Tories put faith in 'green energy revolution'

Today sees the Conservative Party publish the interim findings of its energy review (see BBC report) and it steers something of a middle course between Tony Blair's enthusiasm for nuclear power and the Liberal Democrats' blanket opposition.  This pragmatic policy - partly designed to encourage the kind of cross-party consensus on energy that will need to underpin long-term investment in new generating capacity - will also satisfy most Tory supporters.  A ConservativeHome survey just last month found that only 12% of Tory members agreed with the LibDems' opposition to nuclear power.  85% disagreed with it.  David Cameron will tell the Local Government Association:

"Where the government sees nuclear power as the first choice, under our framework it would become a last resort; where the Liberal Democrats rule out nuclear power, we rule out subsidies and special favours for nuclear power."

Mr Cameron will go on to say that global warming represents the greatest long-term threat to the economy.  Speaking to ConservativeHome last night, Alan Duncan MP promised that the overall tone of Mr Cameron's speech - in tune with the energy review - will be optimistic.  The Conservative Party believes that we are on the verge of a "green energy revolution" that will transform the debate about Britain's energy security.  Sceptics, however, will wonder if these technologies will mature fast enough to replace the the eighteen nuclear power stations and other gas and coal-fired plants that will be retiring over the next decade and which account for 25% of current UK generation capacity (Bloomberg).

Mr Cameron will tell the LGA that he is optimistic about the possibilities of local power generation - "I want Britain to be at the forefront of the green energy opportunity and I want local government to be in the forefront of Britain's environmental progress... The future of energy is not top-down, it's not centralised - it's bottom-up and decentralised."  Woking is the 'poster-council' for this approach.  The BBC has reported that a cross-party consensus on that council has reduced "energy consumption and pollutants by 44% and carbon dioxide emissions by 72% between 1990 and 2002."

Conservative policy will also emphasise energy efficiency.  The party has been strongly influenced by findings by the Rocky Mountain Institute which suggest that every pound invested in energy efficiency yields "seven times more "solution" than a pound invested in nuclear" (Zac Goldsmith in the Independent on Sunday).

Related link: On yesterday's YourPlatform David Dundas wrote that Britain must embrace nuclear power if we are to secure our energy future.

Comments

[Chad]

"Where the government sees nuclear power as the first choice, under our framework it would become a last resort; where the Liberal Democrats rule out nuclear power, we rule out subsidies and special favours for nuclear power."

When have Labour ever said the nuclear power is their first choice?

[Mark]

When have Labour ever said the nuclear power is their first choice?

Well what else are they proposing?

[Chad]

My point is that statement is untrue. It is simply a obvious triangulation spin to look fluffier than Labour but not as weak as the LibDems.

If Cameron has a better proposal that the government's to avoid the current need to replace the old nuclear power stations then, for the sake of the country, let's hear it.

[Jack Stone]

Personally I would like us to follow the Lib/Dems and rule nuclear power out totally. Its dangerous and expensive and at the end of the day would anyone really want to live near a nuclear power station!

[John Coles]

Where's the policy? This is just political positioning, utterly uninformed by any engineering insight.

[wicks]

local power generation on its own won't be enough to secure our energy supplies, nuclear power on its own won't be enough to secure our energy supplies. Clearly need a combination of the two.

[Chad]

I guess, as this shows, it sets the tone so we can now be sure of the 3 (Labour -> LibDem ->Tory) party positions on any future tough policy decision which can be summarised as

Propose -> Oppose -> Who knows?

[Big John]

By all means take out financial support for nuclear power. We must take the same approach to wind power. Subsidies aside, wind generation is very expensive to set up and operate, especially offshore. It depends on an erratic power source, needing about 75% back-up from conventional sources in case of need. Factor in the significant damage to wild life by wind turbines, plus landscape damage, and nuclear becomes the best option for power generation when hydrocarbon runs short.
What happened to tidal power? We have some of the greatest tidal ranges in the world around the UK and a working model at the tidal mill at Woodbridge, Suffolk.

[TomTom]

I think it is about time Hitachi started selling domestic nuclear reactors - then I can generate my own power. If Cameron wants local authorities to supply lead-lined recycling bins to collect the waste - that's fine by me.

[Chris]

Chad, the nuclear power debate will have been resolved by the time we might get into government, meaning the putting forward of proposals shall have to be done by New Labour. If we outline a concrete position that the public warms to, New Labour will simply take that plan and claim it was their own all along. And before you say it, yes its incredibly selfish of me to want to trade our country's nuclear policy in for political capital.

New labour might be supporting Nuclear Power, but I'm pretty sure that they too are only supporting it as a last resort. The difference in policy between New Labour and the Conservatives at present is that Labour will pay companies to make money out of nuclear power, whilst the Conservatives are taking a free market approach and saying no subsidies.

[arthur]

In reply to Jack Stone

I would have no problem living next to a nuclear power station, in fact I did, its de-commissioned now.

The major problem with nuclear power is financial not safety. High capital costs, coupled with the length of time taken to build the installation, are highly prohibitive. This long delay, between planning and electricity production, means private finance is out of the question. Governments would be wary, of committing taxpayers money, to such a long project. The opposition would probably use the political opportunity, to promise to cancel the project when it comes to power etc, making building of nuclear power stations almost impossible.

I believe that Cycle Shorts Dave is jumping on a bandwagon here. Labour did exactly the same thing in opposition and Cycle Shorts is doing the same thing. The Tory party is so keen to jump into bed with the bed-wetting muesli munching Guardian readers, it will say anything to please them.

The tragedy is, when we are freezing to death in the dark, because the Russians have cut off our gas, because we won't pay the price, it'll be to late to say, 'shouldn't have done that.'

[michael mcgough]

Instead of glacier gazing and windmill erecting why doesn't Cameron visit the remaining Nuclear Engineering Departments of our univerities and speak with the academics.On this subject I would rather trust a Professor of Engineering than a politician with a PPE degree.Fence sitters always fall off in the end.

"at the end of the day would anyone really want to live near a nuclear power station!"
Perhaps not,but many do ,just as many lived near the oil storage plant in Hemel.

[Chad]

"New labour might be supporting Nuclear Power, but I'm pretty sure that they too are only supporting it as a last resort."

I agree with you Chris, which is why I am annoyed that Cameron is deliberately mispresenting a serious decision (by claiming it is Labour's first choice) simply to score political points.

I understand why he is doing it, and why you support it, but a little honesty would be refreshing.

[Derek]

My understanding is that under a free market system no nuclear power plants will be built. So if we are saying no subsidy, then that means no nuclear. We must have a mix of provision including nuclear or else we could face power cuts in the future, as Arthur has said above.

[TimC]

This is an area where we could use our position to get quite creative in a way that Labour never could. For example, whilst I would hate to see the beauty of our countryside marred by wind farms, we could look at the way other countries on the continent are placing windmills by motorways. In many ways Thatcher brought the environmental debate into the mainstream; we should be aiming to continue this.

[Graham Clark]

Given that it took 13 years to bring Sizewell B on stream - 6 years to gain planning permission followed by 7 years to construct the plant - it is not immediately obvious how a new generation of nuclear power stations can realistically be a "last resort" rather than one pursued in parallel with other options.

One of the key issues which the Government's Energy Review is addressing is how to shorten this long lead time. A report published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh on 19 June is helpful in this respect.

It said the building of new reactors at existing sites should be considered alongside renewable forms of energy such as wind turbines, and noted -

"The period to commission a nuclear plant could be shortened by designating existing nuclear sites as already licensed. This has the advantage that the grid connection infrastructure is already in place. There is potentially limited local opposition from communities that have become accustomed to working in and with the nuclear industry and are aware of the health and safety record of British nuclear power stations."

[Jack Stone]

You are lucky Arthur. I know of someone who lost there thirteen year old daughter because of being subjected to the increased radioactivity near a nuclear plant. Personally I think that its not certain that the clusters of child cancer around these plants are caused by the nuclear energy but personally I think its as near certain as you can get.

[South Londoner]

This is an area where there are a lot of conflicting opinions (backed up by selective facts). As someone who researches and finances renewables, I have far more to say than can be supported in a blog. (If people would like copies of my reports, simply e-mail me).

Nuclear supplies about 20% of our present power needs, The problem comes about as the oldest Magnox reactors (4% of our electricity supply) need to be replaced soon. The other reactors can all have life extensions of up to 10 years, perhaps more.

Renewables have tremendous promise (and could survive with a lower subsidy, the UK’s is presently the most generous in the world and the Climate Change Levy is utterly useless). Costs of wind power have fallen considerably over the past decade (in a way that solar power costs have not).

Wind is thought to need lots of standby power to compensate for its intermittency. Well, yes, but given power can not be stored, there always a need for a lot of standby power as power usage varies by over 300% during the day. This is the reason why in any energy mix you do not want more than 20% wind in total. Our present wind energy usage (DTI figures) is 1.2%: we have some way to go before the balance load is a problem.

As to the costs of offshore, so someone else has done a full cost benefit and financial valuation of offshore wind energy? I thought I was the only one who had done that?! Or are you simply relying on press reports? Offshore cost more to install, but enjoys higher wind capacity factors, so generate more electricity, so have a higher revenue stream to compensate.

New technologies such as wave and tidal are still experimental, and some way from commercialisation. Biofuel (particularly biodiesel) have a lot of promise.

I am not some deep greenie, I am a Libertarian Conservative economist who looks at these things in a purely commercial sense – and they do make sense!

[James Maskell]

So, I wonder how the Policy Groups will react? They cannot contradict established policy.

We need to use a misture of different energy methods. Nuclear should be considered, and I think Camerons shutting off the debate, which is disappointing. As I understand it, nuclear power stations are actually pretty safe and that worries by potential new communities are perhaps based on Chernobyl. We need to be using all opportunities, not just the politically advantageous ones...

[Arthur]

Jack, I'm so sorry to hear about your friends loss. I along with most people in this country,( I certainly have) must have had someone close, or at least know of someone killed by a car. After all cars kill 3,000 people per year, many of them children, I don't think we'll be banning cars anytime soon.

[Denis Cooper]

Above all it was cheap oil which made both nuclear power and most of the coal mined in Britain "uneconomic", but it seems unlikely that there'll be cheap oil in the future. The subsidies and special favours to the wind industry are a disgrace, especially as most of that taxpayers' money is going out of the country to foreign companies, while the damage to the tourist industry in this country will create additional costs, also to be borne by taxpayers. Christopher Booker has written:

"The "Great Wind Scam" ... is one of the most successful hoaxes of our age."

and it would be better if Cameron saw through it before it's too late.

[Chris]

My understanding is that under a free market system no nuclear power plants will be built. So if we are saying no subsidy, then that means no nuclear. We must have a mix of provision including nuclear or else we could face power cuts in the future, as Arthur has said above.
The question shouldn't whether new plants wouldn't be built, but why under a free market system they would be built. What is it about nuclear plants that make them unattractive to businesses, unless we bribe them? If the reason is simply profitability then this is one of the times Cameron can clearly stand up to big business on the issue of corporate responsibility. Headlines reading "UK power company places profit above saving the planet" are nothing new, but when its coming from a possible future prime minister the stories are far more prominent.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Where the government sees nuclear power as the first choice, under our framework it would become a last resort

As somebody who is unashamedly anti-nuclear, this sentence gives me cause for concern rather than reassurance.

Talk of nuclear power being a last resort implies a lack of confidence in it as a viable option (which is perfectly understandable, given the issues of security, cost, stability, safety and pollution associated with nuclear power generation).

With such a clear lack of confidence in nuclear power, should it be considered as an option at all, given the risks and costs involved?

[Andrew]

By "last resort", does that mean before or after replacing coal stations? After all, those cause astronomically more cancers and other diseases than a single nuclear station does.

Also, "last resort" might be taken to mean when we run out of fossil fuels, which isn't terribly far away. Given that there's basically infinite U-238 deposits to fuel fast breeders, a lot of the supply issues with oil/gas disappear. No more need to prop up dictators like we've been doing for 50 years.

[arthur]

The problem we have here is one of perception. Most people in this country, have very little knowledge of how the energy that arrives in their homes gets there. What happens the other side of that switch or gas tap is a mystery to them.

Energy transmission is this country's most important industry, everything else pales into insignificance. If any government screws energy supply and transmisson, it will be the biggest cockup in history. To take nuclear off the agenda, could be a mistake beyond parallel. I am not opposed to windpower/coal/oil/gas, all of them have their plus/negative points.

I have some knowledge of the history of energy transmission in the 70/80/90's in this country. I'm sorry to say that the Conservative government of that period has a lot to answer for, not that Labour have been any better.

In the 1970's the then chairman of British Gas, Sir Dennis Rooke proposed what became known as the gas gathering scheme. This involved the linking up the North Sea Oilfields and relaying the associated gas to shore. The incoming government, minister for energy Leon Brittain, cancelled the scheme. In 1982 the then energy minister, David Howell, raised the price of domestic gas by 9% above the rate of inflation. This became known as the Gas levy, which raised £400 million pounds per annum. That money was not spent on improving our energy supply position, it was given away in tax cuts.

Wholesale privatisation particularly of the energy transmission system, was a massive mistake. The 'dash for gas' coupled with the 'war' between the miners and Mrs 'T' has left us in the vulnerable situation we have today. Incidentally Scargill's attitude of 'no surrender' did nothing to help the cause of coal, and that's putting it mildly.

The energy supply side (transmission) should have remained under state control, I don't say that because I'm a natural supporter of state control, far from it. Who customers actually buy their energy from, get the best deal you can.

Prior to privitisation both British Gas/CEGB saw them selves as custodians of our energy supply system. Therefore they had to consider future energy problems. Once that discretion was removed, they had to supply regardless. This led in particular to the 'dash for gas'. One gas fired powers tation, (ironically) owned by ENRON, went from green field site to generation in 22months. The ability of the system to cope was streched to the limit. Gas fired power stations have used up much of our north sea supplies.

What Cameron is doing, is what politicans of all types do, using the most important industry in this country as a political football. ITS TO IMPORTANT FOR THAT

[Esbonio]

My sympathies are with arthur amd michael mcgowan on this. Cameron's comments give me little confidence.

[Matt Johnson]

There is an interesting argument made by Dr. Alexander Ruban in a new research article on our website which argues for more emphasis on 'Bioenergy' as part of a green energy programme for the future.

www.expertopinions.org.uk

[Yet Another Anon]

Where the government sees nuclear power as the first choice, under our framework it would become a last resort
The Strategic Importance of Power Generation is simply too important to leave it to private shareholders in utility companies - Government has to take a strategic view of such things as much as in Defence, National Security and Transport otherwise there are risks of under-capacity (such as has happened in California where there are regular power cuts), this does not neccessarily mean state subsidies because money can be raised by increasing unit costs and tightening billing restrictions, increasing powers to cut off people for non-payment - this has the added benefit of rationing usuage of power.

However at the moment there is a choice between not reducing Carbon Emmissions and also being over reliant on imports of Gas and Oil and of going for new nuclear build to take the slack - ultimately the Power Generating Companies are interested in profit, if there are power cuts there is little scope for their customers to switch to alternative power sources so why should they care if there is under-capacity?

Alternative Energy both carbon and Non-Carbon based has to be developed however in coming decades there is a choice between nuclear power or power cuts. Like it or not that is the situation.

[Yet Another Anon]

With such a clear lack of confidence in nuclear power, should it be considered as an option at all, given the risks and costs involved?
Power Generation is a dangerous business and actually the Nuclear Industry in this country has had fewer casualties than other industries such as oil, gas, coal, but you name it and there are dangers involved - huge volumes of Electricity, regardless of the means used to produce power there are dangers involved.

[Henry Mayhew]

Good post Dennis Cooper.

We are told nuclear power stations that give us 20% of our electricity need replacing. It is inconceivable we can do that with a non-nuclear option, and nuclear has improved enormously in the last 30 years anyway, as you would expect. The question of subsidy is secondary.

Renewables need to prove themselves before they can be relied on and fossil fuels are causing the global warming.

Dave C, hang your head in shame. What are you playing at? Do you have contempt for our intelligence, or are you a little bit thick? I had never thought of that. You could be an unusual combination of teacher's pet and urban slick. We will only find out once you are in No. 10. Great!

[michael mcgough]

Jack Stone;I lost a good friend through leukemia who was a graduate nuclear engineer and who worked in the industry .I put this down to electric fields rather than the nuclear component.(I also lost another similarly qualified friend through alcoholism because there weren't any jobs in the nuclear field).I do get rather annoyed that the loudest critics are the least qualified to comment.At a hustings in E.London at the last general election the anti-nuclear Green candidate was a house-husband and part time theatrical set designer.What are Dave's credentials?Dave and Boy George should realise that a PPE degree doesn't confer the keys to the universe.

[Esbonio]

Sorry for getting Michael's surname wrong above.

[Sarf Lunnon]

A few inconvenient facts:
1. When WS Atkins designed the Severn Tidal Barrage generator scheme 25 years ago their engineers also calculated that it would take 45 years to recover the conventional energy used in its construction. What sort of payback is that - no 'green' electricity for 45 years!? There should be a requirement for all 'renewables' to state their payback time till the first KW of 'green' electrity is generated. On the most optimistic projections it is 12 years for onshore turbines with a working life of 20 years, for offshore probably 25 years for a working life of 30 years. i.e these schemes hardly produce enough energy to renew themselves.
2. We Brits designed our nuclear stations with the wrong technology, built them badly, and ran them incompetently. Whilst Sizewell B was being built the French built 5 stations closer to London (near Calais) which nobody protested about because they were in another country. They supply about 25% of SE England's requirements through the cross Channel InterConnector.
3. As a comparison in 1985 I was running the French subsidiary of a British quoted engineering company. We had substantial construction contracts on two new French nuclear stations. My UK parent had a similar one with Central Electricity Enginering Board at Heysham. Not only were CEGB paying 3 times as much as EDF for much the same scope of work, but the head of our UK ops boasted that he 'was many months behind at Heysham and the CEGB hadn't the faintest idea.'
4. EDF own the only viable technology. Only the French and Germans have the engineers to build the plants. So anything built in UK would have to built by them. Easy answer: contract with EDF to build (say) 10 plants in France and another cross Channel InterConnector. We'll get them cheaper, in half the time and no hassles over planning, protests, waste disposal...

[Julian Morrison]

Nuclear power is a great idea, but it ought to be on a level ZERO subsidy playing field with every other form of power generation.

When the market wants it, the money will be there.

[TomTom]

"The "Great Wind Scam" ... is one of the most successful hoaxes of our age."

and it would be better if Cameron saw through it before it's too late.

How can he ? The firm behind the windmill subsidy scam is a City banker who know doubt has found a way to schmooze Rainbow-Brite now Blairoil is facing extirpation

[TomTom]

Dave and Boy George should realise that a PPE degree doesn't confer the keys to the universe.

Theirs not but mine yes

[Conservative-man]

It would be wonderful if energy were not subsidised at all, nuclear, renewables, coal, any of them. What also needs to happen visa vie nuclear is for the regulatory environment to remain static. It is very difficult to make a power generation facility economic if after a number of years you face a sudden increase (however justified) in environmental compliance costs.

[Cllr. Gavin Ayling]

The interview on Sunday AM was unnecessary circuitous -- the Tory policy is to leave it to the market while encouraging engineers to find scientific solutions to the supposed environmental damage caused by traditional power generating methods.

Why is there any concern at our lack of policy? It's not politician's jobs to interfere in all aspects of life -- so long as a resolution can be reached, it is more likely to be reached by scientists who know what they're talking about in detail, than by politicians who read the executive summary.

[Yet Another Anon]

It's not politician's jobs to interfere in all aspects of life -- so long as a resolution can be reached, it is more likely to be reached by scientists who know what they're talking about in detail, than by politicians who read the executive summary.
Leave it to the utilities companies and the decisions will be made by accountants and private shareholders whose sole interest is profit, these are monopoly services so if short term interests mean that they don't invest they'll still charge for and profit from whatever power is supplied in decades time and unless given instructions otherwise they will have no concern for matters relating to National Security vis-a-vis Gas or Oil supplied by nations who the UK might be at war with in the future; or with reducing emissions of Greenhouse Gases, so far as power use goes their economic interest is to sell all the fuel and power they produce and if they have extra capacity to sell that too.

You can't build Nuclear Reactors "as a last resort", either you decide to build them or not, they can't just be turned out at short notice if it turns out that otherwise there will be under-capacity or that the alternative will be maintaining or increasing emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

[Simon R]

I work in a restaurant, and I remember a couple of years ago working with a couple (bf and gf) who had come from a catering agency. The guy was very excited about a project he and his father were working on called a gasifier. It could aparently get energy from household waste with the only by-product being water. So obviously it wasn't just a plain incinerator. They were investigating whether such machines had been built in Germany and Japan (aparently they had) and trying to get funding from the Welsh Assembly among other sources. I don't remember much else. It sounded too good to be true, and I remember thinking at the time that certain groups would go quite far to ensure such a project never got off the ground, and that he should probably be alot more careful who he spoke to. I wonder what became of him.