Extracts from the March-April 2003 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

13. IPPR says go for green

As its contribution to the White paper debate, the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a new report by Alex Evans ‘The Generation Gap: scenarios for UK electricity in 2020’, which sets out four scenarios illustrating how the UK might fill the energy gap that will be introduced as the existing nuclear plants come to the end of their operational life and coal pants are retired.

The four scenarios are Business as Usual (mostly imported gas, with demand reaching 500TWh p.a), the Nuclear Option (new nuclear build, supplying 10% of electricity and demand reaching 440TWh p.a.), Clean & Green (renewables supply 25%, demand held at 384TWh p.a. via an expanded energy efficiency programme) and Fortress Britain (new nuclear 10%, renewables 25% and energy efficiency holding demand at 384TWh p.a.).

The report argues that the Government should use the White Paper to clarify the order of priority that applies to its energy policy objectives by defining the goal of energy policy as the "secure transition to a low carbon economy at least cost".

The IPPR note that, overall, the most significant variance in total energy costs, CO2 emissions and gas import dependency between the four scenarios is accounted for by total electricity demand levels, so it stresses energy efficiency as a key factor.

In terms of the other main factor, it notes that:

1. Levels of gas import dependency are broadly comparable between the Nuclear Option and Clean and Green (with gas’s share of fuel mix at 49% and 47% respectively, but much lower under Fortress Britain, at 32%, while the business as usual case shows much higher gas dependency at 70% of electricity fuel mix.

2. CO2 emissions, would reasonably be assumed, as a rule of thumb, to need to reduce by approximately 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to remain on a linear trajectory towards the Royal Commission’s suggested 2050 target of a 60% reduction in overall CO2 emissions.

On the basis of this rule of thumb, the report notes that ‘The Nuclear Option, Clean & Green and Fortress Britain would hit the required level of emissions reductions; the Business As Usual scenario would miss the target by a substantial margin’.

The report argues that three factors mitigate strongly against new nuclear build:

The unproven nature of the new reactors proposed by the nuclear industry, combined with a cost case predicated on building an entire series of new power stations, suggests that by committing to a new build programme the UK would leave itself vulnerable to plant shutdowns potentially affecting the whole series of reactors;

The vulnerability of nuclear installations to attack in the changed security environment suggests that it would be deeply unwise to commit to the technology for another generation; and

The continuing lack of any progress towards a solution to Britain’s long-term radioactive waste management strategy calls any claims to environmental sustainability seriously into question. While low and intermediate level wastes would be reduced, the AP1000 would produce as much high level wastes as MAGNOX.

On renewables, the report challenges the recent claim by the Royal Academy of Engineering that intermittency was a major problem, noting the rebuttal by David Milborrow who has argued that the Academies estimates of intermittency costs were ten times too high. The IPPR also rebutted the recent ILEX study, which had claimed that system costs would be very high.

In the end, the IPPR come out in favour of the Clean and Green scenario, which is the lowest overall cost option, and recommends a 25% renewables target for 2020, and full commitment to the PIU target of a 20% energy efficiency improvement by 2010 and another 20% by 2020. However, it emphasises that targets alone are not enough, and that a revolution in the level of political commitment and quality of delivery on climate targets in energy policy will be required if the UK is to remain on track for a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 as proposed by the RCEP.

More at IPPR http://www.ippr.org/sustainability