|
Written by SONE
|
|
Thursday, 01 November 2007 |
THE GREEN MOVEMENT IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABILITY
As we await the Government’s next energy White Paper, due on December
17, we note that the uncompromising “Greens” have got the wind up. They
seem to assume that Britain is destined for a new nuclear age.
The Green Party is asking its 7,500 members to decide by the end of this month whether to become a conventional party with an identifiable leader or stick with an idealistic structure shorn of hierarchy. On the face of it, they need a lift because they struggle to register a presence in a general election – only 283,000 votes from their entire list of candidates in 2005.
Some would say that this is more than their obtuseness – their wilful refusal to contemplate nuclear power – deserves. With their impractical reliance on renewables, CHP and energy efficiency, they most certainly do not stand for sustainability, only disaster.
Yet they have captured enough of the three main political parties, not to mention the Nationalists, to make Labour cautious about nuclear power, the Tories regard it as a last resort and the Liberal Democrats officially non-nuclear.
It is a notable achievement, obtained by emotive rather than factual argument and much mangling of the truth. It is certainly a standing reproach to scientists, engineers, technologists and not least the nuclear industry itself. But the achievement is left unsustainable by the laws of physics, their own overriding objective of combating global warming and economic need.
There is therefore something to be said for the Green Party having an identifiable leader instead of appearing to be amorphous, if not an amorphous mass. We need someone to engage with in open debate – a figurehead who can be held responsible for the shameless excesses of his guerrillas.
If they – as well as us – anticipate the Government’s White Paper correctly – pro-nuclear words without burning enthusiasm – let us not kid ourselves that the battle is over. We think the odds are heavily on Greenpeace or some such body going to court to try further to delay the development of nuclear power, even though they pulled out of the Government’s public consultations.
The worst mistake we could make is to regard “Greens” as rational. They are entirely irrational, contradictory and possessed of a splendid prejudice as impervious to reason as a rogue elephant.
They will, of course, lose. But they could do everybody serious damage before we hear the last of them, if we ever do.
BUILDING ROADBLOCKS
Leaving aside direct action to prevent nuclear construction, which surfaced at a Christian Ecology Link conference in Lancaster, three examples of the Greens’ future scorched earth policy have emerged over the past month.
First, Paul Dorfman, a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Involvement (whatever that is) at Warwick University, sought to undermine the Government’s regional public consultations on the future of nuclear power. As an academic observer of a process boycotted by the Greens, he claimed that the information given to the public was biased and incomplete, casting doubt on whether the Government had followed a High Court ruling.
“Partial information was rammed down the public’s throat”, he claimed. “It was totally impractical for people to make a rational decision based on information they were fed. The way it was put together was designed so that a particular view would emerge”. In the end 45 per cent came out in favour of nuclear power and 23 per cent against.
Nuclear’s CO2 avoidance Having taken its bat home for the consultations, Greenpeace used all this in an e-mail appeal to people to write to their MP advocating “real solutions to climate change”. They claimed that a new fleet of reactors of unspecified size would cut carbon emissions by “a measly four per cent”.
But the nuclear industry has long been avoiding about 10 per cent of UK carbon emissions and British Energy, as Bob Coley, its chief executive claimed at SONE’s AGM, is the single largest instrument of CO2 avoidance in the entire nation.
Finally, David Smythe, emeritus professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, was reported in The Guardian that it would be wrong to use Sellafield for long-term nuclear waste disposal.
“There is clear evidence, after the expenditure of some £400m,..that West Cumbria possesses no suitable rocks in which to site such a repository.” He added, “The current consultation exercise is flawed, in that it places the voluntarism of potential host communities ahead of scientific considerations”.
This is not unexpected. Perfection will again become the enemy of the good because the Greens are desperate to prevent a “solution” to longer-term waste disposal because they would lose another argument – albeit unsustainable - against nuclear power.
CONSERVATIVE THINKING
Those members of SONE worried about the lack of bilateral political support of nuclear power found naught for their comfort in the Conservatives’ voluminous Quality of Life inquiry report. Chapter 7 on energy is not all bad.
Its tepid approach to nuclear power contains some sensible ideas and, among others, it would reinstate a Department of Energy, get rid of the climate change levy in pricing carbon, remove the subsidy on onshore wind turbines and give a new lease of life to energy managers.
But as with all these political documents it puts carbon reduction ahead of security of supply at competitive cost (while irrationally looking down its nose at nuclear power) and, in putting the cart before the horse, loads it with all sorts of fanciful goods with no proven record of reliable supply at acceptable cost.
It contains no analysis of comparative costs of the various energy sources or systems or a serious discussion of the technical problems associated with renewables, energy conservation or distributed energy generation about which it is enthusiastic. In short, it is long on Green idealism and theory and short on practicality.
Its aim, judging by the chapter’s title – Energy – Low Carbon and Credible – was to produce a serious document. But it is rendered incredible by suggesting that the ultimate need for nuclear will be determined by non-nuclear low carbon generation and severe criteria for energy usage and efficiency. David Cameron is being advised to go back to the drawing board.
“SILVER BULLET”
We are indebted to the Conservatives’ Chapter 7 for the opportunity to meet head on the following sentiment: “Even those for whom nuclear energy poses few problems should be concerned when it is wrongly seen as a silver bullet avoiding the necessity for radical change”.
We know of nobody in SONE who sees nuclear power as a silver bullet or who thinks that all we have to do is go nuclear and we can carry on as normal. Not even those sceptical of man-made climate change think like that.
First, given the degree of fossil fuel usage, not least as the motive power of transport, it is ludicrous to see nuclear as a silver bullet. Second, even if it were, it would still be sensible to have a mix of reliable and economic energy sources.
Third, global warming sceptics see a need prudently to reduce carbon emissions. Fourth, all would espouse a serious effort to cut out wasteful and inefficient uses of energy.
Nuclear is not seen as an antidote to change but as a means of adjusting to the future with security. It remains the cleanest sustainable source of bulk electricity on this planet and longer-term, through the electrification of homes and transport, could contribute much more extensively to carbon reduction. Is that what Greens fear?
FAITH, HOPE.........
Faith and hope are admirable but, we are told, the greatest of the trio is charity. Sadly we struggle to be charitable towards Chris Huhne who is contesting the Liberal Democrat leadership. Mr Huhne is a Lib Dem of the deepest Green. He and his ilk plan to secure carbon-free non-nuclear generation and to eliminate by 2030 the use of petrol and diesel in vehicles. When someone inquired how the latter would be done he is reported to have replied: “By using hydrogen fuel cells, better batteries and technology which does not yet exist”.
We have often accused politicians of flying on a wing and a prayer in terms of energy policy but never before has anyone been so explicit in employing faith and hope as a central plank in their policy.
SCRATCHING AROUND
Since December 28, 2000 to our certain knowledge those responsible for powering Britain have been scratching around for generating capacity in cold weather. Things did not improve when Ofgem, the gas and electricity regulator, squeezed the price of electricity until the pips squeaked, eliminated marginal capacity and left British Energy prey to Government rescue on confiscatory terms.
Now when the weather blows cold the National Grid fairly regularly issues, if not a distress signal, a warning that it needs to know where its safety margin is coming from. Apparently, there can be as many as eight or 10 each winter. This year, with leaves still on the trees and at least four ageing nuclear power stations down for repair or maintenance, there have so far been four notices.
This prompted Malcolm Wicks, Energy Minister, to say that there was “no cause for alarm” about power cuts this winter. “The National Grid indicates we are going into the winter with a healthy ‘safety net’ of some 20% more than expected peak electricity demand”, he said.
We hope he is right, though we are entitled to ask why there have already been four calls for more capacity on line if the margin is so healthy.
Whether the poorer people will be able to afford electricity is another matter with gas prices soaring to 40% above the continental European level.
A MORALITY TALE
If we are fussing like this about power supplies in a rather splendid autumn, what is it going to be like when, within a few years, ageing coal-fired power stations join more elderly reactors in retirement? We know renewables are no substitute. We know that the return in reduced demand from energy efficiency and waste reduction will be small and uncertain. We know that gas prices are likely to rise even when liquefied natural gas import terminals open and the new Norwegian gas pipeline comes on full blast. And we know time is running out for new nuclear power stations to close the potential gap, even if EdF says it could deliver a new nuclear plant by 2017 (and four by 2025).
The moral of this tale is that the new Energy White Paper next month needs to be clear, decisive and businesslike. British Energy’s problems with ageing nuclear power stations, even if they were with the nuclear bits, are no reason not to go nuclear.
On the contrary, they underline why we must go full steam ahead with a new fleet of reactors – now. British Magnox and AGR power stations have demonstrated over half a century what nuclear can deliver, even if every one was a prototype. Now old national prototypes should be replaced by series built to a standard international design. We have nothing to lose but our power, our competitiveness and our security.
THE FRENCH WAY
With France beset by strikes, the jury may be out on Nicolas Sarkozy as a Thatcher-type liberator of the French economy. But no one can deny he is forthright on energy. He has just announced an end to wind turbines in wild and rural areas much to the relief of 800 villages and 52 departments represented in an October demonstration against the industrialisation of the countryside.
Earlier, at the outset of his presidency, he set out h.is stall on nuclear with the following points: renewable energies cannot seriously hope to .replace nuclear energy I cannot accept the idea of replacing nuclear power stations by coal or gas: my priority is to .counter climate change Nuclear energy provides 80 per cent of the electricity in France. That largely explains why France emits 18 per cent less greenhouse gas per .inhabitant than the EU average I cannot forget that nuclear power contributes in a decisive manner to the three objectives of energy policy as defined in French law: to guarantee national independence in energy and the security of supply; to take action against the greenhouse effect; and to make sure that the price of electricity remains competitive and stable.
It is difficult to imagine our politicians being so positive but we live in hope. Meanwhile, under a new Energy Bill, they are tinkering with our planning system which, while intended to help the development of nuclear power, is expected greatly to assist the afforestation of our wildest and windiest places with expensive, useless turbines – unless, that is, the Tories get the chance to withdraw subsidies from onshore wind farms.
BARRAGE OBJECTIONS
While we are at it, we think we should bring you an authoritative view of a Severn Barrage which the Government is to study again. A SONE member, Michael Gammon, former head of the CEGB’s generation development, was responsible for a CEGB technical, economic and environmental feasibility study of a Severn Barrage in 1980-2. He tells us they reached the following conclusions:
1 – The scheme was technically feasible, though unlike the La Rance tidal power scheme (in France), there were varied foundations across the estuary and massive silt movements every tide.
To distribute 8,000MW of power would need at least two new long distance 400kv transmission lines. Because the 8,000MW would be generated when the tidal level difference across the barrage was at its maximum and would reduce to zero for several hours, there would have to be equivalent stand-by plant available elsewhere on the system.
2 – The unit cost of tidal power would be about three times that from either nuclear energy or coal.
3 – The environmental impacts were seen as unacceptable. Not only would there be major changes in the inter-tidal areas above the barrage but there would be effects below which could damage the Ramsar site in Bridgwater Bay.
Needless to say Sir Jonathon Porritt’s incomparable Sustainable Development Commission has its eyes not just on the Severn but several other major estuaries.
REALITY DAWNING
We are indebted to Messrs Sarkozy and Gammon for letting some daylight into issues in what has otherwise been a rather illuminating autumn.
For example, the Government is wriggling on the hook of the EU’s target of 20 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. Having signed up to it last Spring, it now finds it unattainable like most Green targets, including carbon reduction. Stand by for the usual fiddled accommodation to reality.
Then the UK Energy Research Centre discovered the “rebound effect” for tabloid readers. It told them the benefits of low energy light-bulbs, cleaner car engines and home insulation have been exaggerated. The Government was ignoring the rebound effect that, for example, may reduce a car’s petrol consumption but encourage the owner to drive more or spend the savings on a holiday flight.
And then the UN’s “special rapporteur on the right to food” – we kid you not – has, in a blast against biofuels, said it was “a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel”. He wants a five-year ban during which, he believes, technology will enable agricultural waste to be used as a substitute for crops.
Life is never as simple as Greens would have us believe.
WASTE NOT WANT NOT
The French company, Areva, which wants to build new reactors in Britain, has told the Government that the UK could safely use up the country’s entire stock of plutonium in new nuclear power stations. And it “certainly does not advocate” the closure of the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
SONE’S FUTURE
Talks with the British Nuclear Energy Society about SONE’s future will open on December 10.
We shall keep you posted.
APOLOGY
Because of the postal strike we received three SONE AGM apologies for absence after the October Newsletter had gone to press – from Lord Vinson, J R Atkinson and R V Ingham. We tender our apologies to them. |
|
|
|
