The man in Whitehall knows
best. That is the conclusion we must reach from the continued stance of
both the Government and the Conservative opposition on nuclear power.
In speeches this month both Tony Blair and Michael Howard ran
away from the real issue – how do you secure Britain’s energy supplies
at competitive cost while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas
emissions? Howard, with Dungeness nuclear power station in his
constituency, ignored the answer staring him in the face – nuclear
power. Blair did no more than reiterate that nuclear was not ruled out
as an option. He proposes to use his presidency of the G8 group of
countries and the EU next year to try to secure consensus on the
science of global warming and action to combat it. He might have helped
himself – certainly with the USA and Russia – if he had not gone a
bundle on man-made global warming. The USA and Russia, who are refusing
to sign the Kyoto accord, might well embrace the idea that the planet’s
temperature is rising and acknowledge the existence of the theory that
it is man-made. But they are unlikely to do anything much about it on
the basis of a still controversial theory that would damage their
economies, especially since China, India and Africa are not covered by
Kyoto. In other words, they expect technology to sort out the problem,
assuming it exists. And the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of
Engineering, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Government’s own
chief scientist, Sir David King, and his predecessor, Lord May, have
all made clear that there is a technological solution. It is called
nuclear power. It is a solution that Whitehall continues to ignore.
Presumably they think they know best. Members of SONE should not get
too excited about the Times recently leading with a DTI strategy
official saying nuclear would have to provide half of our electricity
if the Government is to have any hope of meeting its Kyoto targets.
This was just one of a range of scenarios prepared to inform the
Government’s irresponsible Energy White Paper of 19 months ago. In any
case, nuclear is capable of generating at best only 20% of our
electricity by 2012 – the Kyoto deadline. Scenarios are two a penny in
Government. What matters is what politicians do. And Labour and Tory
politicians are not going to take one halting let alone decisive step
towards nuclear before the election. That is why we have to keep piling
on the pressure about the meagre return on renewables, the nil return
on energy conservation and the grave risks in dashing even more down
the gas road. The screws are on. Tullow Oil, a Bacton gas terminal
operator, has warned there is a good chance of blackouts this winter
because of a shortage of gas. The screws will really be felt if, as one
anti-wind campaigner is forecasting, we have a severe winter. “We’re in
for one”, he says. “The hawthorn is thick with berries. And the
hawthorn never lies”.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
SONE’s AGM is to be held at the Royal Academy of Engineering in Great
Peter Street SW1 (running between Marsham Street and the Embankment)
from 12 noon to 3pm on Wednesday, October 27. There will be coffee from
11.30am and a buffet lunch at 1.30pm. Lord Jenkin, a member of SONE, is
to speak after the company business part of the meeting on the work
being done in Westminster to maintain nuclear as a real option. At 2pm
Malcolm Grimston, a member from Imperial College, will give us a
challenging assessment of where nuclear stands in the energy/
environment equation. This will be followed by questions and
discussion. Would all members proposing to attend please inform the
Secretary as soon as possible either by telephone – 020-8660-8970; fax:
020-86684357; or e-mail:
THE CHANGING TIDE
The tide continues to flow nuclear’s way while Ministers allow things
to drift. September was a good month for SONE’s cause. Speeches on
climate change on successive days by Michael Howard and Tony Blair had
the media agog. The result was more public questioning of energy
policy, more defensive work than the Greens and renewables lobbies like
and more positive nuclear publicity than we are accustomed to. The
Greens praised Howard’s speech. That tells you all you need to know
about it. Mind you, he was addressing a conference organised by the
Green Alliance. Under pressure after failing to mention nuclear power,
he said it was a matter for a Conservative Government to decide when in
office. The issue was security of supply. At this point, it was
impossible to know what would happen. Those of an optimistic
disposition might read into that that Howard would review energy policy
after the election, find security of supply wanting and plump for
nuclear. They might also read into Blair’s remarks that he will use the
G8 and the EU (about 30% powered by nuclear) to create a consensus on
nuclear. After all, he says the Americans have been pressing him to go
nuclear; France is nuclear; and Finland is building a fifth nuclear
station. On the other hand Germany wants to close its down. More
realistically, British politicians of any hue will only go nuclear when
there is manifestly no alternative. Even then, some, like Margaret
Beckett, will have to be dragged screaming and kicking into the nuclear
age, as she demonstrated on a recent Country File programme. Patricia
Hewitt, technically responsible for our energy supplies at DTI, felt
obliged after the leak of the 50% nuclear scenario to write to The
Times to play nuclear into the long grass, saying it was economically
unattractive, with “important issues” around the legacy of nuclear
waste. Meanwhile, Lord May, former Government Chief Scientist and now
president of the Royal Society, wrote an article for the Daily
Telegraph headed “We need more nuclear power stations, not wishful
thinking” If we wanted to tackle climate change, he said, we had to
look beyond wind and solar energy. On the same day Simon Jenkins,
writing in The Times he used to edit: “Our future is nuclear: the rest
is only wind”. If Blair was serious that the future of the world is
stake, he said, “he cannot quake before the Friends – or Foes – of the
Earth. I fear the trouble is that Mr Blair does so quake. He regards
making a decision on nuclear power as a greater threat to him than
global warming is to humankind. That is the measure of this week’s
humbug”. The tabloids even got in on the act that day. The Daily
Express carried a piece by Robert Matthews, visiting reader in science
at Aston University, explaining why “nuclear power is the only
solution”. He said that importing the bulk of our energy from abroad
would put us at the mercy of terrorists and foreign powers. “Whatever
he might feel about how best to save the planet”, he added, “Blair must
first ensure he saves Britain from so awful a fate”.
“A breath of fresh air”
The following day Dr Robert Blackburn, a former lecturer in radio
chemistry from Bolton, welcomed in a letter to The Times a call by
Professor Ian Fells for a greater role for nuclear power. It was, he
said, “a breath of fresh air”. Earlier, Brian Wilson, former Minister
for Energy, wrote in the Observer that our dependence on gas must be
tempered by maximising our indigenous energy potential – nuclear, clean
coal, renewables and what is left in the North Sea. Just as we went to
press, Ruth Lea, in the Daily Telegraph wrote: “Increasingly energy
experts are calling for increased nuclear capacity so that the carbon
targets can be met. They are right but only partly so. We need more
nuclear capacity if British business is to remain internationally
competitive, if the current highly questionable commitment for meeting
the carbon targets is retained.”
GREEN REARGUARD ACTION
Of course, the Greens and the anti-nukes have joined in the
post-Blair/Howard debate. But they are now on the defensive. The wind
power industry has even felt constrained to launch an expensive
promotional campaign that seems unnecessary if, as Greenpeace claims,
80% of the people are in favour of them. We have had the usual parade
of solutions – wind, solar, waves, tides, the wonders of energy
conservation, CHP, photo-voltaic cells and plant a tree, not to mention
micro-and local energy systems. It all looks so pathetically idealistic
as a means of powering Britain when wind still provides only 0.4% of
our electricity and renewables, including hydro, only about 3%; when
energy conservation is all talk apart from the greater energy
efficiency engineers are securing in buildings, appliances and
machines; and when people realise that renewables, conservation and
vast amounts of imported gas at unknown prices are supposed to replace
coal and nuclear which still generate about half of our electricity.
Anti-nukes have not come up with any new argument against nuclear
power. Economics, waste, security in this terrorist age and alleged
health risks are their staple ammunition and it is clear they never
listen to the counter-arguments and facts. What is worrying is that too
many opponents of nuclear power claiming academic qualifications or
posts don’t seem to be able to add up or be equipped with basic logic.
Take Professor John Whitelegg, sustainable development spokesmen for
the Green Party. He wrote to The Times on September 20 claiming that we
could relatively easily and cost effectively switch from air, car and
lorry transport to less fuel-intensive modes. Why, if he knows how to
do this so effortlessly, is he not basking on his (sail powered) yacht,
we ask.
The hydrogen equation...
Paul Spare, a Davenham (Cheshire) member, makes the point that so many
nuclear critics seem to have not even a passing acquaintance with the
laws of physics or the second law of thermodynamics that says that
energy will always be wasted in a process. Yet the Green solutions to
our energy and environment “crisis” build in a number of energy-wasting
processes to achieve a certain end. Take hydrogen for powering a motor
vehicle for example. Mr Spare says that not all the wind, tidal or
water power can be converted to produce electricity – perhaps 70%. If
renewable electricity is next used to electrolyse water to produce
hydrogen, there will be less hydrogen than the theoretical maximum –
perhaps 80%. If the hydrogen goes into a fuel cell, the cell will be
imperfect – perhaps 50% efficient. The electric motor powered by the
fuel cell would also waste energy, being say 90% efficient. To get the
final performance all the efficiencies have to be multiplied together –
0.7 x 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.9 = 0.28 or 28%. So, to have enough hydrogen for a
28kW engine would require 100kW of renewable plant at the start of the
chain. Mr Spare adds: “The present internal combustion engine is
probably about 20% efficient so that 80% of the energy in the petrol is
wasted. The renewable system is only a little better and has far more
steps to go wrong”.
...and the CHP flaw
Alan Shaw, a Norfolk member and retired electrical engineer, has also
done a bit of remedial education work on DEFRA whose website extols CHP
for its efficiency. He has pointed out that CHP is certainly a
traditional method of raising the overall thermal efficiency of
industrial processes. But operation is governed not by the generation
of electricity but the steam requirement. Electricity is a by-product
and only the surplus to factory requirements is sold. It is not
therefore as efficient as made out and certainly not a fully
controllable source for the national grid.
WEC MORE PRO-NUCLEAR
The 19 th World Energy Congress was held in Sydney from September
5-9.Neville Chamberlain, chairman of Urenco and a member of SONE’s
committee, writes: From the point of view of nuclear energy, this was
the most positive Congress for some time. This was not because of a
strong nuclear presence but because the rest of the energy world, with
some notable exceptions, now recognises the important future role for
nuclear energy. The general theme and conclusions of the Congress were
that the world will continue to increase its consumption of energy and
particularly of electricity. Nuclear power has to play a part. Although
the presenters of nuclear-related papers still showed a tendency to be
defensive on the perceived or alleged problems of nuclear energy, there
was much more emphasis than recently on its benefits. Its economic
competitiveness was enormously strengthened by the well-received
presentations from the Finns. In his keynote address, the president,
Harry Roels, RWE, confirmed Germany’s political commitment to
abandoning nuclear energy but he pointed out that wind-generated
electricity in Germany accounts for less than 6% of the electricity
produced but for more than 15% of the costs, to which must be added
distribution penalties. In Germany, all the savings and efficiency
improvements from liberalisation and cost-cutting had been offset by
the cost of wind generation. Confidence in nuclear energy was boosted
by the bullish programmes for new nuclear reactors set out by India,
Japan and China. The Chinese alone will build 30 new nuclear reactors
by 2020. India has nine under construction which will treble their
nuclear capacity by 2012. An American presentation noted that nuclear
generated electricity in the USA last year was up 25% on a decade
earlier solely from increased output from existing stations.
OUR SIXTH ENERGY MINISTER
We welcome our sixth Energy Minister in seven years. Stephen Timms left
this bed of nails in the autumn re-shuffle and was replaced by Mike
O’Brien (MP, Warwickshire N). Your Secretary has written congratulating
Mr O’Brien and expressing the hope he will be the first Energy Minister
since 1997 to meet SONE, especially as he needs nuclear power to make a
success of his job.
KRYPTON A “KILLER”?
Paul Brown, The Guardian’s environment correspondent and inveterate
poker of nuclear, recently informed us that BNFL Sellafield is to be
allowed to continue releasing krypton-85 into the atmosphere – a gas,
he said, blamed for causing 100 cancers a year. Since we had never
heard of this before, your Secretary has asked Brown who blames the gas
for these cancers and where have they occurred. “I can scarcely
imagine”, he added, “that the ‘Greens’ would have passed up this
opportunity to vilify nuclear if such a toll existed”. We are still
awaiting a reply. Steuart Campbell (Edinburgh), Alan Shaw and David
Evans (Cumbria) have been very active correspondents to the media this
month picking up published errors and wayward assertions. Their letters
are on the website.
DR ERIC VOICE
We record with regret the death from motor neurone disease at 80 of Dr
Eric Voice, of Thurso, Caithness, an active and ever helpful member. In
1992 he became “the most radioactive man on the planet” by first
ingesting and then inhaling plutonium. He did so to measure the effects
of radioactivity on the body and to try to remove public misconceptions
about the dangers of nuclear technology. A founder member of CND, he
became a strong advocate of civil nuclear power and was tireless in his
efforts. He worked for the UK AEA at Harwell, Dounreay, Winfrith and
back to Dounreay in 1976. Our condolences go to his widow, Joan, and
family.
TEXT AVAILABLE
Terri Jackson, a Belfast member who organised a lecture by Dr Jean Guy
Devereaux, of Cogema, at the Institution of Mechnical Engineers on
September 8 on how France is managing nuclear waste disposal, says he
has a copy of the talk available. He can be reached by e-mail at
THOUGHT FOR THE MONTH
Dr Peter Hodgson, an Oxford member, reflecting on the nuclear debate in
the July/August issue of the St Austin Review under the despairing
title “Have I been wasting my time?”, writes: “In this ecumenical era,
when every belief is held to be equally valid and deserving of respect,
scientists appear to be arrogant when we affirm that certain beliefs
are true. It is, however, not arrogance but humility to accept
objective truth”.
