November 4, 2021 - 7:00am
The world is on course to miss the 1.5°C target quite significantly. That will be bad. And Britain, although it is reducing its emissions, has not done so fast enough. Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, rightly says that government failings ahead of COP26 have been “hugely disappointing”.
But at the moment, the British parliament is preparing for a second reading of a bill called the “Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill”. Under the current system, anyone wishing to develop a new source of nuclear energy in the UK has to put in all the money themselves and will not see any revenue until the plant starts producing electricity. These major projects take a long time and are inherently risky, so the companies only take on the project if they can expect very high returns.
Under the new bill, the British public would support some of the costs of building the plants, and some of the financial risk of the project failing. That would cost the taxpayer upfront, but would (at least according to the government’s own estimates) save us about £30 billion on each project over the long term, because developers could be given a more reliable, and therefore lower, rate of return. The nuclear industry has welcomed the bill.
Someone who hasn’t welcomed it, though, is Sir Ed Davey, and his Liberal Democrats. Despite their extraordinarily ambitious plans for dealing with climate change — 80% of energy from renewables by 2030! — the party has, along with the SNP, called for the second reading of the bill to be declined.
Partly their objections seem nonsensical, at least to me — it fails to “accelerate the deployment of renewable power or the removal of restrictions on solar”, or to support investment in “tidal and wave power, energy storage, demand response, smart grids and hydrogen”. It’s a nuclear energy bill. It doesn’t make any provisions for banning factory farming either. “This bill intended to do one thing does not do these totally different things that I approve of” is a weird position to take. In a slightly less random but still silly objection, they complain that it doesn’t address concerns about nuclear waste; well, no, it’s about the financing. There are different regulations for dealing with the waste.
But they do say that there is no “environmental case” for nuclear power stations. And that seems baffling to me. There is an obvious environmental case, which is that we would be able to produce more energy — which is good! — with hugely lower carbon emissions. Nuclear is comparable to wind and solar in terms of its carbon emissions over the lifetime of a plant; it’s about one-tenth as polluting as hydropower, and hundreds of times less polluting than any fossil fuel. It’s also one of the very safest forms of energy. If we can find a way of building nuclear plants more cheaply then that is an unmitigated good thing.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA good summary.
The only explanation I can think of for the Greens/Liberals/others stance is that the individuals concerned were born into hippy families during the 1960s/70s and have learnt nothing since.
I simply can’t accept their pretence to be genuinely “committed” to a low-carbon future.
The only explanation I can think of for the Green/LibDem/Stinker rejection of nuclear power is that they don’t in fact want to reduce CO2 emissions.
They do, but humanity must be punished – they are not up for any solution which avoids an entirely artificial global energy crunch, causing energy shortages, expensive energy, and financial hardship for those least able to afford it.
Impoverishment as punishment for western democracies but not for the liberal elite. Here are the rules. 1)Shut-up you are wrong.2) Do not ask questions.3)you do not need to know the details.4) Do as you’re told.
5) Do as I say not as I do.
That title is too long, remove the last three words.
damn, you beat to that.
The LibDems are just CND with a public sector pension.
“ No matter what airy promises are made at COP26, progress will be difficult if this sort of grim Nimbyism carries on.”
Perhaps it should be called ‘Numptyism’!
Environmental catastrophism is a religion for some people – nuclear is our reliable answer. Even as long ago as the 80s, Mrs Thatcher pointed out that that nuclear energy is the greenest option.
Let’s encourage the Lib Dems to lead by the safest form of power, the power of example. They can disconnect from the grid this winter.
I’ve lived with people with no power except a few batteries and wood they collected themselves. We ate maize, and maize alone, day in and day out and their children were sick.
Cheap power is at the base of every form of wealth, and we could run on nuclear just as the French do. They have the cheapest electricity in Europe and make it themselves. I don’t normally say this (!) but we must copy the French.
Or learn the real meaning of poverty.
Or revolt.
All governments have supported investment in tidal and wave power but the different methods designed to do the job have so far failed.
The Orkney seas are subjected to the effect of the North Sea and the Atlantic colliding. Ideal you would think for tidal and wave power but the first designs, placed in the Pentland Firth, quickly sunk to the bottom. Even putting subsequent designs within the islands (where the force is somewhat diluted) have not been successful yet.
Also “transporting” such power to the national grid from so far north uses a large part of the energy generated.
I am sure R & D will continue in this field but in no way could it replace (even in a small way) a number of new nuclear plants.
I am surprised that the Cop26 conference is not realistic about the extent of uninterrupted electricity that is needed in advanced economies but, I suppose, if this was muted, it would be regarded as climate scepticism.
The grounds Tom cite certainly show a confusion in Lib Dem politicians that makes them an unhelpful distraction in UK politics. Nuclear offers two very different opportunities. Building power stations of proven design, which should be low risk, and investing in new approaches such as novel technologies and fusion, which are high risk. The latter should be done through worldwide co-operation to improve the learning curve for all, not by the UK Government with its poor track record on bearing the cost risk on big projects.
Well, isn’t it strange.
Let us not forget who it was that chose the EPR reactor design for Hinkley Point C.
That was our old chum Ed Davey in 2013, when he was Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
At the time, Taishan 1 & 2 were under construction in China, having started in 2009 with a build planned to last 46 months. It eventually first produced power in December 2018 after a catalogue of errors and problems, some of which still persist. I believe a further 2 EPR plants have been built in China but also have problems.
In Finland, Olkiluoto 2 had started in 2009 and when Potato Ed pushed Hinkley Point’s design through parliament in 2013, was already in big trouble. Planned to start in 2009, they now hope to get it working next year. We will see.
Our chums in France, still with the nuclear expertise we have largely tossed out of the window, chose EPR for Flamanville in 2006. It is expected in the middle of 2023. With luck.
Back in 2013, the problems were already apparent. Potato Ed’s annointed scheme was easily the most expensive, the most problematic and the most Chinese scheme on offer.
And the deal he got was guaranteed to produce the most expensive energy anywhere.
Don’t forget that it was the same Secretary of State who went along with Putin’s hired anti-fracking protestors and limited seismic effects from fracking to levels a quarter of the energy accepted for quarrying operations. And whilst, by then working for a ruinable energy company, boasted that he had scuppered fracking, which of course should by now have been keeping the lights on and paying huge amounts of tax into the exchequer, rather than requiring enormous subsidies for weather dependent unreliables.
Ed Davey might possibly be the most gormless t**t in Westminster (against vast competition), or perhaps he has a very interesting bank account. He is one of a select band of Politicians who make Boris look sensible. He is Energy’s answer to Neil Pantsdown Ferguson’s modelling ‘expertise’.
Despite all this, we do desperately need nuclear and Rolls Royce’s small modular reactors will likely be just the ticket. If some stupid barsteward isn’t allowed to prevent them.
I’m surprised the Lib-Dems are still considered relevant. I remember when they absolutely insisted that if they got voted into a coalition government with the Tories they would not increase student fees, only for that to be one of the very first things they did once they got in.
Anyone who is serious about decarbonising electricity has to accept that nuclear power must be part of the solution. Angela Merkel’s worst decision was to phase out nuclear power in Germany. As a result Germany will be stuck with coal for longer and beholden to Russia for gas supplies, while France gets over 70% of its electricity from its own nuclear power stations.