Eight months and counting

Which energy technologies will future generations thank us for?

Once hyped as providing electricity that would be too cheap to meter, the next, increasingly troubled nuclear power installation proposed for Britain, Hinkley Point C, stands at more than £24bn to be the most expensive building on Earth. Given the current economic climate with its emphasis on austerity, and the range of other energy options on offer, why is the government so keen to give the nuclear industry a second life?

The then energy secretary, Ed Davey, speaking in late 2013 when the government agreed the deal with French energy company, EDF, said that investing in new nuclear capacity was needed because without it, “we’re going to see the lights going out.”

He added that the deal was “good value” for money and for the nation. The prime minister, David Cameron, explained that the government’s motivation was to provide, “long-term, safe and secure supplies of electricity far into the future”.

It’s easy to see the superficial political attraction of projects like Hinkley C – they look like big, simple solutions to a problem. They’re technologically shiny, highly visible, seemingly easy to keep an eye on and have large, influential lobbies behind them.

With so much seemingly in its favour, it says a lot about the state of the nuclear industry that Hinkley C is heading south faster than a great snipe in migration. In a new report for the Intergenerational Foundation, co-published with the New Weather Institute, I found the economic case alone for new nuclear to be as leaky as a plastic bag of plutonium.

Discounting the untold extra billions, typically hidden and underwritten by the public, required by nuclear reactors to pay for complex security, disposal of radioactive waste, insurance (and, perversely, liabilities from under-insurance), over the course of its initial 35-year contract period, Britain could save at least £30-£40bn on electricity generated by solar and onshore wind with their costs steadily falling.

The costs for nuclear generation, meanwhile, have been doing exactly the opposite. From a government estimate of £5.6bn in 2008, by the time EU officials signed off the deal to build Hinkley C just six years later, the expected construction cost had risen to over £24bn. As obstacles, the burden of the financial architecture for the deal is only beaten by the problems with the technology itself which was meant to be state-of-the-art and a flagship for its operator EDF.

A range of renewable energy options are readily available that prove to be cheaper, safer, more secure, quicker to deliver and, overall, better value for Britain. Yet, instead of grasping this option, the government seems to have gone out of its way to hamper renewables by slashing support and creating a capricious, unstable policy environment.

In his most recent budget statment, the chancellor, George Osborne stated a clear priority for policy. “In this budget we choose the long term,” he said. “We choose to put the next generation first.” A wonderful sentiment but how is that determined in policy, and what does it look like in practice?

It’s time for clear, transparent criteria for making energy choices which, when applied, will maximise economic benefits to the country, meet climate change obligations, boost security in terms of both having a dependable, efficient energy system, in warding off terrorist threats and the dangers of nuclear proliferation recently highlighted.

On everything from pensions to public services, our current economic crises and ageing population already present a bad and worsening deal for the next generation.

If we really are to have policies for the long term and with future generations in mind, we need to ensure energy choices are made to protect and promote their interests. A rational, evidence-based, intergenerational energy system won’t just emerge from political rhetoric, it needs to be designed and based on clear principles.

Such principles would include having an energy system most likely to preserve a climate convivial for future generations; a system with the least toxic environmental burden and which maximises ancillary economic benefits such as local jobs, manufacturing and services.

As an opening bid, here’s a set of intergenerational design criteria to aid intelligent, future energy planning. They are:

Employment and broader economic return on investment - how much value to the broader economy does investment in different technologies bring; in other words, what is its economic multiplier effect?



how much value to the broader economy does investment in different technologies bring; in other words, what is its economic multiplier effect? Environmental return on investment - how efficiently does an investment lower carbon emissions and minimise other toxic pollutants and contribute to a healthy environment?



- how efficiently does an investment lower carbon emissions and minimise other toxic pollutants and contribute to a healthy environment? Energy return on investment - how much energy is generated for the amount of money invested to produce that energy?

- how much energy is generated for the amount of money invested to produce that energy? Security return on investment - how much does the technology contribute to domestic energy security and what other security risks does it carry?



- how much does the technology contribute to domestic energy security and what other security risks does it carry? Transition return on investment - how does it contribute, comparatively to the speed and scale of deployment of low carbon energy generating capacity?



- how does it contribute, comparatively to the speed and scale of deployment of low carbon energy generating capacity? Conviviality return on investment - the degree to which a technology can be responsive to and supportive of a society’s or a community’s own vision and pathway for its development, and that of future generations.



Paul Massara, is the chief executive of the energy supplier, RWE npower. Reflecting on the prospect of Hinkley C, he commented: “We will look back and think that nuclear was a expensive mistake. It’s one of those deals where my children, and my children’s children, are going to be thinking ‘was that a good deal’?”

It’s easy to imagine what conclusion they will come to, and the bewilderment they will feel at why better options were not more aggressively pursued.

