Scarcely a day seems to have gone by since the Government issued on
January 23 its energy review consultative document – The Energy
Challenge – securing clean, affordable energy for the longterm – than
events have underlined nuclear power’s crucial points: secure supplies
of clean electricity at affordable price.
President Putin’s Russia is being accused of blowing up Georgia’s gas pipelines after temporarily shutting off supplies to the Ukraine. This use of energy power gave Europe a collective shiver as rebels forced Shell to close down a fifth of Nigeria’s oil exports after kidnappings of staff.
Would you rely on this lot to keep the home fires burning? Not surprisingly, security of supply is now the abiding concern, especially after a dozen Danish cartoonists set the Islamic world alight with some indifferent depictions of the Prophet Mohamed. It’s a volatile world out there, especially where there is oil and gas.
Even The Guardian, no friend of nuclear, commented: “If the resumption of the British nuclear power programme already looked likely in 2005…it is now beginning to look a racing certainty in 2006, thanks to the momentous action of Mr Putin”.
The price of gas is also soaring. British Gas again hoisted its prices from March 1, this time by 22% – said to be the largest single rise in history – following those of other companies. This came as we were digesting the report of a nine-month European Commission inquiry into energy supply that uncovered evidence of anti-competitive business practices. The EC threatened legal action against protectionist monopolies accused of diverting gas from Britain to French, German and Italian domestic markets. But don’t expect early liberalisation of Continental energy markets.
So, would you rely on this other lot – the Europeans – to keep the home fires burning? Hardly, and certainly not cheaply. Ofgem, the British regulator, calculates that British consumers paid £1bn more than they needed to this winter because of the failure of the interconnector from Belgium to operate properly and said that if things did not improve the bill next winter could be £3bn.
As for (rising) carbon dioxide emissions, the media tried to scare us out of our wits with successive warnings about the dire things happening to the climate. That wonderful ray of sunshine, The Independent, informed us on February 11 that we were beyond the “tipping point” – that is that some scientists believe a 2degsC rise in global temperatures is inevitable, sparking catastrophic climate changes.
Developing nuclear power is becoming a test of common sense. We shall discover how much there is around.
THE POLITICIANS SPEAK
To try to assess which way the wind is blowing, we can perhaps do no better than look at the things politicians are saying and doing. Let’s first of all, congratulate Malcolm Wicks, the first of six Ministers of Energy since our formation in 1998 to lunch with SONE.
His willingness to do so perhaps demonstrates the changed atmosphere, though he also seems to be of a different calibre to his predecessors. He did not give much away over lunch but he has been talking a lot to the press. On February 12 he told the Observer:
“The balances we need to strike are between on the one hand energy supply and energy security. All other things being equal, that would point to investment in a new generation of nuclear – and climate change would indicate investment in new technology like nuclear and renewables. On the other side is nuclear waste and the need to satisfy the public and Parliament that we are putting in place a strategy. I think we can do that, but it is a big agenda.”
Earlier he had told The Guardian he saw virtually no practical obstacles to a new generation of nuclear power stations. In particular, he said, it was “dead wrong” to think that a financial framework could not be found to encourage private sector participation; a lot of “major companies” were willing to invest in nuclear power; pre-licensing of power station designs could speed up planning inquiries; and ways to dispose of nuclear waste were available.
Tories on retreat? Mr Wicks’ position is still formally neutral but it is decades since Ministers were so positive about atomic power. It is also decades since the Conservatives appeared so lukewarm. Alan Duncan, Shadow Industry Secretary, has twice encouraged doubting headlines.
While protesting he had an “open mind”, he told the Financial Times on February 2 that he was “instinctively hostile to nuclear because I’m suspicious of the dangers it poses”. This was not exactly a neutral launch of the Tories’ own fourmonth review of energy policy which will, presumably, have to dovetail with the party’s quality of life inquiry in which the anti-nuke, Zac Goldsmith, has a role. Your Secretary has written to Mr Duncan, offering a few facts.
This is what comes of a party when it is driven by presentation – as the Tories are at present in their quest to rebrand themselves as soft, cuddly and liberal. Yet Mr Duncan may well soon discover a majority of his party back nuclear. Lib Dems hostile Judging from his campaigning, Sir Menzies Campbell, putative leader of the Liberal Democrats, is no less hostile to (and ignorant about) nuclear power than his former leader, Charles Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy’s every prejudice was revealed in a letter to Garth Haythornthwaite, a Kent member, in which he said he was against nuclear power because of waste (five Royal Albert Halls’ full and radioactive for thousands of years), nuclear electricity too dear to afford; clean up bill £50mplus; BE and BNFL effectively bankrupt; terrorism etc. He would seek to cut energy demand, “probably by a third”, through established energy efficiency measures and develop a basket of renewable services and use cleaned up fossil fuels.
After that naivete came the refreshing news that Lord Taverne, a SONE patron, tried to bring some sense to Lib.Dem. policy at a conference of his party’s peers. He was far from being without support and the chairman, while sceptical, interpreted the sense of the meeting as being to keep the nuclear option open. That is progress. There is everything to play for with politicians.
GREEN RECORD STUCK
Your Secretary has been busy addressing various bodies as the energy review gets under way and the striking thing about the contributions from declared Greens is that they are like a record stuck in a groove. It is a long time since we heard a new argument against nuclear.
Our opponents stimulate a number of questions about themselves: Can they add up? Do they have any regard for practicality and cost? Are they seriously concerned about the environment, climate change and the health of the economy? The answer to each questions must be: “No” in the light of the arithmetic of declining coal and nuclear electricity generation and the best case likely contribution of renewables, “clean” coal, if it exists, and energy conservation.
If nothing is done, it is obvious that imported natural gas will have to fill the yawning gap emerging between supply and demand. But can relatively dirty gas take the strain and at what cost? So are nuclear’s opponents blind to reason, cavalier about the environment and economically irresponsible?
Clearly, we must differentiate between followers and leaders. No doubt many followers are ignorant but sincere idealists - as cruelly exploited as the general public by the Green movement. Others come to the party with prejudices honed by atomic bombs and radiation. But leaders of Green opinion are a different matter.
Their urge to industrialise the countryside with wind farms, their blind faith in renewables, their advocacy of microgeneration, their passionate believe in the massive savings to be had from energy conservation and their apparent contempt for economics perhaps betrays another purpose. It is to impose upon us their concept of the kind the one hand energy supply and energy security.
All other things being equal, that would point to investment in a new generation of nuclear – and climate change would indicate investment in new technology like nuclear and renewables. On the other side is nuclear waste and the need to satisfy the public and Parliament that we are putting in place a strategy. I think we can do that, but it is a big agenda.” Earlier he had told The Guardian he saw virtually no practical obstacles to a new generation of nuclear power stations. In particular, he said, it was “dead wrong” to think that a financial framework could not be found to encourage private sector participation; a lot of “major companies” were willing to invest in nuclear power; pre-licensing of power station designs could speed up planning inquiries; and ways to dispose of nuclear waste were available.
Tories on retreat? Mr Wicks’ position is still formally neutral but it is decades since Ministers were so positive about atomic power. It is also decades since the Conservatives appeared so lukewarm. Alan Duncan, Shadow Industry Secretary, has twice encouraged doubting headlines.
While protesting he had an “open mind”, he told the Financial Times on February 2 that he was “instinctively hostile to nuclear because I’m suspicious of the dangers it poses”. This was not exactly a neutral launch of the Tories’ own fourmonth review of energy policy which will, presumably, have to dovetail with the party’s quality of life inquiry in which the anti-nuke, Zac Goldsmith, has a role. Your Secretary has written to Mr Duncan, offering a few facts.
This is what comes of a party when it is driven by presentation – as the Tories are at present in their quest to rebrand themselves as soft, cuddly and liberal. Yet Mr Duncan may well soon discover a majority of his party back nuclear.
Lib Dems hostile Judging from his campaigning, Sir Menzies Campbell, putative leader of the Liberal Democrats, is no less hostile to (and ignorant about) nuclear power than his former leader, Charles Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy’s every prejudice was revealed in a letter to Garth Haythornthwaite, a Kent member, in which he said he was against nuclear power because of waste (five Royal Albert Halls’ full and radioactive for thousands of years), nuclear electricity too dear to afford; clean up bill £50mplus; BE and BNFL effectively bankrupt; terrorism etc. He would seek to cut energy demand, “probably by a third”, through established energy efficiency measures and develop a basket of renewable services and use cleaned up fossil fuels.
After that naivete came the refreshing news that Lord Taverne, a SONE patron, tried to bring some sense to Lib.Dem. policy at a conference of his party’s peers. He was far from being without support and the chairman, while sceptical, interpreted the sense of the meeting as being to keep the nuclear option open. That is progress.
There is everything to play for with politicians.
GREEN RECORD STUCK
Your Secretary has been busy addressing various bodies as the energy review gets under way and the striking thing about the contributions from declared Greens is that they are like a record stuck in a groove. It is a long time since we heard a new argument against nuclear.
Our opponents stimulate a number of questions about themselves: Can they add up? Do they have any regard for practicality and cost? Are they seriously concerned about the environment, climate change and the health of the economy? The answer to each questions must be: “No” in the light of the arithmetic of declining coal and nuclear electricity generation and the best case likely contribution of renewables, “clean” coal, if it exists, and energy conservation.
If nothing is done, it is obvious that imported natural gas will have to fill the yawning gap emerging between supply and demand. But can relatively dirty gas take the strain and at what cost? So are nuclear’s opponents blind to reason, cavalier about the environment and economically irresponsible?
Clearly, we must differentiate between followers and leaders. No doubt many followers are ignorant but sincere idealists - as cruelly exploited as the general public by the Green movement. Others come to the party with prejudices honed by atomic bombs and radiation. But leaders of Green opinion are a different matter. Their urge to industrialise the countryside with wind farms, their blind faith in renewables, their advocacy of microgeneration, their passionate believe in the massive savings to be had from energy conservation and their apparent contempt for economics perhaps betrays another purpose.
It is to impose upon us their concept of the kind of life – a much simpler, less mobile, less wasteful, low energy and poorer lifestyle.
We could, of course, be much less wasteful to our immense benefit. But that is no reason not to expose the hard-line environmentalists for what they are. Your Secretary dubbed them “enemies of the people” in BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions? programme on January 27. This brought cries of “Oh” from the audience. It will be a roar of anger if they live to discover how these enemies have misled them into disaster.
ENERGY REVIEW RESPONSE
Your committee is preparing a substantial response to the Government’s consultative document on the energy review. As we go to press, we are considering submitting the case made in the leaflet, The Looming Energy Crisis, supplemented by a covering commentary on issues either not covered by the pamphlet or which we feel should be emphasised. We hope to submit our response early in April – the deadline for comments is April 14 – and we shall post it on the SONE website.
The Government’s questions
The consultative document poses five questions:
1 – What more could the Government do on the demand or supply side to ensure the UK’s longterm goal of reducing carbon emissions is met?
2 – With the UK becoming a net energy importer and with big investments to be made over the next 20 years in generating capacity and networks, what further steps, if any, should the government take to develop our market framework for delivering reliable energy supplies? In particular we invite views on the implications of increased dependence on gas imports.
3 – The Energy White Paper (2003) left open the option of nuclear new build. Are there particular considerations that should apply to nuclear as the government re-examines the issues bearing on new build, including long term liabilities and waste management? If so, what are these, and how should the government address them?
4 – Are there particular considerations that should apply to carbon abatement and other lowcarbon technologies?
5 – What further steps should be taken towards meeting the Government’s goals that every home is adequately and affordably heated?
Invited comments The Government also invites comments on four other issues: a) the long term potential for energy efficiency measures in the transport, residential, business and public sectors, and how best to achieve that potential; b) medium and long term implications for the transmission and distribution networks of significant new build gas and electricity generation infrastructure; c) opportunities for more joint working with other countries on our energy policy goals; and d) potential measures to help bring forward technologies to replace fossil fuels in transport and heat generation in the medium to long term.
Any member responding personally to this Government invitation for comment can have his response put on SONE’s website if he e-mails it to the Secretary on
LORDS FOR NUCLEAR
Members should read the two-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Lords on February 16, initiated by a SONE member, Lord Jenkin, a former Minister for Energy, as a contribution to the energy review debate. Three of our patrons, Lords Cunningham (making his maiden speech), Tombs and Taverne spoke in a discussion that was strongly pro-nuclear. Although there were doubting voices, no peer actively opposed nuclear. One of the clearest messages that emerged - apart from the need for nuclear - was the importance of the Government ending uncertainty by setting a long-term framework for carbon reduction, investment and regulation.
Lord Jenkin argued that the Ministerial assumption behind the 2003 energy White Paper was that nuclear would be run down and eventually disappear. Its instrument for that purpose was the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. But everything had changed in the last two years, so the NDA strategy of “reducing everything to a greenfield site” could not possibly be approved in the new circumstances.
Lord Jenkin concluded: “If you want to keep the lights on and you want to combat climate change, then the answer has to be a new nuclear programme”. Points from our patrons Points made by our patrons: Lord Cunningham: At the very moment when fundamental energy and environmental policy decisions must urgently be made, some advocate abandoning a very significant weapon in our industrial armoury. To do so would simply be folly. It would disable our economy and our industry at the very time when we should be thinking of strengthening it. The world is not going to get by without nuclear power if we are to achieve sustainable development.
Lord Tombs: Nuclear power can allow us to build a less-polluting society and at the same time preserve our strategic and economic independence in the energy field. It also offers us through hydrogen production the best hope available of tackling that mammoth polluter: transport.
Lord Taverne: Much of the opposition (to nuclear power) is emotive and based on mis-information whereas the issue should be judged on evidence. It seems to me there is a very strong case indeed for nuclear power.
DON’T MESS WITH REED
While we are talking about Lord Cunningham and evidence-based decision-making, our attention has been drawn by Roy Sumerling, a Cumbrian member, to a powerful Commons’ speech in January by Lord Cunningham’s successor as MP for Copeland (Sellafield), Jamie Reed. Mr Reed was incensed by a Lib Dem refusal to allow him to respond to points affecting his constituency. This gives you his flavour: “It would be easy to listen only to the wilfully misinformed anti-nuclear careerists who have made significant financial sums from telling lies and half-truths about the (nuclear) industry for the best part of three decades. It would be easy to swallow the nonsense that is talked about the industry, but producing energy policy on the basis of wilful ignorance and shameless populism would be tantamount to perpetrating a fraud on the British people.
“Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrong-headed objection to nuclear energy”.
CHERNOBYL IN FOCUS
It is also true that some people have made reputations out of exploiting the supposed nuclear plight of the children of Chernobyl, not least in the Republic of Ireland. SONE’s friends in Dublin keep us posted and your Secretary has recently joined their efforts to inject facts into the Irish Times debate.
More importantly, Burton G Bennett, chairman of the international Nuclear Forum wrote from New York about its findings that so far only 56 people have died from radiation. The Forum is made up of eight international organisations, the Governments of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and around 100 independent scientific experts and physicians.
Mr Bennett wrote: “To blame everything on radiation fails to recognise the harm caused by poor lifestyle practices, multiple stresses and other factors, and a general inadequacy in the provision of good health advice and care. Most of the general increase in recorded cancer rates is due to better diagnosis and registration.
“An emotional response to the Chernobyl accident has for too long been used by some organisations and individuals to gain attention that, at the same time, has left the affected population being labelled as victims. The forum advocates eliminating the psychological burden on the population and refocusing efforts toward self-help measures to promote economic development and fundamental strengthening of healthcare systems. Providing both the public and key professionals with accurate information about the health and environmental consequences of the disaster should be a high priority”.
A magisterial rebuke.
THE LAST WORD
Professor James Lovelock CH, a SONE patron, was given a page in the Daily Mail on February 5. He used it to hammer away at the need for the development of nuclear power. He said: “Few things are more urgent than the decision whether or not to start building new nuclear power plants, so why wait another year? The most probably reason is that those in the Government who strongly oppose nuclear energy know delay could seal the fate of our nuclear capacity because it is dying from lack of support and the process of decommissioning.”
The task for 2006: to start nuclear commissioning.
