You can set your watch by the Lib Dems. Every promise they make is worthless, and each one will be broken precisely at the moment at which it is tested (apart from on increased tax allowances, which are more regressive than might be thought). The latest is on nukes, predictably enough. In opposition they were against nuclear power altogether, but coalition changed that: the new line was yes to nukes, but without subsidies.
Even Cameron had been firmly set against subsidies: “We’ve taken the very clear view that there shouldn’t be subsidies, so if nuclear power stations can make their case in the market and be built, then they should be able to go ahead. That’s been our view for a long time. Our view has always been no subsidies, but if they can come forward as part of the energy mix then that’s fine.”
As the industry gradually retreated from the idea of new plants, with one eye on the chaos in Finland, the coalition clearly started to panic (can you hear Sir Humphrey warning about the lights going out?), and today we find out that, as predicted, the taxpayer will indeed be forced to pay for these white elephants.
The apparent aim is to keep the cost of nuclear power stable just below £100 per megawatt hour by concealing the fact that the cost is above that. It must seem quite cunning to divide the cost between energy consumers and taxpayers, who are, after all, largely the same people. Worse, that same piece confirms we’ll be locked into this absurd subsidy for up to 40 years. If the actual price of nuclear generation falls, as the enthusiasts think and the industry claims, this move would mean we’d just be handing over even more money to EDF. This isn’t a market. A true free market would never build nuclear plants: the entire economic justification of these new stations to shareholders will be based on our money.
To be fair, a true free market wouldn’t be building offshore wind just now either: it currently costs around £140 per megawatt hour. But then generating from renewables has another purpose: decarbonising our power system, and the costs of offshore wind are falling. The Crown Estate looked at the numbers, and by 2020, which ain’t far away, the costs of offshore will come below £100 per megawatt hour, and it doesn’t come with the massive decommissioning and waste disposal costs that a new nuclear fleet would bring (costs that would be borne by the taxpayer, natch).
The scale’s comparable too: offshore wind isn’t niche. That same paper notes that licences for 10GW-worth have already been granted, just in Scottish waters. That’s a ninth of the UK’s energy requirements (and about 100% of Scotland’s needs).
This decision, therefore, is pure ideology, not anything approaching rational either on economic or environmental grounds. Yet again, anyone who expects principled consistency or even pragmatic flexibility from the Lib Dems has just been disappointed. The only two things they’re consistent on are a love of Ministerial office at all costs and an ability to abandon principle the moment it comes under pressure.
#1 by BM on February 19, 2013 - 2:35 pm
Tie a yellow ribbon ’round the old oak tree
It’s been three long years
Do you still want me?
#2 by Angus McLellan on February 20, 2013 - 12:15 am
Another indirect tax? Absolutely brilliant. And that the corporations who collect the tax get to keep all of the proceeds is sheer genius. Adam Smith would have loved this.
#3 by Gavin Hamilton on February 20, 2013 - 2:11 am
Ok. While I think there are some important things here I think the broad thrust here is just a somewhat pejorative piece against the LibDems.
I realise it is in a lot of people’s interests to stick the boot in because ex LibDem support helps their political cause and in the case of the Greens – who would reasonably expect a fair few ex libDems to sympathise with them – it could help them break through from the margins of the political process.
My take is that the environmental agenda has been one of the bust up zones between the LibDems and the Tories within the coalition and within that bust up the LibDems have achieved a lot.
As far as I can see the LibDems have worked hard in government to hold the Tories to their pre-election conversion to a green agenda. However, Osborne in particular has been working hard to sabotage the environmental agenda.
As a result of Osborne there have been cuts to subsidies for wind farms and for the solar energy sector. Osborne Tories have been arguing that green policies are a luxury that cannot be afforded.
The Lib Dems in government have argued that green industries will create huge numbers of jobs as well as helping to clean up the environment. As a result LibDems have stopped Osborne getting it all his own way and £20-25bn will be invested into renewable energies between 2013 and 2017.
Similarly divisive has been the issue of airport expansion in the south-east of England: Many Tories have argued vehemently to expand capacity, but the Lib Dems have opposed to this on environmental grounds.
The LibDems have also delivered the Green Deal and a massive home insulation programme; and they have delivered the set up of the Green Investment Bank, based here in Scotland which will channel some £15 billion of private sector investment into Green projects.
Implementing things in government is a balancing act and has to be practical. I think the LibDems are doing a pretty reasonable job of this too. The need for investment in renewables and other low carbon technologies to meet the Govt’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 is clear. But the government also has to make sure that we keep the lights on and ensure energy bills are as low as possible for the ordinary people (and balance the needs of local communities when delivering green developments such as onshore wind farms). As a result, taking all Government energy and climate change policies combined, looking forward to 2020, household energy bills should be lower, not higher, than they would have been without LibDem policies.
On nuclear energy, in government, the LibDems have maintained a pretty flexible approach, advocating a three-pronged approach to energy: a commitment to nuclear energy; the development of more renewable energy, and new carbon-capture technology to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities.
There is no doubt that the LibDems in govt have angered old-school environmentalists with this support for nuclear power but their willingness to promote the green agenda, meet and engage with green business leaders, and stand up to high-profile critics of environmental policies, including number 11, means the LibDems have put the UK’s burgeoning low-carbon economy in better shape than it would otherwise have been.
I think James’ piece is essentially just polemics and in that sense I don’t think it is a serious, reasonable or particularly accurate assessment of what the Libdems have done in government for the environmental agenda. I also think it wholly misses the point of how they operate as a junior partner in a coalition rather than as a majority administration – which would be a much more interesting piece.
Well, that’s my view. I’m sure others will differ.
#4 by Tearlach on February 20, 2013 - 7:49 pm
There is a pretty good factoid around renewables versus Nuclear – the UK currently spends around £2.2B on ROCs – ie the support mechanism for Renewables. These come from our power bills, and add – on a average – about £20 per household, per annum.
Yet the budget for the Nuclear decommissioning agency (the NDA) is £4b per annum, and thats just for two Research plants (Sellafield and Dounreay) and a handful of Magnox stations. Yet that is from general taxation…..
So we are spending twice as much cleaning up 50’s Nuclear legacies as we are on investing in Renewables.
Go Figure.
#5 by Iain Menzies on February 20, 2013 - 9:43 pm
or put another way…were spending less than half as much for a heck of a lot more electricity….
#6 by Angus McLellan on February 21, 2013 - 1:52 am
You seem to have forgotten costs of waste storage. And the extra security. Which is strange. People often do that when it comes to nuclear power. If I didn’t know better I’d be thinking it was deliberate.
Example price tags for the missing bits? Well, something like the Onkalo KBS-3 type deep storage facility in Finland looks as if it would cost the best part of £1bn to build if work started tomorrow. If there’s a site lined up. Security for nuclear facilities costs an unknown amount in the UK, but must logically be in excess of the approx £100m p.a. that the funny police (nuclear subtype) cost.
Me, I’d be happy enough with gas or (cleaner) coal plants, but anything is better than nuclear.
#7 by Iain Menzies on February 21, 2013 - 5:37 pm
TBH i would be happy with gas too (frack baby frack).
I doubt just how ‘clean’ coal can be….but it can certainly be cleaner than it was 100 years ago.
As for nuclear….doe sit cost more than gas…yeah probably….but you can figure out just how much it will cost. Once you have the Urianium or what ever you have it…you dont have to replace it at the rate you do gas! Thats before we start talking about things like thorium and potential longerterm fusion reactors.
But its not price that nuclear beats wind on (tho im pretty sure it does) its that nuclear works (for the most part) when we want it to. I dont by any stretch of the imagination think its perfect, but its closer to perfect than wind. And its certainly alot better for providing a good solid base load than most alternatives.