|
Written by SONE
|
|
Monday, 01 October 2007 |
THIS IS NO TIME FOR SONE TO CALL IT A DAY
The advice from SONE's crowded annual meeting on October 23 was very
clear and to the point: this is no time for SONE to call it a day. The
Government may be about to do the right thing on nuclear power but
there will still be a need for an independent body to promote nuclear's
interests.
The committee undertook to explore ways of perpetuating SONE as an independent organisation, with its own guiding committee, under the umbrella of another body, beyond October 2008 when it will have been in existence for 10 years.
There are two possibilities – one continuation under the aegis of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), even though it has no provision for individual members, and the other stemming from an approach from the individual-based British Nuclear Energy Society (BNES), currently merging with the Institution of Nuclear Engineers. Talks are to be held with the BNES on December 10.
The committee undertook to inform members of its proposals well in advance of the next AGM. .
In the meantime, it was made clear that an opportunity exists for a member or members to take over the writing, production and circulation of the SONE Newsletter and Nuclear Issues, which is published separately from the Newsletter . Both are suffering from what the Secretary described as their editors' "old age".
In a crowded agenda Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy (BE), stressed the importance to the British people of the energy decisions to be made in the next few months and the need for nuclear power to remain part of the nation's generating mix. The crucial thing was for the Government to provide reasonable certainty for investors.
Mike Weightman, Chief, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), told the meeting that the inspectorate had revised its process to make it more generic to give greater assurance to vendors. It was now looking at the generic case for licensing four different reactor designs for use in the UK.
It was up to the vendors to put their safety case and for the industry to exercise discipline over changes in design. But he emphasised he needed more inspectors for the licensing process and the market for them was "hardening".
Sami Tulonen, Head of Institutional Relations (nuclear power), at the European Atomic Forum (Foratom), reported on the strengthening of nuclear's voice in the energy mix in Europe with the formation, among other things, of the European Nuclear Energy Forum. It was intended to enhance public support through open debate with all shades of opinion, including anti-nuclear Greens.
The meeting formally adopted the annual report and accounts and separately re-elected SONE's directors, committee and auditors (see below).
HOW SONE STANDS TODAY
Introducing the annual report and accounts, the Secretary said the myths about nuclear power and its so-called alternatives revealed when he addressed about ten organisations during the year showed that SONE could not give up arguing the nuclear case. It was also a serious concern that nuclear had no secure base in the major political parties and that it was virtually certain the Greens would again seek to delay any Government proposal for the development of nuclear generation.
When SONE was established in 1998, it set out to work itself out of a job by securing nuclear's future. While a Government announcement was awaited, it could not say whether it had achieved that objective. But over the next 12 months it needed to determine its own future because it could not continue to live on the generosity of members in response to the chairman's appeals and he could not see himself reliably continuing as secretary beyond October 2008.
There were two options: disband or, in the absence of reliable support from the industry, find an alternative way forward. One had been generously offered by the NIA, even though it did not have any provision for individual members, with a printed and electronic news and opinion service. The other, received only recently, from the BNES, which had provision for individual membership, would be pursued.
"The most we can say at the moment is that SONE has a record membership and that we are trying to find a way of continuing it" he said.
"But we must face the fact that from October 2008 we need a new Secretary and some way of keeping going both SONE's Newsletter and Nuclear Issues."
DEBATE ON SONE'S FUTURE
Lord Jenkin, opening the debate, said that SONE may have won the argument in some circles but there was still a very large number of people who were deeply hostile to nuclear power and who did not understand the arguments. He instanced Chapter 7 on energy in the Conservative Party's major "Quality of Life" report that "unrealistically" said that if Green and energy saving targets were achieved "we might not need to have nuclear power".
In fact, Britain would not keep the lights on over the next 20-30 years unless it had a nuclear industry.
Arguing the case for it had to continue inside and outside Westminster but there was also a need for a voice separate from the nuclear industry.
"If you are going to persuade the public, it has got to be done by an independent body", he said.
"We have got to have a firm successor to SONE in the field".
Adrian Bull, a member from Westinghouse, said the nuclear industry had a great deal to do to get its message across and its effort would increase.
But it was also vital that individual supporters spoke up. "If we did not have SONE we might have to reinvent it", he said.
Louise Barton and Lady McAlpine stressed the importance of getting pro-nuclear arguments to the grassroots, especially to women and the younger generation, and Alan Shaw the need to use the internet as well as the printed word.
Appeal for volunteers Simon Rippon, editor of Nuclear Issues, issued an appeal for help in producing the publication.
Without it, it would have to close next year. His major concern was that the nuclear industry was not pushing its case or demolishing such arguments that natural gas produced the cleanest electricity when BE, as Mr Coley later pointed out, was the largest carbon-free power generator in Britain.
Mr Coley expressed thanks to SONE for helping the nuclear industry when it was "unfashionable" to support it.
Finally, Lord Parkinson said we should not judge the future by the past. There was a real change of attitude in the country towards nuclear power.
The public had got the message that Iran and Russia were not the ideal countries on which to build the future of our economy. But the Government would not give nuclear a ringing endorsement because of attitudes within its own ranks. Yet in spite of its likely muted and reluctant endorsement, nuclear was an essential part of the generating mix and SONE needed to emphasise that.
The chairman, Sir William McAlpine, said the message was clear: members felt it was very important that SONE should continue. Securing its future would be the committee's objective over the coming year.
INSPECTORATE AT WORK
Reviewing the work of the NII, Mr Weightman said that a great deal of international collaboration was taking place to harmonise standards and codes. Once the NII had established by its set process the generic acceptance of a design, it was a fairly short step to licensing a whole series of it for construction in the UK. A decision on generic acceptability was expected about Easter, 2008.
In response to Sir John Guinness, who questioned whether the NII had sufficient funds to conduct the licensing operation, Mr Weightman said the issue was not whether it had the money for the work but what it was permitted to pay staff in order to recruit them, taking account of pay policy. In a "hardening" market, the question was whether it could make the rewards attractive enough. Discussions with the Government were at a critical stage.
Several contributors to the discussion emphasised the importance of avoiding alterations to standard designs and, as the person responsible for providing safety assurance, Mr Weightman's message to the industry was to curb the enthusiasm of engineers for "improvements". Mr Bull said he believed that that message had got through and that any design built in the UK would be "either to international standard or not at all".
A NEW EURO FORUM
Mr Tulonen said that three new European nuclear groups had recently been established – a High Level Group (HLG) on nuclear safety and waste management; a Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology platform to develop a nuclear research agenda; and a European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF).
The HLG would help the Commission to develop European safety and waste management rules, consulting with national regulatory authorities in an open and transparent manner. It was made up of senior nuclear regulators from member states, such as Mr Weightman, though countries without nuclear power would be able to take part, and was required to report within two years. Its chairman sat on the ENEF.
Over the last 18 months Foratom had worked with the EC and EP to get the ENEF off the ground to provide a platform for open debate between all stakeholders. Hitherto, unlike other forms of energy, there had been no official machinery to promote the role of nuclear, even though it was responsible for 31 per cent of Europe's electricity and 60 per cent of its clean energy.
The Forum was intended to strengthen the position of nuclear in the energy mix and enhance public support through open debate through, for example, demonstrating the availability of technical solutions in such areas of public concern as nuclear waste. It was also hoped it would help to create stable, low-carbon energy policies without political distortion.
Terry Wynn, a former MEP, welcomed the moves and spoke of the value within the European Parliament of exposing Green policies to open debate.
THE NUCLEAR FUTURE
Reviewing the scene, Mr Coley said that economic prosperity was closely linked to electricity supply and, given the expected global growth in demand for energy, the urgent issue was to resolve how, amid competing pressures, that electricity could be provided. Without a new nuclear programme, the UK would be left with only three nuclear power stations in 2018 and only one in 2023.
In 2005 British nuclear power avoided the production of 51mtcarbon – much greater than the 29mtc reputed to be avoided by trading schemes – and the use of 15bncm of gas which, at 25p a therm, was worth £1.4bn.
Now the UK power sector was in transition. The last shift had been driven by market liberalisation and an end to the moratorium on the use of gas to fire power stations. The consequent coal, gas and nuclear mix had served the country well but it was clear that 30GW of new generating capacity would be required by 2020 at the very time that existing stations were closing.
Political leadership required
Government decisions over the next few years would have major long-term consequences and political leadership was required on three issues – planning, technology licensing and waste management.
Planning, he said, had been a major impediment to investment and the Government's new proposals were trying to move forward by striking a balance between domestic prerogatives and the wider national interest. It remained to be seen how long it would take to implement its proposals but investors needed a high level of confidence on the timescale of the consent process.
It was crucial that new build was based on international designs. BE's greatest challenge was the uniqueness of each of its AGR stations.
Waste management was crucial to winning hearts and minds for nuclear. Progress had been disappointing and undoubtedly the industry itself could have done a better job in explaining the realities.
On BE, Mr Coley said that, as the UK's sole nuclear generator, it had 6,000 employees, good relations with regulators, suppliers and contractors, produced low carbon electricity and had sites for power station development and good relations with the communities surrounding them.
Since he became chief executive more than two years ago over £1bn had been spent on power stations and another 1,000 people had been taken on. There was continuing improvement, in spite of current problems, but new build was vital to BE's future.
BE was currently discussing projects with more than 10 potential partners from the nuclear companies, utilities and large energy users and, subject to the Government's announcement, he hoped to clarify the way forward in the first half of next year. But BE could only go as fast as the Government allowed.
In response to Mr Wynn about the possible consequences for nuclear of a change of Government in the UK, Mr Coley said the real difference between the UK and France was that the nuclear power programme had been decisively driven and sustained by national agreement.
The wide range of questions fielded by Mr Coley until 3.15pm brought the following points: . it was "totally impossible" to re-commission closed nuclear power stations to keep the lights on. . rather than price waste heat from power stations, as a method of encouraging the more efficient use of energy, he preferred tax credits as a means of encouraging the use of steam. . PWRs were never likely to be as flexible in following the load as BE's Eggborough coalfired power station and this underlined the need for a balanced energy policy. (A member suggested that France, with 80% of its electricity generated by nuclear, derived flexibility from its substantial export trade.) . In Mr Coley's personal view, it was irresponsible to deprive future generations of energy supply. Spent fuel was not waste and contained huge amounts of energy. Retrievable waste disposal was desirable. Good stewardship required us not to foreclose options.
Mr Coley ended on an optimistic note. People wanted to work for BE. Support for nuclear improved on every measure of polling support.
He was excited about nuclear's prospects and he believed that if the Government gave a positive lead investment would be forthcoming.
He was concerned not to make life more difficult for the Government or to get too far ahead of it.
That led him to point to the value of SONE as an independent body able to act in ways and on issues that were problematical for those engaged in the industry.
THANKS
The meeting adopted a vote of thanks, proposed by the Secretary, to all the organisations and individuals who had supported SONE during the year – BE, BNFL, NIA, World Nuclear Association, BNES/InstNucE, Nuclear Issues, Sir William and Lady McAlpine for their generous hospitality, and SONE members who had carried the nuclear message to the people.
ELECTIONS:
Re-elected were: Directors: Sir William McAlpine (chairman), Sir Bernard Ingham (Secretary) and Jim Corner (Treasurer).
Committee: The directors plus Robert Armour, Neville Chamberlain, Dr David Fishlock, Robert Freer, Martin Morland, Keith Parker, Ann Robinson, Professor Jack Simmons, Paul Spare, Peter Vey and Dr W L Wilkinson.
Auditors: Gary Sergeant & Co, Swanley, Kent.
ATTENDANCE
Those who signed the attendance register were: Patrons, Gordon Adam, Lord Gregson, Sir William and Lady McAlpine, Lord Parkinson, Lord Walker.
Committee: Neville Chamberlain, Dr David Fishlock, Robert Freer, Sir Bernard Ingham, Martin Morland, Mrs Ann Robinson, Professor Jack Simmons and Peter Vey Members: Wade Allison, Chris Anastasi, John Assheton, Dr Johnny Ball, Bryan Barkes, Philip Barnard, Trevor Barrett, Louise Barton, Roger Boissier, Adrian Bull, A E Bunnell, Norman Burrows, Peter Chester, Gerald Clark, Michael Gammon, Sir John Guinness, E G Harling, Robert Hawley, Bob Jackson, David Jefferies, Lord Jenkin, George Jennings, Joseph Lambert, the Hon Mark Lennox Boyd, Derek Limbert, Brendan McNamara, Sir Robert Malpas, Dr E O Maxwell, John Maxwell, Brian Mills, George Nissen, Gordon Packman, Simon Rippon, Eric J Robbins, Sir Denis Rooke, Angus Ross, Richard Sargent-Manse, John Snell, Alan Shaw, Commander Kevin Stagg, Geoffrey Stone, Victor Teacher, Roger Vaughan, Johannes van Vuren, Peter Waller, Terry Westmoreland, Terry Wynn.
Apologies were received from: Committee: Robert Armour, Paul Spare, and Dr W L Wilkinson.
Members: Graham Brightman, Ian Currie, Vernon Eldred, Mrs Beryl Ellis, David Evans, J M Jones, Guy Moore, Ted Pugh and Derek Smith, |
|
|
|
