Sponsored by
Nuclear power urged to beat fuel poverty
One third of all households in the UK will be in fuel poverty by 2030 unless the coalition Government rapidly moves to encourage and enable building of new nuclear plants, says a report released today.
The new report published by the Centre for Policy Studies, claims the number of homes in fuel poverty – defined as the need to spend more than 10 per cent of household income on fuel to maintain adequate warmth – could rise to nearly 8.5 million over the next 18 years, if nuclear energy generating capacity continues to fall as the Government delays approving new nuclear plants.
Last winter, coal plants shouldered nearly 50 per cent of electricity demand and the report claims the coalition does not currently have the suitable plans in place to replace old coal and oil power supplies which will close by 2016 due to European Union rules.
It claims the Government risks filling the gap with more gas-fired plants, making the UK dependent on gas for over 80 per cent of electricity generation by 2025.
Energy analyst Tony Lodge, author of the report The Atomic Clock: How the coalition is gambling with Britain’s energy policy says the Coalition must move to approve a fair and balanced nuclear power delivery strategy which rewards all new atomic power investors, as well as encouraging more energy diversification, including early delivery of new efficient and cleaner coal plants.
“The coalition should be reassuring investors, not heightening investor uncertainty,” Mr Lodge said.
“Without this political clarity, Britain’s long overdue decision to embrace, support and deliver a series of large new nuclear plants on schedule will be unachievable.
“Instead, Britain risks becoming yet more dependent on foreign gas and unmanageable renewable energy to generate electricity.
“Consequently, Britain’s 26 million households, who spend around £20bn a year on energy will face higher bills at a time of falling household income.”
The feared increase in fuel poverty will have a profound impact on residents across Yorkshire and the Humber where as many as 595,000 households are now projected to be living in fuel poverty, – a sharp rise from 333,000 homes in 2007.
The number equates to 26 per cent of all households in the region currently suffering fuel poverty leading to more than 2,300 deaths every winter.
Experts say the situation is now at breaking point, amid predictions that bills will continue to rise by as much as 25 per cent by 2020.
Households across rural areas of Yorkshire are bearing the brunt of the problem; latest figures show 27 per cent of homes in Ryedale, 24 per cent in Richmondshire, 23 per cent in Craven and 22 per cent in Hambleton are officially classed as being in fuel poverty.
Many of these homes are off the national gas network and need to rely on oil or liquid propane gas for heating, which can cost twice as much.
Single occupancy households, often pensioners who have lost their partner but are continuing to live in the marital home, are particularly badly affected.
Tim Knox, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, said: “Low cost, reliable and abundant energy is essential to the future competitiveness of British industry.
“It is incoherent to impose green taxes on manufacturers and then – as happened in the Autumn Statement – give money back in the form of subsidies.
“The Coalition wants to see a manufacturing-led economic recovery but this will only be forthcoming if energy prices are competitive by international standards.
“Unilateral energy taxes, delays to new generating plant and a lack of generation diversity will drive up costs.”
The coalition Government, which has set a target of eradicating fuel poverty by 2016, says it is working to fight the problem.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change says it is now requiring the big six energy companies to provide discounts of at least £120 off energy bills this winter to about 600,000 of the poorest pensioners in the country through the Warm Home Discount scheme.
The department says Ministers are also pushing for stronger competition to keep price rises as low as possible.
Demand on the UK electricity supply is expected to more than double by 2050 as the country shifts more of its transport and heating on to the electricity grid.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 5 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
PeteRowberry
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 12:22 PMPending Moderation
john_busby
Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 08:12 AMThis and the previous government have done everything to allow the building of nuclear ;power plants, save offering a direct subsidy from the hard-pressed taxpayer. If the first NPP goes ahead at Hinkley Point it will have to be financed by the French taxpayers, which owns 85% of EdF in France and 90% of the builder Areva, both of which are in financial meltdown. The investment banks have already indicated that without state loan guarantees, they will not be prepared to put up the capital for an ill-defined construction term and eventual costs. The decommissioning and waste management costs of the current and retired UK fleet of NPPs are rising. Because the spent fuel pond of Sizewell B is not big enough to allow generation after 2015, the UK taxpayer is paying for dry casks and a huge "mausoleum" in which to store them into the next century. The nuclear proponents are now calling for public subsidy, while failing to admit that their demands reflect the uneconomic nature of their candidate projects. The Centre for Policy Studies has abandoned its free market principles when it suggests that fuel poverty can be ameliorated with nuclear power. The government has already offered indirect subsidies in the carbon "floor" price CfD-FiTs and peak capacity bonuses. There is only a direct subsidy or loan guarantee left, in effect nationalisation of the new capital; the nuclear liabilities are already to the taxpayers' account. Nuclear fuel and technology has to be virtually 100% imported, so is to be more dependent on others than gas and oil. Its security of aupply is a myth. Why then is the CPS supporting it?
GRLCowan
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 11:25 PMPeople with no financial interest in any energy source tend to favour nuclear energy, but everyone who is paid by government, because of fossil fuel tax revenues, has an interest in these fuels. This biases them against uranium, because it is much cheaper. Fossil fuels blast and poison citizens, but they get also get *money* out of citizens, and into civil servants' pockets, and this makes the antinuclear citizens much more equal than the others, in governments' eyes.
followmeontwitter:@norsunenergy
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:32 PMThe real solution is a shift to Renewable Energy Technologies, and improved Energy Efficiency which creates local jobs for local contractors, keeping money in local communities.
followmeontwitter:@norsunenergy
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:29 PMWhile proponents of Nuclear Power claim cheap electricity, none of them are prepared to include the full life-cycle cost of disposal of Nuclear waste. Information has recently come out of Spain indicating the storage cost to be approximately $78,000.00CADday. Bearing in mind that these costs should be funded for thousands of years buy those creating this Toxic legacy, the additional cost would be estimated to be about $8.40CADkWh. This claim of cheap energy is echoed around the world, but there is never mention of full life-cycle accountability for the waste.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.