|
|
UK energy review sham
THIS SUMMER the trade and industry minister,
Alistair Darling, presented a review of UK energy needs. He argued that
climate change and the need to provide secure cleaner energy were the
big challenges we faced. One of the review’s key proposals though was to
promote the long-term use of coal and gas to generate Britain’s energy
needs, in the report’s words, "maximising exploitation of North Sea (oil
and gas) reserves… and securing the long-term future of coal
generation".
Since burning coal, oil and gas is the main cause of
global warming it is ridiculous to claim that promoting their use is
consistent with combating climate change. Facing two ways at once is not
unusual for New Labour, but that the stakes are too high to be playing
political games is highlighted by fresh evidence that global warming
dangers are more imminent than scientists previously thought.
August’s meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science heard evidence that the speed at which the
Greenland ice sheet is melting has risen three times in the past two
years compared to the previous five, possibly leading to a so-called
‘feedback effect’ that will accelerate global warming. As the ice melts
it exposes more seawater, which absorbs a greater amount of the sun’s
energy than ice. (This occurs because ice is white and reflects back
more of the sun’s rays than the dark seawater.) Thus a vicious circle is
set up, whereby as more ice melts, a greater proportion of the sun’s
heat is absorbed by the earth, leading to further global warming, which
in turn causes more ice to melt, and so on.
Renewable energy sources, such as wind power, could
begin to tackle this growing danger, but the energy review only pays
lip-service to increasing renewable energy use. It proposes that
renewables should meet 20% of total energy requirements, but gives few
details of how this (completely inadequate) target will be achieved and
is a clear step back from the 2003 energy white paper that gave a much
more prominent role (although still inadequate) to renewable energy.
The ‘balanced’ façade provided by the references to
renewables in the report is a cover to hide its main aim, which is to
promote the use of nuclear energy. Press leaks and hints over the past
two years have made it clear that Tony Blair was converted to the
nuclear agenda a long time ago and set up this study to justify the new
policy line. He thinks that because nuclear, despite its dangers, does
not produce significant greenhouse gases, it is the cheapest option to
fossil fuel burning. The firm contracted to compile public submissions
to the ‘independent’ energy review was AEA Technology, formerly part of
the Atomic Energy Authority before privatisation, whose name as the
contractor was only revealed after a parliamentary question by Dai
Davis, the independent ‘old Labour’ MP for Blaenau Gwent, forced it out
of the government.
Apart from AEA Technology owning a nuclear waste
business, senior executives and staff have close links to the Atomic
Energy Authority and other parts of the nuclear industry, according to a
report in The Observer on 6 August. It says that experts who made
submissions felt that their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented,
and that ministers only allowed twelve weeks for consultation. David
Moorhouse, chief executive of Lloyds Register, which has analysed risks
in the energy industry, was quoted as saying that he was worried about
using a company "whose livelihood depended on nuclear up until their
sale into private industry", and "while AEA may have given this its
absolutely best and neutral approach, it doesn’t smell like that to the
average man".
One of the most controversial aspects of energy
provision related to nuclear power is the question of the disposal of
the toxic waste produced in the power generation process. The waste is
highly radioactive and will remain so for 100,000 years and, so far, no
safe way of storing it for such a long period has been found. When
reviewing energy options the question of toxic waste is crucial, mainly
for safety reasons but also for the financial implications that arise
over the cost of storage for millennia into the future. If the full cost
of storage is included, the economics of nuclear power change
dramatically compared to renewables. Very conveniently though, during
Blair’s two year ‘national conversation’ that preceded the publication
of the energy review, issues relating to nuclear waste storage were
diverted to another committee that was to produce a separate report on
the question. This meant that the energy review did not deal with two
crucial aspects of the debate about energy provision which, moreover,
are potentially damaging to the nuclear lobby.
It remains to be seen what the conclusions of the
nuclear waste report will be, but the body that is responsible for it,
the Committee for Radioactive Waste Management, has very close links to
the nuclear industry according to the SourceWatch web site (www.
sourcewatch.org). Its three full-time programme staff are from the
nuclear company Amec NNC, which has a vested interest in new nuclear
build, describing itself on its website as "an international nuclear
services company". Two of the committee’s members are consultants to
Integrated Decision Management, a nuclear industry consultancy that in
turn does work for the committee. It is doubtful that a committee with
such connections will produce a report very critical of the nuclear
industry and its operations regarding toxic waste storage.
One of the recommendations of the energy review is
to change the system of planning reviews and licensing for new energy
projects. Although few details are available at this stage, it is clear
that planning restrictions and the public’s right to object will be
severely curtailed. Blair clearly is worried that lengthy planning
inquiries will block his agenda for the rapid introduction of nuclear
power, since it took ten years to build the last nuclear power station
in Britain at Sizewell, after local residents and environmental groups
delayed the process by objecting strongly. It will be an attack on
democratic rights if the right to challenge the construction of a
nuclear power station is removed, particularly after the devastating
experience of the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago.
The review sets the target of reducing the
greenhouse gases that produce global warming by 60% of 1990 levels by
2050. Given the performance of the government in almost certainly
failing to meet the Kyoto treaty target of only a 12% reduction
(greenhouse gas emissions are currently rising fast, rather than
falling), this target looks dubious. The only possible scenario in which
this could happen is if there was a massive switch to nuclear power,
which would bring in its wake a risk of a further Chernobyl-type
disaster plus the problems of dealing with vast quantities of
radioactive nuclear waste.
Pete Dickenson
|