Posted by Sally Barrett-Williams of The Carbon Catalysts Group
We’ve known about the impending energy gap for some considerable time now. It’s not getting closed. Why not?
One reason is that not enough bankable renewable energy projects are being built. Our renewable energy capacity is increasing, but oh, so slowly. In any event, there are no signs there could be sufficient renewable output in the medium term to be anything other than an addendum to the main show.
Another reason is that new-build nuclear is slipping further into the future as the big issues take time to get sorted. A carbon floor is yet to be priced and put in place. A decommissioning cost has to be agreed in principle, determined and capped. And planning has now been thrown back by the Tories and will take years longer than was once expected.
There are peripheral reasons, too. Yes, there’s carbon capture and storage – but not now, and not in any clearly predictable future. Yes, there’s new-build gas - but there is a real discomfort with that option and a proposal is still on the Treasury’s table to penalise anything new-build with any carbon at all.
So what will happen? Undoubtedly, we will do as others and backtrack on mothballing valuable resources. In Germany the nuclear fleet due to close in 2022 will now not close until after 2050. Spain has just begun a review of its entire energy portfolio - mostly coal or gas. Other EU States are also reconsidering - notably Eastern Europe. Much of this is to do with coal.
As for the UK, we have lots of coal plant and it is predictable that the 13GW to be mothballed in 2016 will remain in service if closure means cuts in output. Right now, closure does mean cuts in output. And right now government should be planning how to backtrack on mothballing commitments and when to do so.
Some say it shouldn’t be done, but either fail to say what should be done or demonstrate a singular lack of grip on the state of the technology, on the workings of the finance markets and on how economies work.
Others say it can’t be done because we’ve signed up to two EU directives and we’re bound by the EU Treaty. Both those who say we shouldn’t retreat from mothballing and those who say we can’t might find the tale of the Irish oil refinery salutary:
The Irish government bought a non-commercial oil refinery. To enable it to survive financially, the government forced oil importers to buy its high-priced products.
A group of oil importers clubbed together to ‘sue’ their government, claiming that the obligation was an import obstacle and so illegal under EU law.
The case went to the European Court of Justice, which agreed that the Irish government was creating important obstacles.
But it went on to say that although such import obstacles were often illegal, in this case they could be justified.
It is the ground of justification that is important. The Irish government argued the import restriction was justifiable on grounds of “public security”. The Court not only agreed, it argued in support:
“[oil] products … are of fundamental importance for a country's existence since not only its economy but … its institutions, its essential public services and even the survival of its inhabitants depend upon them. An interruption of supplies … with the resultant dangers for the country's existence, could therefore seriously affect the public security that [states are allowed to protect]”.
The ECJ faced with a refusal to mothball by the UK could not but argue the same need for the government to take those steps it is permitted to take to protect its interests. And faced with those who say it shouldn’t be done, it would repeat its claim that the survival of the State depends upon it.
