East Anglia to
Norway (1320 MW) and the Netherlands (4320MW).
Hence his call for Ofgem to explain the “enormous” costs of the
Scottish project which would fall on UK taxpayers and electricity
consumers. Having already reduced through its pricing policy an
important part of the UK generation industry to bankruptcy, “Ofgem
appears”, he says, “to be emerging as a threat to the reliability of
the UK electricity supply industry rather than as a protector of
electricity consumers”.
WE NEED AN ENERGY POLICY!
Neville Chamberlain, a member of SONE’s committee, told a British
Energy Association workshop on the EWP on March 26 that we needed an
energy policy which ensured plentiful, reliable, affordable energy
causing minimum damage to the environment. The EWP accepted that a
completely free market would not achieve this. There would have to be
weightings and constraints to get the right balance.
“I suggest”, he went on “that it is not the role of the DTI to start
with the environment. The DTI’s job is to make sure that our industry
and homes have that adequate supply of energy and then work out how
that can be done in a way that ensures that adverse effects on the
environment are minimal. I doubt if any energy supply system is
completely without environmental effects. But I do believe we must make
every reasonable endeavour to minimise these detriments.
“The EWP makes a first start at this but clearly accepts that the issue
will have to be revisited. I suspect that the re-visit will have to be
much sooner than the few years the DTI are hoping”.
Gulf Stream pump switched off
Mr Chamberlain added that climate change might bring not warmer but
colder weather. In the UK’s latitude, we have no right to expect our
sort of climate which was brought about by a freak of nature – the Gulf
Stream. If all the dice were thrown into the air, we could not expect
them to land as favourably again for us.
And one of the drivers of the Gulf Stream – a finger of winter ice off
Greenland which froze out huge quantities of water and acted like a
giant pump – had failed to appear every year for the last 10 years. One
of the Gulf Stream’s pumps had already been switched off. Fortunately,
the world’s reserves of otherwise useless uranium could safely see us
through 1,000 years of any impending mini-Ice Age.
Of greenhouse gas free alternatives to gas, nuclear was by far the
cheapest over the long term. If similar credits for the avoidance of
greenhouse gas emissions were given to nuclear as to wind farms,
nuclear could compete with any other form of energy in price. But
because of its long term nature just like renewables it needed a
commercially and politically stable framework.
Simple way forward on waste
Finally, Mr Chamberlain, offered a simple way forward on nuclear waste:
1 – accept all nuclear waste – power, university, hospital etc – at a
suitable site for immobilisation, encapsulation and storage in a
monitored, retrievable system
2 – charge that centre with conducting internationally collaborative
research into options for ultimate disposal after 100-500 years. The
Government needed to see consumption of energy as part of a global
challenge which could only be met if those societies best equipped to
do so made use of the nuclear option, including Britain.
SPARE’S AWKWARD QUESTIONS
Paul Spare, a Davenham (Cheshire) member, specialising in bowling
googlies at “green peas”, as he describes that variety of professional
campaigners, poses three questions for us to chuck at nuclear opponents:
1 – If nuclear is so uneconomic, how do our major industrial
competitors manage to operate with much greater nuclear contributions –
France (80%), Sweden (45%), Germany, Japan and Switzerland (35-40%)?
2 – Why, throughout the 20thC, was it necessary for some 500,000 miners
to dig out an average of 100m tons of coal a year if all we had to do
was to build a few windmills and turn our roofs to the sun? 3 – Why do
environmental campaigners and fellow travellers insist on more use of
rail, depending on reliable eectricity supplies, when over the last 50
years the railways have been up to 10,000 times more dangerous than the
nuclear industry, with 12,000 deaths among passengers, employees and
from suicide and trespass
THE GM/NUCLEAR PARALLEL
Professor Lovelock has sent us the fascinating text of Bernard Dixon’s
Biochemical Society Award lecture last year on “Genes in food – why the
furore?” His answers reveal a remarkable experience which parallels
nuclear’s.
On GM, Dr Dixon says that scientists failed in their responsibility to
society in three ways – they did not appreciate that certain techniques
would inevitably provoke public consternation and so took no steps to
address them; they overlooked, minimized or dismissed the significance
of public fears that they were “interfering with Nature” or “playing
God”; and they saw no need for pro-active measures with the media.
The result [together with errors by the media] is that GM food is now
firmly fixed in the public mind as “wholly objectionable”. A
“genetically modified organism” has become “an odious, generic
shibboleth”. He adds: “Given that millions of people throughout the
world are already benefiting from pharmaceuticals made by GM organisms,
this is bizarre”.
Just as bizarre is the hostility to radioactivity (which he
acknowledges), given its widespread contribution from healing to
warming and powering our lives.
Published by:
Supporters of Nuclear Energy, c/o BNES, 7 Great George Street, PO Box 25124, London SW1P 3ZS.
Tel: 020-7665-2046, Fax: 020-7665-2269
Web site: www.sone.org.uk |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 11 January 2007 )
|
|
|
|
