The UK has been fortunate with energy.

With a country built on reserves of coal, North Sea oil and gas, the government has been able to shy away from making controversial decisions about the future supply of energy – until now, that is.

The government’s position is looking increasingly stark. The UK’s gas and oil stocks are dwindling. Eleven of its ageing nuclear power stations will be closed within 15 years. New generating options are constrained by its Kyoto commitment to cut CO2 emissions. And all the time, the domestic energy demand is rising. This explains why the Government’s chief scientific officer, David King, and Prime Minister Tony Blair are considering the nuclear option again.

Nuclear scores favourably on its low CO2 emissions, but fell out of favour in the 1970s and 1980s following a series of nuclear accidents and rising concern over the disposal of radioactive waste. Twenty years on these fears are still present, compounded by recent concerns about security and the threat of terrorist attack.

There are still alternatives to the nuclear route: we could import more gas, build more wind farms or invest in technologies to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations. But building services engineers are well aware that the cheapest and most environmentally efficient solution would be simply to use far less energy in the first place, through energy efficient building design.

However, desperate not to disenfranchise the electorate, the government has shied away from imposing stringent but costly energy-saving measures on homeowners. And, as we report in News (page 9), it has also come under fire for its pitiable commitment to renewable energy through a lack of funding to help establish a low carbon infrastructure.

While it is encouraging that the government is considering future energy supply, it is also disappointing that its lack of foresight and past unwillingness to impose low energy measures on a fickle electorate has forced it to resort to considering the nuclear option.

But rather than resigning ourselves to a nuclear future, the industry still has time to promote the low-energy alternative. Now is the time to act.

Source

Building Sustainable Design