Andrew Simms makes the case for renewables

What I hope to see in the next energy white paper is a realistic plan to deliver on the very clear conclusions of the last, very recent energy white paper.

Just over two years ago the government concluded that renewable energy was the future. They set targets to increase its uptake, but failed to provide an adequate policy and financial framework to make that happen.

Now, in the place of shifting primarily to energy sources that are domestically plentiful, decentralised, diverse, flexible, safe, cheap, secure and environmentally friendly, we have a prime minister extolling the virtues of nuclear power. And nuclear, by comparison is expensive, inflexible, centralised, vulnerable to attack, inefficient (as it depends on a hugely wasteful national grid for distribution), saddled with an unsolved waste problem and dependent on an imported fuel source, whose supplies are both geographically limited and set to be exhausted within decades, even at current rates of use. 

Nuclear, a power source that is promoted as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity, turns out to be neither. It is too slow, expensive and limited to help with climate change and, in an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution.

Disadvantages of nuclear
In terms of the security of supply, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said last year that 'the key question is how long nuclear resources might last,' and cited known conventional, resources of uranium as enough to last only another 85 years for 'once through' reactor types at 2002 rates of use. It also noted crucially that, "The period for which resources are sufficient decreases the more nuclear power is assumed to grow in the future." But even this masks the fact that the economics of nuclear power are based on access to the even more limited supplies of high-grade uranium ore.

In terms of carbon emissions, a nuclear industry relying on more energy-intensive fuel extraction from low-grade ore becomes far from carbon free. In carbon emissions terms, one of the only full life cycle analyses of nuclear plant, carried out by retired nuclear physicist and former nuclear advocate Philip Bartlett Smith, concluded that even in the best case nuclear power required significant emissions. In the worst case, using low grade ores, it was less climate friendly than a gas fired power station.

In terms of the relative costs of reducing carbon emissions to tackle global warming, nuclear power comes at the end of a long list of alternatives. They include: energy efficiency, combined heat and power (CHP) both micro and large scale; offshore, onshore and micro wind power, micro hydro, energy crops, wave power and, according to the government minister for climate change and environment, Elliot Morley, probably ‘clean coal’ as well.  

An analysis of figures relied on by the government suggests that the true costs of new nuclear power have been seriously and systematically underestimated, by nearly threefold.

Advantages of renewables
The potential for renewables, based on available technology is huge if the next white paper has the common sense to create an adequate policy and financial framework. For example, wave power could meet 15 percent of electricity demand, and tidal power an additional 6.5 percent. Solar cells are capable of providing at least 5–10 per cent of electricity needs, with solar thermal units providing around half of a UK household’s annual hot water requirements.

Then there’s wind. Theoretically Britain has enough to meet its electricity needs eight times over. A combination of offshore and onshore wind could provide at least 35 per cent of the UK’s electricity, even with the national grid’s limitations. Advocate of wind energy, Professor John Twidell goes even further. Onshore wind, he believes, could meet 31 percent of the UK’s projected electricity needs in 2030 and offshore a further 51 percent.  Because of different technological 'learning curves' the costs of renewables are also set to fall dramatically compared to nuclear.

But the greatest leap forward would come if the next white paper builds on existing government commitments to develop micro-generation and is coupled to a radical plan for decentralising energy generation.

So, a rational white paper would comprehensively promote renewable energy sources, microgeneration and decentralisation to meet the nation’s energy needs and leave the nuclear white elephant to quietly fade away with as much radioactive dignity as it can muster.

Andrew Simms is policy director of the New Economics Foundation (nef) and author of Ecological Debt: the health of the planet and the wealth of nations (Pluto Press, 2005)