For those who care
The Commentator























ON THE IMPORTANCE OF A SECURE ENERGY SUPPLY



In a recent article I suggested that there were two requirements for life to be possible in the British Isles. One was a secure food supply with which I have dealt already. The other is a secure supply of energy.

At present we rely on imported petroleum products which cannot be secure; on an electricity supply link across the Channel to the French system which in view of the number of times that the ferry ports have been closed with impunity and without good cause cannot be secure; on tanker imported liquid gas which cannot be secure; on pipeline supplies of gas from Russia which cannot be relied on, not only because of their origin but also because they pass through Germany. All of this is not comfortable.

On the comfortable side we have a newly opened pipeline to Norway which will be a supplier of goodwill in any conceivable circumstances. That whilst supplies last will supply 15% of our need.

In addition, almost unbelievably, we have supplies of coal from Australia the transport of which could be made impossible, and finally our own indigenous coal supply which  contributes a small part of our need.

According to statistics the percentages of energy derived from major sources were in 2005:


                                                Natural gas           40%
                                                Oil                          33%
                                                Coal                       17%
                                                Nuclear                   8%
                                                Renewables            2%


It is ironic that in Britain we should be going on about energy supply when we are sitting on hundreds of years worth of coal. The coal industry was deliberately destroyed in what amounted to an act of political vandalism. The Conservative Party, whose government had been virtually destroyed in the time of Edward Heath by striking miners, was determined that such a thing would not happen again. The demand for coal was so rigged that it could not be ‘economically‘ mined and pit after pit was closed. There has to be a sharing of blame here. The Conservatives were certainly the killers but it was the ideologically driven miners' union leaders who provoked them into their killing frenzy. Recent developments have demonstrated even to the workers that curbing union political power was beneficial but the price was extremely high.

The outcome is that at best our coal reserves are in the category of strategic reserves but they can only remain so as long as the means to get them remains, and as long as there are men prepared to undertake the arduous and dangerous task of getting them.

Mention coal and our environmentalists immediately scream pollution but it need not be so. The power station at Drax near Selby, Yorkshire, has shown that coal can be cleanly burned and that from the emissions cleaning process a byproduct emerges -  gypsum -  which is sold to the plaster board industry. The remaining emissions are a small percentage and as they are all chemical, ways may be found of combining or converting them so as to remove the risk. Cost should not be a governing factor if the pollution problem is really serious.

The engineering firm Babcocks has offered to the government a priced plan to convert all coal powered power stations to the Drax system. Why it is not being implemented is hard to understand. Energy, it cannot be too often stated, is ultimately beyond price. The amount of money being wasted on the Iraq war, on interminable inquiries, and on handouts, not to mention the huge overpayments in the tax credit system, could easily finance a project far more important.

The Government's 2002 Energy Review only noted that the possibility of investment in clean coal technology should be kept open. In April 2007 however, and this is almost breaking news, the industry itself is taking matters forward. A colliery which I know well -  Hatfield -  has reopened with access to an estimated 100 million tons of recoverable coal in association with Drax and Powergen as customers. The intention is to build a new electricity generating plant on site and to convert coal with clean burn directly into electricity as is done at Drax. In this way it is intended to increase the percentage of energy produced from coal and thus to reduce dependence on what I have called dodgy suppliers.

We should always remember however that the British Government only pretends to be master in its own house. In fact it is taking instruction from the EU all the time in minute detail, some of which seem to be hostile to our best interests.

The universal scare about CO2 seems to given credence by fewer and fewer, partly because there is almost a diet of scares one after another and partly because what government says is not believed anyway.

It does take some believing. In the first place there are known cycles of climate change. Were past warm spells the result of emissions? What were the causes of ice ages, maxi and mini? There was time when the Thames used to freeze. The greatest difficulty comes from the fact that CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to mammals.

One would expect an increase in carbon dioxide to produce abundant vegetation as a natural response. We have cut down whole continents worth of trees which may well have had an effect in disturbing the tendency to establish a natural balance.

The biggest problem however is people. We are all exhaling CO2 at a considerable rate. How many people equal one coal fired power station?

In the case of our bovine population, they are not only exhaling CO2 at one end but at the other they are venting methane, both damaging to the environment.

Whatever the rights of the CO2 situation may be we clearly do not have a secure energy supply. Even if Norwegian supplies are deemed equal in reliability to indigenous sources 58% of our needs are met from dodgy suppliers.

It is interesting to see how we use our energy. According to official statistics 35% goes on transport, 26% on space heating, 10% on industry, 8% on water heating, and 6% on lighting and small electric appliances. The 35% on transport must include our obsession with the car.

In the second world war private cars, such as there were, had to be mothballed for the duration. In any period of severe energy stringency the same would happen of necessity. Commuting could become a problem for some.

Energy supply is essential. Without it life as it is lived today is not possible. Just think about it. No television, no computers, no gas or electric cookers, no dishwashers, no washing machines, no refrigeration, no central heating,  just to mention a few things around the home.

The only sensible way forward is to develop indigenous sources which must include clean burn coal locally produced, not imported. There is an attempt to divert farmers from growing food to growing fuel -  so-called bio mass. As a way of converting CO2 into energy this is a good idea but only if it can be grown on land that is not suitable for food production or at worst as a healthy rotation crop. There is a thought that for malign reasons this might be part of the plan  to ensure that Britain could not feed itself.

Solar power has got to come into the picture. Comparatively small installations can take care of water heating. If it could also take care of space heating and cooling and also the demands of small electric devices, 40% of total energy needs would be taken care of. The cost of houses is now so high that the addition of a solar system would add little of significance to the cost of building.

It is also necessary to look carefully at the safety and efficiency of the French nuclear programme, and to take their experience as a guide, rather than to get emotional about Hiroshima or three mile island or Chernobyl, which were incidents along the way, however tragic.

All of this would do little for the profits of the energy companies but it would go a long way towards national self sufficiency  and it would make life tolerable no matter what happens. In the final analysis energy is beyond price.

British Government energy policy, rather than facing the real problem, accepts the fact of energy dependence. It is a large and foolish assumption to make that supply will not be disrupted by some catastrophe like a global war or even as an instrument of policy. Even to be vulnerable to blackmail of that kind is an act of folly which could invite somebody to try it on.