By Ted Vibert
FOR the past few months, the States of ӣƵ has spent a considerable amount of time debating and making a decision on the principle of allowing a large wind farm, with 72 massive pylons supporting huge blades driving turbines, to create electricity be located off our south-west coast.
The States was told that this wind farm, which would be built by private investors, would provide ӣƵ with not only the major share of its future electricity but there would be plenty of spare power manufactured to sell to other countries.
The main promoter of this scheme was the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Jonathan Renouf (a position he no longer holds following the election of Deputy Lyndon Farnham as Chief Minister).
In making his case for the States to agree in principle to allow the department to research and investigate this wind farm project further, he claimed that it would be an excellent catalyst for a new economic future for ӣƵ. He insisted that it would enable the Island to make revenue from renting out the necessary seabed and by taxing the profits of the company. It would also help the Island reach our declared goal of being carbon neutral by 2050.
Many knowledgeable critics discounted these claims, pointing out that the financial record of most offshore wind farms around the world was abysmal as the costs of construction and maintenance made them so uneconomic that a number of current projects had closed down.
It is a known fact that hardly any offshore wind farms are operating without a government subsidy, which means that operationally the costs of running them and getting the power they produce to the consumer is more expensive than producing electricity by the use of fossil fuels – gas or oil.
Critics pointed out that anticipating tax revenue from the operation of a business that he, himself, described to the States as being risky (which he said was why no States money would be invested in the project) is fraught with danger. And particularly so when the life expectancy of the project, which will cost over a billion to set up, is only 15 years. So any idea of the Island getting revenue from profits is a non-starter as depreciation alone is likely will wipe out any likely profits.
Deputy Renouf was highly enthusiastic about the whole project, especially on the subject of “sovereignty”, and advanced the idea that by having our “own ӣƵ-produced power supply”, we would not be under any threat from France (our current supplier) who might threaten to withhold supply in any possible dispute, as happened over the fishing row.
The problem with this, of course, is that the proposed wind farm will not be a ӣƵ one at all. The only bit of ӣƵ involved in this project is that it will be built on the ocean floor which we own. It would be owned by a company totally outside of the control of the States by shareholders who will be risking their capital in the belief that it will be profitable. So how would things be any different to our position now in terms of ownership with a French company being our current supplier of electricity?
Another serious criticism of the wind farm project was that Deputy Renouf was also claiming that by producing our electricity from wind we would help ӣƵ achieve its “carbon footprint” for the Island to be net zero by 2050. This argument was difficult to understand as all the electricity we currently buy from France is produced either by hydro, nuclear or solar, which are all low carbon anyway.
Further criticism was levelled at the minister for neglecting other well-established forms of low carbon systems of producing electricity currently being developed, especially by mini-nuclear reactors.
Last week Ed Miliband, the new UK secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in the new Labour Government, made his first public announcement regarding the establishment of the Great British Energy Company, which will be a publicly owned “clean” energy company which will work in harness with the Chancellor on the £7 billion national fund planned by the Labour government for investing in clean energy.
This government company plans to develop solar, wind and tidal technology to enable the UK’s energy needs to be met by a broadly-based mix of renewable systems.
Fundamental to this ambitious energy plan will be the production of electricity using nuclear power – not just through the completion of Sizewell C or accelerating the effort to finish the long-delayed Hinkley Point C plant.
The UK Minister has now backed a call to continue the previous government’s drive to make Britain a world leader in small, modular nuclear reactors. In a recent statement he described nuclear power as “very important for Britain’s future. Our government has been very clear about the role that nuclear power plants – both large scale and small modular reactors (SMRs) – can play,” he said.
There are currently five companies in the UK developing small modular reactors. This includes Rolls-Royce, who produce the reactors that power Britain’s Trident submarine fleet, Hitachi and the giant American company Westinghouse.
A small modular reactor capable of producing enough electricity to provide all the Channel Islands’ needs and have some left over to sell to France would occupy no more area than a half of a football pitch. Such a building could be located on “the mound” at La Collette and be up and running in six years.
Advocates of the modular technology say that factory-made standard designs of SMRs will be far easier and cheaper to build than conventional large plants. While they will obviously produce less electricity than the larger units, they will require far lower cooling demands and could be built inland using cooling towers. These smaller pre-fabricated reactors are yet to be commercially deployed.
However, five companies submitted bids last week in a UK government competition to get the technology operational in the next five years. Ed Miliband told MPs last week that a decision on which design to take forward is due by the end of this summer. A final decision is also due this year on liberalising UK planning rules for SMRs.
Currently nuclear power plants in the UK can only be built on eight named sites but the previous Conservative government wanted developers to be able to identify their own locations based on safety and environmental criteria. Mr Miliband is unlikely to opt for tougher rules, having repeatedly stressed to MPs this week that local concerns over development would not be allowed to veto projects seen as vital to energy and economic growth.
An SMR would provide the Island with more than cheap, clean, reliable electricity but will enable hydrogen fuel cell development for air, road, rail and sea transportation; pink hydrogen for heavy energy users – eg. ammonia and green steel production; production of synthetic aviation fuel; hydroponic agriculture; and provide cheaper energy bills and community heating schemes for hospitals and schools.
This is a huge opportunity for ӣƵ to become a world leader in the use of nuclear power and which can give us a golden road to sustainable new industries.
Is there a States Member with enough gumption and interest in ӣƵ’s future who is prepared to get on a plane and go and talk to those companies who are deeply involved in small modular nuclear reactors and convince them that ӣƵ could be their showroom for the world where they could display their product – ie. a fully working building providing the Channel Islands with so many benefits?
I could, of course, make arrangements for them to come here to meet States Members. But then we probably would be denied the chance to meet Members to discuss things in the Ivy Forster Room of the States Building.
