Govt Energy Review

Latest Articles

Govt Energy Review

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 9:52 am Post subject: Govt Energy Review

Tuesday 29 November 2005 11:14
Department of Trade and Industry (National)

ENERGY REVIEW - A SECURE AND CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson, today announced that they have asked Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks to lead a Review of UK energy policy and to bring forward policy proposals next year.

The Terms of Reference of the Review, published today, are broad in scope including aspects of both energy supply and demand and will focus on policy measures to help us deliver our objectives beyond 2010. The Review will aim to ensure the UK is on track to meet the goals of the 2003 Energy White Paper in the medium and long term.

Malcolm Wicks said today:

"The Energy Review is taking place against a background of strengthening evidence on the nature and extent of climate change and increasing concerns about the future security of UK energy supplies. This is the right moment to assess where we are in relation to achieving the goals set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper.

"The Review will explore all the options open to us taking into account the important international context. There will inevitably be some difficult decisions and trade offs to be made in arriving at the right package of policy proposals. It is crucial that we stimulate a wide-ranging and informed debate and engage the public, business and industry throughout the process as well as academic, private sector, scientific, NGO and other experts."

The Review will be taken forward by a cross-departmental team based in the DTI, with officials drawn from key relevant departments and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. The devolved administrations and territorial departments are already involved and will continue to be involved throughout the course of the Review. The Review team will draw on expert support and analysis both within and outside government.

A formal consultation phase will start around the turn of the year. The consultation will be launched with a statement of current evidence on the White Paper goals and the government's plans for engagement with the public and stakeholders.

The Review will assess progress against the four goals set by the 2003 Energy White Paper:

* to put ourselves on a path to cut the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by about 2050 with real progress by 2020;

* to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;

* to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to raise the rate of sustainable economic growth and to improve our productivity; and

* to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

This Review is part of our ongoing commitment to reviewing progress against the goals and, if necessary, taking steps to ensure we stay on track. It will be taken forward in the context of the Government's commitment to sound public finances.

The Review will consider all options including the role of current generating technologies (e.g. renewables, coal, gas and nuclear power) and new and emerging technologies (e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage). The Review will also consider transport and the role of energy efficiency.

The Review team will work closely with the Stern Review team, who are looking at the economics of climate change, in a wider global context. More information about the Stern Review can be found at https://www.sternreview.org.uk.

Notes for editors

1. The cross-departmental team will conduct a wide-ranging review of energy policy but set firmly within the framework of the four goals set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper. The Review scope will include energy sources, electricity generation and energy consumption.

2. The Energy Review will draw on work being carried out by the Stern Review and CCPR:

* The Chancellor announced on 19 July 2005 that he had asked Sir Nick Stern to lead a major review of the economics of climate change, to understand more comprehensively the nature of the economic challenges and how they can be met, in the UK and globally.

* The CCPR is reviewing progress under the UK Climate Change Programme and is expected to report early in 2006. The UK Climate Change Programme was published in November 2000. It was focused on policies and measures to meet our Kyoto target and move towards our domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.

3. Terms of Reference for Energy Review

The Government will review the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals and the options for further steps to achieve them. The aim will be to bring forward proposals on energy policy next year.

The Review will be informed by analysis and options drawn up by a Review team led by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks. This will be a team of officials drawn from key relevant departments and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. In drawing up the analysis and options, the Energy Minister will undertake extensive public and stakeholder consultation. The Review will be taken forward in the context of the Government's commitment to sound public finances. The Review team will report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in early summer.

Department of Trade and Industry
7th Floor
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Public Enquiries +44 (0)20 7215 5000
Textphone +44 (0)20 7215 6740
(for those with hearing impairment)
https://www.dti.gov.uk

Penny Outskirts

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 9:56 am Post subject:
Is it just me, or do they seem to keep having these reviews? The cynic in me says they'll keep going until one comes up with the answers they want to hear.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 10:10 am Post subject:
It would have been nice if they had listened to the results of the massive review that took place 3 years agao, rather than ignoring it because it raised tough questions. BTW, I said that nuclear wasn't the option.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 10:25 am Post subject:
The nuclear argument is being made more seductive by playing it as the least worst option to stave off the end of civilisation as we know it. It's rather undermined by the revelation that the fuel grade Uranium available is estimated to last 13 to 20 years. What happens then? Extraction and processing is also energy intensive. But then a big wind turbine has 500 tons of concrete underneath it.

Blue Peter

Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 11:14 am Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

The nuclear argument is being made more seductive by playing it as the least worst option to stave off the end of civilisation as we know it. It's rather undermined by the revelation that the fuel grade Uranium available is estimated to last 13 to 20 years. What happens then? Extraction and processing is also energy intensive. But then a big wind turbine has 500 tons of concrete underneath it.

There's an interesting question as to whether our current problems with natural gas have been ignored until it's too late to do anything about them as a way of promoting nuclear. The alternatives are that the government are incompetent, or stupidly optimistic. Any which way, they don't seem trustworthy on energy.

I'm also against nuclear for the fuel reasons. A further argument which I've seen relates to the problems of clearup, which is nicely stated as, clearing up nuclear waste might be a possibility for a rich society, but since a future society is likely to be poorer than ours, to burden them with the problem is immoral,

Peter.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 11:28 am Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

It's rather undermined by the revelation that the fuel grade Uranium available is estimated to last 13 to 20 years.

It has to be enriched which will give us around 100 years supply, however you get more waste and weapons grade stuff to boot.

Andy B

Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 12:40 pm Post subject:
But by the time they have had a few more reviews and fought off numerous objection and then built them anyway, it will be twenty years down the line.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 12:59 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Behemoth wrote:

It's rather undermined by the revelation that the fuel grade Uranium available is estimated to last 13 to 20 years.

It has to be enriched which will give us around 100 years supply, however you get more waste and weapons grade stuff to boot.

100 years doesn't seem like a very long time nowadays (must be getting older).

Blue Peter

Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 1:24 pm Post subject:

This article by George Monbiot may be relevant:

https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/29/how-much-energy-do-we-have-/#more-962

Quote:

29/11/2005
How Much Energy Do We Have?
Filed under: climate change nuclear
Are there enough renewables to keep the lights on? The answer will be comforting to no one.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 29th November 2005

In one respect, Simon Jenkins is right. �Nobody�, he complained in the Guardian last week, while laying out his case for nuclear power, �agrees about figures�(1). As a result, �energy policy is like Victorian medicine, at the mercy of quack remedies and snake-oil salesmen.�

There is a reason for this. As far as I can discover, reliable figures for the total volume of electricity that renewable power could supply do not yet exist. As a result, anyone can claim anything, and anyone does. The enthusiasts for renewables insist that the entire economy � lights, heating, cars and planes � can be powered from hydrogen produced by wind. The nuclear evangelists maintain, in Jenkins�s words, that �even if every beauty spot in Britain were coated in windmills their contribution to the Kyoto target would be minuscule.� All of us are groping around in the dark.

So though this is not a scientific journal, and though I am not qualified to do it, I am going to attempt a rough first draft, which I hope will be challenged and refined by people with better credentials. Some of my assumptions are generous, others are conservative. This will be far from definitive and, I am afraid, quite complex, but at least, on the day the government�s energy review is announced, we will have something to argue about.

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 2:43 pm Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

... It's rather undermined by the revelation that the fuel grade Uranium available is estimated to last 13 to 20 years. ...

I'm not really sure what this figure really means.

1/ Does the reserve figure apply to existing known orebodies? AFAIK the current mines are near surface and were detected by radiation at the surface. I don't think anyone has given much effort to locating deeper orebodies.
Petrochemical "known reserves" have only been a few years too. For over seventy years. A finite reserve, I am well aware, but my point is that we have become more skilled in seeking it out.

2/ On what basis is consumption calculated?
The 'burn' of fuel in existing reactors has been very limited - less than 5%, I think, of the available fuel undergoes fission before the fission products are mopping up too many of the 'thermal' neutrons, and the fuel pin needs to be swapped for a fresh one. The remaining 95% can be recycled by "reprocessing" - thats where Sellafield comes in - but its sheduled to shut down... Breeder reactors (rather than enrichment) can (or is it could) increase the availability of fissile Uranium.

My general point is that such figures cannot just be accepted, at face value, without considering the assumptions that lie behind them.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 05 2:50 pm Post subject:

Neither do I - was a comment on the radio this morning that current known reserves are expected to be exhausted sooner rather than later.

So we need to start looking for more now - assuming it's harder to find/extract it's not the bargain its made out to be and that the whole process is based on a limited resource is not widely trumpeted by those in support of more nuclear power generation.

I would love it if the Govt organised a commission into establishing some baseline numbers so we can all have an informed debate.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

View Latest Posts