Main Menu
Home
News
Newsletters
Why Nuclear
Members' Letters
Links
About Us
Contact Us
Search
Join SONE
Podcasts
Syndicate
Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE)
For more information about SONE... Click to download pdf
Advertisement
Text of talk by Sir Bernard Ingham PDF Print E-mail
Written by Sir Bernard Ingham   
Wednesday, 15 March 2006
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE SCIENCE WEEK DEBATE

“WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF UK POWER GENERATION?”

I want to approach the issue before us from the point of view of energy policy. We all know the answer to the question before this debate.

The future of UK power generation is that which brings maximum security of supply at minimum cost. We also know that, given things are what they are, we shall – indeed can – only achieve that objective over the foreseeable future with a mix of energy sources which will include coal, a bit of oil, gas, nuclear and, as technology now stands, peripherally renewables of various limited sorts.

That is - or would be if we lived in a rational world – the be all and end all of this debate. We could go home now because in those two sentences we know what is required.

But this is not a rational world which is why we are here tonight.

Let me analyse the position:

1 – We have no energy policy. We have an environmental policy which subjugates energy policy to its requirements. The 2003 Energy White Paper was arguably the most fatuous, inadequate and disgraceful policy paper ever to emerge from Government. No wonder three years later Government is now reviewing it.

2 – The only valid energy policy is one which aims at security of supply at affordable cost and which, in these days of alleged global warming, produces that energy with as little emission of carbon as possible.

3 – Current policy offers none of this
a) because of the unexpectedly rapid rundown of North Sea gas, a lack of storage capacity and the determination of our so-called European partners to look after themselves at our expense by keeping the cross-Channel interconnector under-used, we have had several alerts of impending gas shortage over recent months, the last at the week-end. This in turn threatens electricity supplies because 40% of our electricity is generated by gas. Living on a knife edge in cold weather is likely to persist for another two winters at least;
b) longer term, the Institution of Civil Engineers has forecast the near-certainty of blackouts by 2020 if we continue to rundown coal and nuclear generation which between them produce more than half of our electricity. We could well lose 20% of that generating capacity by 2020. And the Government hasn’t a clue how to fill the gap, apart from burning more and more gas at higher and higher prices – mostly imported from unstable countries like Russia, those in the Middle East, Algeria and Nigeria.  Would you rely on that lot to keep the home fires burning after President Putin’s use of gas as a political weapon and Nigerian rebels driving Shell out of the Niger delta? Of course not. But current policy envisages us importing 80-90% of our energy requirements in the form of gas. This is pure madness.

c) Ah, but you may say, the Government does know how to fill the gap  - with renewables, energy conservation and gas. And I say that if you believe that you either live in Alice’s wonderland, are peculiarly dotty – nutty as a fruitcake – or can’t add up. Renewables currently supply at most 4% of our electricity of which most of it is fully-developed hydro. After 15 years’ development and increasing difficulty with people who do not want their property values slashed by wind farms, wind – the only renewable generating commercial amounts of electricity – generates only 0.5%. The rest – tides, waves, solar, geothermal, biomass and biofuels, CHP and photo-voltaics – don’t add up to a row of beans. Nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future. Ten per cent of electricity from renewables by 2010 is a pipedream – and a dangerous pipedream. You can’t build a viable energy policy on hope.
d) Ah, but what about energy conservation? Well, as one who from 1978-9 was responsible for energy conservation policy (and renewables) in the Department of Energy, I can confirm its potential is massive. I can equally confirm that, outside crises, its potential is massively elusive. Otherwise, electricity demand would not be rising by 1-1.5% a year. Don’t expect much from energy conservation – and certainly not without a high profile campaign. 
e) So, there you are: as things stand, we face short, medium and long term energy shortages and a loss of competitiveness. And, of course, CO2 emissions are rising and have been for four years. Never, within three years, have we seen such a comprehensive failure of policy since Ted Heath’s Industrial relations Act of 1971.

So what do we have to do?

Well, we have certainly got to have a bigger R & D programme into reasonably reliable, continuous and reasonably economic renewables. Wind is not one of these. It is uniquely useless at enormous expense. It is subsidy farming not wind farming – pure Green tokenism.

By all means let us have more R & D into clean coal technology which currently only scrubs out sulphur. But don’t let’s kid ourselves: injecting CO2 into North Sea strata will enable us to get more oil and gas out – more carbon – at probably double the cost of electricity. No wonder the oil companies are for it. Yet carbon sequestration won’t do a thing about the 70% of CO2 produced by industry, the domestic sector and transport.

We need an effective, high profile energy conservation campaign which should be easier to mount now that oil, gas and electricity prices are going through the roof.

Meanwhile, we shall have to burn more coal, which means more carbon; try to minimise our gas usage, if only for balance of payments reasons; and start building nuclear power stations. Nuclear cannot do anything about our short term insecurity but it can bring greater security longer term.

We must build more nuclear power stations because:

1 – nuclear power has been proven over 50 years, is safe, reliable and continuous – and France generates 83% of its electricity by nuclear means.

2 – it is the most economical form of generation now that gas prices have soared, even taking into account the mining and processing of ore and decommissioning and waste management – as the Royal Academy of Engineering tended to show.

3 – it is clean – no greenhouse gases; and even taking into account the CO2 produced by mining and processing ore and decommissioning and waste storage is half as dirty as wind, according to the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit.

4 – puts 140 times less radioactivity into the atmosphere than medical treatments – so why aren’t the Greens banning all X-rays?

5 – all this Green talk about a waste problem is bunkum: the only waste problem is politicians who are too palsied to designate a site for storage at Sellafield where most of the waste is; if Finland and Sweden can deal with their nuclear waste, so can we.

6 – All this Green talk about nuclear waste being dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years is utter balderdash; after 500-600 years the radioactivity will have decayed to the harmless levels of uranium found in its natural state, though some residual heavy metals will always be dangerous – just as are lead, mercury and arsenic which we dispose of without difficulty.

7 – All this Green talk about a shortage of uranium is pure hooey; what is more the price of nuclear fuel is likely to be fairly predictable and it does not have a significant influence on the price of nuclear electricity because nuclear’s costs lie in capital construction rather than running.

8 – And all this Green talk about nuclear being a proliferation risk – not even the present Government believes that.

Last week the Sustainable Development Commission concluded – as it had to do – that nuclear power is a viable option for tackling climate change. It is an even more viable option for securing electricity supply longer term at affordable cost.

< Previous   Next >
Nuclear Bulletin
Stay up to date with the quarterly roundup of nuclear news
Join SONE

We need your support

To become a member of SONE download the application form by clicking the button below

Download the SONE application form

Downloads

Please be aware that SONE has moved and the address shown in our Briefing Notes is now incorrect. Our new contact details are:

45 Church Way,
Sanderstead,
South Croydon,
Surrey
CR2 0JU

Tel:  020 8657 3479


Key SONE downloads:

 

Nuclear questions dispelled

Questions & Answers
PDF (88k) 14/11/2009 

 

Letters to political parties

Conservative Party
doc (28k) 06/11/2009

Labour Party
doc (28k) 06/11/2009 

Liberal Democrat Party
doc (28k) 06/11/2009

Unions
doc (28k) 06/11/2009 

 

SONE Briefing Notes

The Case For Nuclear Power

PDF (40k) 22/01/2010

Energy Facts 2010

PDF (92k) 22/01/2010

Decommissioning in Perspective
PDF (152k) 06/01/2009

Briefing Notes Energy Conservation
PDF (136k) 21/11/2008

Briefing Notes Carbon Cull
PDF (156k) 10/11/2008

Looming Energy Crisis Leaflet
PDF (76k) 22/10/2008

Briefing Notes Energy
PDF (296k) 20/10/2008

Briefing Notes Nuclear
PDF (148k) 20/06/2008

Plutonium in Perspective 
PDF (296k) 01/03/2008

Briefing Notes Hydrogen
PDF (72k) 29/05/2007

Briefing Notes Renewables
PDF (285k) 29/05/2007

Briefing Notes Waste
PDF (352k) 25/04/2007

Briefing Notes
Micro-generation

PDF (56k) 29/06/2006

Briefing Notes Uranium Availability
PDF (44k) 20/01/2006



Click for more downloads