British energy policy is out-of-date. It was designed almost thirty years ago for a world very different to today.
Securing our energy supplies presents a growing threat and five more years of Gordon Brown would only make an already precarious situation worse. We need change and in this Green Paper we set out plans for the biggest overhaul of British energy policy in a generation.
That is why we launched our energy policy paper, Rebuilding Security, today. It is a comprehensive programme for the long-overdue reform of British energy policy. In it we set out plans to create security guarantees for electricity and for gas – ensuring that the lights stay on and our homes stay warm.
We will also take decisive action to promote nuclear and renewable power, through streamlined planning, a floor price for carbon and improved infrastructure. Finally we will make Britain more energy efficient, through our Green Deal and a new ‘energy internet’, that puts consumers in control of their energy usage.
These policies will deliver secure, sustainable and affordable energy for the years ahead, while boosting investment and creating jobs. Ours is a plan to turn a threat into an opportunity, demonstrating the energy leadership and values needed to get Britain back on track.
Read the new policy document here.
( 10 comments ) Tags: energy supplies, green paper, Rebuilding Security
Comment by John Thomason on March 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I note that there are many references in this document to the “consequences of Labours inaction”. What I would like to know is; should the election result in a hung parliament, will the Conservatives work together with Labour to produce action ? My concern is that political wrangling may result in paralysis instead of action, and we are worse off before. Climate change needs action, as is rightly stated, but action costs, and will politicians rise to meet the need, or fall to the paralysis of political pride ??
Comment by phil w on March 19, 2010 at 11:44 pm
It is also high time we resumed work on our road network and stop hiding behind the greens as an excuse for doing[and spending] nothing.
Otherwise,we’re going to wake up one day when our vehicles are no longer emitting pollutants and find that we have jettisoned our advantage of being a compact nation by gridlock.
It won’t be long.
Comment by Glen Carty on March 20, 2010 at 11:45 am
I’m encouraged by the proposal to promote nuclear power as a feasible way to provide a large part of our power needs without generating CO2. I hope you will approach with an open mind the type of reactor used and consider modern fast and hybrid reactor types, and not just designs based on those used decades ago e.g. light water reactors.
Comment by Jim McTufty on March 20, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Nuclear is a stupid idea. It requires trashing the planet sourcing uranium, and subsiding the market by pumping billions of taxpayer money into nuclear infrastructure and insurance/cleanup.
With all the manure and hot air that the political parties and their spin machines generate 24/7, I can see a stable and secure renewable energy future for the UK for years to come.
Comment by Rick on March 23, 2010 at 1:06 pm
With your stand on nuclear energy it would appear that all you are going to do is make use of Labours un-democratic policies for over riding PUBLIC interest.
What has happened to democracy and accountability if you continue along these lines?
Isn’t a government that takes no notice of public opinion a dictatorship?
Comment by John B on March 23, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Can I ask this?
The current tax levy on producing bio-diesel is about to be increased to fall in line with the tax take on fossil petroleum – what’s the point of that?
There is no incentive for producers of bio-diesel (from used cooking oil – not rapeseed etc) to invest in the facilities needed to provide a fuel source that not only takes waste oil out of the waste system but is actually almost carbon neutral – there is no incentive because the on-sale price of such a fuel (because of the tax take) is no different from standard diesel. People are not going to consider using something so “radically” new in their engines unless there is a financial gain to try it – why not commit to a 20p per litre difference to get things moving?
Comment by Ray Cope on March 25, 2010 at 7:41 am
I was alarmed to read your paper as I did not think the situation was that bad. I have always taken the view that Natural Gas should be used in homes and factories and not for power generation which is very inefficient. Domestic boiler over 80% efficient power station about 40%. As a stopgap it looks like you will have to go on wasting gas in this way. Renewable energy is fine but in the real world we know nuclear power is the way forward. On a different subject I am far from happy with gas regulation and the poor performance of Ofgem. Time and time again they have refused to put forward a speaker when energy prices are discussed by the media. What are they afraid of?
Comment by Martin Copeland on March 28, 2010 at 9:07 am
I was dismayed that it a 34 page document the only mention on what is planned for our existing oil and gas production which will remain central to our economic position and to the creation of skilled jobs in our country for many years to come appeared to be this: “Firstly, we need to make the most of our remaining UK oil (and gas) reserves. Wherever we can profitably produce oil and consume it in place of imports we should do so. We will therefore reform the taxation and licensing of exploration and development – together with arrangements for access to North Sea infrastructure.” –
I imagine this is a sensible case of not providing ammunition for the Labour party to steal, but hope that we will see smart policies to encourage continued offshore investment as well as in the potential for new onshore gas resources from CBM and shale deposits.
Comment by Martin on April 5, 2010 at 7:55 am
Why not put wind turbines along the side of Motorways?
The reason I say this – Motorways already ‘scar’ the landscape, create noise and hence externalities, so the impact of wind turbines would be less than putting them in open countryside. A good example is the wind turbine at Reading, which looks more iconic than a blot on the landscape.
The more we see, the more we would get used to it. I really think this is a good idea – especially if local people had the opportunity to ‘buy in’ to a share of the investment and then receive income from this.
An idea??
Comment by Parth Agarwal on April 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Has anyone in any of the parties even considered the use of space based solar power as the long term energy solution? This would provide adequate carbon free and cheap energy. The costs involved are less than nuclear and this would give a tremendous boost to UK’s non existent space program. Japan has already invested $20bn in SBSP. This will create thousands if not millions of science related jobs all over Europe and build UK’s indigenous space capability which can also be weaponised. Space is the future and sooner we start the better. Nuclear is good for short term but what about 20 years hence? This is the only reliable way to meet the 80% CO2 reduction targets without sacrificing energy production.