IISD colleague interviews Amory Lovins on nuclear
A colleague of mine from the IISD’s sustainable development internship programme is now working with a corporate responsibility NGO called Corporate Knights. He’s recently done an interview with Amory Lovins, the energy-efficiency guru of Natural Capitalism
So the small, fast winners are financed by private capital, while the only buyers for nuclear plants worldwide are central planners. I don’t think people who claim to be proponents of liberalized markets and conservative politics should have any interest in what central planners choose in places like Communist China. Rather, they should pay attention to what free markets are choosing, which is quite the opposite.
While not a name traditionally associated with “conservative politics”, London’s mayor Ken Livingstone recently said pretty much the same thing in an opinion piece in the Telegraph. The nuclear-is-unaffordable concensus seems to be growing stronger.
Energy reviewed at last
It’s all kicking off. The government’s energy review is due to be published later today and then the country’s worst kept secret will be official. Nuclear power will continue to play a significant part in the UK’s electricity supply.
One can argue whether or not nuclear power is inherently a bad thing. Despite the downsides (waste management, decommissioning costs, terrorism, unproven new reactor designs, uncertain sources of uranium…), these facilities do provide carbon-free electricity. But the politics behind the decision is the most interesting question. On the surface, there are suspicions about the personal connections between Labour and the nuclear industry. Dig deeper though and the real issue is what is the government willing to do to ensure that nuclear gets built?
Ever since the review began, the government has stressed that nuclear must pay for itself. As the energy minister Malcolm Wicks noted this morning on BBC FiveLive, the government’s role is merely to provide the framework within which the market will deliver. Since there’s nothing currently stopping the private sector from building more nukes (except terrible economics), the review is arguably designed to realign this ‘framework’ in such a way that nuclear investment is more attractive. Rumour has it that the review will do this with two measures:
- By providing more confidence in the planning system, i.e. removing delays in planning from local councils who claim that nuclear facilities are ‘not necessary’; and
- By ensuring that the price of carbon rises, by tightening up the EU emissions trading scheme
I strongly doubt that those measures will be a) achievable or b) effective. Sure the planning thing can be forced through Parliament and the unhappy councils will probably just have to deal with it. But placing tougher caps on the EU trading scheme will be tough, since it has to be negotiated with 25 countries, some of whom (like Germany) aren’t keen on setting tougher targets.
So if these measures (and whatever else the energy review comes up with) fail to make nuclear attractive to the private sector, the real question is what will the government do? Having invested a lot of political capital in saying that it’s a necessary part of the energy solution, there will be a lot of egg on Blair’s face if the private sector walks away from nuclear. And I won’t be one bit surprised if the government then turns around and offers guaranteed electricity prices, insurance premiums, and underwrites waste and decommissioning liabilities – in other words, subsidies. Subsidies which weren’t discussed in the energy review. Subsidies which weren’t analysed against other investment opportunies (energy efficiency, microgeneration, etc.).
Perhaps I’m being a bit cynical but stranger things have happened.
Cameron gets his turbine
This looks interesting. A week before the government is expected to release their energy review (and give the nod to a round of replacement nuclear power stations), the Tories have come out and said that microgeneration is the way forward. Like everything the Tories say these days, it sounds good but the devil is definitely in the details. How exactly do they propose to promote microgeneration? How quickly would they fall back to the nuclear “last resort”?
One of the questions in all this is the role of local councils. With nuclear, there is a danger that central government could override local objections on the grounds of national energy security. However with microgeneration, many councils are actively supporting these technologies and arguably microgen is best promoted by local government. I find it quite funny though that David Cameron’s much-discussed wind turbine received planning permission today from the Conservative council of Kensington and Chelsea, although they are yet to adopt anything resembling the Merton Rule. Again, the Tories should lead by example on this. It’s all well and good to approve the most famous wind turbine in England on the roof of the leader of your favourite political party, but why not take it a bit further? Why not encourage all households in the borough to adopt similar measures?
EDIT: I’m not the only one who thinks Cameron’s turbine approval might have been an exception, rather than the rule.
Independence Day!
I just handed in my thesis.
