|
1.0 New Nuclear Monitor
1.1 Since the publication of the David Hume Institute report
in April, which argued that nuclear power is half the price of
wind power, (using costs from an earlier Royal Academy of Engineering
(RAE) report) the debate on whether the UK should build new nuclear
stations has continued. Professor James Lovelock, enlivened the
debate with an article in The Independent in May, arguing that
nuclear power is the only answer to climate change. The counter
arguments are set out in the Nuclear Free Local Authorities' New
Nuclear Monitor No.7 June 2004. (not yet on the website http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/
so e-mail office@nuclearpolicy.info for a copy).
1.2 Dr Catherine Mitchell of Warwick Business School and member
of the Government's PIU Energy Review Team, speaking at the Friends
of the Earth "Meeting Scotland's Energy Needs" Conference
in Edinburgh on 21st May said:
"The PIU examined the cost of nuclear power, both current
and future, in great depth. It concluded that the figures put
forward by the nuclear industry are extremely optimistic and PIU's
own figures were much higher. Now, bodies such as RAE are giving
the cost of nuclear power as those put forward by the nuclear
industry without including other evidence based analyses, such
as the PIU. It is extremely depressing that after 2 years of evidence
based analysis by the Government, energy institutions continue
to provide out of date and probably wrong information".
1.3 Tony Blair told the House of Commons Liaison Committee on
6th July that he had:-
"…fought long and hard, both within my party and outside,
to make sure that the nuclear option is not closed off [but] we
are going to have to do a lot more work on reassuring people both
on the cost and on the safety grounds and we are going to have
to have a debate in which people understand the science and …
the difference between a nuclear power station and the development
of nuclear weapons … I think within the next few years there
are some very difficult decisions that we will have to take on
this".
Blair also disclosed that America is pressing Britain to look
again at the nuclear option. Tony Juniper, Director of Friends
of the Earth, said: "It took months to hammer out a policy
in the white paper and nothing has happened since to change the
basics, which were that energy efficiency and renewables were
the best bet. It would be 15 years before there was one kilowatt
of energy from a new nuclear station."
1.4 Although Blair was doing little more than re-iterating current
government policy, the Guardian's reporting of his comments re-ignited
discussions about new nuclear build in the UK. Scotland on Sunday
is convinced that the Scottish Executive will repudiate the Scottish
Executive Partnership Agreement in which the two coalition parties
say they "will not support the further development of nuclear
power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved".
Quoting only what it called "a senior nuclear industry source",
it said Hunterston, Chapelcross, or even Torness, are possible
sites.
1.5 An opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph, which concluded
that nuclear appears to be the only viable option, because renewables
are "unable to provide security of supply" and "reserves
of gas and oil running out" was typical of other follow-up
coverage. Even The Observer asked "when does the government
expect the lights to start going out round Britain?" and
said we urgently need a commitment to a modest nuclear programme.
1.6 John Vidal, in The Guardian on 12th August summarised the
recent debate. Some of what Vidal described as "Britain's
leading environmental thinkers" are calling for a debate
about whether nuclear needs to be reassessed. Besides James Lovelock,
he mentioned Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office
and the UN's intercontinental panel on climate change; Sir Crispin
Tickell, former UK ambassador to the UN, who famously convinced
Margaret Thatcher that Climate Change is a problem; and Paul Allen,
development director at the Centre for Alternative Technology
in Machynlleth. On the back of anti-wind power sentiment voiced
by celebrities like David Bellamy and Sir Bernard Ingham, the
nuclear industry is now working with the Bush administration to
persuade governments to commission a new generation of stations.
In Britain, the crunch will come in 2006 - if wind power is found
not to be meeting targets then pressure to commission new nuclear
stations will be enormous.
1.7 The counter argument is that nuclear stations would take eight
to 15 years to build, and almost that long to start repaying their
financial and carbon investments. Renewables and energy conservation
can deliver the cuts immediately. All that is needed is the political
will. Even if nuclear were the best option to tackle global warming,
it's likely to fail again on cost grounds, according to the Rocky
Mountain Institute, the US energy consultant which advises governments
and big companies. "Each dollar invested in electric efficiency
displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar
invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects. If
climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn't the solution.
It's an expensive, one-size-fits-all technology that diverts money
and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient alternatives."
1.8 The obvious question is: 'is the Government doing enough
to promote energy efficiency and renewable technologies, or is
it simply waiting until after the next General Election before
it approves new nuclear construction?' The Appendix gives a brief
survey of what the Government is doing on energy efficiency and
concludes that much more could be done.
1.9 On whether the Government is doing enough to promote renewable
energy, a scathing report by the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee published in July concluded that it could fall 40% short
of its 10% renewable energy target for 2010. Chairman Lord Oxburgh,
said it could not avoid the conclusion "that the government
are not taking energy problems sufficiently seriously". It
deplored the minimal sums going into research and development
of renewable energy sources, pointing out that they were less
than a twentieth of that spent in the US. The Committee singled
out the Ministry of Defence for criticism, saying that some of
its arguments around new wind farm developments were "extraordinary"
and "implausible". Lord Oxburgh concludes: "The
government seems to believe that market forces alone will prevent
the lights going out - we're not so sure." The committee
said it "found almost no one outside government who believed
the white paper targets were likely to be achieved", and
too much emphasis is placed on wind farms when a more diverse
portfolio of renewable energy is needed. It said "Government
may have no option but to follow the lead of other countries and
accept that new nuclear build might be necessary".
1.10 The Department of Trade and Industry recently announced
a £50 million fund to make Britain the world leader in wave
and tidal power technologies. However, private financiers and
politicians have criticised both Westminster and the Scottish
Executive for not going far enough to ensure the dominance of
the UK's fledgling industry, estimated to have the potential to
create 7000 jobs in Scotland. Venture capital firm 3i, which has
invested in Scottish firms Ocean Power Delivery and Wavegen, said
the Government should have pledged between £100-150m. Britain
has leading expertise in wave and tidal generation but Portugal,
Spain and Ireland are pulling ahead because their governments
are willing to back ambitions with far more cash.
1.11 Meanwhile, in a surprise move BNFL closed down the Chapelcross
nuclear power station at the end of June. The station had not
been due to close until next year, but BNFL said the 45-year-old
reactors were too expensive to operate. BNFL is now negotiating
with Edinburgh-based Scottish BioPower about using the generating
turbines in a new bio-fuels plant to be built at the site. Initially
it would burn a mix of wood and coal, but eventually it would
be fired solely by fast growing willow. The new power station,
which is expected to cost more than £30m, would create hundreds
of construction jobs and about 70 full-time posts when operational.
1.12 New Nuclear Monitor No.7 reported that the NII is maintaining
"a watching brief" on BNFL's favoured reactor-type,
the Westinghouse AP1000, by staying in regular contact with the
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is currently undertaking
a design certification process for the reactor design and has
informally set a target date of December 2005 for completing its
review. The NRC is already running workshops in China on AP1000
design certification issues, and is due to issue a final safety
evaluation in September 2004; and give final design approval in
October 2004. It says completion of the Design Certification Process
by December 2005 is dependent on the extent of any design changes
necessitating NRC staff review, additional regulatory requirements,
and the duration of hearings. It is unclear whether the nuclear
industry will use the final design approval in October 2004 or
completion of the certification process in December 2005 to declare
the reactor design approved.
2.0 Sellafield Discharges
2.1 The Environment Agency will implement new radioactive waste
discharge authorisations at Sellafield from 1 October 2004. It
says these will lead to reductions in radiation exposure at the
authorised limits of 35% for liquid discharges and almost 60%
for gaseous discharges. The Agency first published its proposals
for the new authorisations in August 2002, after public consultation.
Following submission of the proposals for ministerial review,
the decision has been revised and the changes are set out in an
Update document published by the Agency in August.
2.2 A decision regarding the Agency's August 2002 Proposed Decision
Document has not been made by Ministers but the Government has
indicated that it is content for the Agency to proceed, whilst
reserving the right to intervene at a later stage if deemed necessary.
2.3 The two main changes since August 2002 are the success of
the Technetium-99 (Tc-99) abatement process and the closure of
the Calder Hall Magnox reactors. The Tc-99 limit has been reduced
from 90TBq to 20TBq initially and 10TBq from 2006. This may be
a disappointment to the Irish and Norwegians who may have expected
the limit to go straight down to 10TBq. The closure of Calder
Hall means that Sellafield no longer needs to discharge the radioactive
gas Argon-41. This will lead to a reduction of about 70% in the
dose to the critical group as a result of gaseous emissions -
so is a major gain.
2.4 Other minor changes have resulted from an Agency inspection
of Sellafield in April 2004 to review BNFL's readiness to implement
the new authorisation, and information supplied by BNFL in support
of these minor changes. For example, the Agency has postponed
until 2007 the introduction of a new site limit for the radionuclide
antimony-125 in liquid discharges, pending more information from
BNFL. There have also been various changes made to the annual
limits for certain individual facilities, but none of the changes
affect overall site limits.
2.5 Amongst the documentation issued by the Agency is a 49-page
submission by BNFL arguing for the various changes. This report
gives some valuable insights into why BNFL might ask for some
increases in discharge authorisations during the decommissioning
process. But it is noticeable that any BPEO processes undertaken
at Sellafield to decide on the best methods of decommissioning
do not appear to have involved public consultation as at Dounreay.
2.6 The EA's update document fails to address gaseous discharges
of Krypton-85 (Kr-85) - responsible for a large collective dose
around the globe. BNFL is required to carry out on Kr-85 abatement
"unless the company is able to satisfy the Agency that the
currently projected lifetime [of THORP] is unlikely to be extended
for a significant period beyond 2016".
2.7 None of the Agency's changes affect the main criticism of
the August 2002 proposals made by environment groups and NFLAs.
Although the legal limits for many radionuclide discharges are
being reduced, the proposals will allow BNFL to increase the throughput
of both of its reprocessing plants, and hence actual radioactive
discharges will go up. In fact, by 2003/4 the amount of spent
nuclear waste fuel reprocessed at Sellafield had increased by
87% compared with 1998/9, when the UK originally agreed to make
'progressive and substantial reductions' in discharges, and this
trend is expected to continue. As a consequence the overall level
of discharges is likely to remain higher than 1998 until after
2012, when the Magnox reprocessing plants is expected to close,
even after the reductions in Tc-99 discharges and non-Tc-99 discharges
could reach double the level of 1998. The Agency also leaves the
door open for reprocessing in THORP to continue beyond 2020 when
concentrations in the environment are supposed to reach 'close
to zero'. The UK is clearly flouting its international commitments.
3.0 The Energy Bill
3.1 The Energy Bill received Royal Assent in July, allowing the
establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in
time to begin full operation in April 2005. Attempts to amend
the Bill during its passage through the Houses of Parliament to
clarify objectives were rejected leaving several outstanding issues
to be resolved.
3.2 Provisions in the Energy Bill allow the bail-out of future
private nuclear operators if they fail to fully fund their liabilities.
The Government needs to explain how it will ensure the establishment
of segregated funds for decommissioning and nuclear waste management
before allowing operation of new facilities. British Energy (BE)
failed to set aside enough money to cover its liabilities, and
the Government failed to effectively monitor BE's segregated fund.
As a result the Government is now proposing to pay £3.3bn
over the next ten years for BE's liabilities (as part of the restructuring
plan for BE, which is currently being investigated by the European
Commission under EU competition laws). Approval of proposals for
new nuclear plant should be conditional upon the establishment
of a segregated fund, otherwise the taxpayer could, once again,
be saddled with a private nuclear operator's liabilities. Worse
still, the provisions in the Bill could be a major incentive to
private investors to build new reactors, because they know if
they do not set aside enough money for liabilities (even while
reaping profits) there is a mechanism to allow the Government
to bail them out.
3.3 The Government announced in July that it intends to transfer
the shares in Nirex currently held by the nuclear industry into
a new company limited by guarantee, thus fulfilling its commitment
of a year ago to make the nuclear waste agency independent. Margaret
Beckett told the House of Commons that funding would be "primarily
through the NDA" although the company would "be separate
from, and independent of, the NDA". When CoRWM delivers its
recommendations in 2006, the Government will decide policy for
the long-term management of and also the longer-term future of
Nirex.
3.4 Although virtually all of BNFL's and UKAEA's assets and liabilities
are being assumed by the NDA in April 2005, and the Government
is proposing to fund some of British Energy's liabilities, routing
most of Nirex's funding through the NDA could result in a significant
breach of the 'polluter pays principle'. A mechanism needs to
be found for BE and any future nuclear operators to pay a fair
share of Nirex's costs without compromising its independence.
3.5 The Energy Bill allows the NDA to operate BNFL's ageing,
loss-making Magnox reactors, the Sellafield reprocessing plants
and the MOX Plant (SMP). There is no provision in the Bill for
the promised annual review of the rationale for keeping nuclear
facilities open. The NDA's focus should be "squarely on [dealing
with] the nuclear legacy" , not on generating new nuclear
waste or income. A Ministerial decision on whether continued operation
of the Magnox reactors is justified has been awaited since before
December 2002. An independent financial appraisal of these loss-making
stations is long overdue.
3.6 BNFL told the Guardian in 2003 it would soon announce that
the THORP reprocessing plant would close by 2010. There has been
no such announcement, and there have been rumours that the Treasury
is keen for the reprocessing plant to accept more overseas reprocessing
contracts to generate income. On 18th July, the Independent on
Sunday reported that the Government is planning to allow BNFL's
overseas customers to leave their Intermediate Level Waste at
Sellafield, in order to raise £200m extra cash to be injected
into the NDA. This sets a bad precedent suggesting generating
income is more important to the NDA than dealing with nuclear
waste problems.
3.7 Alan Edwards, former head of the DTI's Liabilities Management
Unit, has expressed doubt over whether SMP will ever open. A BNFL
source said "despite everyone's best efforts, the bloody
thing does not work". BNFL has recently been forced to subcontract
a 4th MOX order to one of its European competitors because of
difficulties in opening the plant.
3.8 Energy Minister, Stephen Timms, says the NDA can only operate
nuclear power stations pending their decommissioning. But the
NDA does have powers to operate facilities for waste treatment.
BNFL has made plain its desire to build and operate one or two
nuclear power stations, which would be fuelled by plutonium (plutonium-burning
reactors). The legislation would allow the NDA to contract BNFL
to build plutonium-burning reactors as waste management facilities
thus giving it the opportunity to showcase its AP1000 reactor.
The alternative to plutonium-burning reactors is immobilising
plutonium as a waste form.
3.9 Very few amendments to the Energy Bill made in the House
of Lords survived the Bill's passage through the House of Commons.
One amendment which did succeed requires the Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry to prepare a strategy for the promotion
of micro-generation in Great Britain.
4.0 Dounreay
4.1 SEPA says the policy of transferring low-level waste from
Dounreay to Drigg is driven by the recommendation of the 1998
HSE and SEPA Dounreay Safety Audit, which in turn was driven by
the most recent government policy on the subject set out in 1982:
A Guide to the Administration of the Radioactive Substances Act
1960. This says that if a suitable disposal route exists it should
be disposed of as soon as possible: "…in order to prevent
the unnecessary accumulation of waste requiring storage and surveillance
at production sites". However, it should be noted that the
1995 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy says that waste
should be "… safely disposed of at appropriate times
and in appropriate ways … in a manner that commands public
confidence …" (emphasis added). It can be argued, that
transferring waste to Drigg is not appropriate, because it undermines
the BPEO process, and does not command public confidence. SEPA
also pointed out at Dundee that it does not regulate transport
and cannot consider transport impacts.
4.2 The UKAEA launched its latest public consultation exercise
in June on reclassifying High-Level liquid reprocessing Waste
(HLW) from the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) as Intermediate-Level
Waste (ILW). The waste accounts for nearly 79% of the site's radioactivity
inventory. The UKAEA's initial plan was to build a vitrification
plant at Dounreay to seal the HLW in glass blocks, but it now
says even the most recent PFR waste has cooled sufficiently not
to need constant artificial cooling and could be reclassified
as ILW and treated in a cementation plant - a very much cheaper
option. A draft Best Practical Environmental Option study has
been prepared, and examined by internal and external stakeholder
panels. NFLAs were invited to attend the external panel, but unfortunately
this was not possible. A final BPEO will be published for wider
consultation before applications are made to regulators for permission
to implement the chosen policy.
4.3 Previous public consultation exercises on Dounreay decommissioning
projects have been strongly criticised - in particular by Shetland
Islands Council and NFLAs who complained that their submissions
on the proposed incinerator were totally ignored. Dounreay director
Norman Harrison issued an apology to Shetland
Islands Council in August, and agreed to re-write the final consultation
report and to re-issue it to stakeholders for comment. Of course,
none of this will affect the decision to go-ahead with construction
of an incinerator, but UKAEA confirmed that it has no intention
of importing wastes for incineration at Dounreay and it anticipates
that Highland Council will put a condition to that effect on planning
permission. UKAEA said the alternative of treating radioactive
solvents and oils to form solid ILW is not proven technology,
especially for the oils, although the Americans are looking at
the problem.
4.4 New lower limits on Dounreay's radioactive discharges into
the Pentland Firth have been issued by SEPA, but await Ministerial
approval. The need for new lower limits was urgent enough, SEPA
said, to force it to make the reductions without any public consultation.
SEPA announced it was taking this action last August when it imposed
new limits on discharges into the atmosphere. UKAEA has now submitted
a new application for discharge authorisations covering the whole
site which will be subject to normal consultation. The new authorisations
show signs of a tougher attitude towards Dounreay after SEPA radically
changed its regulatory regime following a highly critical independent
report. The existing limits were set to meet Dounreay's reprocessing
work, which produced huge discharges - but with the end of reprocessing
SEPA wants limits to reflect better the UKAEA's actual requirements.
4.5 Buried deep in the details of the authorisation documentation
is the information that Dounreay is the only nuclear site in Scotland
with no final filtration of its liquid discharges. SEPA has obviously
been aware of this for some time and has now decided to place
a legal requirement on the UKAEA to produce plans for final filters
on discharges. The lack of action by SEPA until now is especially
surprising given the hugely controversial issue of radioactive
particles contaminating the seabed, the foreshore and beaches.
4.6 The owners of the Sandside Estate near Dounreay have called
on the UKAEA to build a semi-permanent dam or barrier across Sandside
Bay in an attempt to stop more radioactive particles from reaching
the
beach. Over 50 particles have already been found on the beach
by the UKAEA's monitoring contractors, but the Sandside Estate
is strongly critical of this work, saying it only covers a fairly
small part of the beach and does not use the most modern equipment.
The estate also won a court action in 2003 that the UKAEA was
breaching Section 7 of the Nuclear Installations Act which requires
that 'no occurrence involving nuclear material [should] cause
injury to any person or damage to any property.' UKAEA says a
temporary barrier across Sandside Bay is one of 18 options it
has identified and which would go out for public consultation.
4.7 The UKAEA has applied for planning permission to build a
new plant next to the Dounreay Fast Reactor to receive and package
spent fuel rods that are stuck in the core and breeder blanket
of the reactor. All the other spent fuel has already been removed.
The spent fuel will be transported by sea to Sellafield for
reprocessing according to the UKAEA proposal. The UKAEA estimates
there will be 30 lorry movements carrying the highly radioactive
spent fuel from the site to Scrabster where it will be loaded
onto a ship.
The proposal to send the spent fuel to Sellafield has not been
subject to stakeholder consultation.
4.8 Balfour Beatty has been awarded a £10m contract to
build a waste-handling facility to increase the site's capacity
for storing solid intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW).
It will also enable up to 300 drums of conditioned waste from
commercial fuel reprocessed at Dounreay until 1996 to be returned
to overseas customers. Subject to regulatory consents, construction
will take two years to complete and is expected to begin later
this year, creating 50 temporary jobs.
5.0 Sellafield
5.1 The European Commission has lost patience with the UK and
will launch infringement proceedings for non-compliance of materials
accounting procedures at BNFL's old B30 spent fuel storage pond
at Sellafield. Although the U.K. government submitted by the June
1 deadline an action plan on how it intended to comply with nuclear
material accounting rules, the EC says the plan is unsatisfactory.
It will now send a warning letter to the UK in the autumn. The
44-year-old pond facility contains 1.3 metric tons of plutonium,
about 400 kilograms of which is contained in corroded spent fuel
lying as sludge on the pond's bottom. The EC describes this as
a "clear infringement of essential Euratom safeguards requirements".
An EC spokesperson said if we expect Iraq to declare its fissile
materials, we should be doing the same ourselves.
5.2 German utilities have also lost patience with BNFL. Under
the nuclear phase-out accord all spent fuel they intend to have
reprocessed at Sellafield must be shipped before 1st July 2005.
Any plutonium separated out from should be converted to MOX fuel.
The problems at SMP have compounded an ongoing dispute between
the utilities and BNFL over cost increases for reprocessing that
BNFL want to impose. As a consequence, the number of spent fuel
transports to Sellafield is being cut. Remaining spent fuel will
be dry stored in Germany.
5.3 The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published
its long-awaited report assessing risks of terrorist attacks on
nuclear facilities in July. It says there is insufficient information
available publicly to conclude how successful a terrorist attack
might be, but adds that nuclear facilities were not built to withstand
attacks such as a large aircraft impact. A successful attack would
be highly unlikely to cause a large number of instant fatalities,
but would have the potential to affect extensive areas of land
and cause a large number of cancers.
6.0 Submarine Decommissioning
6.1 The final report on the public consultation conducted by
Lancaster University on behalf of the MoD into management of decommissioned
nuclear submarines was published in May. It shows public rejection
of all the sites suggested. The MoD must now formally respond
and announce its next move.
6.2 The report concludes that proposals would be more acceptable
if reactor compartments are stored intact; and doses to workers
and the public, discharges to the environment, and risks generally
are minimised using the best means available. It says storage
and cut out should take place at sites, which are not adjacent
to centres of population, and no new nuclear submarines should
be built, at least until a final disposal route for radioactive
waste is available. There was also a call for the MoD to 'take
charge' of the decision-making process and specify the best way
forward, rather than inviting contractors to put forward proposals.
6.3 An MOD review of its 118 coastal sites to see which could
potentially be suitable for the interim storage of intact reactor
compartments was carried out following a request for site options
from one of four industry bidders, SERCO Assurance. The review
concluded that only Coulport was suitable. Coulport, has already
been named in outline proposals from industry, along with four
non-MOD sites at Rosyth, Sellafield, Devonport and Dounreay. This
was an odd conclusion given the amount of public opposition already
in evidence around Coulport, but means that Machrihanish has been
ruled out as a candidate site.
6.4 The results of this Consultation on Industry Outline Proposals
will inform the MOD's evaluation of the outline proposals, leading
to selection of potential bidders to be invited to undertake more
detailed negotiations later this year. The timetable for the remainder
of the process is as follows:-
" Consider and respond to Lancaster University's report
- end of 2004
" Down select the current bids to a short list and Issue
an invitation to negotiate - Spring 2005.
" Public consultation on these more detailed proposals -
2005/2006.
" Selection of preferred bidder - end of 2006.
6.5 The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has published its
review of the decommissioning strategy for Rosyth dockyard. The
NII generally approves of the plans although says it will review
progress on storage of intermediate-level ion exchange resins
and other waste issues. NII welcomes the plan to de-license the
site by the end of 2009, with the exception of an operational
store required for storage and treatment of waste for which there
is currently no disposal route. NII says there are a few areas
where Rosyth needs to develop its strategy before the next review
in five years.
7.0 Plutonium Transport
7.1 Two BNFL ships, the Pacific Teal and Pacific Pintail, each
armed with two cannon and guarded by armed Atomic Energy Authority
police will sail to the USA in September to pick up a flask containing
140kg of weapons grade plutonium - enough to make about 50 nuclear
bombs - and transport it to France where it will be converted
into mixed oxide fuel. The ships will later return the plutonium
as fuel assemblies to the USA where it will be tested in a nuclear
power station.
7.2 This unprecedented shipment is being undertaken as part of
the U.S.-Russia program to "dispose" of weapons plutonium,
but it presents a safety and proliferation threat and contradicts
global efforts to halt trade in nuclear bomb material. Greenpeace
International says "conducting such a shipment at this time
of heightened concern about security reveals an arrogant and dangerous
double standard that places us all at risk and threatens the international
nuclear non-proliferation regime." There is no U.S. MOX facility
although USDOE has proposed building one at Savannah River.
8.0 Energy Efficiency: Is the Government doing enough?
Introduction
When the Government published its Energy White Paper in February
2003, the then Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, said:
"If renewables and energy efficiency can prove themselves
over the next five years there will be no need for new nuclear
power stations."
Since then, Energy Minister Stephen Timms has said that the Government
would review its position on nuclear new build in 2006, cutting
two years off the time allowed for energy efficiency and renewables
to become established. Philip Sellwood, Chief Executive of the
Energy Saving Trust, is clear that:
"…the UK's carbon reduction targets can be met through
substantial improvements in energy efficiency and through the
introduction of renewable energy technologies, without the need
for additional nuclear capacity. Given the current uncertainties
surrounding the problems of dealing with nuclear waste and the
cost of its generation, decommissioning and disposal, we remain
convinced that energy efficiency is the safest, cheapest and more
realistic solution."
The question is: 'is the Government doing enough to promote energy
efficiency (and renewable technologies), or is it simply waiting
until after the next General Election before it approves new nuclear
construction?' This brief survey of what the Government is doing
concludes that much more could be done.
Targets Missed
Both Cambridge Econometrics and the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee , say climate change targets will be missed "by
a large margin" unless the government does more to cut carbon
dioxide pollution by households, airlines and motorists. And the
government could fall 40% short of its 10% renewable energy target
for 2010, according to a scathing report by the House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee. The committee said it's hard
to avoid the conclusion "that the government are not taking
energy problems sufficiently seriously". Consequently the
"Government may have no option but to follow the lead of
other countries and accept that new nuclear build might be necessary".
Energy Efficiency Plan
The Government launched its Energy Efficiency Action Plan in
April but was severely criticised for watering down its energy
efficiency commitments. The Government's declared aim is to deliver
domestic energy savings of around 4.2 megatonnes of carbon (MtC)
per year by 2010. In setting this aim, the Government has broken
a whole series of previous commitments made to both Parliament
and the energy efficiency industry to deliver 5 MtC of savings
through domestic energy efficiency by 2010 - a staggering 16%
cut in the target. The Association for the Conservation of Energy
(ACE) described the new target as "wholly unacceptable".
A majority of MPs have already signed Early Day Motion 96, backing
the original 5MtC target. The Energy Savings Trust told the Environmental
Audit Committee that it does not agree with the new 4.2MtC target.
For example, at a Smith Institute Seminar at 11 Downing Street
on 2nd May 2003, the then Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, told
ACE that "the very clear objectives in paras 3.5 and 3.6
of the White Paper (ie that households should account for around
5MtC savings by 2010) are government policy, so your members should
… invest accordingly".
The Government has basically scrapped policies that could easily
make up the extra 0.8MtC. The White Paper expected savings 0.4MtC
from increasing the uptake of A-rated household appliances. This
in itself was a reduction from the 1MtC suggested by the Energy
Savings Trust. In the Energy Efficiency Plan this was mysteriously
dropped to 0.1MtC with no explanation.
Many builders are still installing inefficient household appliances
in new houses, even when they have little or no cost advantage
over more efficient models. Consultant, National Energy Services,
is calling for this situation to be rectified in the current review
of Building Regulations. Similarly, the Government's Efficiency
Plan does not expect efficient gas condensing boilers to corner
the market until 2009, despite the fact that the new Building
Regulations are expected to require only A or B-rated boilers
to be installed. The slow up-take appears to reflect an expectation
that the new regulations will be weakly enforced.
In drafts of the Plan, a saving of 0.1MtC was listed for domestic
combined heat and power (micro-CHP), but this was dropped from
the final plan and policies to promote micro-CHP are listed as
providing nil savings, despite the fact that the budget agreed
to reduce VAT on micro-CHP. The BG Group is pioneering micro-CHP,
which can produce around 50% of a households electricity needs
as well as central heating and hot water. BG Group says micro-CHP
could potentially achieve cuts of around 20MtC.
Local Authorities
The 2003 Energy White Paper said that local authorities have
a 'pivotal' role in delivering carbon savings, but a Local Government
Association survey has found that Whitehall is standing in the
way of local authorities' (in England and Wales) plans to tackle
climate change. Four fifths of town halls reported that they do
not have the resources to set up energy service companies while
just 20 per cent have targets for the development of renewable
energy in their area. The LGA claimed that councils are keen to
do more for the environment, but ministers are hampering their
own environmental goals by failing to adequately fund green schemes.
The LGA says that all councils need a dedicated officer and an
elected member with responsibility for sustainable energy, but
these functions are only found in around 40% of councils. The
LGA describes this as a "deadly cocktail" which could
prevent the Government meeting its climate change commitments.
Micro-generation.
Barry Johnston, Managing Director of Solar Twin Ltd in Chester,
who install a revolutionary solar water heating panel design,
says "most of us in the renewables industry have contingency
business plans collecting dust awaiting the day when we go mainstream.
We are talking of growth factors of ten to hundred-fold in just
five years. In the renewable energy industry, we are alarmed at
how many simple and obvious solutions to cutting global warming
are simply being ignored today".
A more coherent policy framework is needed for building-integrated
renewables if they are to contribute significantly to long-term
climate change targets. Hopes that this might now happen were
boosted by the insertion into the Energy Bill at the last minute
of a requirement on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
to produce an annual plan for micro-generation. Speaking at the
Building Research Establishment's conference in June 2004, Philip
Sellwood of the Energy Savings Trust said that plans to build
250,000 new homes in the near future represent "a massive
generational opportunity for the Government to take the lead".
Many of the homes will be in the Thames Gateway.
Sebastian Berry of the Renewable Power Association told the conference
that the Government's approach to micro-generation has been "hugely
disappointing". However, firms like Solar Century, Corus
(PV roofing material), Renewables Devices, Windsave and Wind Dam
(roof-top wind turbines) are taking an international lead in building
integrated renewables.
The London Borough of Merton took the lead in October 2003 with
a unitary development plan which expects renewables to provide
10% of the predicted energy requirements for all new non-residential
development about a threshold of 1,000 square metres. And the
new town of Bracknell has got itself funding from Europe for a
'Renaissance' project to bring the town into the 21st Century.
The blueprint combines biomass, wind and solar with dramatic improvements
in energy efficiency.
Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) on renewable energy was
published in August 2004 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
It sets out the Government's planning policies for renewable energy,
which planning authorities in England and Wales should have regard
to when preparing local development documents and when taking
planning decisions. PPS22 contains clarification that local planning
authorities may develop policies that require a percentage of
the energy to be used in new developments to come from on-site
renewable energy. This should be an enormous boost to those local
authorities wanting to positively promote renewable energy in
their area. The Scottish equivalents (PPG 6 and PAN 45) now need
to give clearer guidance so that local authorities are required
to deal with planning for small-scale renewables separately in
their structural and local plans. But it remains to be seen what
impact this will have given the lack of resources in local authorities.
Conclusion
So, whilst there are a few beacons of hope, like Merton and Bracknell,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion "that the government
are not taking energy problems sufficiently seriously". There
are less than two years to go before the Government plans to re-visit
the issue of building new nuclear stations. On current performance
the situation may not improve fast enough for the Government to
conclude in 2006 that energy efficiency combined with renewables
will achieve its carbon targets. The tragedy is that diverting
money, time, and political attention away from cost effective
efficiency improvements to expensive nuclear power, will actually
seriously damage our efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
|