And another thing…

The Punch and Judy clash of ‘nukes versus windmills’ is missing the point, argues Martin Wright - and obscuring the most exciting aspect of the energy debate.

“If every home’s a power plant, then every homeowner is an energy company: suddenly, he or she has a direct interest in making more and - crucially - using less.”

You can’t turn on the radio these days, it seems, without hearing more opening salvos from that mother of all battles: the pros and cons of nuclear power. At the moment, we’re still at the phoney war stage, characterised by the sound of politicians squirming so firmly on the fence that you can only hope they’re wearing something suitably padded. The coming months will see a fair few of them, along with a clutch of environmentalists, slide gently down onto the nuclear side of the tracks, full of tough talk about grasping nettles.

The battle has often been portrayed as a clash of technologies: of nukes versus windmills, say. That’s partly the result of a little light footwork by the nuclear lobby, using the time-honoured technique of setting up a paper tiger and then shooting it down, and partly just media laziness. But there’s a real danger here of missing the point - and missing the chance to lay the foundations for a truly resilient energy future.

Leave aside for a moment the weighty case against nuclear power. Just assume, for the sake of argument, that it can indeed be portrayed as sustainable energy. Even if we sanctioned a new generation of nukes tomorrow, they’re highly unlikely to arrive in enough time, or in sufficient numbers, to plug the looming energy gap. Add to that the fact that peak petroleum is just over the horizon, and the science of carbon sequestration still uncertain enough to make burning coal a huge gamble with the climate.

Then consider just how vulnerable a centralised power network is to accidental disruption or terrorist attack. Put all those together, and suddenly the old model of relying wholly on huge, centralised power plants generating vast chunks of energy to send down the wires is looking decidedly shaky. By contrast, the scope for innovation in decentralised power generation - at the level of individual homes, buildings and communities - is huge, and hugely underexploited. A new report commissioned by the DTI suggests that, by 2050, we could meet up to 40% of our electricity needs from small-scale ‘microgeneration’, ranging from tiny roof-mounted windmills to fuel cells and Stirling engines (although some of these would still depend on gas fuel).

Then there’s the 30% savings achievable through improved energy efficiency. Together, these hold out the promise of a much more resilient response to our energy challenges than simply chucking an awful lot of eggs into a flimsy and expensive nuclear basket. To bring that promise to life, we have to find a way of bringing the benefits and responsibilities right into people’s homes, and into their pockets.

Smart tax-breaks and subsidies, coupled with regulations insisting that new buildings generate a minimum proportion of their power needs, will play a role, of course. The real transformation needed is not one of technologies, though, but attitudes.

“The Tories should pick this up and run with it.”

Tony Blair is reportedly persuaded of the nuclear option because he thinks it would be “too difficult” to get people to change their behaviour sufficiently to do without it. But if every home’s a power plant, then every homeowner is an energy company: suddenly, he or she has a personal, financial interest in making more and - crucially - using less.

And the energy debate leaps off the boring broadsheets and onto the kitchen table. After all, what’s sexier, just now, than home improvement? If a new kitchen gets the juices flowing, just imagine the excitement of having electricity cheques, rather than bills, landing on our doormats. Every watt we generate or save at home means less dependence on imports of oil and gas (not to mention uranium) from distant, dodgy shores.

So there’s scope to play to a patriotic agenda too - one that’s overdue for reclamation from Europhobic, asylum-fixated tabloids. The prospect of regaining more control over our power supplies - bringing them back home - while at the same time giving people the chance to make money out of the process, could refresh parts of Britain left hitherto untouched by the search for a sustainable future. Like the Daily Mail, for example - or the new modern Conservatives. If the Tories were to pick up this vision and really run with it, then we might have an energy debate worth having.

Martin Wright is editor-in-chief of Green Futures.

5 January 2006

Martin Wright