David Prosser's Outlook: The lights may be going out but power cuts provide an ugly vision of Britain's future
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Half a million people hit by power cuts on Tuesday may just have had a sneak preview of what the future holds.
Environmentalists yesterday seized on the blackouts as evidence of Britain's over-dependence on a handful of ageing power plants, while electricity producers claimed a series of unfortunate coincidences were to blame. Either way, if you got stuck in a lift in Cheshire, lost power at home in South London, or had an operation cancelled at a hospital in High Wycombe, you were the victim of an energy gap, a failure of supply to meet demand.
This shortfall was a one-off, but the UK continues to sail towards a moment, seven or eight years from now, when the energy gap becomes a much more permanent reality. Despite more than 15 years of warnings that Britain must replace its ageing power stations within the next decade in order to bridge this gap, little has been achieved. Gordon Brown is now more convinced than ever that nuclear energy is the answer to the UK's power problem, indicating yesterday that he now expects to see the construction of new plants over the next 15 years as well as replacements for existing facilities, all but one of which will be decommissioned by 2023.
However, leaving aside the small matter of the huge political and environmental controversy that surrounds betting on nuclear, the Prime Minister has yet to explain how these new nuclear power stations will come into existence, having ruled out any public subsidy for their substantial construction costs.
The good news for would-be builders of the next generation of power stations is that planning laws have been streamlined to make it easier to get permission for construction. Even so, the 14 sites, owned by British Energy, where nuclear power stations are currently in operation, clearly hold the key.
That makes the question marks still dogging the future ownership of the company all the more a cause for concern. Three bidders, all foreign-controlled, are still thought to be in the running to buy up the company. If one of them is allowed to walk off with the prize, the UK's nuclear future would hang on the whims of a single power giant – not even a British company.
Talks over its future are continuing, British Energy said yesterday, but Centrica, the only British company with an interest in the deal, is currently pinning its hopes on some sort of agreement with one of the foreign buyers.
Still, the delicate issue of finding sites for all these new nuclear plants is straightforward compared to the question of whether anyone can be persuaded to build them. Mr Brown says there will be no limit set on how much electricity the UK can source from nuclear plants, but nor will there be any minimum contribution from the sector.
Put another way, despite the huge costs involved in building new nuclear plants, there is no guarantee operators will be able to sell the power produced. One advantage of nuclear is that running and fuel costs are relatively low compared with gas and coal-fired stations, were costs fluctuate in line with global commodity prices. Even after taking into account substantial construction costs, nuclear power looks cheap at today's oil price – but there is, of course, no certainty about what that price will be by the time plants are finally built.
Just to add to the headache, there's the rather inconvenient question of waste, where the Government still has not worked out where the most dangerous material might be stored. There has been some vague talk of an interim facility for holding waste until a suitable underground site for the longer term has been found. The talk on the detail of the latter, particularly who might pay for its development, has been even vaguer.
All in all, it is difficult to imagine work starting on large numbers of nuclear power plants any time soon. That will no doubt delight anti-nuclear campaigners, but there is little prospect of renewable energy (or even planned new coal-fired power stations) plugging the gap Mr Brown claims nuclear will fill. And it won't be long before that means more regular blackouts.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

In the absence of joined up thinking at governmental level, one would hope for some at the journalistic level.
Most of the sites being considered for new nuclear plants are at coastal locations, & we all know what's going to happen to sea levels in the near future. Cold sea water & hot nuclear reactors do not mix. As one former nuclear worker I met told me recently, when the Larsson B iceshelf goes, you can forget that idea.
Uranium isn't found in the ground in solid seams such as coal. According to one article I read, you need to move 1 million tonnes of earth to extract 1 tonne of uranium. How is this done? With oil powered machinery.
Most of our uranium comes from Australia, Canada or Africa. How is it moved? In oil powered ships.
Energy security: do you think these countries will sell to us or anyone else when the going gets tough? What about the hijack of these ships? Not to mention the fact the inevitably these new power plants will be built with foreign money.
This is of course, before we deal with the 'thorny issue' of how to deal with the waste.
Fact of the matter is, we are going to have to deal with the fact that the era of abundant (let alone cheap) energy is over, with all the potential problems that will bring. Buy a bike, get an allotment, turn down your heating, turn off your air-con & enjoy your next plane flight - it could be your last. We have lived through a golden age - be grateful.
Posted by Jon | 31.05.08, 11:45 GMT
A barrage across the Severn would be a good place to start, and an investigation of further hydro-electric sources should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Sod the crested newts et al.
Let EDF buy all the UK electricity companies it wants; since the demise of the nuclear power (construction) industry in the UK it no longer has the know-how to design and construction its own power stations in time.
Otherwise, just put up with the lights going out, no central heating, no refrigeration, and a lot of other inconveniences in a couple of years time.
Posted by Morvan | 29.05.08, 12:58 GMT
I think a bit of lateral thought might help. Being an avid follower of alternatives why aren't more people looking at tech like plasma converters that deal with two problems at once. They are an emerging tech in the waste industry that deconstructs rubbish using pyrolosis. Gets rid of the need for landfill ( in fact people in the states are even talking of digging up landfill to use as feedstock !! )and produces excess energy in the form of syn gas and power !!There's some great tech out there people just don't push hard enough to get it instated
Posted by kiwibob | 29.05.08, 08:50 GMT