At the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham this week, energy minister Richard Harrison asserted on a 100% pro-nuclear panel: "I still believe the whole base case with nuclear power that we do need this base of power production," while widely praising new nuclear as reliable and increasingly cost-competitive.
(https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/nuclear-power/opinion/nuclear-industry-association/98770/arguments-nuclear-power-have)
It makes you wonder who briefs him.
A week or so earlier, a pro-nuclear lobby group, New Nuclear Watch Institute, which masquerades as a think tank, issued a tendentiously inaccurate 34 page report, arguing that new nuclear is essential to meet carbon emission reduction targets. It was reported in The Guardian
In response I wrote this unpublished letter, below, correcting certain factual mistakes:
Here we go again! Your energy editor’s on
line article (“Abandoning nuclear power plans ‘would push up carbon
emissions,” 26 Sept) reports lobby group the New Nuclear Watch Institute as
claiming nuclear power is both low carbon and its alternatives “ will raise the
cost of electricity.
All the robust evidence demonstrates the opposite in both cases. Just over a year ago you published a letter from me challenging the low or even zero carbon claims of nuclear ( “Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free,”17 Sept 2017; www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/beware-nuclear-industrys-fake-news-on-being-emissions-free)
In my letter from a year ago, I pointed out I had challenged this nuclear low carbon myth in your columns 12 years earlier. (“There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, “ 20 October 2005<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/20/greenpolitics.world.
I said in my letter a year ago “It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history.”
Sadly it seems, like Freddy, it seems it is going to be resurrected each mellow autumn!
All the robust evidence demonstrates the opposite in both cases. Just over a year ago you published a letter from me challenging the low or even zero carbon claims of nuclear ( “Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free,”17 Sept 2017; www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/beware-nuclear-industrys-fake-news-on-being-emissions-free)
In my letter from a year ago, I pointed out I had challenged this nuclear low carbon myth in your columns 12 years earlier. (“There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, “ 20 October 2005<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/20/greenpolitics.world.
I said in my letter a year ago “It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history.”
Sadly it seems, like Freddy, it seems it is going to be resurrected each mellow autumn!
THE FALSE ECONOMY OF ABANDONING NUCLEAR POWER
Techno-Zealotry and
the Transition Fuel Narrative
FORWARD BY TIM YEO,
CHAIRMAN,
THE NEW NUCLEAR WATCH
INSTITUTE
There is now near universal agreement that
the electricity generation industry
must be almost entirely decarbonised by
2050 to prevent the rise in average global
temperature from exceeding 2°C. However,
the way in which this goal should be
reached continues to be vigorously
debated.
Some campaigners claim that by mid-century
Britain, and indeed other countries,
will be able to meet all its energy needs
from renewables. Pointing to the delays
and cost overruns experienced recently in
the construction of some new nuclear
plants they argue that, despite its
impeccable credentials as a reliable supplier of
low carbon baseload electricity, nuclear
power should now be phased out along
with coal.
They suggest that gas can fill the
capacity gap caused by the closure of coal
plants until the massive (and so far,
uncosted) electricity storage facilities, which
will be needed as dependence on
intermittent energy sources increases, are
available. Substituting gas for coal will
also cut carbon emissions.
This Report “The False Economy of
Abandoning Nuclear Power”, which has been
commissioned by The New Nuclear Watch
Institute, examines these arguments. It
considers both the environmental impact
and the financial costs of phasing out
nuclear and relying instead on a
combination of extra renewables and gas.
It compares this impact and these costs
with an alternative approach designed to
minimise levelised system cost of
electricity. This alternative involves keeping nuclear
in the energy mix, together with
renewables and a small but diminishing role
for gas as a balancing fuel.
The Report’s conclusions are stark.
Abandoning nuclear power leads unavoidably
to a very big increase in carbon emissions
which will prevent Britain from meeting
its legally binding climate change
commitments. It also raises the cost of electricity.
ABOUT TIM YEO
Tim Yeo was a Member of the UK Parliament
for over 30-years, from 1983- 2015.
During his time as an MP, Tim was Chair of
the influential Energy & Climate Change
Select Committee (2010-2015), and of the
Environmental Audit Committee (2005-
10). Prior to this he served in several
Government departments (1988-1994) including
Minister for the Environment and
Countryside (1993-1994) in the John Major
Government.
Since leaving the House of Commons in
2015, Tim has been working in various energy
and climate change related roles in the
business and academic worlds. These
include Chair of New Nuclear Watch Europe
(NNWE), an industry supported body
which campaigns for new nuclear
development across Europe, Board membership
(and former chair) of AFC Energy plc, an
AIM listed UK based hydrogen fuel cell
developer, and Chair of the University of
Sheffield Energy 2050 Industrial Advisory
Board. Tim remains a director of Getlink
SE (formerly Groupe Eurotunnel), one
of the largest listed companies in France,
where he chair’s the Board Strategy and
Sustainable Development Committee.
In 2016 KOTRA, the South Korean trade
office, appointed Tim as the Honorary Ambassador
of foreign investment. He is also a
frequent visitor to China where he
works with the UK-China (Guangdong) CCUS
Centre on carbon capture projects,
with academic collaborators on the design
of China’s emissions trading system
and with business colleagues on inward
investment from China to the UK.
Founded by Tim Yeo at the end of 2014 New
Nuclear Watch Europe (NNWE) is an interest
group which has been established to help
ensure nuclear power is recognised
as an important and desirable way for
European governments to meet the
long-term security needs of their
countries. Membership is open to all companies,
individuals and organisations active in
the nuclear industry including those involved
in
the supply chain.
The New Nuclear Watch Institute (NNWI) is
the first think-tank focused purely on
the international development of nuclear
energy. It believes that nuclear energy is
vital for the world to achieve their
binding Paris Climate Agreement objectives. Its
research will aim to promote, support, and
galvanise the worldwide community to
fight
the greatest challenge of our time: climate change.
The New Nuclear Watch Institute (NNWI)
7th floor
39 St James’s Street
London
SW1A
1JD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
NATURAL GAS AND THE
TRANSITION
FUEL NARRATIVE
THE EXCLUSION OF
NUCLEAR POWER
THE SYSTEM COST OF
ABANDONING
NUCLEAR
OTHER CONCERNS WITH
THE TRANSITION
FUEL NARRATIVE
CONCLUSION
ANNEX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Valuable insights. We desperately need more like this debunking the nuclear lobby's absolute rubbish about nuclear fixing climate change.
ReplyDelete