We won't need nuclear
1st August 2006
The much awaited Energy Review has now been published. This sets out a forward view of what our energy needs will be up to 205o, and how we can keep the lights on both at home and in industry, whilst at the same time making radical savings in carbon dioxide emissions.
Many people anticipated that the review would be all about nuclear power. It is not. The review rests on three legs - what new large power stations we will need, how renewable energy can be substantially increased up to 2050, and how we might reduce our demand for energy through energy efficiency measures. The review suggests that we will need new nuclear power stations to be built if we are to have a secure, low carbon energy supply in the future, but the case is not well made, and the review emphasises that such power stations must be privately funded, and will have no additional subsidy or support. I do not think that new nuclear power stations are likely to be built without substantial public funding, or that we need them at all.
This is because of the proposals in the second and third leg of the review. A substantial increase in renewable and near renewable energy includes the development of large offshore wind energy and combined heat and power. These can begin to come on stream earlier than the ten years or so it would take to build new nuclear power - and are likely to be cheaper and more competitive to introduce. There will also be a substantial role for smaller scale renewable energy - such as the planned community power station in Millbrook, and for domestic microgeneration of heat and power.
But there is also a strong mention of a new look at energy efficiency in the review - and in particular, about how energy companies supply our power. At the moment, they make their money from selling us as much energy as we can buy, often on a very inefficient basis. This no longer makes sense when energy is expensive and a potential source of Carbon emissions. The review therefore suggests that energy utilities can be incentivised to become energy service companies - investing in making our homes and businesses far more energy efficient in return for a share of the savings that result. Less power will be sold - but will be used far more effectively.
The review also refers to a harbinger of this way of doing things: Home Information Packs (HIPS) will be introduced in 2007 and will give each home an energy efficiency rating similar to fridge ratings. These will inform people of the running costs and carbon emissions emitted from the home as well as identifying measures which could improve the home's energy rating. There will also be a renewable obligation put on suppliers to provide a certain amount of renewable energy - this will rise when it is justified by growth in renewable generation.
So by consuming less energy, and making sure that what we do consume is largely renewable, whatever the review suggests, we simply won't build new nuclear power stations because there won't be the need, or the market, for them to be built.
More information
- Originally published as an In My View column for Southern Daily Echo on 22nd July 2006