Skip to main content

The British Way Forward on Energy

Huhne460x276 The current British government is a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, an awkward marriage considering that the Conservatives favor increased use of nuclear energy and the Liberal Democrats most definitely don’t.

As part of the coalition agreement – or compromise – the liberals got much of what they want in energy policy, as laid out by new Energy Minister Chris Huhne (who is a Liberal Democrat):

The UK is blessed with a wealth of renewable energy resources, both on and offshore. We are committed to overcoming the real challenges in harnessing these resources. We will implement the ‘Connect and Manage’ regime [this has to do with connecting off-the-beaten-path energy sources to the electricity grid] and I am today giving the go ahead to a transitional regime for offshore wind farms.

Ah, wind. And a little more:

We also need incentives for small-scale and community action. We are currently consulting on a new micro-generation strategy. I am today laying an order to allow local authorities to sell renewable electricity to the grid.

This is all pretty small-bore, especially when you consider:

We face short term challenges as a result of the legacy inherited from the previous government. We have the third lowest share of renewable energy in the EU – the same ranking as in 1997.

Remember, in this context, renewable doesn’t include nuclear energy, so percentages of renewable and carbon emission-free energy generation are different. By this standard, for example, France produces about 12 percent of its electricity via renewable energy, but virtually all its production is carbon emission free due to nuclear energy (and those renewables, of course.)

Britain isn’t quite as low on the renewables scale as Huhne suggests, but it is at around 4.6 percent, clumped with small and eastern European countries. (Austria is best, at about 62 percent.)

Where does this leave nuclear energy?

The coalition agreement is clear that new nuclear can go ahead so long as there is no public subsidy. The Government is committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles to investment in new nuclear power. In the Memorandum I have outlined some clear actions to aid this. As a result, I believe new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs.

In an exceptionally fair editorial, the (U.K.) Telegraph sees the difficulty here:

In the years to come, we will need both renewable and nuclear energy, but also honest thinking and straight talking about how they work in concord. Judging by what Mr Huhne says today, the necessary elements of a long-term strategy may be in place – but the correct emphasis is not.

And here’s why:

Yet by making nuclear power the poor relation among potential energy sources, Mr Huhne is making a strategic error. Although the exploitation of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power is undoubtedly sensible, Britain will imminently require substantial and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, and there is little chance that renewables can deliver the assured quantity of energy in the necessary time-frame.

So true. There’s a reason why the Conservatives and Labour parties both embraced nuclear energy as a way forward and this is it. The smaller Liberal Democrats have seized their moment, as why shouldn’t they, but that may last only as long as the coalition is sustainable (er, or renewable).

I couldn’t find much beyond speculation whether Huhne’s approach will actually set back nuclear energy in Great Britain – but the speculation, as in this article at Der Spiegel (in English) – thinks that it will. That means it’s in wait and see mode.

So let’s wait and see.

U.K. Energy Minister Chris Huhne

Comments

SteveK9 said…
What's more bizarre is that Labor (what we could call 'liberals') also favors nuclear and put in place things like the Sheffield Forgemaster loan for a 15 000 ton press, etc. So, you have a political party with about 15% support dictating (well maybe that is too strong) policy. This is typical of coalitions.
Joffan said…
SteveK9, the UK Labour party can no longer be described as 'liberals', since about the mid-90s. The Lib Dems are to the left of both Labour and Conservative parties. See the Political Compass, especially the migration graph at the end of that page.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…