The Guardian nuclear debate

There has been a real argument going on in the last few day in the Guardian  between Jonathon Poritt of Friends of the Earth and George Monbiot, recent convert fo nuclear power. 

All I can say is that Monbiot has taken leave of his senses and has no concept of the difference between a crisis and a predicament.

How the UK is handing control of its energy future to France

'There is no alternative' nuclear advocacy allows energy companies to manipulate UK policy

Jonathon Poritt

Aside from the pro-nuclear zealots, most protagonists in favour of nuclear power rely on "there is no alternative" advocacy – because of climate change, energy security, the "lights going out", we need nuclear, the argument runs. Such thinking is alive and well within the coalition government to the extent that ministers are no longer prepared to listen to contrary evidence.

As a result, UK energy policy is being manipulated and subverted to make it possible for French nuclear power companies (EDF and Areva) to start building four new reactors in the UK – two at Hinkley Point in Somerset and two at Sizewell in Suffolk.

Along with three other former directors of Friends of the Earth, with experience going right back to the 1970s, I am very familiar with the record of the nuclear industry in pulling the wool over the eyes of both senior officials and ministers. A recent report reveals how the government's own analysis shows that the UK could achieve all its energy objectives without new nuclear – through investment in energy efficiency, renewables, combined heat and power, and grid upgrades.

The authors reserve judgment in their conclusion about how it is that the evidence has been so comprehensively fiddled – "We don't like conspiracy theories, but either it's a monumental series of mistakes, or the nuclear lobby has got control of the Whitehall machine" – but personally I am in no doubt that it's the latter. As a result, we are about to hand over control of Britain's future energy policy and climate security to the French government – as I demonstrate with Charles Secrett, Tom Burker and Tony Juniper in a note to the prime minister today.

It is our belief that the two German operators here in the UK (RWE and E.ON) are incapable of building new nuclear power stations now that the German government has opted for early closure of its remaining reactors. Centrica, which has an option of 20% in any new build at Hinkley and Sizewell, has a weak balance sheet and is already under intense scrutiny from its investors. That leaves EDF, which is 85% owned by the French state.

EDF will only build those reactors if the risks involved are borne by British households and businesses rather than by themselves – in other words, if they are guaranteed a high enough price for the electricity those reactors will generate to compensate them for the huge risks involved in building the reactors.

And EDF, along with its partner Areva, certainly know about those risks. They have two on the go at the moment in Finland and France. Both are massively over budget and running around four years late. The four previous reactors they've built took an average of 17.5 years from the start of construction to delivery of the first electricity.

This kind of experience with the European pressurised reactor led François Rousseley, the former head of EDF, to recommend that the EPR be abandoned. This advice was endorsed by a recent report by the French National Audit Office which also found the EPR to be too complex and expensive.

It's a total mess. To make it possible for the French to build reactors of the wrong kind, that we don't need, that we can't afford, and that will massively distort energy policy in the UK for the next 40 years, the coalition government is about to rig the market (through its electricity market reform) to favour nuclear at the expense of every other alternative. Our analysis shows that huge amounts of direct and indirect subsidy will be made available to the nuclear industry to facilitate this high-risk strategy. The coalition government's continuing pledge that there will be no subsidies for the nuclear industry is palpably dishonest, and the Lib Dems (who once had sufficient integrity not to fall prey to the seductive deceits of the nuclear industry) will pay a heavy price for this betrayal.

As my colleague Tom Burke said: "It is shocking that the government is willing to turn over control of our energy and climate security to France in pursuit of a nuclear mirage. British householders and businesses will be compelled to pay for a French nuclear loser."

And it's equally shocking to me that a number of leading environmentalists have added their support to this disastrous policy. As the truth of what's really going on becomes clearer, let's hope they have the decency to rethink their bizarre pro-nuclear advocacy.

Why I am urging David Cameron to act against Friends of the Earth

Former directors of the group have written to the prime minister suggesting he abandons new nuclear plants. This demands a response

George Monbiot

Had I wondered, 10 years ago, what I would be doing in 2012, signing a letter to the prime minister urging him not to heed four former directors of Friends of the Earth would not have appeared on the list.

I still see Friends of the Earth as a force for good. I will remain a member, as I have been for 20 years or more. But the letter that Jonathon Porritt, Tom Burke, Charles Secrett and Tony Juniper have sent to David Cameron with the support of the current director, suggesting he abandons new nuclear power plants, demands a response.

If Cameron were to act on it, he would set back the UK's efforts to meet its international commitments on climate change, and help to make runaway global warming a more likely prospect. The four former directors' narrowness of vision, and their readiness to appeal to jingoistic and xenophobic sentiments, appal me.

Writing to Cameron this week, they asserted that the UK government is "handing over the control of Britain's future energy and climate security to the government of France." This, a grotesque exaggeration, is a theme they repeated and embellished in the media. Environmentalism has long been internationalist in outlook, recognising the common interests of humankind and emphasising the fact that pollution and environmental destruction does not stop at national boundaries. It often argues that governments should put aside narrow national interests in favour of global concerns. To see this going into reverse is disturbing.

But much more alarming is their apparent willingness to downgrade the effort to tackle man-made climate change. In writing to Cameron they suggested that the UK follow the example of Germany, Japan and Italy. These countries, they pointed out, are making extra investments in both energy efficiency and renewables to fill the gap left by their abandonment of nuclear power. But the four signatories forgot to add that these nations are also making extra investments in fossil fuels. In all three cases, dropping atomic energy will raise greenhouse gas emissions and make the global target of preventing more than two degrees of global warming harder to achieve.

The signatories of both letters to Cameron – against and for nuclear power – want to see more investment in both energy efficiency and renewables. What divides us is the aim of this investment. Those who wrote the first letter want this investment deployed to replace nuclear generation, which is by far the greatest current source of low-carbon electricity. The signatories to the second letter (Mark Lynas, Fred Pearce, Stephen Tindale, Michael Hanlon and myself) want it used to replace fossil fuels.

It is plain that we cannot do both. Reducing carbon emissions to 10% or less of current levels in the rich nations, which is the minimum required to prevent two degrees of warming, is hard enough already. To do so while also abandoning our most reliable and widespread low-carbon technology is even harder. It's like putting on a pair of handcuffs before stepping into the boxing ring.

To suggest phasing out nuclear power when the world is faced with a climate change crisis is utter madness. It shows that some people have lost sight of which goal is more important.

If there were quick, cheap, easy and effective means of reducing the UK's carbon emissions to 5 or 10% of current levels, I too would continue to oppose nuclear power. But every one of our options entails great difficulty. We do not possess an abundance of good choices, and cannot afford to start throwing options away.

It is not a question of nuclear or renewables or efficiency. To prevent very dangerous levels of climate change, we will need all three. This was made clear by the Committee on Climate Change, which showed that the maximum likely contribution to our electricity supply from renewables by 2030 is 45%, and the maximum likely contribution from carbon capture and storage is 15%. If nuclear power does not make up most of the remainder, the gap will be filled by fossil fuel.

Some of the concerns the four signatories raise about financing and delivering new nuclear plants in the UK are valid. There is no primrose path to a low-carbon future, and a new generation of nuclear power plants will require compromise on the issue of energy market liberalisation and, probably, subsidies.

But take a look at the alternative they propose: gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Every issue concerning the financing and delivery of nuclear power is doubled, tripled or quintupled in this case. Unlike atomic energy, gas CCS has not even been proven at scale. If they think nuclear power has problems with investor confidence, the availability of capital, the absence of subsidies and the need for government involvement, they should try talking to financiers about their own preferred option.

The likelihood is that if we press for gas with CCS, we'll get gas without CCS. As the difficulties with carbon capture and storage mount up, investors will flee. But the gas plants will still be built and the public won't perceive a great deal of difference between gas with or without abatement. It could scarcely be a better formula for ensuring the abandonment of the UK's carbon targets.

The environment movement has a choice. It has to decide whether it wants no new fossil fuels or no new nuclear power. It cannot have both. I know which side I'm on, and I know why. Anyone who believes that the safety, financing and delivery of nuclear power are bigger problems than the threats posed by climate change has lost all sense of proportion.

Nuclear power will fail to achieve what George Monbiot wants

Nuclear industry's broken promises show atomic energy will not help climate efforts, say former directors of Friends of the Earth

Deciding on how best to meet the country's energy needs is difficult. There are no absolutely right answers. But one issue guaranteed to excite personal passions rather than brain cells is nuclear power.

Some solutions are more convincing than others. The best make the most economic, environmental and social sense, based on facts rather than fervent beliefs.

As four former Directors of Friends of the Earth, we wrote to the Prime Minster this week setting out eight major economic and political problems facing a new build nuclear programme in the UK. We have engaged in the nuclear debate for forty years. On the basis of our experience and the evidence, we concluded that the government's policy will fail.

Sadly, this prompted an intemperate attack by George Monbiot. We respect Monbiot's commitment to the environment as a campaigning journalist. We share his deep desire to tackle climate change – and have dedicated our working lives to addressing it and other environmental problems.

What we don't understand is why Monbiot nowhere tells us how he thinks the government can overcome a single one of the problems we set out. There is a lot in his article about what he thinks about us, as he reaffirms his belief in the nuclear dream.

But he doesn't show how nuclear can go ahead without huge public subsidies, which may well be illegal under EU law. He doesn't dispute the track-record of nuclear build running many years late and way over budget. He doesn't argue about the consequent rise in already excessive energy bills to pay for nuclear electricity.

Monbiot vigorously asserts what the government should do to meet our energy and climate security needs. But he doesn't deal with our central point: the Government's nuclear plans will fail to do what he and it want.

The nuclear industry's history is one of broken promises. Mrs Thatcher pledged 10 new nuclear plants in 1979 – one reactor eventually sent electricity to the grid in 1995. Britain's existing fleet of Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors was described by the then Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board as the worst civil engineering disaster in our history. The proto-type fast reactor at Dounreay is now being expensively dismantled, having never worked properly. Nor has the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

Monbiot accuses us of "jingoistic and xenophobic sentiments" because we argued that the government was, de facto, handing over future strategic energy and climate decision-making to the French government. But EDF, the only realistic nuclear builder, is 85% owned by the French government. The crucial decisions on whether to go ahead will be taken in Paris not London, and very possibly by a much more nuclear skeptical government under a new President.

In an increasingly turbulent world it is common-sense not to rely on other governments' decisions for your energy security. Especially when there is no need to do so. Monbiot found even "more alarming" our "apparent willingness to downgrade the effort to tackle man-made climate change". Nothing could be further from the truth, as he well knows from our history as campaigners

We advocate a mixture of renewable energies (e.g. on and off-shore wind, solar, waste digestion, wave and tidal), combined heat and power, energy efficiency and carbon-capture-and-storage for gas to meet our energy needs. Combined with smart technology roll-out across energy grids, buildings and cities, this low carbon combination makes the most sense economically, environmentally and socially.

Decc's own strategic analysis set outs at least six feasible energy scenarios, supported by its Chief Scientist, to meet energy demand and climate goals with no new nuclear. Our mix generates very significant numbers of jobs nationwide, in manufacturing, engineering, planning, management, installation, servicing and retail, which a few nuclear reactors cannot. It will help resolve the social crime of nearly 3 million unemployed.

25 years ago, 'The Economist' magazine used to be a cheer-leader for nuclear power, as Monbiot is today. No longer. In a special report this month, 'Nuclear Energy: the dream that failed', the magazine concluded that nuclear new build was just too expensive and too dangerous. We agree.

Monbiot has missed the point. If, as we argue, the government's nuclear policy fails, then not only will the UK have no new nuclear stations but we will also not have any of the other low carbon options that could have been deployed if only the government had not been blinded by the nuclear illusion.

My off-the-cuff response to George Monbiot is here:

All I can say about George Monbot (who I have previously followed avidly along with the Green Party in my own country) is that he is deluded and has joined the mass insanity that has overtaken most of the human race.

Perhaps he does not know the difference between a crisis and a predicament. A crisis is something is something that can be solved - a predicament is something that cannot - and has to be lived with.

Unfortunately, we are living in an era where we are faced by three main problems at the same time: 1) runaway climate change; 2) Resource depletion (essentially Peak Oil) and 3) the collapse of a moribund economic paradigm based on Infinite Growth. This goes along with development of fascism (combining of corporate and state powers).

He seems to think that by embracing nuclear power we are going to 'solve' one of the problems - this is a bit like deciding which method of suicide we are going to use.

The ONLY hope for any sort of future for mankind If we don't blow ourselves up in a nuclear conflagration over the Persian Gulf) is the complete and utter collapse of the global economy and the civilisation that brought all this about; that not likely to be a choice faced by governments and peoples but a reality foisted on us by Mother Nature.

The truth that George might have forgotten is - there can be no infinite growth of a finite planet.