EcoRadio

Category: Energy Matters

  • Obama will open large sections of Southeast and Alaskan coasts to offshore drilling

     

     

    “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” Obama said (full speech here). “…But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.

    This is … stunning. Baffling. With the new policy Obama appears to be taking a major step toward siding with carbon-polluting industries in the battle to defend the energy status quo.

    I’m holding out hope that things appear worse than they are. Because the key isn’t how much offshore drilling is allowed. The crucial issue is whether oil and gas companies decide it’s worth their money to go out, find, and retreive the stuff. And things could be brighter on that front, because, as Joe Romm explains, the payoff in these reserves may not be worth the trouble. (Nobody knows precisely how much oil and gas are in these places.) GOP politicians like John McCain and Sarah Palin have used offshore drilling as a rallying cry, but energy companies need to keep clear heads, crunch the numbers, and decide if a given project pays.

    A few more notes…

    On gas prices and your money:

    Not much will change for a long time—estimates figure that new oil won’t be available for 10 to 12 years, with peak production coming several years beyond that.

    On foreign oil, energy independence, and bankrolling violent extremism:

    Not much will change for a long time—again, the new oil won’t be available for years.

    On the West Coast:

    Dunno what’s going on here. No mention of it. [Update: The Pacific coast gets no mention because the drilling ban there remains in place.]

    On the politics:

    This is supposed to win support for a climate/clean-energy bill from wavering Senate Republicans. Obama compromises, they compromise—that’s the hope. But Republican lawmakers have shown very little interest in compromising on legislation in the Obama era.

    So the big question is whether Democrats have gotten GOP senators to commit to supporting a bill. Did this win a few crucial votes, or is it a giveway for nothing? No one seems to know yet. No public vote commitments, at least.

    The early reaction:

    On the DailyKos comment thread, it’s mostly frustration with the apparent giveaway. “There’s no real level on which this is anything but pandering,” writes one commenter. “We need more oil like we need a hole in the head. In the ten years it takes to get it to market we could have renewables. Enough subsidies for big oil.”

    The reporting:

    The substances at issue here—oil and natural gas—will eventually be burned, releasing heat-trapping pollutants that cause global warming. If that continues unchecked, it could be the most destructive and unjust phenomena of the coming century. There’s no mention of any of this in the stories from major news outlets. Just sayin, 

  • It’s time to deal with Peak Oil

     

    Skeptics point out that total world oil reserves continue to grow. But this may not be a reliable indication of where we stand: Often, in nations that have seen a peak and subsequent decline in production, domestic reserves continued to rise right up to, or even past, the date of peak production. Why? Oil companies replace reserves of high-quality, cheaply-produced oil with reserves of low-quality, slow-, or expensive-to-produce oil or tar sands.

    Rates of output decline in older, giant oilfields have proven to be more trustworthy indicators of long-term trends. (For instance, they’ve enabled successful peaking forecasts for the United States, the North Sea and other regions). For the world, the average decline rate from existing fields has been calculated by the International Energy Agency at 4.5% per year. The world needs to develop the equivalent of a Saudi Arabia’s worth of oil production capacity every four years to offset such declines. This is quite a burden for the industry, which must now look for oil in ultra-deep water, in polar regions, or in politically fractured nations, since all the easy-to-find, easy-to-extract oil already has been located and much of it pumped.

    So far, the record year for world crude production was 2005, and the record month was July 2008. Tellingly, the leveling-off of extraction rates between 2005 and 2008 occurred in the context of rising oil prices; indeed, in July 2008, the price spiked 50% higher than the previous inflation-adjusted record, set in the 1970s. Yet as both oil demand and prices rose, production barely budged in response.

    While many commentators believe the jury is still out on Peak Oil, the list of petroleum analysts who say world oil production has already peaked, or will do so in the next five years, lengthens almost daily, and includes CEOs and other well-placed leaders within the oil industry.

    The argument that oil production could theoretically continue to grow past 2015 is mainly put forward by organizations such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Saudi Aramco, which explain away evidence of dwindling discoveries, depleting oilfields and stagnating total production by claiming that it is demand for oil that has peaked, not supply — a claim that hinges on the observation that oil prices are high enough to discourage potential buyers. But high prices for a commodity usually signify scarcity, so the “peak demand” argument doesn’t hold water.

    Peak Oil has significant implications for our economy. In response to the 2008 price spike, the global airline industry nose-dived and auto companies suffered. Worldwide shipping slowed drastically and hasn’t recovered. Demand for oil plummeted in late 2008, and so did the price — temporarily. But today’s price is again high, almost to the point of nipping economic recovery.

    What should we do about Peak Oil? Start with what the U.K. Industry Task Force on Peak Oil (which included Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines) has done: Acknowledge the reality of supply limits. Then study the vulnerabilities of Canada’s transport and food systems to high and volatile oil prices, and start making those systems more resilient and less oil-dependent.

    But do it fast. Adaptation will take decades, and we are starting very late.

    Originally published March 19, 2010 on National Post

  • Why Solar Works Where It Snows

     

     

    And then the Sheriff came to town.

    Regan pulled the plug and the solar tax credits that have built up the industry came to a screeching halt. Most of the companies fell off the turnip truck like an accident during harvest season. The industry in the Northeast crashed and the road was a mess.

    Only a few companies survived these bleak days, usually through clever service contracts, branching out to passive solar work or creativelty partnering and developing new programs and seeking out new renewable energy opportunities throughout the region.

    Now what?

    Solar is back thanks to creative financing options, great rebate and tax credits, and the international support of top-notch manufacturing and material science. However, the distrust has not subsided. The burn felt from the early maelstrom of activity has not been easily forgotten.

    In the Northeast, where fuel oil prices are poised to rise significantly again, where electricity rates are some of the highest in the nation and rising rapidly, there is no better time to better examine these objections than now.

    1. It’s too expensive.

    The cost of inaction is even more expensive, but much harder to quantify in a simple way. However, the good news is that due to the rising costs of fuel oil and electricity, the falling costs of solar equipment, and the increased level of employee training and certification for installers are all contributing to making solar much more cost effective.

    Even further, financing programs like power purchase agreements (PPAs) and residential solar electricity programs like SunRun are making solar a low-cost, low-to-no-risk proposition. If you could put a complete solar electric system on your home or business for less than $3,000, would you consider doing it today?

    2. It’s not reliable.

    Sure as the sun comes up every morning, solar energy is there working for you. The question of reliability is really a question of “how do I know if it is actually working?” Just think, would you drive a car with no fuel gage or spedometer? The great news is many companies are offering easy-to-use and understand monitoring equipment that can help you see real time data about the performance of either your solar electric or solar hot water system. You’ll know immediately if something is wrong. In many cases, systems can automatically notify your installer of a problem before you even know. Monitoring technology has come a long way since the 1970’s to help people have a little peace of mind.

    3. No one will be around to support it.

    Many companies providing solar energy solutions have or are building full support and service centers to help customers understand problems with their systems or just to be there when confusion arises. Installers are improving their websites; taking notes from the successes in the IT industry and providing online databases of frequently asked questions, online support forums, user forums, and much more.

    Many companies, too, are at the point where they have a significant history behind them- 10, 20, even 30 years of combined experience in installation, program management, and industry experitise. Do your homework on your installer if you are worried about whether or not they will be there for you in 5 years or 20 years.

    4. We get too much snow- it doesn’t work in the winter.

    Many people in the Northeast don’t realize that we have a wonderful solar resource available. In fact, Germany, arguably the world leader in acceptance and deployment of photovoltaics, receives less average solar insolation anually than the Northeast.[*]

    So while it snows in the winter, just remember- after the snow falls, the sun comes out and the sky is clearer than on those hazy July days. Soon the snow will be sliding right off your panels and you’ll be back to producing clean, renewable power. The average roof pitch of most Northeast homes is quite ideal to solar installation, too, and will encourage snow to shed from panels.

    Examine your objections. Make the right choice.

    There are many more reasons why people object to solar power, but as the industry and its people supporting it continue to provide better service, offer better financial deals, and continue to exceed the expectations of the doubting public we hope you will join us a become another gleaming solar roof from space and a proud part of our clean energy future.

     

  • Human waste could be fertiliser and power source

    Human waste could be fertiliser and power source

    Ecologist

    24th March, 2010

    Many of the substances that make wastewater a pollutant can also be useful as fertilisers for agriculture and in generating gases for small power stations, says report

    The world’s two billion tons of wastewater could supply much of the nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium required for crop fertilisation, says a report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

    The report, ‘Sick Water’, says a cocktail of agricultural, human and industrial waste is currently polluting freshwater supplies and marine ecosystems.

    Between 80-90 per cent of all wastewater generated in less-industrialised countries is discharged untreated into water courses, leading to 1.8 million deaths amongst children under the age of five every year as a result of water-borne diseases.

    Sewage facilities

    The report cites contrasts Jakarta, where just 3 per cent of sewage reaches a treatment plant, to Sydney, where each citizen produces three times as much wastewater but almost 100 per cent of it reaches a treatment plant.

    Jakarta has more than one million septic tanks but most are poorly maintained and often when they are emptied the contents are dumped untreated into waterways, says the UNEP.

    Sewage fertiliser

    However, the authors of the report argue that wastewater can be an asset instead of a pollutant, particularly in the agricultural sector, which uses up 70-90 per cent of all the human water consumption.

    The report says 10 per cent of the world’s population is already supplied with food grown using wastewater for irrigation and fertiliser, and with better management and training of farmers this could be increased substantially.

    Notable successes include coastal areas of Fiji where pig waste was causing substantial marine pollution. It is now being captured in sawdust beds and shipped to nearby farms for use as fertiliser.

    More investment

    The UNEP report says investment in better wastewater management and sewage systems such as those seen in Fiji would benefit the health of people and marine ecosystems such as fishieries, on which many people rely for their livelihoods.

    ‘Many water and sanitation utilities, especially in developing countries, are forced to spend more financial resources in water treatment due to increased pollution,’ says Anna Tibajuka, executive director of UN-Habitat, which helped to compile the report.

    ‘Excess nutrients and wastewater can also lead to uncontrolled growth of algae and aquatic plants such as water hyacinth, which cause practical problems for marine transportation, fishing and at intakes for water, hydro power and irrigation schemes,’ she added.

    Useful links
    Full UNEP report

  • Offshore Awakening: US investment Flows to Offsrhore Wind

     

    A lot of that sense is economic. Political leaders in the Northeast and Ontario want to revive their manufacturing sectors, which lost factories in recent decades to states and nations where energy is cheaper. They envision dozens of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes and in a spine running down the US Atlantic coast that draws in turbine, tower and component manufacturers, as well as research and development.

    ‘The impact of offshore wind is tremendous, from spurring economic development and new jobs, to providing stable energy costs, and will move our country towards energy independence’, said Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri at an American Wind Energy Association offshore wind workshop that drew about 700 industry and government representatives to Boston in December.

    For Rhode Island and other Atlantic states, offshore wind offers the promise of jobs that might otherwise go west. The eastern states have created aggressive, self-imposed mandates to deliver a percentage of their power from renewable energy, creating a strong market for wind power. But given their dense population, they have little room for utility-scale renewable energy unless it is offshore – or imported from other regions. What Carcieri and the East Coast political leaders don’t want – and what they’ve made clear they fear – is development of a federally imposed super grid of high voltage transmission lines that would push land-based Midwestern wind power 1500 or more kilometers to the energy-hungry eastern seaboard. That scenario places the manufacturing jobs in the Midwestern states, not in their own backyard.

    Rhode Island, the smallest state in the nation, has been one of the loudest voices in the struggle to develop an East Coast offshore wind industry. Governor Carcieri in December rescued a nearly failed deal between National Grid and Deepwater Wind for a 28.8 MW demonstration wind farm three miles (5 km) off Block Island.

    At the state’s urging, National Grid had entered into negotiations to buy power from the Deepwater project under a long-term contract. But the utility walked away from the talks saying power from the project was too expensive.

    Carcieri urged the utility back to the table and National Grid finally agreed to a contract when Deepwater dropped the price from 30.7 cents/kWh to 24.4 cents/kWh, beginning in 2013, the first full year of operation. While the utility accepted the deal, it pointed out the cost is well above its average 9 cents/kWh generation costs.

    Carcieri, however, counters that the new wind contract will add only $1.35 per year more to a typical residential customer’s electricity bill. Furthermore, offshore wind advocates believe, the demonstration project is a necessary precursor to a larger, 106 turbine wind farm Deepwater has agreed to develop off Rhode Island’s coast, along with a planned 117 acre (47.4 hectares) manufacturing hub for offshore wind technology.

    DooleyCape Wind: An Industry Legend in the Making

    Carcieri has made clear he wants Rhode Island to be home to the first US offshore wind farm. But he faces serious competition. In neighboring Massachusetts, the 468 MW Cape Wind project is the furthest along among US wind farms in clinching all of the necessary regulatory approvals.

    The Nantucket Sound project is an industry legend because the developer, Jim Gordon, has been stalwart in battling back an organized group of wealthy Cape Cod property owners who oppose the project. The fight has raged before regulators and courts for nine years. Cape Wind has won every round, so far.

    Its struggle for acceptance became easier after Massachusetts elected Deval Patrick as governor in 2006. Unlike his predecessor, Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Patrick supports Cape Wind. And, he is a close ally of President Obama, who has led a national drive for more renewable energy. Further, Cape Wind’s chief nemesis in the US Senate, Edward Kennedy, died in 2009.

    Perhaps most significant, a major utility stepped forward in December and offered to buy the project’s power under a long-term contract. Cape Wind and National Grid were in negotiations as Renewable Energy World went to press. Cape Wind says that a long-term contract will enhance the project’s ability to gain financing.

    However, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the project, persists in its fight. The group has been touting arguments by a Native American tribe that the project will block views of the sun for their prayer. Governor Patrick publicly called the claim ‘ridiculous’, but it must be examined before the project can win a final okay from US Minerals Management Service, the lead agency reviewing Cape Wind.

    Power in Numbers as Offshore Gets Organized

    While Cape Wind fought its battles alone for many years, the US offshore wind industry has now begun to organize itself. The US Offshore Wind Collaborative launched in 2009 to address the technical, environmental, economic and regulatory issues and catalyze the industry. Steered by environmental, state, academic and industry representatives (among them the American Wind Energy Association), the collaborative hopes to be a repository of information about US offshore wind. To that end, in October it issued a major report on the emerging offshore sector, ‘US Offshore Wind Energy: A Path Forward’.

    The report places the price issue firmly on the table. A fully installed offshore wind farm costs about $4600/kW, including turbines, installation and maintenance. In comparison, a land-based wind farm costs about $2400/kW, the report said.

    Why is offshore wind so much more expensive? And, more importantly, will it stay high?

    Offshore facilities require more complex design to bear up under storms, waves and tides. Thus, while turbines represent the greatest expense for land-based wind, foundations, towers, transmission and installation tend to account for offshore project’s larger costs, the report said. Foundations, in particular, are costly for offshore facilities because they require more steel and concrete. Water depth also plays a big role as each meter of tower height adds some $2000.

    To offset the cost, offshore wind needs scale, says the report. Large projects with turbines of at least 5 MW provide better economics than smaller projects. Indeed, Deepwater says the output is expensive from its planned 28.8 MW Rhode Island project because it is a small demonstration facility.

    But supporters say offshore wind’s capital cost must be put into perspective. First, wind velocity is higher over the unobstructed ocean surface, which in turn leads to greater capacity factors, more energy production, and greater revenue for offshore wind farms than their onshore counterparts, says the collaborative report. So while, offshore wind may cost more initially, it also may produce more bang for the buck.

    In addition, it’s important to consider the cost of alternatives to East Coast offshore wind. Is it cheaper to move land-based wind power thousands of miles eastward or build offshore wind nearby? What will such a massive transmission line cost? The price has yet to be truly analyzed of building a super grid, and it is likely far higher than supposed, Krapels says.

    ‘If you are building an overhead line through a waste land, there is no question that overhead is the cheapest way to go. As soon as you introduce terrain into the equation the cost goes up. Crossing mountains, rivers, those things all add a lot to the price of overhead. When you get into an urban area and you have to bury the cable, then it gets really expensive’, he says.

    While it might cost only $1 million per mile (1.6 km) for over head transmission in a ‘waste land’, it can cost as much as $10 million per mile to build in a densely populated city. That is part of the reason Krapels sees the super grid idea as unlikely. Even if the line can win all of the approvals necessary to cross from the midwest of the US, it then faces the costs and difficulties of connecting into the congested eastern seaboard, where it must break through not only concrete and roads, but also NIMBY opposition.

    Krapels, a key player in development of the Neptune Regional Transmission System, a 65 mile (104 km) undersea and underground cable from New Jersey to Long Island, says opposition tends to be greater for land-based transmission than invisible undersea lines.

    Geography is a key part of the argument for offshore wind for other reasons as well. Coasts and high population go hand-in-hand in the nation. And, high population means high energy consumption. Of the 48 contiguous US states, the 28 that have coastal boundaries consume 78% of the nation’s electricity, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Thus, offshore wind offers a nearby energy source for the nation’s highest load pockets.

    Moreover, today’s price for offshore wind is unlikely to be tomorrow’s. Analysts expect innovation and scale to drive down costs. The collaborative report cites sources that put capital costs at $2520/kW through 2010 with a 12.5% drop by 2030.

    Critics may complain that offshore wind is too expensive but, ‘We heard the same thing about onshore wind 10 years ago’, says Andy Spielman of partner in law firm Hogan & Hartson’s Environmental practice. ‘Now we have terrestrial wind all over the place because people have figured how to drive down the costs’, he adds.

    Offshore activity is so great in Europe, and emerging so quickly in Ontario and the US, that prices could begin to drop in six months to a year, according to John Kourtoff, president and chief operating officer of Trillium Power Wind Corporation, which is developing wind power in the Great Lakes. He says, ‘I think the whole cost matrix will change very rapidly’.

    But the industry must contend with some ‘chicken and egg’ issues before it sees lower prices. Fundamentally, projects must get built before prices can come down. ‘Until we get some experience with commercialization, we are not going to see prices drop. Until we get projects closer to construction and commercial operation, the risk premium is going to stay high’, says Jon Mostel, a partner in Energy and Project Finance partners at the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

    In the US, much depends on how quickly projects can make their way through the nation’s notoriously arduous regulatory process. Georgina Benedetti, Frost & Sullivan research analyst, sees the US, along with Germany, making rapid advancements in market share over the next four years.

    Benedetti foresees 200 MW of offshore turbines installed by 2011, likely from Cape Wind. Bluewater’s Delaware project is the next most likely to begin operations, she says.

    Emerging Energy Research forecasts that North America will develop more than 6 GW of offshore wind by 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, North America and China will contribute 25% of all new offshore capacity installed worldwide, according to EER’s December 2009 report: ‘Global Offshore Wind Energy Markets and Strategies: 2009–2020’.

    Cape WindFor now, with no offshore wind farms yet built, North America remains well behind the United Kingdom and other European nations in developing the sector. But the federal government elevated the importance of offshore wind in energy policy this year. The Department of the Interior awarded the first ever leases for offshore wind on the outer continental shelf (OCS) near New Jersey and Delaware.

    In addition, Ken Salazar, secretary of the interior, says in 2010 the Minerals Management Service will set up a new regional office to support renewable energy development off the Atlantic seaboard. And, earlier in 2009, the Minerals Management Service issued a final rule for renewable energy development on the OCS.

    ‘We have created the first-ever US framework for offshore renewable energy development’, Salazar said in a speech on 10 December at the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen. ‘We have cleared out bureaucratic red tape among federal agencies that was creating unnecessary confusion for potential offshore renewable projects’.

    So with a strong push from federal, state and provincial governments, North America enters 2010 with a will to build offshore wind, the same kind of vigour the continent brought to land-based wind at the start of the millennium. In 2000, the US had 2579 MW of installed wind capacity on land; by third quarter 2009 it had 31,000 MW.

    It’s not yet clear who will win the race to build the first offshore wind farm. And, ultimately, it probably makes little difference. What’s important is that the first is built. Then ‘gradually like a snowball rolling down hill, we will have thousands of megawatts’, Krapels says.

    Elisa Wood is U.S. correspondent for Renewable Energy World Magazine.

    Sidebar: Key initiatives by the states

    • Maine has sent a target to develop 300 MW of offshore wind by 2020.
    • Massachusetts intends to develop 2000 MW of wind power, most of it offshore, by 2020.
    • Rhode Island has formed a partnership to assist Deepwater Wind in developing a 28.8 MW offshore demonstration project, followed by a larger 385 MW project.
    • In New York, a collaborative of industry and government agencies plan to seek a project developer in the spring to build up to 700 MW of wind power off the coast of Long Island. In addition, the New York Power Authority issued a solicitation for projects totaling 120–500 MW to be built in the Great Lakes.
    • New Jersey struck a deal with Deepwater Wind and Public Service Electric & Gas to build a 350 MW offshore wind farm. The state has set a goal to attract 1000 MW of offshore wind by 2012 and 3000 MW by 2020.
    • In Delaware, Bluewater Wind won a competitive solicitation to build an offshore wind farm and sell the output to Delmarva Power. The developer plans a 450 MW project.
    • The states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia joined forces in November to develop offshore wind power.
    • Duke Energy and the University of North Carolina plan demonstrator turbines 7–10 miles (11–16 km) from the Outer Banks.

    Sidebar: Offshore Bonanza at the Great Lakes?

    The Great Lakes appears to be a gold mine for offshore wind, with thousands of megawatts positioned for development due to polices created by the Ontario government.

    An enormous body of water, the Great Lakes is a windy place. The five lakes, which border eight US states and Ontario, can produce more offshore wind energy than all of the US coasts combined, according to a report by the Trillium Power Wind Corporation, a company that plans to build four Great Lakes wind farms, which will produce about 3500 MW.

    ‘The opportunity here is enormous’, says John Kourtoff, Trillium president and CEO. ‘NREL’s (The National Renewable Energy Laboratory) numbers show that the largest offshore resource in the entire coastal US is on the US side of the Great Lakes. And that is less than the Ontario side.’

    Kourtoff says that on the Ontario side there appears to be 64 good-quality areas for offshore wind in less than 30 meters of water. These sites could generate 34,500 MW using 5 MW turbines. His company’s analysis finds a 7000 to 9000 MW potential on the US side in water depths of 30 meters or less that are at least 4 km offshore.

    Ontario took a big step toward developing this potential in October 2009 when it launched a feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable energy facilities. Ontario’s FIT awards set payments to offshore wind projects of 19 CA cents/kWh with a 20% escalator, part of its attempt to phase out all coal plants by 2014.

    Just one month after the province began accepting tariff applications, it had received so many it had to place a halt on accepting new submissions. Developers turned in 500 offshore wind applications for projects representing 20,790 MW, according to the Trillium report.

    The Great Lakes offers a better environment than the ocean for offshore wind facilities, says the report, because the installations corrode more slowly in fresh water and are spared strong waves and tides.

    Ontario has instituted a series of policies that make it easier to site projects. The provincial government recognizes that offshore wind projects differ from onshore and require a distinct set of rules. The province also offers projects priority connection rights to the transmission grid, and limits the permitting process to six months.

    The Great Lakes wind farms promise to be an economic bonanza for Canada, according to the Trillium report. The 20,790 MW of offshore wind projects will require $83.2 billion in capital investment, are expected to generate $253.5 billion in gross economic activity, and 66,362 jobs. Trillium envisions the industry creating an offshore wind-based innovation chain that draws not only manufacturing, but also R&D, demonstration and deployment activity.

    ‘In effect, offshore wind development can precipitate a return to building Ontario’s economy to its original foundation – clean, perpetual and reliable renewable energy’, says the Trillium report.

  • The Tories are fickle and nuclear is too big to fail

     

     

    Four years on, we’re no closer to finding out how to deal with highly toxic nuclear waste and the Tory leader’s point stands as strong as ever. But unfortunately, the Tories no longer seem to care. Indeed, the Tories’ new green paper on energy security shows remarkable dexterity in rewriting history, now criticising the Labour government for dragging its feet before finally coming round to support new nuclear.

     

    This political journey neatly epitomises the Conservative’s new energy policy: confused, incoherent and lacking in credibility. Nuclear power has always required huge amounts of public money and David Cameron’s signal that the Tories are ready to turn on the taps of taxpayer support risks billions which we simply can’t afford. Both Labour and the Tories claim that they will not provide any public subsidy, but both know that this cannot be true when the nuclear industry that has never been able to survive without it.

     

    Like the banks, new nuclear is too big to fail. And like the banks, new nuclear depends on a more or less explicit taxpayer guarantee. Once a nuclear power station is running we will have it for the next 40 years, come what may. No responsible government could ever let a nuclear power generator go bankrupt. This has happened before, when the taxpayer had to bail out British Energy £10bn and accept £73bn of their liabilities. As my colleague Vince Cable has said, nuclear power is the Royal Bank of Scotland of the energy industry.

     

    There has been a lot of talk of energy security. It is the case that a lot of our generating capacity will come offline in the near, future leaving us with the possibility of an energy gap. If nothing is done now we will start to see an energy gap emerge around 2016. It is something that politicians from all sides must take seriously. It is also another reason why we cannot rely on nuclear power.

     

    One nuclear reactor takes seven years to build. The designs for the reactors that have been proposed by the energy companies have yet to be approved, and the health and safety executive has said already that they will require a major redesign. Realistically we are at least a decade away from new nuclear power in the UK.

     

    The only way we can guarantee a clean, safe and secure energy supply is to invest now in renewable energy which can come online today. Cameron will say that he wants this too, but this is where the Tory energy policy falls down. Nuclear power – large, immovable and expensive is the antithesis of a free and fair energy market based on renewables.

     

    Building a new generation of nuclear power could dry up all investment in other sources of energy. Nuclear power costs an incredible amount of money. The government estimates that a new reactor will cost £3bn but the latest bids from the companies to build the same reactors in other countries are around twice that. A programme of 10 reactors, as proposed by the government, (and Cameron has said he wants no limit on the number), will cost at least £60bn in upfront costs. This is capital that could be used to invest in renewables.

     

    Of course, the economics of nuclear are only part of the problem. There are also many large and intractable problems associated with nuclear waste. The nuclear waste which will be produced by the new generation of reactors will be hotter and more radioactive than the last generation. It will need to be stored onsite for 160 years and will remain radioactive for the next 30,000. After 40 years of civil nuclear power in this country we still have no safe means of disposing of it. It is an environmental disaster.

     

    The potential for nuclear power to divert resources from renewables, and the dangerous legacy of highly radioactive toxic waste, mean that serious environmentalists cannot support a large programme of nuclear power, and indeed none of the large environmental campaign groups do.

     

    The Conservative party, which just a few years ago became briefly a new champion of environmental causes when they needed to improve their image, now drops serious green causes like a hot stone in the run-up to the election. This is an alarming sign of what Conservative change now means.

     

    For a real change, a change that works for a fair and green Britain, and sound economics, there is the Liberal Democrats.

     

    • Simon Hughes is the Liberal Democrats’ shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change.