Extracts from the Nov-Dec 2002 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

4. MP’s debate energy policy

In the run up to the production of the new White paper on Energy, now expected sometime early next year, in June the House of Commons debated energy policy.

Energy Minister Brian Wilson set the scene with a strong presentation on renewables, arguing that ‘If we had done more on renewables 20 years ago, we would have a better balance now, and we would not be starting from such a low ebb in renewables’.

He also repeated his appeal to the ‘environmental movement’ to moderate its opposition to wind projects. Presumably he did not mean the major national and international groups like WWF, RSPB, FoE, Greenpeace, SERA and so on, who all support wind power projects, but rather the regional groups like CPRW, and of course Country Guardian, and the local residents who have contributed to the blocking of around 80% of the projects proposed so far.

He went on ‘We can change the planning laws as much as we like, but unless there is a change of attitude and people are prepared to be reasonable, to allow projects to go forward and to recognise that they are beneficial to the local community as well as to the wider society, we will still face bottlenecks. We can have as many targets as we like, but we will not reach them unless the projects come to fruition.’

But it wasn’t just wind power that he saw as being blocked by ill thought out popular reactions- there was also the negative view of nuclear power. He therefore wanted a full national debate, adding ‘the better people understand the difficulty of reaching our Kyoto targets and fighting climate change without the nuclear industry, the more balanced that debate will be’. He went on ‘Of course waste is a big issue, and that debate will continue’ and when asked whether he had studied the Finnish experience, in which consultation identified sites and methods of disposing of waste material and gained reasonable public consensus, he commented, ‘I am familiar with the Finnish experience, the Japanese experience, the Canadian experience and the American experience, and they all lead to the conclusion that nuclear should be replaced with nuclear’ although he added ‘of course there are other experiences, and they too can form part of the consultation’.

He made the usual supporting comments on energy efficiency and CHP and noted that he wanted ‘to make progress on clean coal technology, not only for domestic reasons but because globally it has at least as much to offer in reducing carbon emissions as any other strategy that might be conceived’.

Despite the absence of members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry (who were away on a visit), the debate that followed focussed heavily on the wisdom of relying on gas to provide 70% of UK electricity, with 90% of it being imported, and on the whole issue of energy security- an issue they had raised strongly in their recent report (see Renew 138).

David Drew (Stroud) added an extra twist, arguing that ‘anyone who wants to discuss what will happen when we import gas from eastern Europe ought to speak to representatives of Ukraine and Russia, both of which have made it abundantly clear that they will use the investment stream to build nuclear stations in their countries. In other words, all we will be doing by importing gas is encouraging nuclear industries elsewhere.’

Renewables versus nuclear

The security issue led to a flurry of interventions on the role of wind power, many of them critical of visual impacts and alleged costs. But there were also some very positive speeches on renewables by, amongst others, Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton) on PV solar and biomass and Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton), on wave and tidal power. See Reviews.

However, there were also several more ambivalent contributions- some MP’s, although supporting renewables, felt we would also need nuclear power, and there were some for whom nuclear power, including fusion, was very much the way ahead. Long serving Labour member Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): was characteristically blunt ‘Unashamedly and unambiguously, I say that I would like to see three new nuclear power stations authorised, probably at Sizewell, Hunterston and Hinkley’, adding that ‘we should all take note of the remarkable developments in nuclear energy in Finland, including the progress made in the storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste’. He concluded, enthusiastically ‘The House of Commons has shown this afternoon that it is more pro-nuclear power than I ever remember before’. And that certainly seemed to be the way of it- despite some attempts at critical resistance from the Lib Dems and others on the waste issue.

Robert Key (Salisbury), the Conservatives Energy spokesman, felt that ‘We need to make it clear that renewable energy and nuclear power are part of the same agenda. We will come to different conclusions and different points of balance, but those two sources of energy are not mutually exclusive- far from it. They are part of the same agenda, because they are both carbon free. If we are serious about carbon emissions, we should not rule out nuclear power. The handling of nuclear waste is a separate issue - a red herring, distraction and diversion. It is a problem and a challenge, but it does not involve the future of the nuclear industry.’

Rounding off the debate, Brian Wilson said that, in terms of intellectual consistency, ‘anyone who suggests that we should not replace nuclear with nuclear must say how our environmental obligations are to be met if nuclear is not replaced with nuclear. The debate will move on. The world should not be divided into fan clubs - pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. People must consider all the arguments, see the advantages that nuclear undoubtedly provides in a low-carbon economy, and balance that against any doubts that they might have. There is the potential for a much more rational debate. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have been pleasantly surprised that the nuclear argument in the Chamber today has been so balanced. There is certainly not the blanket hostility to nuclear that some vested interests would like to pretend exists, both politically and in the country as a whole’. Finally, he added ‘I was asked about photovoltaics. I agree that more money is needed in the longer term. We have launched three pilot projects- domestic trials, public building pilots, and the first phase of a large demonstration programme worth £20m over the next three years. Progress is being made in photovoltaics. As in so many such projects, the tragedy is the low point from which we are starting. I was pleased to be asked about tidal and wave power- two of my particular favourites. Earlier this week at Wallsend I was pleased to launch the Stingray device, which has been developed in the north-east of England and will be tested in the Sound of Yell in Shetland over the summer. I have been hearing about wave and tidal devices for 25 years, but at present the total industry in wave power, not only in this country but worldwide, is half a megawatt in Islay. That is great, but it is not conclusive proof that those technologies can make a serious contribution. I desperately want them to make a serious contribution. However, as far as I know, no research and development project has been proposed that does not have the support of Government. I give my personal commitment to try to push those two technologies.’

See Reviews in Renew 140 for more.