|
Written by SONE
|
|
Sunday, 01 October 2006 |
THE AGM SUMMARISED: THE MINISTER’S “CLEAREST SIGNAL”
This year’s annual general meeting at the Royal Academy of Engineering
on October 24 was always going to be something special after the
Government’s recognition of the need for nuclear power in any realistic
energy policy.
It turned out to be more than that. The Minister for Energy, Malcolm
Wicks, the first of this Government’s six Energy Ministers to meet
SONE, became the first member of the Government to address the
organisation. He said the Government had given the clearest signal in
30 years of the need for new nuclear power stations and outlined how it
was working to remove barriers to their construction.
He was speaking a week before the end of the consultation period on the
Energy Review, published on July 11, and confirmed that the consequent
White Paper would not now appear until early next year.
Rather than rush it, he said it was important to get right the planning
regime (on which he disconcertingly raised, as an aside, the question
of whether legislation would be required) and pre-licensing.
The chairman, Sir William McAlpine, summarised the view of the meeting: “Thank you, but faster, please”.
The afternoon was occupied by a devastating dismissal, using the laws
of physics, by Professor Michael Laughton, of the University of London,
of the Sustainable Energy Commission’s report on nuclear power in March
and why those same laws limit the contribution of wind, many renewables
and hydrogen. He said a new nuclear power programme was not an option
but a necessity.
Professor Laughton’s presentation will be posted on the SONE website and a popular version is being prepared for the public.
The AGM adopted the annual report and accounts and re-elected: SONE
directors: Sir William McAlpine (chairman), Sir Bernard Ingham
(Secretary) and J T Corner (Treasurer).
SONE committee: The directors plus Robert Armour, Neville Chamberlain,
Robert Freer, Dr David Fishlock, Ken G Jackson, Dr J Dickson Mabon,
Martin Morland, Keith Parker, Ann Robinson, Professor Jack Simmons,
Paul Spare, Peter Vey and Dr W L Wilkinson. SONE auditors: Gary
Sargeant & Co, of Swanley, Kent.
The chairman said two expensive years campaigning had left SONE “only a
kick away from bankruptcy” with assets of £7,000. Should ordinary
subscriptions (£25) be raised or should another appeal be launched? It
was unanimously agreed that the chairman should launch another appeal.
The last brought in more than £5,000.
REWARDING – BUT UNFINISHED
In his report on the year, the Secretary said it had been the busiest,
if not the most expensive, and the most rewarding since SONE’s
formation in 1998. It had also brought a record membership of well over
300.
Opinion polls showed that 60% of all MPs supported new nuclear power
stations and, interestingly, 81% thought nuclear would be a major
contributor to future electricity supply.
Indeed, 87% of Conservative MPs said it should be an energy source of the future.
This contrasted with the Conservative leadership’s dismissal of nuclear
as “a last resort” and the Liberal Democrats’ official opposition to a
nuclear future. SONE needed to demonstrate ever more strongly the risks
to electricity supply being run by those who would rely on renewables,
energy conservation and, presumably, gas.
While the Government’s movement in three years from sidelining to
embracing nuclear power was welcome, SONE did not believe its campaign
would have succeeded until a new nuclear programme was under way.
Assets of just over £7,000 provided no financial basis for conducting
the required task.
“SONE’s task is not finished”, he said. “We have perhaps, to quote
Churchill, seen the end of the beginning. We hope we have got that far
but there is still a long way to go before we persuade people to face
up to the requirements of an effective energy policy that secures
supply and reduces greenhouse gas emissions”.
THANKS
In formally tendering thanks for their support during the year, the
Secretary mentioned SONE’s members – and especially those who carried
pronuclear arguments into the media, over the airwaves and to
organisations by giving talks; the chairman both for providing meeting
rooms and entertaining guests to lunch to influence opinion formers;
the Nuclear Industry Association (which sponsored the AGM), BNFL,
British Energy and AMEC; Nuclear Issues; and StickyNewMedia for its
excellent work in developing the website.
The website’s further improvement, he said, would be discussed at the December committee meeting.
COMMUNICATION’S THE THING
That part of the AGM devoted to discussing SONE business concentrated
on communicating facts to the public. Geoffrey Greenhalgh wondered
whether more pressure should be put on the electricity supply companies
to develop nuclear power since they were the key element in the
equation once the Government had provided the regulatory framework.
Gordon Adam urged all concerned with promoting nuclear development to
close the gap in news and information output between the renewables
lobbies and nuclear. It was pointed out that over and above SONE’s
briefing output and website, there was a much greater volume of
information emanating from the NIA and the World Nuclear Association,
both of which had substantial websites.
Lord Vinson stressed the importance, in communicating with younger
people, of putting over a positive message, as did John Assheton on
waste. Lord Vinson said the positive message that nuclear could impart
was its role in creating a CO2- free electrical world, including
powering transport.
Finally, Michael Gammon asked the chairman to write to members to take
every opportunity to speak to local groups about the need for nuclear
power and to make the facts, available in SONE briefing, known through
the media.
A “HISTORIC DECISION”
The Minister first explained the background to the “historic decision
to give the green light to a new generation of nuclear reactors”. Three
things had happened since the 2003 White Paper: 1 – Nuclear’s economics
had improved largely as a result of the rise in gas prices; 2 – Energy
security. North Sea reserves were in decline, even though oil and gas
were likely to remain an important branch of British industry for 40
years. But by 2020 we would be importing not just 10 per cent of our
gas, as now, but anything from 80 to 90 per cent. That and the
projected decline in nuclear generation from 19 to 6-7 per cent by 2020
underlined why energy security was going to become a dominant strategic
issue in the 21st century. Britain needed a better balance between
imports and home produced sources of energy and that reflected
favourably on nuclear.
3 – Climate change. Government knew about nuclear’s small carbon
footprint three years ago but now the debate was dominated by security
of supply as well as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear was part of the solution The Government was working on
decommissioning and waste management, prelicensing and the planning
regime to remove barriers to nuclear new build. “But we are clear”, he
said, “that any new nuclear power station will be proposed, developed,
constructed and operated by the private sector, paying its full share
of decommissioning and waste management costs.” Mr Wicks said there was
no single answer to security of supply at affordable cost and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions but the Government’s role was to enable the
market to move in the necessary direction. His presentation included
references to long-term carbon pricing (on which, he said, the EU’s ETS
was “the only show in town”), the CoRWM report on waste management, the
need to safeguard and maintain the nuclear skills base and Anglo-French
nuclear collaboration.
He added: “The conclusions we have reached and decisions made are not
based on a knee-jerk reaction but on sound, evidential policymaking to
enable Britain to take a global lead in dealing with climate change.
Nuclear is not a panacea, but it has a significant role to play”.
Let’s get on with it
In the course of a 45-minute Q&A session with the Minister, the
following points were made: Neville Chamberlain, noting there was no
timetable for nuclear’s development, emphasised the need for quick
progress because of world nuclear engineering demand and the risk that
Britain would miss the boat if there were delay.
The closer we got to the next election the more difficult it would be
for politicians to take decisions. He also hoped that the Government
would resist the temptation to intervene in such decisions as the type
of reactor to be employed.
Responding, Mr Wicks acknowledged the need “to get on with it” because
of security of supply issues but he could not predict when the first
concrete would be poured. Major projects generally took too long in
Britain – hence the need for a better balance in the planning system
between national requirements and local interests.
Later Ann Robinson underlined Mr Chamberlain’s global point by saying
the nuclear companies were global in reach and could take their
business anywhere. They would be looking for very clear signals from
the British Government to enable them to put projects in their
investment plans. It was at this point that the Minister said: “The
Government has given the clearest signal for 30 years about the need
for nuclear’s development”.
Lord Walker was assured that the NII and HSE were working together on
licensing to avoid delays arising from one organisation following the
other with work on certifying reactors.
Will system get desired result?
John Edmonds made the point that there were no free markets yet Britain
was to rely on the private sector to deliver reactors. In those
circumstances, did the Government have in place a system that would
actually produce the desired outcome? The Minister said the objective
was to establish a framework within which the market could do the
necessary.
In the same vein, Michael Gammon said that if nuclear was to play a
substantial role, the Government had to do more than just facilitate
nuclear build but also to encourage it. Mr Wicks accepted that this was
part of the challenge: to try to create the right atmosphere as well as
the right framework.
Carbon sequestration illegal
The efficiency of carbon sequestration was raised by Trevor Barrett and
in the course of a brief passage on this issue the Minister confirmed
the Secretary’s claim that carbon sequestration in the form of dumping
in the strata under the seabed was illegal under the London and OSPAR
conventions.
That position, he said, would need to be changed if carbon sequestration were to go ahead.
Let’s go……
Alan Shaw and Roger Vaughan reflected some of the frustrations felt by
SONE members. Mr Shaw said Westinghouse claimed that it could build a
new generation reactor in 3.5 years yet in Britain it was said it would
take 10 years. Mr Vaughan asked whether the Government had any faith in
British engineers. The first generation of British reactors was
designed in 18 months and built within five years. “Why is it not
possible to do this now without so much skirmishing?” he asked. In
reply, the Minister said there was nothing to stop a company from
coming forward with a proposal to build a nuclear power station.
LISTEN TO ENGINEERS
The after-lunch presentation by Professor Michael Laughton, Emeritus
Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of London, was an
eloquent warning of the dangers of failing to base energy policies on
sound engineering.
Looking at global energy supply, he concluded that there was no chance
of the substitution of fossil fuels by any other energy at present
levels. Only energy from nuclear fuel, plus reprocessed waste, fast
reactors and renewables would be available for the gradual replacement
of fossil fuels. The more efficient use of energy was also imperative.
Turning to the claim by Sir Jonathan Porritt’s Sustainable Development
Commission, that there was a viable energy future for the UK without
nuclear power, Prof. Laughton said it asserted that the total practical
renewables resource was at least 87 per cent of current electricity
production.
It was therefore reasonable to state, it said, that it was
theoretically possible to supply all the UK’s electricity from
renewable sources in the long-term, especially when combined with
energy efficiency.
But these assertions ignored the load factors of various renewables
with the result that their actual capacity was a third the output
expected by the Commission. Moreover, there was a bottleneck across the
Scottish border where there were only two grid routes. This meant that
the maximum export capacity across the border was 2,200MW whereas
14,270MW of wind alone were proposed, approved, under construction or
operating in Scotland.
For technical reasons, electricity supply was not an open door for any
new idea, especially when a closely controlled quality of supply, free
of surges, had to be maintained.
“The conclusions of the Sustainable Development Commission are
absolutely worthless”, he said. “Even worse, they are misleading. For
the British national grid system, the conventional capacity needed will
always exceed the peak demand, regardless of the wind capacity
installed”.
As for micro-generation, that new toy of the Greens and green-obsessed
politicians, Professor Laughton said micro-CHP was heat-led and
increased dependence on gas. While microgeneration could reduce peak
demand but not baseload capacity, it could increase not decrease
network losses. It was too expensive for individual residences.
With the extensive use of equations, Professor Laughton demolished the
idea of a hydrogen future. He found water supply and carbon
sequestration problems in the manufacture of hydrogen by electrolysis
or by reforming natural gas. Hydrogen manufacture could never solve the
energy problem because it required more energy to produce hydrogen than
could be got out of it.
This meant that, since hydrogen had to compete on cost with its own energy source, it could never win.
The inefficiency of a hydrogen economy was given by the laws of physics
that could not be changed by research programmes, votes of Parliaments,
presidential initiatives or capital investments. “A hydrogen economy”,
he concluded “has no past, no present and no future”.
Professor Laughton reached two overall conclusions:
1 – We needed energy strategies based on sound engineering, not
fantasies by NGOs and environmentalists or policies promoted by trade
organisations. Otherwise energy policy would reflect the priorities of
lunatics running an asylum.
2 – Electricity would provide more energy for transport whether
using hydrogen or other means of storage and would require increased
base-load generation. For a sustainable energy future, a new nuclear
build programme was not an option but an absolute necessity.
ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES
Present: i.e. those signing the register of attendance or intending to
be present: Patrons: Gordon Adam, John Edmonds, Lord Gregson, Sir Gavin
Laird and Lord Walker
Committee: Sir William McAlpine, Neville
Chamberlain, Robert Freer, Sir Bernard Ingham, Martin Morland, Keith
Parker, Ann Robinson, Professor Jack Simmons and Peter Vey.
Members: B S Apter, Craig Arnold, John Assheton, Philip Barnard,
Trevor Barrett. Louise Barton, R M V Beith, John Bond, Norman Burrows,
John Button, Frank Chadwick, Dr Peter Chester, Mike Collard, Alex
Colquhoun, Michael Crookes, Sir John Cullen, Ian Currie, David Evans,
Michael Gammon, Geoffrey Greenhalgh, E G Harling, Andrew Harris, John
Hole, R F Jackson, Martin Jenner, George Jennings, Dr J L Lambert, J C
Leeming, George Nissen, Gordon Packman, R C Paul, W F Raymond, Angus
Ross, Richard Sergant-Manse, Alan Shaw, Commander Kevin Stagg, J B
Snell, Robin Smith, Craig Stevenson, Geoffrey Stokes, R D Vaughan and
Lord Vinson.
Apologies: Patrons: Lady Marshall and Professor James Lovelock
Committee: Robert Armour, James T Corner, Dr David Fishlock, Paul
Spare, Dr W L Wilkinson.
Members: Harry Allardice, Donald Avery, Sir Malcolm Bates, Roger
Boissier, Graham Brightman, A E Bunnell, Steuart Campbell, Lord and
Lady Clitheroe, Professor David Cope, John L Dickson, Vernon Eldred,
Mrs Beryl Ellis, Sir John Guinness, R W Hall, Ron Hargreaves, R Hayles,
R V Ingham, Terri Jackson, Lord Jenkin, Dr Rodney Leach, Derek Limbert,
E O Maxwell, Guy Moore, Phil Owen, Ted Pugh, Miss Joan Pye, J L Raikes,
R H Searle, Derek Smith, T A Smith, Roy Sumerling, Lord Wakeham and E
Williamson. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 24 November 2006 )
|
|
|
|
