Memorandum submitted by Professor Ian
Fells CBE FREng FRSE
Two urgent imperatives have emerged since
the publication of the Energy White Paper in 2003. They are security
of energy supply, particularly electricity: and environmental
protection. The power cuts in the US, UK, Italy and Scandinavia
in 2003 and the growing consensus that man is affecting the climate
by burning ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuel and causing
global warming by stimulating the Greenhouse effect, has given
a "wake up" call to politicians. The two problems are
interlinked and require a joint solution.
1. In the UK 77% of the electricity is generated
by burning coal or gas which puts carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse
gas, into the atmosphere; coal is the major culprit as it puts
1Kg of CO2 into the atmosphere for each unit of electricity
generated, the figure for gas is 0.5 Kg and for nuclear power,
wind and hydro the figure is less than 10g/unit each (ETSU Lifecycle
analysis 1999).
2. It is clear that if we are to reduce
CO2 emissions we must switch out of fossil fuels and
into renewable and nuclear power. Perversely, government policy
has only taken on board half of this process and whilst it stimulates
renewables, particularly wind power, with subsidy of one sort
and another, to the tune of £1 billion per year (HoC Public
Accounts Committee, 6th Report, September 2005), at the same time
it is bent on reducing nuclear power output to zero. As nuclear
provides around 22% of UK electricity at the moment, to replace
it with renewable electricity will be an impossible task; the
Public Accounts Committee suggest if all government incentives
work we could just make10% renewable by 2010 but give a more cautious
figure of 7.5%. To get to the "inspirational" target
of 20% by 2020 is even more problematical. Currently wind provides
0.4% of electricity, and total renewables 4%, already slipping
behind the target of 5% by 2005.
3. The UK's ageing nuclear stations are
already being decommissioned; by 2010 nuclear's output will have
fallen to 16% and by 2020 to 7%. To make matters worse the UK
coal stations, which provide 35% of electricity, are also ageing
and falling foul of new EU emissions regulations which come into
force in 2008 and, by closure, could reduce supply by another
25% by 2020. We could be short of 40% of electricity supply by
2020.
4. Decisions have to be made now (yesterday
really) if we are to ensure a secure supply of electricity through
the coming years. Shortages could cut in quite soon. The easiest
solution could be to replace the nuclear and coal stations with
gas, but gas supplies will have to come from Russia, Qatar, Nigeria
and points east. We will be in competition with China and Japan
(also for oil) and the US, for sea-borne gas. The price has doubled
in the past year and will continue to rise. We will find ourselves
80% dependent on imported gas for our electricity supply by 2020,
with ominous implications for security of supply.
5. Much has been made of the supposed uneconomic
cost of nuclear power. Separate studies by the Royal Academy of
Engineering (2004) and the Paul Scheerer Institute in Switzerland,
show nuclear power generating costs coming in on a par with gas
and half the price of wind power. The contrast with wind is even
more striking if the huge subsidy identified by the Public Accounts
Committee, £5 billion for renewables up to 2010, is included.
6. Finland has just started building a new
nuclear power station, Olkiluoto 3; it will be the most economic
solution to Finland's future energy demand, it will also provide
CO2 free electricity and strengthen their security
of supply, making them independent of imports from Russia. Radioactive
waste will be stored in a deep, geological repository which has
been accepted as a satisfactory method of storing waste by the
population at large. Some UK members of parliament have been to
see the site. Lord Flowers in his 1976 report "Nuclear
Power and the Environment" 6th RCEP report, said "There
should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission
power until it had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that
a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived,
highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future". In Hansard
of 12 January this year Lord Flowers is quoted ". . . safe
disposal . . . namely underground storage . . . has been demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt in other countries, especially Finland."
It is worth noting that the new designs of nuclear power stations,
such as the Westinghouse AP1000, produce only one tenth the radioactive
waste of current stations.
7. If the UK nuclear component is not rebuilt
there is no chance that we will even approach the 60% reduction
of CO2 target set by the PM for 2050 (see paper by
Fells, Fells and Horlock, TCE July attached to this e-mail). A
large slice of replacement supply will have to be provided by
gas which emits CO2. A balanced electricity supply
portfolio is required to give reduced CO2 and also
security of supply, not one dominated by imported gas which is
what a simplistic, market-led policy will deliver; something like
a mix of 10% renewable (the current policy) but backed with percentages
for the other fuels, 30% gas, 30% nuclear and 30% coal with carbon
capture. The market could operate within this framework but it
will need a defined government policy. The notion that renewable
energy will come and save us all is a dangerous conceit but seductive
for those predicated on a green, rather than a practical and effective
agenda.
16 September 2005
|
