Following the publication of the long-anticipated energy review in summer, the battle for the high, carbon-free ground is now underway.

The review paves the way for low-carbon energy generation but is equivocal about which route to take; its proposals provide support for both nuclear and renewable technologies. They include: increasing the renewables obligation to 20 per cent; ‘aggressive implementation’ of the microgeneration strategy to remove barriers to household renewables; fundamental change to the planning system for all types of energy projects; measures to facilitate new nuclear power stations – including streamlining the licensing process and clarifying the strategy on decommissioning and waste; and strengthening the EU emissions trading scheme beyond 2012.

Decision time

The review will be followed by a white paper at the end of the year, by which time government policy and private investment, say the experts, will be pointing predominantly to either the nuclear or the renewables route but probably not to both.

The reason, explained Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance, is that the two methods of power generation are predicated on fundamentally different distribution structures. Nuclear needs a centralised system, remote from the area of demand, and renewables demands a decentralised network that generates power close to where it’s needed. Investing in both sorts of structure is impractical, he said.

The infrastructure issue is one of the primary concerns voiced by the nuclear sceptics, after the problem of waste disposal. A commitment to nuclear, they say, will lock the country into centralised energy generation for decades and be unlikely to encourage efficiency measures.

Once in place, the fact that nuclear power generation relies on finite sources of uranium will mean that the energy supply crisis will only be postponed, not solved, they claim. They also express doubts as to whether nuclear power is financially viable without government subsidy.

Pro-nuclear optimism

John MacNamara of the Nuclear Industry Association told SPA: ‘The industry is confident that major investors will come forward – providing they have some surety of timescales and that the planning and licensing processes will be streamlined. And security of uranium supply isn’t an issue for the industry even if we do experience a global renaissance in nuclear. Uranium is used in very small quantities and is abundant enough for us to describe the supply as “virtually limitless”.’

The review raised other issues. Dr Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, pointed out that it does not address heating or transport, which between them account for 82 per cent of UK energy use. The Royal Society was similarly critical. Vice president Sir David Wallace said: ‘The energy review has failed to deliver the bold decisions that we have been waiting for. ... [It] … lacks urgency in taking action to put a cost on carbon dioxide emissions coming from road transport.’