Renew On Line (UK) 42 |
Extracts from the March-April
2003 edition of Renew |
||
Welcome Archives Bulletin |
1.White PaperThe White Paper on Energy has emerged at last, but does not offer too much new. In effect it’s a rehash of the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) report last year It backs, at least as an aspiration, the ‘20% by 2020’ renewables target proposed by the PIU, supports the idea of working towards the 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, as proposed by the Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution, and backed by the PIU, and, like the PIU, once again leaves the nuclear option open for later consideration. But there is a commitment to expanding the renewable allocation by £60m to £348m and a setting up a National Energy Research Centre, with support from the Research Councils, to focus the innovation effort, e.g. on fuel cells and hydrogen. Although it doesn’t add very much to the PIU’s position, the White paper,‘Our Energy Future- creating a low carbon economy’, does at least resist the lobbying by the nuclear industry and its allies- including a last minute intervention from the Royal Society. The usually well informed ENDS news service had warned that some parts of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) were pushing the case for new nuclear capacity, on the basis of the argument that energy efficiency and renewables could not guarantee a 60% carbon dioxide reduction by 2050. Although it might be possible to cut CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2010 on existing policies, ENDS (334 Nov) said, ‘emissions are expected then to remain broadly static to 2020’, so that there would be a "carbon gap" in 2020 of 20-25 million tonnes of carbon (MtC), if the aim was to ramp up linearly to a 60% cut by 2050. Of course that would depend on what you did after 2010. According to ENDS, the DTI’s figures suggested that renewables and a vigorous energy efficiency programme could cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by perhaps 15% between 2010 and 2020- a reduction of some 30% from a 1990 baseline. But according to DTI calculations, this would leave a "carbon gap" of perhaps 4MtC or more, assuming a linear extrapolation back from the 60% cut hoped for by 2050, with nuclear power being the DTI’s preference for filling it. In the event, however, the White paper felt that savings of 15-25MtC could be achieved by 2020 as follows:
So the pro-nuclear line was resisted. According to the FT (19th Dec), DTI head Patricia Hewitt decided to defer a decision on building new nuclear plants. It quoted a ‘senior official’ who said ‘It’s hard to envisage a lot of new nuclear power stations but we will keep it under review and respond if it becomes more likely nuclear will be needed to meet our environmental targets’. The White paper puts it like this ‘If new nuclear power plant is needed to help meet the UK’s carbon aims, this will be subject to late decision’ It backed this up by saying ‘its current economics make it an unattractive option and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved’, but added that although there were no proposals for building new nuclear power stations, that ‘does not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets’. Another review of energy policy in 2005/6 was suggested. The softening of the 20% renewables target to an ‘aspiration’ was condemned by green groups, as was the absence of any significant changes in NETA, but otherwise they mostly welcomed the White paper - and Tony Blairs parallel high profile speech on sustainable development. However Tory energy spokesman Tim Yeo claimed that ‘dithering over the future of nuclear power makes it harder for Britain to meet its green commitments while maintaining security of supply’. More details and commentary in Renew 143. Meanwhile you can access the White paper at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||