A spokesman for British Nuclear Power said yesterday: "Nuclear power is safer than russian-roulette, cheaper than intergalactic conquest, and cleaner than the devils arsehole - it's a fact!"

UKIP Nuclear Power Policy

7 Jun 2007

I joined the UKIP Policy Working Group on the environment, and I received a letter and 'report' from Stephen Bush - Co-Chairman ...

They guy basically says 'renewables are not up to the job, and we need 80% of our electricity to come from nuclear - like the french'. Which is a crock of shit. So I replied...

Dear Sir,
  I received this as I'm on the policy working group.

While it's obvious that the UK needs to become more self-sufficient for energy, it is by no means 'ineluctable' that the means to acheive that is via the use of nuclear power.

I strongly believe that UKIP needs to distinguish itself from all the other parties (who are already supporting increased nuclear generation, against the wishes of a large proportion of the electorate) by offering a clever and workable alternative.

I would also bring your attention to one or two mistakes / omissions in this report, and respectfully ask you to review it...

1) Not all renewables depend on direct sun.

from 3.1 / 3.2:

"1) Four of the renewables usually cited - wind, wave, tides, hydro, can only reach the general user as electricity - so as with fossil fuel, there will be a subsequent conversion-to-electricity stage.
2) All of these four plus bio-fuels and solar panels depend on the intensity of the sun's radiation reaching the earth's surface"

(That's Horseshit!)

This is totally incorrect. Not one of these four is directly dependant on the intensity of solar radiation at the location in question... While 3 are dependant on the sun heating the earth - it's not a local phenomenon.

1. Winds. While the earths weather system is driven by the sun, there is no correlation between local solar intensity and wind levels.
2. Waves are driven by the wind.
3. The tides are powered by the gravitational effect of the moon on the oceans.
4. Hydro-electric is powered by precipitation.

Also - it's not a problem that the energy comes as electricity. That's fine - you can do anything with it, just as long as you get enough...

Tidal lagoons are an extremely cheap and efficient way to generate electricity which you seem to have ignored. For example - please see this article by Friends of The Earth which explains the benefits of tidal lagoons over the proposed severn barrage:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/severn_barrage_lagoons.pdf

Here are two other renewables that are not dependant on solar energy:

• Geothermal power
• Biogas from sewage / organic waste (tied to population density and consumption)

You say "physical space requirements will always be a constraining factor for most of the UK.", but that's not necessarily true either... Simplistically - If every building had solar cells on the roof, and that still wasn't enough - then we could build tidal lagoons off the coast to generate the rest. No land would be required in this scenario.

2) Nuclear: What about the costs of decommissioning and disposal of waste?

The estimated cost of clearing up the existing nuclear waste is between £56Bn - £75Bn - and it's an estimate by necessity, because no-one's really sure how to do it safely.

You have to factor these costs into the equation, and it's not really good enough to leave it to the operating company - because ultimately the costs will be passed onto the consumer.

For many voters, the sheer uncertainty as to the disposal of nuclear waste, and the potential for terrorist attack or accident makes nuclear a highly unattractive option. It would be sensible, therefore, to support a small number of nuclear stations, while putting more emphasis on renewables. This policy would attract a far higher proportion of voters.

3) How do you know that - "There is no magic technology waiting to be discovered"?

While I don't dispute that it's unlikely we'll discover a 'magical' energy device outside a Harry Potter book, this argument is essentially wrong in that the likihood is we will invent devices which are orders of magnitude better than the things we currently have...

One of the most famously wrong quotes in history:
1899, then Patent Commissioner, Charles H. Duell announced that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

Given the correct economic climate, researchers, businesses and entrepreneurs CONSISTENTLY produce innovations. There are already tens if not hundreds of new technologies under development across the world - driven by the need to combat CO2 emissions, and the desire to profit - which is as it should be...

In any week's issue of the New Scientist, you can read about emerging technologies from low-cost printed solar-cells, high-efficiency cells, hydrogen generators and cells, carbon sequestration and much much more.

Unfortunately, people have been brainwashed into thinking that only governments can solve the problem of global warming. The opposite is true. Progress only ever comes from the grass roots. Only inventors and business will produce the solutions to the problems we are facing - but they can only do that if government do their job properly...

Government's job is not to solve the problems itself, but to enable the people to solve the problem themselves - by manipulating the economic platform - i.e. primarily by reducing taxes and regulations on the desired industry, and secondly by providing subsidies or grants if that isn't enough to make it profitable.

This is my policy proposal: De-tax and de-regulate, and let innovation happen!

If all taxes were removed from renewable energy equipment and supply. (business rates, VAT, corp tax, employers nat-ins etc...), and the industry was subject to the minimum regulation to ensure safety, then it's cost would drop dramatically, innovation would soar, and the renewable energy industry would be born.

The ultimate aim of the UK's energy policy must be to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil energy through deregulation.

If renewable energy was cheaper to buy than non-renewable, people would use it, and fossil-fuel use would dwindle.

If this policy was enacted, I would bet my house that in 10 years, 90% of all energy used in the UK would come from renewable sources. Furthermore, it would cost the country virtually nothing.

On the sale of our nuclear expertise...

I completely agree that the Sale of Westinghouse while negotiating that contract was absolutely an act of national sabotage - like selling our gold reserves, and removing tax-relief on pension dividends.

I also agree that further sales of any more of the county's assets should be opposed, but this probably deserves a policy point all of it's own. It would be interesting to find out just exactly how much of the UK Mr Brown has sold off, how much it was worth, and how much he got - and where that money may have gone.

The man seems to want to destroy the UK, and he's doing a good job of it.

UKIP needs policies which are different from the other parties!

The electorate are crying out for a political party with brains and principles. UKIP will not be successful by aping the mainstream parties.

I believe that a sensible energy policy would include:

Policies for energy generation:

1) De-tax and de-regulate the renewable energy sector.

A list of specifics could include, for example:

• 'Remove fuel duty on vegetable-oil / biofuel'
• 'Remove VAT, Corporation Tax, and Employers NI Contributions for all businesses:
    a) manufacturing or installing equipment for renewable energy generation   b) producing and selling energy (in any form) derived from renewable sources

• Require that all electricity meters be changed to smart, 2-way (allowing sale back to the grid) by 2012.
• Nuclear: We should maintain a number of reactors (perhaps 3-5) in order to maintain the skillset (although we may have already lost it), provide research opportunities, and diversify our energy portfolio. It is a risky strategy because there is no coherent waste-disposal strategy. Nuclear is high risk compared with, say, geothermal.
• Spend all air-travel related taxes on building state-of the art renewable power stations - with tidal lagoons presently looking like the best option.
• Upgrade the national grid to cater for increased, less consistent load. Provide means for energy storage within the grid itself.

Policies for energy efficiency:

• Require all new developments to be self-sufficient for heating and lighting, with 50% of remaining energy requirements met.
• Provide tax-breaks for employers who let people work from home.
• Change zoning laws which prevent businesses from being located near residential areas. Allow people to live nearer work. Ensure the business has no negative impact on the community by good design of the buildings / roads etc.
• Provide a nationwide network of tree-lined off-road cycle paths - as they have in Holland. Subidise farmers to provide these where the land is privately owned... This would allow people to cycle where the currently don't feel safe to. Timber harvested from these could be used as a carbon-sink in a number of ways...

In Summary

There are a reasonable number of good alternatives to nuclear power already available, with many more on the horizon. No single technology would ever provide all our energy needs - but a diversity of supply is easily acheivable & more desirable anyway ('microgeneration').

The only thing currently preventing these alternatives from being economically viable is the unfavourable tax and regulation they are subject to. Remove these obstacles - and the problem of CO2 emmissions would disappear within 15 years at most.

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

There are no comments for this page.

To add your own comments, click here to login or register