Energy security 'more important than climate change'

Report warns that UK must extend the lifespan of coal and nuclear facilities to plug the predicted shortfall in electricity supply, but is dismissed as 'naive' and 'overstated'
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday September 17 2008 00:01 BST

Securing the country's supply of electricity is more important than tackling climate change, a new report from energy analysts has claimed. It warned that the UK's economy could be wrecked if there was no action to plug the energy shortfall predicted for the next decade, with businesses going bust and hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs.
But the report, led by Ian Fells, emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle and a veteran energy policy analyst, has been dismissed as "naive" by Greenpeace, and "overstated" by the energy secretary John Hutton. Environmentalists argued that the report's recommendation for new coal-fired power stations went against the advice of scientists and that the rest of the world was forging ahead with renewables.
The report said the government had to consider extending the lifespan of the UK's ageing coal and nuclear power stations to meet the impending shortage. Otherwise, Fells warned, the UK would be be hit by repeated power cuts that would shut down public transport, reduce hospital services and cause chaos in supermarkets and offices. "Electricity is the life blood of civilisation. Without it we spiral down into anarchy and chaos."
Fells criticised proposed renewable energy schemes as being too optimistic in their promises and highlighted a long-term need for new nuclear power stations and coal-fired stations that were ready to fit carbon-capture technology to maintain future energy security in the UK.
The impending energy gap will be caused by the closure of the UK's ageing nuclear and coal-fired power stations over the next decade. The report estimates the UK will lose a third of electricity generating capacity in this time. Candida Whitmill, a co-author of the report, said: "Nuclear will not be ready, renewables will not be able to cope. Gas is getting politically and geographically dangerous to rely upon. Security of supply must take priority over everything including climate change."
Fells said the situation was like "watching a slow-motion train crash" because government plans to plug the energy shortfall, such as rolling out huge wind farms, were impractical and filled with wishful thinking. Successive governments, said Fells, had failed to come up with any solutions and criticised the current UK energy policy as "not fit for purpose", warning that there could be severe consequences for the economy. "We had a power cut in 2003 for about 12 hours in the City of London – the consequential loss was about £700m because everything stops. All your IT stops, the stock market doesn't work."
Fells, who has long been a proponent of nuclear power, said that the upcoming crisis required some "unpalatable" short-term fixes. "We will have to keep current nuclear power stations going long past their sell-by date. We will probably have to keep coal-fired stations that are coming to the end of their life. And that's no good for the environment." He also advocated building new gas-fired power stations that could be built quickly to shore up the supply and said that the controversial coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth in Kent would also be needed, though he said this should be made ready to fit technology to capture carbon dioxide and store it underground.
Greenpeace chief Scientist Doug Parr criticised Fells' report for its "long standing love affair with the technologies of the 20th century, but as time goes by [Fells'] fetish for coal and nuclear power looks increasingly naïve. All over the world jobs are being created in the renewable energy sector, but Britain has been left behind for too long by the negative, white flag approach to climate change that this report represents. By proposing projects such as new coal fired power stations and the large scale conversion of coal to liquid fuel for use in aeroplanes, Fells has finally lost the backing of the scientific community."
Responding to the report, energy secretary John Hutton said: "Ensuring we have enough clean and secure energy is a national priority and fundamental to our future existence and prosperity. Ian Fells overstates the risk of the energy gap, but he also understates what the government's already doing to secure our future supplies and increase our energy independence - such as a tenfold increase in renewables, a renaissance of nuclear energy in the UK, and backing clean coal technology."
He added: "That's not to underestimate the task we've got on our hands. Securing future energy supplies for the UK is a matter of national security and so we're not going to rule out any radical options. That's why we keep our energy infrastructure under constant review, and will continue to take the tough decisions needed to ensure that we have reliable energy supplies in the decades ahead."
Fells' report also suggested laying transmission lines to Norway, Germany and Denmark and also an additional line to France. "That would mean we were properly connected up to Europe. That would add a great deal of comfort and security, provided there was someone there to make decisions." Greenpeace have backed a similar North Sea grid proposal.
Over the longer term, Fells wants the UK to build more nuclear power stations and also give the go-ahead for the Severn Barrage, a tidal generation system that could produce up to 5% of the UK's electricity needs. He defended his point that energy security was more important than climate change: "You can't go on doing all the right things environmentally speaking if the whole of your system has crashed - it's more important."