‘Bizarre’, the word used by FoE to describe the stance of the leaders of both Labour and Plaid over Wylfa B, struck me as an apt one. Given the work done by One Wales to develop an energy strategy for Wales based entirely on renewable energy – a strategy which I fully support – it is odd that both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister support a proposal which runs in direct contradiction to their own government’s policy.
The response of the Labour Party spokesman was, if anything, even more bizarre. Stating that “Welsh Labour remains committed to the construction of Wylfa B, a position we set out in the 2010 General Election manifesto” is a true and accurate statement, but it is completely at odds with their manifesto for this year’s election, which states:
“By 2050, at the latest, we will meet almost all of our local energy needs, whether for heat, electrical power or vehicle transport, by low carbon electricity production. Half of this will come from marine energy, a third from wind and the rest from sustainable biomass and other sources.”
That clear and unequivocal statement of intent leaves no role for nuclear energy to meet Wales’ needs; it simply doesn’t fit with the strategy.
The response of the ‘spokesman’ also seems to suggest that the 2010 UK manifesto somehow ‘trumps’ the 2011 Welsh manifesto, and renders part of it invalid – which also raises the question, of course, about how much of the rest of the manifesto we are supposed to treat seriously.
Plaid’s manifesto also makes a commitment to depending on renewable energy for the future: “Plaid will aim to make Wales self-sufficient in renewable electricity by 2030”. I’ve made my views on Plaid’s dilemma over nuclear pretty clear in the past; I won’t reiterate them in detail here, but it is worth noting that support for Wylfa B is not confined to one person alone.
Politically, where does it leave electors? We have two parties, both of which have produced manifestos which clearly set out a commitment to renewable energy as the way forward, neither of whose leaders are able to support that manifesto commitment. When push comes to shove, will the parties’ elected members support their leaders or their manifestos?
With the honorable exception of some individual members, history doesn’t leave me overly optimistic about the answer to that question.
Posts
2 comments:
A couple of points about the Labour manifesto statement:
1. 2050 is some time away. Could there be a need for nuclear to meet Wales's energy needs between the end of Wylfa B's construction and then?
2. The commitment states that "the rest [approximately 18%] [will come] from sustainable biomass and other sources.” Could this not include nuclear, which is after all low-carbon?
3. Could it be that there is a goal of energy exportation here, in which case there could be a role for nuclear energy generation?
Adam,
"1. 2050 is some time away. Could there be a need for nuclear to meet Wales's energy needs between the end of Wylfa B's construction and then?"
Not according to the Welsh Government's own strategy, as I read it. But a new nuclear plant is at least 7 years away, and more likely 10. If I were looking for a medium term option to fill a potential gap whilst even longer term plans are developed, I wouldn't be looking to nuclear. I'd accelerate the progress on developing renewables instead to avoid the 'gap' occurring.
"2. The commitment states that "the rest [approximately 18%] [will come] from sustainable biomass and other sources.” Could this not include nuclear, which is after all low-carbon?"
Yes, it could, although the amount of electricity produced by a nuclear plant compared to the remaining percentage of Wales' needs looks like a sledgehammer approach to me; the 'spare' capacity would be enormous. I had taken the remainder to be things like electricity from waste, hydro-electric, micro-generation - all of which form part of the Welsh Government's energy route map.
"3. Could it be that there is a goal of energy exportation here, in which case there could be a role for nuclear energy generation?"
I think that would have to be at the heart of it. Nuclear energy makes sense in the context of the government's energy route map only if it is producing electricity to meet needs outside Wales. It would enable the Labour Party to reconcile its position by saying something like, "we agree that Wales has no need of a new nuclear plant, but we support building one at Wylfa to serve the wider needs of the UK." (It would sound odd coming from a nationalist though, unless there was a means for Wales to charge for surplus electricity.)
There is an alternative question to be asked here though. Clearly - as I'm sure you'd expect - I've looked at this from a Welsh perspective, and from that perspective, we don't need nuclear. But if we look at it from a UK perspective, does the UK need nuclear, or could the UK follow a similar route map to Wales? I'd argue that it could follow a similar renewables-based route if the political will were there. I suspect, though, that the first question you raised - about a potential 'gap' in the short term might be more relevant in a UK context - but treating the nuclear option as a short-term gap filler raises the same timescale problems.
Post a Comment