Review Fuels Energy Worries
By Gillman, Susanna
The energy review raises doubts but the need for action is paramount, says Susanna Gillman
The government’s energy review, launched last week, is intended to hammer out the best way of meeting future energy needs while reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
For some the debate is over before it has even begun. Among green lobbyists, the terms of the review (Planning, 27 January, p1) have raised fears that it is simply a vehicle for pushing through the nuclear option. The very fact that the review is open to discussing the potential for nuclear has sparked claims that it is a fait accompli.
Suspicions have been fuelled by the fact that the DTI simultaneously commissioned the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to look at the potential role of prelicensing further nuclear power stations. This has caused concern that the government is attempting to bypass the planning system.
“The concept of pre-licensing flies in the face of the government’s professed desire to review all the options before following the nuclear power route,” says Green Party principal spokesman Keith Taylor. But ministers insist that they are simply reviewing all the options. Trade and industry secretary Alan Johnson says that he wants the widest possible engagement in the debate.
The review consultation paper sets the debate in the context of recent rises in fossil fuel prices, which are now much higher than at the time of the 2003 energy white paper. The document underlines the risks arising from the UK’s status as a net gas and oil importer, stressing that there is no “do nothing option”.
As reliance on fossil fuels is no longer economically and- environmentally sustainable, the crux of the matter comes down to the best mix of energy generation for the future. The consultation seeks views on what more can be done towards meeting targets for reducing carbon emissions and developing low-carbon technologies, as well as the possibility of nuclear development.
It is less clear about flagging up the role of renewables and their contribution to the energy basket. British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) head of offshore Gordon Edge, who is co- ordinating the organisation’s response to the review, is disappointed by the cursory treatment of renewables in the consultation. “It should be at the heart of the review,” he maintains.
The BWEA, which champions wave and tidal power as well as wind, is confident that renewables will play a leading role in delivering 20 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs by 2020. Research by the Carbon Trust published last week suggests that marine energy alone could provide up to one-fifth of the UK’s electricity needs if it sees sufficient investment.
Yet the BWEA does not take a hard line on nuclear development. Edge maintains that it is agnostic on the issue. “It has some advantages in carbon dioxide emissions, but it has to make its case on cost and waste,” he says. “We want investment to grow the renewables sector strongly and to build on the UK’s huge natural resources.”
The government justifies the fresh debate on nuclear power by pointing out that the 2003 energy white paper left the option open. At the time, the economics made nuclear energy unattractive, especially given the need to resolve the radioactive waste disposal issue. Rising energy prices have prompted the need to review that assessment, the government argues.
But Whitehall insistence that decisions on energy policy, including nuclear power, will only be made after the fullest public consultation has not convinced critics. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker fears that the primary purpose of the review is to justify the prime minister’s wish for another generation of nuclear powerstations.
“Tony Blair appears to have made up his mind before the energy review has barely begun,” says Baker. Taylor adds: “It is vital that the consultation is honest about nuclear’s fundamental problems and takes into account the public’s concerns over nuclear power. Sadly, the government’s decision to look into prelicensing does not give us much hope that this is the case.”
The question mark over nuclear’s contribution to tackling climate change is another sticking point for green groups. Friends of the Earth argues that nuclear is not an emission-free solution. The mining and transport of uranium, the building of nuclear plants and the storage of waste all create carbon dioxide, it points out. Nuclear power produces 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions per unit than wind power, it estimates.
WWF-UK campaigns director Andrew Lee contends that new nuclear plants cannot be up and running in time to help meet UK climate targets. “It would be more sensible to increase and diversify the use of renewable energy and make a serious effort to reduce energy waste, just as the white paper recommended three years ago,” he adds.
But the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) insists that renewable energy sources, which currently supply around three per cent of the UK’s energy, cannot be exploited fast enough to replace the prospective shortfall once the present generation of nuclear stations is mothballed. Nuclear power provides 20 per cent of the UK’s energy, but 11 of the 12 stations are due to close over the next 20 years.
“Nuclear can provide a largescale, reliable source of electricity in a mix with indigenous renewable sources,” the NIA argues. On the disposal problem, it maintains that the UK has managed its radioactive waste safely for more than half a century, while more efficient modern reactor designs produce far less waste.
As the energy debate restarts, the need for action is paramount amid indications that harmful emissions continue to rise. Latest DEFRA statistics show that carbon dioxide emissions rose by 0.5 per cent in 2004, mainly due to increases from gas and oil consumption. Yet DEFRA still expects emissions to fall by more than ten per cent by 2010.
Last week’s launch of an energy group tasked with developing technologies to reduce carbon emissions offers some hope. The Energy Research Partnership brings together top energy industry executives, Whitehall officials and senior academics in a bid to give strategic direction to energy research. It will work with the energy review team as the consultation progresses.
Energy Review can be viewed via www.PlanningResource.co.uk.
Wind industry: upset by perceived cursory treatment of renewables in review consultation paper
Energy review: consultation questions
* What more could the government do on energy to meet UK targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
* What are the implications of increased dependence on gas imports?
* What are the considerations for building more nuclear power stations, including long-term liabilities and waste management?
* Are there particular considerations that should apply to carbon abatement and other low-carbon technologies?
* What further steps should be taken to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated?
Hydro power: strong potential
‘Tony Blair appears to have made up his mind before the energy review has barely begun’
Copyright Haymarket Business Publications Ltd. Feb 3, 2006