The tide of public opposition to a new nuclear power programme may be turning. That was one interpretation placed on the early results of polls conducted at nine public meetings attended by more than 1,000 people as part of the government consultation to test the extent of support for the rebirth of an energy technology that traditionally divides public opinion.
Of the total audience, 46% said they supported the continued use of nuclear power, with 25% in the opposition camp, according to one analysis.
Another showed that at the London event, for example, the numbers backing the nuclear option were lower at the end of the meeting than at the start.
The differing assessments of one set of results underlines the extent of the public angst over nuclear power. The Government was forced into opening the nuclear power debate to public consultation after environmental groups persuaded a judge to rule that the original consultation was “very seriously flawed”.
By October 10, the Government will have completed the new round of consultations, boycotted by the environmentalists on the grounds that they were a sham, and a month later a formal announcement is expected, paving the way for a new nuclear power programme. Renewed protests from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, however, could produce further delays.
The Government is anxious to bring nuclear power back into the energy equation to provide a more balanced portfolio and avoid heavier dependence on gas, renewable energy, coal or conservation. But there are a host of unsettled issues.
First, the timetable is tight. On current projections, only one of the existing clutch of nuclear plants, Sizewell B, will be producing power by 2020, and even with an accelerated planning timetable for project approval the Government will struggle to maintain the nuclear contribution at around 20% of electricity production.
The construction industry’s performance in completing the earlier generation of nuclear plant in terms of time and budget was woeful because of management shortcomings at both the customer and supplier level, differences in design along with the scale of the projects, the complications and the risks involved in the nuclear technology.
This time round, the nuclear lobby argues, the learning curve will not be so steep because nuclear technology is more settled and experience has provided valuable lessons.
There are important strategic issues. Building new plants will mean recreating the nuclear industry. The teams involved in the nuclear dash in the 1960s and 1970s, whether at management or ground-floor level, have long disappeared and the prospects of a swift revival of a UK capability are bleak.
The Government will have little option but to turn overseas, at least across the Channel, to import the expertise and finance needed to get any programme off the ground.
The sites may be provided by British Energy, the nuclear power operator, alongside plants planned for closure, but the contracts and construction profits will find their way into foreign pockets. British Energy is in talks with more than 10 companies interested in either partnerships, joint ventures or equity participation.
EdF Energy, the French nuclear power giant, is among the frontrunners along with E.on and RWE, the German owners of PowerGen and National Power, while Centrica, the British Gas parent, has expressed interested in purchasing some of the new nuclear output. France is anxious to be in the front of the queue.
Nuclear power accounts for around 80% of electricity output in France and President Nicolas Sarkozy has set his sights on a further boost with the creation of a dedicated nuclear company, centred on Areva, the nuclear engineering and mining group already under state control.
One idea involves setting up a holding company that would bring in partners in countries where France won contracts. There is unlikely to be a rush of orders for any new French nuclear venture or any other consortium, largely because British Energy feels the construction industry will be unable to handle an ambitious programme without becoming overstretched and adding to the strains on an industry already chronically short of civil engineers and structural specialists.
But first the Government has to settle the terms of engagement. Ministers are adamant that the programme must be financed by the private sector rather than the taxpayer. EU authorities would be tempted to interfere on the grounds that any public sector money would involve an element of subsidy, but price and guarantees that the nuclear power providers seek will play the all-important role in determining the economic contribution of a new generation of plants.
There will be other contentious issues on the negotiating table – who foots the bill for the eventual closure of the new plants and the storage of nuclear waste are just two of them. Haggling is inevitable, but with the taxpayer forking out the estimated £65 billion that it will cost to end the productive life of the existing nuclear power kit and finding at least £10 billion to dispose of the current stockpile of nuclear waste, the stakes are high and the risk of mistakes costly.
Just how will the new generation stock up in terms of energy economics? Historically, construction costs have been high and the cost of producing power low. The balance has changed little down the years and, although construction should be more efficient and streamlined, the sharp rise in the cost of uranium, influenced by the dash for nuclear, may mean the price of power in the marketplace will be more expensive.
The World Nuclear Association estimates that the size of the nuclear power contribution to energy production could double over the next 30 years, although its share of the total market is forecast to hold steady at around 16%. China, with its enormous raw material appetite, is leading the way with plans for 88 out of the 223 new plant proposals currently being dangled before contractors. China’s huge programme will corner an enormous slice of industry capacity and resources, with the result that the UK may suffer ordering delays, a point ministers are said to have taken on board.
Of the total audience, 46% said they supported the continued use of nuclear power, with 25% in the opposition camp, according to one analysis.
Another showed that at the London event, for example, the numbers backing the nuclear option were lower at the end of the meeting than at the start.
The differing assessments of one set of results underlines the extent of the public angst over nuclear power. The Government was forced into opening the nuclear power debate to public consultation after environmental groups persuaded a judge to rule that the original consultation was “very seriously flawed”.
By October 10, the Government will have completed the new round of consultations, boycotted by the environmentalists on the grounds that they were a sham, and a month later a formal announcement is expected, paving the way for a new nuclear power programme. Renewed protests from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, however, could produce further delays.
The Government is anxious to bring nuclear power back into the energy equation to provide a more balanced portfolio and avoid heavier dependence on gas, renewable energy, coal or conservation. But there are a host of unsettled issues.
First, the timetable is tight. On current projections, only one of the existing clutch of nuclear plants, Sizewell B, will be producing power by 2020, and even with an accelerated planning timetable for project approval the Government will struggle to maintain the nuclear contribution at around 20% of electricity production.
The construction industry’s performance in completing the earlier generation of nuclear plant in terms of time and budget was woeful because of management shortcomings at both the customer and supplier level, differences in design along with the scale of the projects, the complications and the risks involved in the nuclear technology.
This time round, the nuclear lobby argues, the learning curve will not be so steep because nuclear technology is more settled and experience has provided valuable lessons.
There are important strategic issues. Building new plants will mean recreating the nuclear industry. The teams involved in the nuclear dash in the 1960s and 1970s, whether at management or ground-floor level, have long disappeared and the prospects of a swift revival of a UK capability are bleak.
The Government will have little option but to turn overseas, at least across the Channel, to import the expertise and finance needed to get any programme off the ground.
The sites may be provided by British Energy, the nuclear power operator, alongside plants planned for closure, but the contracts and construction profits will find their way into foreign pockets. British Energy is in talks with more than 10 companies interested in either partnerships, joint ventures or equity participation.
EdF Energy, the French nuclear power giant, is among the frontrunners along with E.on and RWE, the German owners of PowerGen and National Power, while Centrica, the British Gas parent, has expressed interested in purchasing some of the new nuclear output. France is anxious to be in the front of the queue.
Nuclear power accounts for around 80% of electricity output in France and President Nicolas Sarkozy has set his sights on a further boost with the creation of a dedicated nuclear company, centred on Areva, the nuclear engineering and mining group already under state control.
One idea involves setting up a holding company that would bring in partners in countries where France won contracts. There is unlikely to be a rush of orders for any new French nuclear venture or any other consortium, largely because British Energy feels the construction industry will be unable to handle an ambitious programme without becoming overstretched and adding to the strains on an industry already chronically short of civil engineers and structural specialists.
But first the Government has to settle the terms of engagement. Ministers are adamant that the programme must be financed by the private sector rather than the taxpayer. EU authorities would be tempted to interfere on the grounds that any public sector money would involve an element of subsidy, but price and guarantees that the nuclear power providers seek will play the all-important role in determining the economic contribution of a new generation of plants.
There will be other contentious issues on the negotiating table – who foots the bill for the eventual closure of the new plants and the storage of nuclear waste are just two of them. Haggling is inevitable, but with the taxpayer forking out the estimated £65 billion that it will cost to end the productive life of the existing nuclear power kit and finding at least £10 billion to dispose of the current stockpile of nuclear waste, the stakes are high and the risk of mistakes costly.
Just how will the new generation stock up in terms of energy economics? Historically, construction costs have been high and the cost of producing power low. The balance has changed little down the years and, although construction should be more efficient and streamlined, the sharp rise in the cost of uranium, influenced by the dash for nuclear, may mean the price of power in the marketplace will be more expensive.
The World Nuclear Association estimates that the size of the nuclear power contribution to energy production could double over the next 30 years, although its share of the total market is forecast to hold steady at around 16%. China, with its enormous raw material appetite, is leading the way with plans for 88 out of the 223 new plant proposals currently being dangled before contractors. China’s huge programme will corner an enormous slice of industry capacity and resources, with the result that the UK may suffer ordering delays, a point ministers are said to have taken on board.
No comments:
Post a Comment