Over the past few years there has been a veritable scrabble of claim and counter-claim concerning the best sources of clean energy that we should pursue. The coal lobby’s claims about carbon capture and storage are rightly met with scepticism. But the nuclear industry, having touted the CO2-neutral virtues of the technology, is now pursuing an aggressive expansion, highlighted recently in a report by the Commons Public Administration Committee that referred to a number of former ministers who are now employed by nuclear companies.
The political mantra, “renewables will not close the energy gap alone”, was accompanied by a new generation of environmentalists heralding nuclear as a carbon neutral marvel. While ‘pro-nuclear environmentalist’ may be a contradiction, it is impossible to be a ‘pro-nuclear green’. Quite apart from the dangers that nuclear power poses to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, being pro-nuclear requires complete ignorance of the social and environmental implications of where the uranium is sourced from, including the environmental and social impacts of its sourcing, how it gets to where we need it; and what we do with it when it is spent.
This is not an issue of employment. At the end of 2008 UK Energy Minister, Mike O’Brien, welcomed EDF’s investment in four nuclear power stations — a startling move in which the Government allowed French-owned EDF to take over British Energy. Talk of job-creation was quickly stemmed, however, when it emerged that EDF employees would build the plants.
But it’s not all bad. The pro-renewables people have been doing the maths as well. In 2007 the Centre for Alternative Technology’s Zero Carbon Britain report decided not to factor in nuclear “...for reasons of its unique political and technological ‘brittleness’ in the face of potential instabilities in the 21st century” and calculated that we could easily meet our energy demands with renewables — if everyone were to cut their personal use by 50%. While it would be of great economic benefit to cut our energy use to this extent, that level of sacrifice would not come easily to most people.
Independent energy experts, Pöyry, provided a heartening assessment of the energy situation in August. Their calculations show that we won’t need major new power stations until at least 2020 if the Government meets its own targets for energy efficiency and the EU renewable energy targets. These years, say the report, could be used to develop a major new thermal power plant to cope with demand post-2020. Moreover, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development announced that the technology to deliver “dramatic” cuts in emissions already exists, but knowledge gaps and old habits mean progress is being made “at a snail’s pace”. Their focus was on energy savings in buildings, which, they say, could deliver larger CO2 cuts than the entire emissions of the transport sector based on 2050 projections.
Some very exciting work is coming from the Claverton Energy group. Aside from their work on the European Super Grid, they are confident that wind energy can provide 90% of the UK’s electricity. More: the UK’s unique geographical position means that it could move from being a net importer of energy to a net exporter of renewable electricity. All it would take is wind turbines. Lots of wind turbines. 40,000 to be exact. And no new-build power stations would be required.
And where would we get these turbines? When it comes to job creation and economic investment, there is no better initiative than the Green New Deal. The proposal to create a ‘carbon army’ in the workforce devoted to renewable energy sourcing and energy efficiency reveals a key factor in the debates. Squabbles over the vested interests of those doing the sums can make us ignore that most important characteristic of human existence: innovation. Once we decide to pursue renewables, then money, investment and human ingenuity will start to close the gap on any 50% shortfall that may exist.
Scientists, and those who fund them, must be held to account. If we can visit the moon, recreate the Big Bang, grow a tomato that fights cancer and develop a weapons system capable of decimating all life on earth, why are we unable to source our energy from free and available sources? We must decide what kind of world we want to live in. A world where our energy sources are a constant threat to our existence and to life on the planet; or a world where our activities are in harmony with our surroundings, promoting the health and wellbeing of the planet’s inhabitants.
