select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The strategy, from the government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, includes such measures as clean coal and new nuclear power to meet UK energy demand and reduce carbon emissions.
Prof Ian M. Arbon, Senior Partner at Engineered Solutions, said:
“My main concern with the announcement is that it is perpetuating the myth that any of the proposals are doing much to achieve the ‘energy’ and ‘emissions’ commitments for 2020 and 2050. ‘Energy’ is not a synonym for ‘electricity’ and this announcement was all about new electricity generation, which is not where the major need lies.
“Electricity supplies only about 26% of total UK energy demand, compared with demand of around 35% for transport and 39% for heat energy. There are currently fewer alternative ways of producing energy for heat and transport than for electricity, yet these areas are ignored in the announcement. What this means is that, even if the nuclear target of 25% of the UK’s electricity demand is met, nuclear will still only supply about 6% of our total energy demand, which is not going to make much difference to our emissions!
“All of the sites selected for new nuclear power stations are existing coastal nuclear sites which were specifically chosen to be a long way from the people who need the energy! This means that it is very difficult to utilise any of the vast amount of heat energy which is produced by nuclear fission and, as usual, it will simply be wasted by heating up the sea – not exactly a sustainable solution. Yet this is heat energy which is desperately needed by homes, commerce and industry in the UK to displace the fossil fuels which are a diminishing resource.
“Much the same could be said about the ‘clean’ coal references in the announcements; carbon capture and storage is only part of the solution – much needs to be done to utilise the huge amount of waste heat which is simply rejected to atmosphere when it could similarly be used to heat buildings and industrial processes. Again there is no mention of this aspect whatsoever.
“This announcement reeks of panic and poorly thought-through outcomes. The UK will require much, much more than this before it can claim to have a viable energy strategy.”
Robert Freer, independent chartered engineer, said:
“Full marks for Mr Miliband for recognising the importance of security of supply as a prime objective of energy policy and electricity supply.
“And for realising that intermittency of supply is the Achilles heel of many renewable sources. The customer wants power on demand and not just when the weather is sunny and windy. Calm or cloudy days in winter are often when electricity demand is greatest.
“Ten proposed sites for new nuclear power stations will ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for multiple orders for British manufacturers and that once again we can become a manufacturing country, but we will need to train a new generation of designers and craftsmen.
“Coal has the advantage of being widely available in many countries at competitive prices and it is right to try to find a means to burn it cleanly. CCS has not yet been tried on a commercial scale and may indeed prove to be too wasteful or expensive. The practical alternative of underground gasification should also be considered and a demonstration should be funded.
“The success of the new planning regime will depend on local support, which may be more readily forthcoming if compensation to meet local concerns errs on the side of being generous rather than just adequate.
“The Government is to be applauded for this initiative. Better still if they had done it 10 years ago.”
Professor Nick Pidgeon of the School of Psychology at Cardiff University , said:
“The announcement from the government today assumes that it will be far easier to develop new stations at the existing sites because, amongst other things, they believe that local communities will be highly supportive of such plans. Our own research does show greater support than opposition for new build proposals at some nuclear sites. For example, at Hinkley Point 61% supported new nuclear build locally in 2008 compared to 23% who were opposed to this. However, a significant proportion of this local support is highly conditional, and hence could easily change. While many local people are prepared to accept nuclear power in their area because they believe it will bring local benefits and might be needed nationally for addressing climate change and energy security, they nevertheless still view these facilities as potentially risky neighbours, with concerns about radioactive waste particularly prominent.
“Regardless of their opinion on nuclear power, the vast majority of people surveyed at Hinkley Point and Oldbury (84%) wanted the industry and Government to fully involve local people in plans for siting new nuclear power stations locally. Commenting on this result, Professor Pidgeon added: “These findings suggest that failing to consult in a proper manner, or in a way that does not fully respond to local people’s concerns, would undermine a significant proportion of the existing local support. The proposed changes to the planning legislation may well make such consultation much more difficult to achieve.”
Prof Pidgeon recently led a major independent research project examining local residents’ views at existing UK nuclear power sites (Bradwell in Essex, Oldbury-on-Severn in Gloucestershire, and Hinkley Point in Somerset).