A SIGNIFICANT MONTH – THE GROUND STARTS TO MOVE, SLOWLY
This season of mists and mellow fruitfulness has unusually clarified
matters a little but it will take some time for the fruit to ripen into
the development of nuclear power. You can, however, almost feel the
ground moving under your feet, as the late George Brown MP put it.
It all started in September when Kyoto was sidelined at the Gleneagles
summit and the G8 went for the development and international transfer
of carbon-reducing technology and adaptation to the effects of global
warming. Tony Blair then effectively abandoned the Kyoto process, at
least for the longer term, at President Clinton’s Global Challenge
conference in New York.
He followed this up at the Labour Party conference by recognising not
only environmental reasons for going nuclear but also – and this was
new for him - the danger of relying for our energy on unstable parts of
the world. He said all options must be considered, including nuclear
power.
Since then the press has been awash with stories – no doubt inspired -
about Britain going nuclear and Government talks with the electricity
suppliers. More significantly, Margaret Beckett, Environment Secretary,
has begun to trim. She told a climate change conference she had “never
said” she was against nuclear power.
Alan Johnson, our nuclear “agnostic” Industry Secretary, has been
putting himself about on the issue and in effect promising a White
Paper next autumn. This, it seems, would be designed to stimulate a
public debate paving the way for a decision in this Parliament on
whether Britain should go nuclear, always assuming Mr Blair retains his
nerve and Prime Ministerial office.
It may well be that the Government can see clearly what it must do but
has very little idea how to get there politically. It is our
responsibility to help them do the right thing. We can best do that by
concentrating on voicing publicly the formidable arguments for nuclear
development instead of conducting splendidly counter-productive rows
over the best reactor or means of waste disposal.
Now is the time for all good nuclear men to exercise self-discipline and eschew self-indulgence.
WILL THE LIGHTS GO OUT?
Second only to reports of Britain going nuclear have been increasing
worries about our immediate security of energy supply this winter, with
the Meteorological Office warning it could be colder than average It is
one thing for industry to be struggling with soaring energy prices; it
is entirely another also to be at risk of having no energy at all,
primarily through a shortage of gas.
Ministers have clearly got their fingers crossed, even if Alan Johnson
says the lights will not go out and domestic consumers will not be
affected, though adding that “in extremely severe weather major
industrial energy users may decide it is commercially preferable to use
less energy or even sell contracted supplies back to the market”.
Malcolm Wicks, Energy Minister, is more circumspect. “There could be problems for industry. We’re not complacent about that”.
Paul Noon, general secretary of the Prospect union, says “The reality
is that we have a limited energy supply and if we have a severe winter,
the National Grid will struggle to cope. If gas supplies run low, it
will affect many power stations as the majority are run on gas”.
The Major Energy Users’ Council thinks the situation is “chaotic”. And
the CBI has steam coming out of its ears over the Government’s failure,
it alleges, to ensure sufficient gas storage - only 11 days’ supply
compared with 55 days on the Continent. So the Trade and Industry
Select Committee is to conduct an inquiry.
We mention all this because the conventional wisdom is that if the
lights go out, nuclear will benefit. A blackout may not do nuclear much
harm, but, in fact, nuclear is irrelevant to shortterm energy shortages
because of the time it takes to build a nuclear power station in most
democracies. We must not overplay our hands in the event of supply
shortages. The case for nuclear is medium to long-term security of
supply at affordable cost – free of greenhouse gases to boot.
GOVERNMENT WEATHER VANE
If you want to know which way the wind is blowing in Government listen
to its Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King. He thinks
global warming is a greater danger to the world than terrorism but when
Ministers are their usual nuclear-sceptic selves he concentrates on
promoting renewables.
But just listen to him in The Guardian in October 21. He said nuclear
power has “the safest record of all the power industries in the world”
and that “we need indigenous energy sources so we don’t rely on
imported gas from Russia. We’re the last in the pipeline across Europe,
so a second requirement is that we have a secure energy supply.
Indigenous supplies include all renewables and nuclear”.
It is good to know that our messages are getting through. Professor
King sounds as though he has been reading SONE’s leaflet “The looming
energy crisis” as well as reacting to Mr Blair’s nuclear warming.
MIRROR, MIRROR…
Another pointer is the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror. It had been
pretty hostile to nuclear until Mr Blair roused the Greens with his
latest nuclear positivism. Then it carried a leader saying protests
were inevitable because there were understandable concerns about safety
and waste.
“But”, it added, “nuclear power must be a part of any reasoned fuel
policy. For the sake of the environment as well as the threat of
falling supplies of gas, oil and coal. The answer is to make sure every
safety measure is taken. Worries about nuclear power are reasonable.
Outright opposition is not”.
This is progress from the newspaper that joined with Tony Benn,
Secretary of State for Energy, in the 1970s to brand Sellafield as “the
world’s nuclear dustbin.” It is particularly helpful when a MORI poll
taken after Mr Blair’s intervention showed that 41% of MPs were against
nuclear development. Labour is 45% against, 36% for and 19% undecided.
Conservatives were 89% for and only six per cent against.
THE FT SETS A TRAP
At the end of September the Financial Times reflected our caution over
Mr Blair’s words. It said the answer as to how much faith we should put
in them depends on how long he stays in Downing Street and how much
unpopularity he is ready to risk in promoting the nuclear cause.
It then identified “one key economic obstacle”: Downing Street’s report
in 2002 that “nowhere in the world have new nuclear stations yet been
financed within a liberalised electricity market”.
It was true Finland had embarked on a new reactor, but only by bringing
together in a consortium generation and retail operations that were
split up in the case of UK liberalisation.
Reverse liberalisation? “It is hard to resist the conclusion that
funding new nuclear plants in the UK will require partial reversal of
earlier liberalisation or at least some Government intervention. Mr
Blair has already done this to encourage renewable energy. Indeed, he
has really had an environmental, rather than an energy, policy so
far…But would he ever dare rig the market in the same way for the
nuclear industry?” This is, of course, a trap for the nuclear industry.
Renewables need subsidies because they are hopelessly uneconomic - as
the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee has brutally demonstrated. If
nuclear is the cheapest power generating option, it does not need
subsidies. Nor do the generators say they need them. We hope they stick
to that.
But, as we have repeatedly pointed out, that does not mean the
Government has no role when it is the great log in the energy jam. It
does need to clarify nuclear’s long-term access to the market, the
nature of the electricity industry’s regulation, especially after
Ofgem’s pernicious NETA, and the insurance regime, and to get on with
the licensing of reactors, the indetification of nuclear sites, the
terms of reference for public inquiries and the disposal of longer-term
nuclear waste. The issue is not subsidy: it is whether the Government
wants longer-term security of clean electricity supplies at affordable
cost. The national interest is seldom served by subsidies.
THE MONEY IS THERE
William Vereker, managing director of Lehman Brothers Europe, told the
World Nuclear Association’s symposium in London on September 8 that the
money for nuclear development is available.
“There is no question that the financial community would agree that
investment in new nuclear is required”, he said. “The case is
incontrovertible and the markets would not disagree that this can
happen”. But he said the “bridge between talking, doing and then
building is enormous” but “that bridge can be provided by the nuclear
industry working with others to put together proposals that can be
presented to the markets”.
The Prime Minister has appointed Sir Nicholas Stern, second Permanent
Secretary at the Treasury and formerly chief economist at the World
Bank, to advise him on the economic implications of cutting greenhouse
gas emissions.
This is perhaps the crucial appointment in the energy debate.
THE ARGUMENTS TO COME
Your Secretary got some idea of the Greens’ rearguard action against
what it regards as nuclear’s march when he addressed a Royal Society of
Arts workshop at Newcastle upon Tyne University on development,
sustainability and environment on October 15. Terrorism, proliferation
and safety were top of their scaremongering agenda with costs really
nowhere.
It is not surprising that the economics of nuclear is less of an issue
when the Ramblers’ Association in Scotland is calling on the
Chancellor, Gordon Brown, to end the “scandalous waste of money in
supporting landbased giant wind turbines”.
A fortnight earlier, The Guardian identified in a leader the issues
around which nuclear opponents can be expected to rally: 1 – whether
the costs and dangers attached to building new nuclear stations
(terrorism, catastrophic accidents and decommissioning), “though
daunting”, are less than the danger of not building them.
2 – if – “and it is a very big if” – the nuclear road is found to be
the right one to take, whether Britain should develop its own
considerable expertise or privatise the operation. Strategically, do we
want an industry as important as nuclear power to be controlled from
another country? Can the safety of nuclear power stations be safely
entrusted to overseas companies with short profit horizons? None of
this, of course, mentions security of supply, the need to compete in
the world, international trends in power supply, the very tight
regulation of the nuclear industry or even the need to combat global
warming. They see nuclear as a menace instead of a means to better
world.
NO EXCUSE
Another reason for avoiding a nuclear decision could be the extension
of the lives of existing reactors. Bill Coley, chief executive of
British Energy, told The Times on October 3 that keeping Dungeness B
open for another 10 years had not changed the need for urgency over
nuclear’s development in which BE wants to be involved.
No one, he said, should think that was the solution to the problem.
“The attraction of nuclear is that it is the closest thing we have to a domestic resource”, he said.
“If the Government decides to rely solely on gas by 2035 we will be
importing 89% of our energy needs and I think that would be dangerous”.
NDA “TOTALLY UNREALISTIC
” Dr W L Wilkinson FRS, a member of SONE’s committee, has responded
vigorously on behalf of SONE to the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency’s
draft strategy. He says SONE thinks the NDA is on the wrong track. Its
objective should be to find ways of reducing not inflating the
estimated £66bn cost of decommissioning Britain’s nuclear sites.
That cost is based on two premises: 1 – there will be no new nuclear
programme in the UK; and 2 – current policy and regulatory constraints
on radioactive waste will be maintained.
“This implies”, he wrote, “that nuclear energy will vanish from these
shores: no new nuclear power stations; no nuclear warships; no nuclear
weapons; and no nuclear medicine. This is totally unrealistic”.
It was futile to dismantle all nuclear facilities on existing sites,
process and package the wastes, store them and eventually transport and
bury them in another place. Much could be dealt with by on-site
disposal.
In a separate comment, Ken Jackson, a member of SONE’s committee has
told the NDA: “If nuclear power has a future, using some of the
existing licensed sites, then £56bn could well be an exaggeration of
the cost of cleaning up the legacy…It would be disastrous for the
nation to close down and de-license sites quickly, only to discover too
late the need for sites for new nuclear power stations”.
NEW PAMPHLET ISSUED
The Centre for Policy Studies, a think tank, published on September 28
a paper by your Secretary arguing the case for nuclear in its
Perspectives series. The publication entitled “A failure to act
inspired by political cowardice?” caused the Daily Telegraph to
commission an 800-word article by your Secretary which appeared the
following day. BBC Newsnight also mounted a debate on the back of the
pamphlet. It has also inspired the CPS is to organise a debate about
future energy supplies in January.
Members wishing to acquire a copy of the pamphlet should telephone or e-mail the Secretary on 020-8660-8970; or
SONE WEBSITE REVAMPED The SONE website – www.sone.org.uk - has been relaunched following significant improvements to the service. Sticky New Media,
the designers, have put all back numbers of the SONE Newsletter and
Nuclear Issues and the leaflet “The Looming Energy Crisis” and the SONE
brochure on the site. All can now be downloaded.
Industry-related news, important policy statements, special articles
and members’ letters to the press are also posted. The web pages will
evolve in response to the changing energy situation and the Secretary
invites members to put forward ideas and suggestions as to how this
important platform for presenting our case might be improved.
THE CONFERENCE SEASON
Members of the committee report on two conferences: Paul Spare, on a
seminar on nuclear fission at the Royal Academy of Engineering
(September 29): Dr Regis Matzie, Westinghouse, said that China and S
Korea were showing how to use standardisation in nuclear power plants
to reduce costs and improve performance. Current generation II plants
could be built for $1,500- 2,000kWe. Costs could be further reduced and
reliability improved in the next generation such as the AP1000 by
simplifying designs, standardising component manufacture and delivery.
Two SONE members, Dr Robert Hawley and Keith Parker, chief executive of
the Nuclear Industry Association, also presented papers.
Martin Morland and Jim Corner, on a two-day conference on October 12
and 13 at the Geological Society in London – places kindly provided by
a member, J L Raikes, of Poole – Malcolm Grimston, a SONE member, said
the tide was turning in favour of nuclear but astonishingly and
alarmingly MPs believed that only two per cent of the public were
pro-nuclear and 89% against. Cross-party support based on a realistic
estimate of public opinion would be a major step forward.
Martin Morland suggested there were good environmental reasons, apart
from a lack of CO2 emissions, for favouring nuclear, For some reason,
the public trusted the Greens more than anyone else.
LETTERS
Points from members’ letters: Sir John Guinness, to the FT: What is not
perhaps realised is that a key impediment on the critical path (to new
nuclear build) will be the Nuclear Installation’s Inspectorate’s
ability to give clearance to one or other of the main contending
reactors. It is therefore vital the NII is given the specialist
resources for such studies which are likely to take three years.
Steuart Campbell, to the Scottish press on the Chernobyl Forum’s report
suggesting the death toll may eventually reach 4,000: This estimate
appears to be based on the “no threshold” theory that even low exposure
to radiation can be harmful. Studies show that this theory is of
dubious validity. One should be sceptical of the 4,000 claim.
