In the private sector and under normal economic circumstances the technology that delivers a commodity at the lowest price is likely to be commercially successful. In the case of UK renewable energy this rule does not seem to apply.
The cost of building wind turbines on land is significantly cheaper than building them off-shore. Yet, planners and government alike are choosing the off-shore option.
The reason would seem to be that while the public claims to be concerned about global warming it has little interest in living next to what it perceives to be ugly, noisy machines. They want renewable energy but they want it out of sight and out of mind. Has anyone actually told them what this decision is going to cost?
This off-shore decision will add at least a third to the build cost of the planned 25GW wind farm currently being proposed by John Hutton with the enthusiastic backing of the wind energy association. To say nothing of the practical issues it raises.
Backing wind energy on this scale creates serious issues on how best to integrate it into the grid without causing the system to crash. It also means an alternative back-up power system needs to be built and maintained for those times when the wind doesn’t blow.
This same issue is currently facing the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy has always been cost effective and the latest, more efficient technology even more so. Yet the government has postponed a decision on approving the next generation of nuclear plants because it claims to be concerned about public opinion. Nuclear may be cost effective but unless the public is behind it we end up building more expensive alternatives.

While France, Finland and China have all come out firmly behind nuclear power and the UK and the USA are still debating, the Germans have not only confirmed their opposition, (shutting down six plants and planning to phase out a further eleven), but have announced they are leading the race for renewable energy in Europe.

They have already met their 2010 renewable energy target and are now looking to push this up to 27% by 2010 and to almost half of their total energy requirements by 2030. Germany is already responsible for a third of all installed capacity of solar, geothermal, biomass, wind, wave and small hydro energy produced by the EU 25 countries. Its government has been unequivocal in explaining its policy to the German people. As an example, anyone installing solar panels is told that it can sell excess production to the grid and is told exactly how much they will be paid for their contribution.

Could this be a lesson for the EU 24?

Specific issues were raised when Scotlands’ First Minister Alex Salmond designated September 7th as green Energy Day. It was first claimed that Scotland’s renewable power capacity had overtaken its nuclear capacity and went on to report that Mr Salmond said “Scotland neither wants nor needs new nuclear power stations”. This statement has caused consternation among more than just the nuclear industry. 

The nub of the debate appears to be whether Scotland can indeed survive for its energy needs on renewables such as hydro and wind farms without, in Salmonds words, “landing future generations of Scots with the burden of toxic radioactive waste”.

If you take the maximum potential energy from wind farms, both built and in the planning stage, and hydro electric power stations and combine this with existing coal and gas-fired power stations it is indeed possible to arrive at a conclusion that Scotland does not need new nuclear power stations. 

However, the difference between maximum performance statistics and the day to day operating performances (see www.ref.org.uk/energydata.php ) is significant. Most wind farms are running at less than half their potential. Also, the number of operating wind farms is much lower than the total quoted (that included new wind farms that have not yet received planning approval).  Also, there was no mention of the need for back up systems to ensure the grid can cope with peak demand during periods of light wind and drought.  Figure in these elements plus the fact that coal fired and gas fired power stations are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and the picture begins to look radically different.

To contemplate significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions without building new Nuclear power stations is difficult to comprehend.  Yet again, the bogeyman of nuclear waste appears to be being used for political ends.

The nuclear debate in the UK is effectively on hold until October as the government’s consultation process takes its course. However, at the time of writing, October is eight weeks away and with eleven of the UK’s twelve nuclear power stations due to close over the next 20 years, sitting on our hands is not an option. 

These stations currently generate 20% of the UK’s electricity and to make up this shortfall, if the nuclear option was abandoned, will require us to build more coal fired power stations, not a strategy that balances with our stated national commitment to reducing carbon emissions!

Irrespective of the nuclear decision, the UK will need to invest in its electricity generation capacity over the next two decades. Consumer demand will increase, many existing coal fired power stations will fall behind emissions legislation and will have to close and whatever it is spent on, investment will be needed to replace over 30% of today’s generating capacity. 

Can renewable energy move from its current 3% to over 20% within this time frame? This in itself is a huge challenge. The question is why should we shun the nuclear option?

Despite its fuel source not being renewable, the nuclear industry puts forward a solid argument for it having a continuing role in the UK energy programme. Firstly, they claim it is financially competitive. Independent studies appear to confirm that over the full nuclear lifecycle costs are competitive with coal and unlike fossil fuel power generation, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the total operating costs. 

Secondly, nuclear is virtually carbon dioxide free and that full lifecycle carbon emissions, including plant construction, uranium mining, milling and enrichment plus fuel fabrication and decommissioning are a fraction of those for fossil fuels. 

Thirdly, on the emotive issue of radioactive waste, it points out not just that UK wastes have been safely managed for over half a century but that other countries have already demonstrated that safe and secure long-term management and permanent disposal of nuclear wastes is technically feasible.

Finally, on the issue of security of supply, uranium ore from known reserves in politically stable countries is available for the full lifetime of new reactors that will be smaller and cheaper to build and more efficient to operate.

Lets leave this debate with Yvo de Boer, Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change who was quoted recently as never having seen a credible scenario for reducing carbon emissions that did not include nuclear energy.