Tony Cooper, NIA Chairman

Electricity price and security
Unless investment decisions are taken in the next 5 years, then within 20 years there will be no coal fired or nuclear generation other than Sizewell B. The UK will then be dependent on imported gas and renewables. Renewable technologies have an important part to play in clean energy generation, but can contribute very little to energy security. With the exception of Norway, gas imports will come via extended pipelines or liquefied natural gas from politically less than stable parts of the world.

Quite separately, the electricity market, as currently designed, is a simple commodity market rewarding suppliers of electricity according to the usual balance of supply and demand. That begs a whole series of questions.

A day without electricity represents a huge economic and social cost, but merely the loss of one day's revenue to a supplier. To avoid such disruption we need at least 20% excess capacity over and above the anticipated winter peak. If that capacity is idle in the current market it will not be recompensed, and as it will be idle most or all of the time it is impossible to believe that such capacity will be maintained.

Nuclear generation has a unique role to play in providing supply security, yet it is penalised in a market with no capacity payment. Renewable generators conversely may not be able to respond to demand fluctuations. The UK has a significant number of days when the whole country is covered by a single anti-cyclone and there is no appreciable wind. Such days normally occur in mid-winter and are accompanied by extremely low temperatures and high electricity demands.

Carbon dioxide emissions
The market as currently designed provides no mechanism for rewarding electricity production without CO2 emissions. The so called Climate Change Levy is paid by nuclear and large-scale hydro generators, despite the fact that they do not contribute to climate deterioration.

The Government is moving towards an emission trading scheme, which is welcome, but it may not be introduced in the most effective manner. Unless the Climate Change Levy is repealed the two instruments will eventually work in conflict.

Decommissioning disposal
The anticipated decommissioning and disposal liabilities are substantial. Currently the lack of clear decisions on both these issues is both a huge benefit to anti-nuclear campaigners and a source of considerable uncertainty among those who are  supportive. If this were settled however it would be possible to have some certainty for any potential investor. The current Energy Bill and the imminent creation of a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is therefore crucial to any future for the industry.

Public acceptability
While the industry believes that it has suffered from its association in the public perception with weapons production and disasters such as Chernobyl, that is an easy excuse. In my judgement our problems are at least as much of our own making. Environmental lobbyists speak most frequently to the public and they do so in jargon-free simplifications. We too need to stop talking to ourselves, in our own language and start talking to the public in theirs. We need to learn that technologically brilliant enthusiasts are not the best people to pursue that discourse, however well meaning or committed.

In short, rather than simply arguing the case for new nuclear power stations in isolation, we need first to argue for reform of the electricity market. We need to end the uncertainty about the issues of decommissioning and disposal. Meanwhile we need to get our message across to the public in clear, unambiguous ways that they actually understand. Then and only then can we return with confidence to the debate on the future of the industry. We do not have a great deal of time.