Sign up | Join | Donate

Home Caroline Lucas

Dirty, Dangerous & Expensive Tour Spring 2006

-

Dirty, Dangerous & Expensive Tour, Spring 2006Green Party Principal Speaker, Keith Taylor

"I am here to examine the case for renewable energy in the context of the government's enthusiasm for building a new programme of nuclear power stations.

The Government have launched an Energy Review to update its Energy White Paper that was published in 2003.

With UK energy prices having just risen by nearly 25% in one leap, and the likelihood of more price hikes in the next 12 months we had better start getting used to the idea that energy is going to get progressively more expensive.

The UK is now a net energy importer and we will become increasingly vulnerable to the whims and vagaries of the market, and to the sometimes volatile national politics of the countries who possess the oil and gas we need.

In tonight's talk I will look at the way in which this threat to our future energy security could, with the right political will, courage and imagination, be turned into an opportunity.

We could, with a combination of a low-carbon innovation strategies and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency, energy reduction and renewables, keep the country's lights on and make the UK a leader in low-carbon technologies, with the resultant employment and regeneration pay-offs

I will look behind the nuclear industry's claims to justify the need for nuclear, notably around its carbon performance, and I will demonstrate how our demand for energy can be reduced and how renewable energy can be developed to fill the gaps left by nuclear and replace the dirtiest fossil fuel burning generators.

Because it is now widely accepted that climate change is our number one threat we have to ensure every policy has at its core the most cost-effective environmental measures

In the last few months we've seen, practically daily news stories about global warming, about melting polar caps, more and more species on the verge of extinction, extreme weather events that damage agriculture and water resources and threaten coastal communities

While in the Westminster corridors of power we've seen the government admitting it will miss its target of 20% carbon emissions reduction by 2010 - with Carbon dioxide emissions are now 5.5 per cent higher than when Labour came to power in 1997 -despite Government promises to make substantial cuts the publication of the UK Climate Change Strategy which has a number of significant failings.

It lacks an overall framework for tackling climate change, relying instead on a piecemeal approach which past experience strongly suggests is doomed to fail.

The Government's promise of a "stricter emissions cut for industry" may not be true. In fact under consultation on the National Allocation Plan for the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme the lower end of the range of carbon saving proposed by Government would actually lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from industry.

It doesn't commit to a reduction in traffic and does not do enough to ensure that more efficient vehicles are used while road transport accounts for 25 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions.

There is no review of the Government's disastrous aviation strategy, which heavily subsidies cheap flights and is allowing a massive aviation while aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK.

And finally the strategy does not go far enough in realising the massive potential for energy saving, renewable power and combined heat & power schemes, leaving Britain largely dependent on the inefficient use of fossil fuels for electricity and heating.

If we are to stand any chance of staving off devastating climate change we must cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 90 per cent by 2050 - and to do that we'll need nothing short of a revolution in the way we run our economy, the way we measure human welfare, and the way we produce and consume

This Strategy won't make the slightest difference to a Labour government that likes to talk about tackling climate change whilst pursuing the very policies - road-building, airport expansion and encouraging low-cost airlines, private transport and free international trade - that exacerbate it.

The need for reductions in carbon must be a central thread through the core of policies across every department at Whitehall, through every business and home in the land.

It's important to flag up where carbon savings can be made, because climate change and the need to address it is the smokescreen behind which the new nuclear program is being justified.

And turning to power generated by nuclear route it's often claimed that nuclear is carbon-free. It's not. Although it releases no carbon in generating power, it's very energy hungry in mining the ore, fuel processing and decommissioning and waste management.

But, in comparison to gas fired power stations, the carbon output is lower, and any rational debate over the issue must recognise this.

But just as important in terms of addressing climate change is the issue of timing.

Even if Blair gives the go ahead later this year, we wouldn't see the first reactor until 2015, and then should assume a maximum build rate of 1GW a year. What that means is that a new nuclear programme would make no difference at all to achieving our 20% target cuts by 2010, and only limited by 2020, when the energy white paper tells us we should be making significant progress towards our 60% target by 2050.

If the programme went ahead with 8 or 9 reactors the biggest reduction in carbon emissions we're likely to see is around 8%. Whilst nobody denies that's significant there is very good evidence the investment required to deliver that carbon saving is really too much in return for too little.

Before we talk about whether that's good value for money or not, I want to deal with what for many people is the clincher argument. I'd like to remind you that we're approaching the twentieth anniversary of the world worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl, in Belarus.

On April 27 1986 In the explosion at Chernobyl's Reactor 4 there was, according to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan "at least 100 times as much radiation released by this accident as by the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined".

According to UN figures, between 15,000 and 30,000 people have died as a result of the accident. Nearly six million people still live in contaminated zones.

The Ukrainian health ministry says that about 2.3 million Ukrainians, including 450,000 children, suffer today from radiation-related illnesses, including many with thyroid cancer.

Supporters of nuclear will say standards have improved, maybe they have but I'm sure if we'd asked the Buncefield operators about their standards before the huge oil depot explosions they'd have been just as reassuring.

The truth is accidents can and will happen, even in the best regulated industries.

And in the face of that I believe it is unethical for us to risk the health and lives of generations to come. I think we need to recognise our intergenerational responsibilities and not bequeath a dirty dangerous and expensive legacy.

For those people who remain unconvinced, who are reassured by the experts that safety is guaranteed, there have been many well researched and argued submissions arguing against nuclear, Alternative Energy Report from the Greens, the government's own Sustainable Development Commission, New Economics Foundation, Greenpeace and many more.

All these reports are identifying the following broad arguments

1. Long-term waste - no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste. To create more radioactive waste when we don't know what to do with the waste we've got is irresponsibility of the highest order

2. Cost - the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. Construction costs alone of the 8 new power stations the government wants to build are £1bn each. The decommissioning costs of the existing nuclear power stations are now estimated at £70bn. This is money wasted on a dangerous and short term solution. It would be far better spent generating power sustainably

3. Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever. £900m worth of electricity is lost through heat and transmission and through theft from the national grid every year

4. Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that's required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency. Tony Blair is looking for a push button solution, and he thinks nuclear power is his get out of jail free card

5. International security - if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot morally deny other countries the same technology. With more nuclear processing there is a greater risk of weapons proliferation and terrorist attacks. Additionally a new nuclear program will create more raw materials which could be used in weaponry and the increased risk of accident or leakages in transit of nuclear materials.

A recent Greenpeace report into transportation of spent nuclear fuel by train revealed that the trains travel on the same lines as passenger, freight and hazardous goods trains. Routes pass through several large towns and cities, such as London, Bristol and Edinburgh, exposing tens of thousands of people could be exposed to radiation in such an incident.

We'd also be continuing our dependence on foreign supplies of raw materials at a time when oil and gas supplies are likely to peak, and, in the light of this risk from politically unstable regimes.

The health impacts of power stations on their communities. the well documented cancer clusters around Sellafield and the Menai coast in North Wales and in Oldbury.

So, if nuclear is not the answer what is? What contribution does nuclear currently make?

Whilst nuclear provides around 20% of our electricity, that's only 8% of the UK's total energy needs.

Each of the reports I referred to earlier agree there is no single way to match our parallel needs for energy and carbon reduction. All of them including the government's own SDC agree the the most important aspect of any energy strategy is energy efficiency.

In fact the government's own Action Plan on Energy Efficiency (2004) said this was the most cost-effective way to meet all four of the government's energy goals;

• Reducing carbon emissions - managing energy demand
• Ensuring security of supply - reducing dependence on foreign supplies
• Maintaining competitiveness - by reducing energy demand/costs
• Tackling fuel poverty - improving energy efficiency will reduce spending on fuel

That Action plan went on to conclude "across the economy as a whole it is estimated we could reduce energy use by around 30%. To deliver this we need, over the next two decades, to roughly double the energy efficiency improvements we've seen over the past thirty years"

So when Tony Blair tells us that nuclear is part of the essential energy mix it's like him really saying 'let's build nuclear power stations that we don't need to generate electricity we don't need' isn't it?

Sadly the Action Plan hasn't yet borne the fruit we need to see. Instead of heeding its recommendation, and those of the Energy White Paper of 2003 which called for a low carbon economy in which nuclear did not immediately feature, the government and the other main Westminster parties remain convinced that economic growth cannot happen without increased consumption, and that consumption includes energy.

They aren't delivering the concensus required to make progress on energy reduction, and part of the reason for that is that the timetables the political parties are working to are based on the electoral cycle of an election every four or five years, whereas the policies the planet needs are much longer term. We need policies for 100 years, not 100 days.

We need a basket of taxation, incentives and a regulatory framework that sets ambitious standards for energy reduction in electrical equipment, in the way we deal with transport, waste and recycling and the way construct our buildings.

We need to follow the examples of other countries. Spain for example has introduced changes to sustainability and energy efficiency of buildings, and includes an obligation to meet 30% to 70% of demand for domestic hot water from solar thermal systems. In addition, large buildings over 4,000 m2 of floorspace will also be obliged to install solar PV systems for electrical generation.

But making good the electricity after the existing nuclear power stations have been phased out is only part of a strategy which can see fossil fuel power stations reduced in number. There have been three recent report of the potential for renewables to replace traditional generation methods, from the Institute of Electrical Engineers, The Tyndall Centre, and the government's own Interdepartmental Analysts' Group.

Without taking into account geothermal energy, two out three reports assessed our practicable renewable resource at around 85% of current electricity production - with costs held at between 5 and 7p per kilowatt hour, which is significantly higher than current electricity prices

Turning briefly to each of the main renewable energy sources

Wind

The UK mainland has the best wind resource in Europe. The recent BWEA report on onshore wind farms reports a year on year doubling of build rates for the last three years. There is now 3000 megawatts certain to be operational by 2010, with a target of 6000mw by 2010. That would;

• Avoid the burning of 2.9bn m3 of natural gas or 6m tonnes of coal
• Reduce gas imports by 45 days from the UK-EU gas inter-connector
• Avoid 6m tons carbon emissions from gas power stations of 13m tonnes from coal
• Amount to a total of 3500 turbines in the UK
• Supply the electricity needs of 3.3m homes or 8m people, equivalent to the combined populations of London & Glasgow, or Scotland & Wales

An individual wind turbine will generate electricity for 70-85% of the time and its electricity output varies between zero and full output in accordance with the wind speed. However, the combined output of the UK's entire wind power portfolio shows less variability, given the differences in wind speeds over the country as a whole.

This means wind turbines could easily be our most dependable energy resources. Offshore winds are even stronger and more uniform than on land, meaning the output could be 25 per cent greater.

Wave

Tidal currents and waves could be harnessed to produce electricity on a commercial scale within the next two years. The UK is fortunate in having over half the wave energy available in Europe. Waves with the greatest energy are those off the northwest coast of Scotland, where the power averages between 50kW - 70KW per metre wave width. Seas to the west of Cornwall are almost as promising. These types of power could produce a further 3.5 per cent of total UK electricity by 2025.

Solar

Whiles Photo Voltaics are currently the most expensive form of renewable energy, economies of scale will bring costs down. They are best suited to off-grid applications and the retail market.

Over the last decade the Japanese government has invested over $1bn to support its solar pv industry. Over the same period Japan has increased its market share in PV panels from 20% in 1995 to 50% in 2001. Germany and America are big investors in Pv, with Germany targeting 140,000 roof installations and the Japanese 400,000. The UK target is 6000. Solar water heating where sunlight is used to heat water is also becoming increasingly popular. mainly in domestic hot water applications

The average domestic system reduces carbon dioxide emissions by around 400kg per year, and costs £2,000 - £3,000

Biomass

Energy from biomass is derived from processing organic materials mainly either through

• Direct Combustion
• Pyrolysis (is the thermal degradation of biomass by heat in the absense of oxygen)
• Anaerobic Digestion (converts organic matter to a mixture of methane, the major component of natural gas, and carbon dioxide. Biomass such as waterwaste (sewage), manure, or food processing waste, is mixed with water and fed into a digester tank without air.
• Gasification(biomass can be used to produce methane through heating or anearobic digestion
• Alcohol Fermentation

The government's own Biomass Research Group concluded there was a substantial raw materials, and an underdeveloped potential to supply low carbon energy.

Biomass is unique as the only widespread source of high-grade renewable heat. This is important as heating accounts for over a third of primary energy consumption.According to FoE processing biomass could produce enough electricity to do away with more than four nuclear plants.

The remaining pieces of the sustainable energy jigsaw are:Micro generation, CHP & looking at the way the National Grid works

More and more people are turning to home wind turbines, solar panels/heating, biomass and mini chp boilers in a bid to minimise reliance on the grid for primary power,carbon emissions from non renewable sources andloss of energy through heat and transmission

and to maximise low or no carbon power generation through domestic installations independence from the grid and protection from rising energy costs.

Progress is also being made in cities and towns, especially where the Greens are a strong elected presence, like:

In London the Mayor's Energy Strategy (2004) aims for 7000 domestic solar panels and small wind turbines by 2010. or In Oxford the council is setting up its own municipal renewable energy company

or The council in Kirklees is leading the way in the UK with solar water heating and power generationAt a national level The government has just launched its first ever Microgeneration Strategy. Additionally the Low Carbon Building Programme received a £50 million boost by the chancellor in the Budget.

The Sustainable Energy Bill is a private members bill which has just received it second reading which will embed sustainable energy obligations and targets in law. Please ask your MP to support it.

CHP systems are increasingly being used for local heat and power supply local distribution systems. New housing estates are using CHP systems which can be fired with gas or biomass - Woking has led the way in CHP and has recently become a Beacon Council for Sustainable Energy.

And the FT reported that Windsave, a company that makes Mini wind turbines has a backlog of 20,000 orders, and a database of another 40,000 people who had expressed an interest in the products, which cost £1,500 and generate slightly more than 1 megawatt of energy a year, saving about a third on electricity bills. The government gives a £500 grant to purchasers FT

These initiatives are obviously welcome, but they are rather piecemeal. We will need joined up action before the sight of micro turbines turning in the wind and solar panels shining in the sun are set to become commonplace across the UK.

One of the most pressing things that needs government regulations is in the way we construct buildings, we must drastically improve the standard of energy efficiency and renewable energy creation. And the planning regime needs an overhauling, as it's often used to block planning applications. It needs to reflect the new urgency for renewable power generation.

But changing your energy supplier at home or at work, and considering installing solar or wind generating equipment is something every one here can do. That's what our Green Energy Works campaign is all about - there's some flyers at the back of the room.

And so the government has to make a choice, and Tony Blair tells us that choice will be made this year.

It's difficult to be confident Blair will make the right choice, and we also have to recognise that governments of various persuasions have been quite consisten in their support of the nuclear option. Since 1974 they've spent £6.8 billion on research and development into nuclear fission, which is still no nearer - while in the same period they've only spent £540 million on renewable power research.

We need environmental leadership now, more than ever. We need to ensure the political will exists, and politicians need to hear from their constituents to make sure they reflect the public will and not their political master's. We have to take our arguments onto the streets, into our workplaces, schools and colleges. We have to make it impossible to ignore our voices of reason because it's simply too important a decision just to become yet another mistake our Prime Minister makes.

I hope that this presentation has given you some ideas about how you can move your own lives toward lower carbon living, and also a bit more background about the global picture. I hope that you will contact your local MP to make your feelings clear about what kind of energy future you want for yourself, and for the generations to come, and I hope you will do whatever you can to convince whoever you can of the rightness of this case."

• Back to home page

Main stories today

Related news