The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Energy minister gives grudging nuke endorsement

With friends like the minister, who needs enemies?

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

Comment UK Energy Minister Chris Huhne has given a ringing endorsement of nuclear energy and lauded the potential of thorium reactor technology, in his speech to the Royal Society today.

Actually, he didn't – that sentence is entirely a Johann-Hari style fictionalisation. Huhne did give a speech to the Royal Society on nuclear energy, but if it's an "endorsement", it must be the surliest, most unenthusiastic "endorsement" any minister has ever made.

And Huhne didn't mention thorium once.

Official coalition policy is that nuclear energy is a viable option for future low-carbon baseload - but Huhne (nee Paul-Huhne) today painted a picture of nuclear energy as one of the most expensive scientific failures in history, and implied that it embodies the worst of British administration and management.

"On nuclear policy, we have exhausted the possibilities. We have made pretty much every mistake human ingenuity could devise. And boy, are we British inventive," said Huhne.

"Only in the late 1980s did reform bring about the end of a centrally directed energy policy. When nuclear power was held up to the cold hard light of the market, it proved to be uneconomic. Never again. Never again."

Huhne criticised the nuclear industry for its secrecy and technical incompatibilities. "Designs were chosen and delivered without proper oversight," he said. Huhne complains about having to store "6,900 cubic metres of high-level nuclear waste", and managing stockpiles of plutonium (Which he doesn't have to store or manage - but more on that in a bit).

The minister does admit that even after the cost has been taken into account, nuclear is the cheapest base load option we have. "Offshore wind is assessed at £130 per megawatt hour, gas with carbon capture at £95 per megawatt hour, and nuclear at £66 per megawatt hour. These figures take account of waste and decommissioning costs, so nuclear should still be the cheapest low carbon source of electricity."

Careful readers will note that without the burden of CCS, gas is by far the cheapest of all: and likely to fall dramatically as onshore unconventional reserves are exploited. We'll have more gas than we know what to do with.

Thorium is the biggest omission from Huhne's speech, and shows he's still wedded to the "Atomkraft Nein Danke" mentality of the Cold War protest era.

The discussion of stockpiles and waste also omits several innovations. As we discussed here, 99 per cent of waste can now be converted back to fuel using fusion. And the USA and Russia have been giving the stuff away for years.

The minister reiterates the view that public subsidies must not be committed to supporting nuclear energy ... which is a controversial assertion. If, by the narrow definition of 'subsidy', we mean a state-ordered wealth transfer from the citizen to hand-picked energy corporations via the Treasury, then he may be semantically correct. But if it means a mandatory wealth transfer from the citizen to hand-picked energy corporations, or energy sources, direct from the citizen, then he's on sticky ground. Support for renewable energy is legislated by the state; it is unarguably a market distortion, one in which the costs are hidden from users. Yet this is the way government picks winners, or more accurately, the way it supports the losers.

The nuclear industry has become as canny as the renewable lobbyists at playing this game, and both have lobbied successfully for a "carbon floor price", introduced by Chancellor George Osbourne earlier this year. With a mandatory "floor price", buyers of cheaper energy pay more to subsidise – and guarantee profits to – generators of more expensive energy. The difference is met by industry and consumers in higher bills. The cost, according to Cameron's energy advisor, suggested in July, is that "our policies would increase household electricity prices by 25 per cent in 2015 and 30 per cent in 2020 compared to what they would have been in the absence of policies".

So as endorsements go, Huhne couldn't have been less enthusiastic. China is pressing ahead with a new, ambitious 4G programme based on the thorium fuel cycle, with the goal of production within 20 years.

Ministers, civil servants and their environmentally enthusiastic advisors look increasingly out of touch. A recent poll showed British support for nuclear energy has increased in recent years, rising even after the coverage of the Fukushima meltdown. ®

You can read Huhne's speech here.

Cloud based data management

Dear Santa,

For christmas futures I would really like the following enery policy:

Sufficient nuclear base load to power the country, including capacity for electrification of rail where possible and for electric road vehicles as they come on line, and perhaps the ability to export electricity to our neighbours should they need it as they do to us currently (sorry about that).

Some diversification into other predictable renewables such as tidal, hydro-electric, solar (PV and Thermal) etc as technology improves just to ensure we're not totally nuclear dependent, with some gas fired generation for quick start backup as well. Microgeneration such as PV or "uplift" such as ground source to be incentivised although perhaps in the case of PV a bit more logically than at the moment. Wind to be dumped as a serious power source (as it isn't one).

Adapting where possible the non-electric road fleet onto products derived from all that gas they're finding, which could also be used for domestic heat and cooking if required.

Saving our remaining oil for things that cannot fall into the above categories such as avation, off-grid (as in gas) backup generators where high energy density is required, vehicles that cannot easily access grid connected "gas" etc. And the chemical industry which everyone forgets about.

I fear however, that as with the Lego sets I asked you for years ago I'll be disappointed.

20
0

Look, it's simple...

If you're in the green, anti-nuke lobby, you don't have to be consistent, sensible, or even coherent.

You spread FUD, then some more FUD, and then some more. Then you fret about Tsunamis hitting Norfolk. Nuff sed.

12
2

uneconomic and cheapest?

Er. So nuclear is uneconomic, but it's also the cheapest base load option? Can anyone tell me how that isn't a contradiction?

8
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
 breaking news
BBC lied to Parliament about doomed £100m IT monster, thunder MPs
Axed DMI ballooned and burst while watchdogs sang Kumbaya
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights
 breaking news
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Silicon Valley digiterati to brainstorm at 30,000 ft
Nothing spurs creative thinking like 11 hours in a flying tube
Confidence in US Congress sinks to lowest level ever recorded
So why the %$#@! do we keep re-electing the same politicians?