What happened when you questioned the energy minister
13 July 2006
We held a special webchat with minister Malcolm Wicks to discuss the recently published Energy Review.
Many thanks to all of you who sent in questions.
You can read the transcript of the webchat below
Malcolm says: Hello Malcolm Wicks here. I am the Energy Minister - looking forward to this webchat on the Energy Review just published.
Mrs H Taylor: Mr Wicks you said: "It's not possible in 2006 to make all the policy decisions needed up to 2050." Will we have another Energy Review every two years, with new ideas every time? Who will make the final decisions necessary?
Malcolm replies:No. There won't be an Energy Review every two years. This week's report looks to the medium and longer term. Its recommendations take us a long way in our ambition to reduce carbon emissions. But of course we can't say everything now that will be required up to the mid century. Future Governments will need to address the situation. The Review is however ambitious about tackling global warming.
David Honour: Whilst I agree with Malcolm Wicks recent comments that climate change is an environmental issue that must be addressed, isn't there a risk that in encouraging the development of nuclear power we are creating a secondary environmental problem for our children to deal with?
Malcolm replies: I certainly recognise, through talks I've had with hundreds of people during our consultation, that nuclear is controversial. I wish we could tackle carbon emissions, save the planet, by having more wind turbines and by using energy more efficiently. Those things are certainly important but sadly they are not the whole answer. Nuclear power is clean, but we take safety considerations very seriously. Public safety is paramount.
Alex: I want to know when government will set higher standards for renewable energy porduction in all new housing. If all new houses from 1st Janaury 2007 had to have solar panels, microgeneration, mini wind turbines installed, then the unit costs woudl fall, consumers would see the lower running costs coming through - and then demand for these energy efficient houses would rise hugely. The housebuilders would be able to install these systems at cost for no more than £2-5,000 - around 1% of capital cost!!! This would reduce power station demand and therefore no need to changee planning rules to build nuclear power. Its a win-win. So what is the problem Minister?
Malcolm replies: The houses and flats we live in contribute about a quarter of total carbon dioxide emissions, so improved thermal efficiency and renewable sources of energy in our homes is vital. Alex, I agree with you. That is why the Government has announced that the standards of new build housing will be radically improved and we are taking steps too to have more renewable energy technologies in our housing. Many local authorities already demand this. Of course it's easier when we're building new housing, but renewables have a role to play too for existing accommodation. I have now got planning permission from Croydon Council to put a wind turbine on my own house and i hope it will be up and blowing in the next few weeks.
Lizzie Q:How have you reached these conclusions Mr Wicks - who did you speak to or did you make your mind up before you even started? Many people are worried about Nuclear
Malcolm replies: It was a genuine review and a genuine consultation. We held events in every region of England and in Wales and Scotland too. We had over 5,000 responses and we met with a range of organisations, from business through to NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. I had not made up my mind about nuclear at the start of the Review. I take public safety very seriously and also the issues about the disposal of nuclear waste. But my honest conclusion at the end was that if we're serious about tackling global warming and if we are concerned as well about energy security, civil nuclear should form part of a balanced package for the future alongside renewables and a huge emphasis on energy efficiency.
Kate Simpson:When locations are decided for new nuclear build, how does the government intend to deal with NIMBYISM?
Malcolm replies: It will be for private companies to make proposals about new nuclear reactors, but industry assume that locating new reactors on existing nuclear sites is the sensible way forward. Local economies are used to nuclear and they provide many skilled and well paid jobs. That seems a sensible way ahead to me. For energy supply reasons, we need new investment in clean energy technologies, and it is important that the planning process is speeded up. Local planning enquiries should focus on local issues and not be the occasion to re-open the whole debate about the pros and cons of nuclear.
Clive Edwards: We live in an area of reasonably exposed countryside. Would the Government consider the subsidy of mini wind generators in an effort to cut the need to produce and indeed be used to supply unwanted power back into the grid? The cost is perhaps what stops many people considering this as an option or even combining with a joint solar system. Your views would be welcome.
Malcolm replies: We need more micro generation Clive. I see a future where more community buildings, more industry and more of our own homes have something about them which produces clean energy. They could be a small wind turbine or solar panelling, or heat pumps. We have A Low Carbon Building Programme worth £80 million and some grants will be made to householders. But I hope and expect that more of us will spend some of our own money to make our homes have renewable energy. At present most of us are part of the problem about global warming. More of us need to become part of the solution.
Charlotte: I've heard that you want to introduce more renewables in the UK's schools to teach children more about what they can do. How is this progressing?
Malcolm replies: Yes Charlotte. I want to see our schools become a living example of renewable technology and there is now every opportunity for this to progress. There will be a massive amount of new school building in coming years. Take one example, the Ashburton Learning Village, a new school in Croydon where I live. It has substantial solar panelling - photovoltaics - which really makes an impression on school pupils and their teachers. The science teacher there tells me about how she uses the school when she teaches about energy and the environment. And for existing schools, we will put money into micro generation. The opportunity is to teach children about their relationship to energy and the relationship between energy and our planet's wellbeing.
keith Cowan:Is it sustainable for the Scottish Executive to decide to block the development of new nuclear power stations in Scotland while the people of Scotland and business etc benefit from the security of supply that such power stations would provide to Britain?
Malcolm replies: In Scotland, Scottish Ministers exercise the power under the Electricity Act to grant consent for the construction and operation of large power stations. As for the rest of the UK, we need mixed energy supplies, including renewables. Given the crucial challenge of climate change and also energy security, we need a well informed debate about these matters.
David Hill:Why are you so reluctant to use Green Coal. There are millions of tons of coal in South Wales with work for hundreds of men.
Malcolm replies: Coal is currently a vital part of our energy supply -every year about 30 per cent of our electricity depends on coal. Last winter, because of high gas prices, it reached 50 per cent. The challenge now is the development of clean coal technology, not only important here but crucial in China, which burns huge quantities of coal to fuel its developing economy. We currently import a lot of our coal but we are committed to a future for British coal. The Review announces a new Coal Forum so that we can debate these issues effectively.
Peter Simmons: Malcolm
I would advise against a wind turbine on your house [roof?] as tests have shown that the vibration can not only be disturbing, but also damages the structure, unless you live in a castle! Better to have it in the garden. But full marks for trying. Have you considered photovoltaics instead? I don't believe planning permission is needed, except with listed buildings.
Malcolm replies: Well Peter, I don't live in a castle - I am a very humble Energy Minister. I know that these things have to be looked at carefully and I am finding that actually putting the wind turbine in place is a little more complex thanI'd thought! But I've seen examples of it happening in practice and therefore I think that, with care, it can be done. Photovoltaics is an excellent technology and I hope that as the demand for this technology grows, costs will come down.
Pete D: What are the "new incentives" to reduce emissions from supermarkets? How can they be forced to save energy?
Malcolm replies: You're right. Currently through something called the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which targets the really heavy emitters of CO2, such as the energy sector and big industry, there are incentives to reduce emissions. In the Review report we propose a new Energy Performance Commitment to include supermarket chains, government departments and large local councils. This will incentivise them to be more energy efficient and reduce dangerous emissions. I am glad that Government departments are included because we certainly need to do better in the future.
David Fowler: Dear Mr Wicks,
Are you aware that 85% of the electricity generated is lost during transmission in the national grid? This is a horrendous loss and is unavoidable due to the resistance in the pylon wires due to te distances involved. This means that all efforts on energy saving only have any effect on the final 15% which arrives to the consumer. A much larger number of much smaller local power stations would overcome this as the transmission distances would be comparatively trivial. The grid could then only be used in emergencies. Something like 60% of the nations power is generated in the Trent Valley making it strategically a target in the event of war as the whole national grid would be unable to cope were the power stations there to be targeted.
Has the part abandonment of the national grid ever been considered in favour of very local small power stations?
Malcolm replies: The Review signals a strong interest in local energy generation and there are already many good examples of this, notably in Woking. Micro generation will boost this sector. My own judgement is that these are not alternatives. We will need more large power stations and a national grid but it might well be complemented increasingly by local generation.
Stephen Voller: Why is there not more focus on fuel cells in the Energy Review ?
Malcolm replies: This is a potentially a very exciting technology, and a lot of work is going into it. We have a fund ourselves to promote fuel cells. I know they can work. When I visited the States last summer GM showed me their hydrogen fuel cell prototype car. I even drove it - very carefully, as it was worth $1 million.
Phil Brazier:Alternative fuels for transport, i.e., biofuels are there or will there be incentives for business users to convert?
Malcolm replies: Biofuels, and more generally biomass, is part of the future. The Government has already announced that soon 5 per cent of a car's fuel should come from this source, and we would like to see this boosted in the future. There are also of course hybrid cars, using electric batteries.
Mark Rowland: I have just listened toTony Blairs interview defending the need for nuclear power and it is something that I think needs to be done. However he is not takling the ways in which we can all help with immissions. He mentioned energy efficient light bulbs but why is there not more incentive to install solar heating, electric voltaic cells, wind mills etc. We are putting solar heating in at the cost of £7500 which we can not afford we are getting a loan, the grant we could get would be only £400 and it would require the installer to be registered with the the body who issues the grants, but there is so much red tape that the cost of processing the grant costs more than the grant its self so the installers de-registered. We are doing it because we want to do our bit but unless help is given with the cost of these tecgnologies people are not going to do it.
It seems rediculous that new houses are not being fitted with alternative technologies as standard and that more help is not being given on existing housing.
Malcolm replies: We are boosting micro generation through an £80 million programme and grants are available to householders. Obviously we need to do some proper admin. so that proper installers, not cowboys, are involved. The cost of these technologies will decline as demand increases, but of course I do appreciate that at the moment some of these technologies are expensive for the ordinary householder.
Tim Haynes: Hello there,
I am the MD of an SME which has developed tools to help organisations better manage their carbon emissions and overall environmental management processes. To the point...
Are there any incentives for SME's like ourselves to help promote what we offer inside and outside government? It is not clear to me how the government promotes companies such as us - where the payback is both reduced environmental impact AND the promotion of small businesses. Note that The Carbon Trust seems to focus on "hard" technologies, rather than the softer stuff which we have invested our own cash to bring to market.
Thank you for letting me put this question.
Tim Haynes
MD, Ceradon Ltd
Malcolm replies: There are huge business opportunities now, given the growing interest in carbon and how we tackle it. Good opportunities for smaller companies. Tim, would you email me with more details and I will send you a fuller response.
Ian Morton-Jones: How will you convince the green lobby you have no alternative other than to build more nuclear power stations?
How will you stop the waste falling into terrorist hands?
Malcolm replies: I respect that there are different views about nuclear. I grew up under the shadow of nuclear weapons and I can well appreciate people's concerns about anything nuclear. As a boy, I remember all too well the cuban missile crisis. But civil nuclear is different, and I am encouraged that following the Review there is a lot of sensible debate going on about our nuclear proposals. The test for us is to sort out the legacy of nuclear waste and also to reassure the public that nuclear build will be safe from terrorists. It would be giving in to terrorism if we let that threat dictate our policy position on energy.
Sarah Balmond: Sir. What more can be done to promote product design innovation that harnesses renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and wave power?
Malcolm replies: Two things are important. Something called the Renewables Obligation makes our generating companies source some of their energy from renewables. That's why we are seeing more wind farms across our lands. The Review announces that the obligation in the future can rise up to 20 per cent of supply. In addition, we put Government money into research and development and the newer, less commercially viable, technologies. One example: a new £50 million marine fund to encourage British technologies which seek to utilise tidal and wave power.
J McKinnon: what % of our future energy needs will be from nuclear, say in 2025?
Malcolm replies: Currently, about one-fifth of our electricity (19 per cent) comes from nuclear. It will obviously be up to private companies to make proposals about a new generation of nuclear reactors, but if the current capacity was replaced, then by 2030 our carbon emissions would be around 8 million tonnes of carbon lower and our gas consumption would be some 13 per cent lower.
Ian Selby: Where does the raw fuel for nuclear generation come from, is it not just as scarce as oil and gas, and what are the environmental impacts of obtaining it?
Malcolm replies: Uranium comes from several countries, but most of the UK's uranium comes from Australia and Canada, both friendly powers despite England's great victory in the Ashes last summer! International experts who look at this question carefully do not see scarcity as a problem in the future.
Graham clark: Why not subsidise the new energy efficient lightbulb prices (finance this by taxing(excise duty) non-energy efficient light bulb sales) so the energy efficient bulbs can be sold for £1 each - wouldn't this save electricity ?
Malcolm replies: Under energy efficiency programmes which aim to improve efficiency in our housing stock, particularly for low income groups, lightbulbs can be supplied as part of the package. But I think we need to convince others that this is an important investment they should make themselves. They are relatively expensive, but in the longer term they save the consumer money.
John Starbuck:Dear Mr Wicks,
Like many other people I have had a new combi boiler installed, but I can't afford wind and solar microgeneration until the prices come down or the grants go up. My next plan is to have cavity wall insulation, which I've used in previous houses, but assistance does vary across the country. Can we have national standards on assistance for local energy production and stress reduction in demand too?
Also, if local planning enquiries are to be speeded up, will this include nuclear waste disposal? On the same topic, you mentioned that existing nuclear plant will probably be suitable sites for new build stations, but they are all on the coast and subject to sea-level rise. Are we going to put the new ones on stilts?
Malcolm replies: Cavity wall insulation is, as you know John, one of the best investments you can make. For renewables, we can make some grants under the Low Carbon Building Programme. These things will get cheaper as demand rises. In terms of waste disposal, and there is a legacy of waste from the old reactors, we have established a new body, known as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, charged with the clean up task. Regarding the danger of future flooding, any developers of new nuclear build will of course take account of such risks. In any case, our safety regulators have to give their approval and this will be a rigorous test for any developers. Worldwide, the biggest flooding risk comes from rising sea levels as a consequence of global warming. That's why we are so keen to promote carbon free energy technologies.
Ian Selby: Thanks, but I also asked about environmental impacts of obtaining the raw fuel?
Malcolm replies: Sorry not to deal with that part of the question earlier. It would be for the countries themselves where uranium is mined to look at local environmental impacts. Building new nuclear power is obviously not carbon free, just as building wind farms is not carbon free. But over the long lifetime of a nuclear power station the carbon impact is minimal - only about one percent of the emissions from coal generation - and that's why the Review decided to signal a future for new nuclear.
Maria:Is it nuclear or bust?
Malcolm replies: No. I see nuclear as part of the future energy mix that has to bring on cleaner technologies. But nuclear contributes only about one fifth of today's electricity, only 9 per cent of all our energy supply. If it could produce a reasonable proportion of our energy requirement in 15 to 20 years time that would be a useful contribution to energy diversity.
Charlotte:If you conducted the Energy Review again, what, if anything would you do differently?
Malcolm replies: Well, it might have been nice to have had a few more weeks, but since November our Review team has done a lot of really rigorous work on the policy and the economics; we have consulted very widely across England, Wales and Scotland, and I am proud of the conclusions we've reached. So it's been a good Review on a question of huge importance for Britain and I know that it will lead to a really good debate as this webchat illustrates only too well.
Malcolm says: Thanks for the questions and I'm sorry I couldn't answer them all. Our Review addresses two of the really big questions for the 21st century - the scourge of global warming and our need for energy security. We presented many recommendations but the debate continues and I will have many opportunities in the future to participate in the debate. Thank you all for your well informed interest. More information is available on our website www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review.
