The 2001 Labour Party manifesto contained this statement:

"Labour is committed to a secure, diverse and sustainable supply of energy at competitive prices. We have brought full competition to the gas and electricity markets. Coal and nuclear energy currently play important roles in ensuring diversity in our sources of electricity generation.

Since his re-election Tony Blair has told parliament that there is to be no expansion of nuclear power. The implication of this is that as older nuclear power plants are closed, so new reactors will be constructed to maintain the nuclear share of the electricity generating sector. This might eventually contribute a little to the 'diversity' argument, if it could be achieved. However, even if achievable, would such supplies be secure, and could they be achieved at competitive prices?

In February 1979 the primary energy use forecast on the left was put forward by civil servants at the Department of Energy. A rapid decline in oil and gas supplies from the North Sea was forecast, requiring imports, despite a gradual increase in the use of coal. The forecasts were used to convince Margaret Thatcher's incoming Government that a huge increase in nuclear power generation was necessary.

The forecast accompanying the launch of the Government's energy review is on the right ¹. The 1979 forecast is overlaid for comparison. It indicates that the forecast primary energy use for 1980 has only just been exceeded in the last few years. The difference is not just due to the reduction in heavy industry during the 1980's but reflects the efforts that have been put into energy conservation. The vertical shading on the right indicates the size of the nuclear 'wedge' implied by replacing old reactors with new.

It is concluded that Britain's commitments can be achieved by more determined efforts to conserve energy and to use current energy resources more rationally. The nuclear 'wedge' is a component of future primary energy use that will make little difference to the overall picture. That nuclear energy can still be taken seriously, despite its lamentable performance and its legacy of radioactive waste, reflects an institutional imbalance still present in Whitehall. It was in 1987 that the Brundtland Commission ² stated that renewable energy 'should form the foundation of the global energy structure during the 21st century'. The 'wedge' could and should be achieved by a determined effort to expand the renewables component, including wave power and modernised biomass development.

The projected growth of energy use ³ is driven by the transport sector, which has been growing voraciously for the last half century. A reduction in final energy consumption by the industrial sector since 1980 has been more than offset by the increase in transport use. This chart based on the Cabinet Office papers indicates that energy use by the transport sector is set to grow by 20% over the next ten years, (over three times the total 20 year projected domestic energy growth) and a further 10% from 2010 to 2020.

The Guardian ⁴ made the point that "it is demand rather than supply that should be at the heart of the review. Increased energy consumption, especially for transport, must not be treated as some unstoppable force of nature."

Electricity generation by any means will not touch the problem. Maintaining a nuclear sector up to and after the year 2020 misses the point.

The Energy Review should address the actual pressing problem of an out-of-control transport sector as a priority. Projected 20 year energy consumption growth in the industrial sector (14%) and 'other' which includes commerce and agriculture (17%) can best be tackled through more focused and intense energy conservation efforts.

If the aim of Government Energy Policy is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the most cost effective means should be adopted. Energy conservation expenditure is approximately seven times as cost effective as expenditure on new nuclear capacity, with the advantage that energy costs saved are liberated for use in other parts of the economy rather than locked up in plant destined to become a huge liability.

New electricity generating capacity should be selected for development where it confers advantages in meeting other Government objectives. Two examples illustrate this:

• The Forestry Commission was established for national strategic reasons, not simply to provide pit props for our mining industry in times of war, but to act as a land purchaser and land user 'of last resort' for an agricultural sector in crisis. There are parallels with the present except that our current strategic needs are for modernised biomass (short rotation willow rather than conifers) that can be a 'lifeline' crop for farmers to grow and harvest. Biomass electricity works best in relatively small 5 to 50 MW units in associated forest areas.
• Offshore wave power generators can be built as modules in our under employed shipyards, towed to where they are best located and bolted together to build into massive arrays. Offshore wind power could then tap into the same grid. Britain is well placed to develop this energy source as an export industry.

¹ Project Scoping Note - Energy Policy, Cabinet Office PIUnit, Annex 1, Table 1

² World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press Oxford 1987

³ Project Scoping Note - Energy Policy, Cabinet Office PIUnit, Annex 1, Table 2

⁴ The Guardian, Leader Wednesday June 27, 2001