Lesley Riddoch: Courage in the wake of the storm

Published on Friday 18 March 2011 14:59

Nuclear will be the only choice for energy needs unless all parties give tidal power a chance

WOULD you live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant?

The dilemma posed on Radio 4's Any Questions by an "ordinary" inhabitant of Middle England shows how the tragedy at Yukoshima has already transformed British public opinion.

Nuclear looked like the clever solution to climate change. Now it doesn't look so smart.

Yet in tectonically stable places like Britain, the main argument supporting nuclear energy - TINA - looks stubbornly intact.

There is no alternative. And there will be none unless marine energy receives an immediate, cross-party long-term guarantee about funding and investment, a non-Crown Estate Commission-guided licensing process, and easy "no strings attached" access to the best bits of sea for testing.

Britain stands at an energy crossroads. If George Osborne hesitates to offer incentives to the nuclear industry as expected in this week's budget, it will be time for a massive energy rethink. Not just because of the terrible spectacle of the stricken nuclear plant in Japan - but because of the triumph of tidal energy plans for little Islay.

The ambitious marine energy project by ScottishPower and Hammerfest Strom - confirmed the day before the Japanese tsunami hit - will turn Islay into Europe's largest renewables-powered island by 2015.

A small step for a population of 3,400 people - a giant leap for the marine energy industry as it seeks to turn theory into a dependable, economically viable power supply.

Of course marine is not ready to replace nuclear energy in Scotland or anywhere else on the planet - but nor will it be if nuclear keeps hoovering up the lion's share of funding and political support as the only non-fossil-fuel, baseload energy provider in town.

It's a terrible irony.

Japan has a tremendous tidal and wave energy resource. Yet this technologically advanced sea-surrounded nation has failed to invest in marine energy until recently. Just like Scotland.

When the "quick" nuclear fix is available, the sustainable marine fix never quite reaches critical mass.Especially when prime ministers like Margaret Thatcher scrap marine research funding to ensure primacy for nuclear.

But could marine devices have survived the tsunami any better than Yukoshima?

Writing in this paper last week, former UK Atomic Energy Authority spokesman, Malcolm Grimston, said: "Wave power, tidal power or offshore wind...would simply have been ripped from the ocean bed by the earthquake and washed away, representing losses of power - and therefore of life in emergency conditions - for months if not years."

Cameron Johnstone, chief executive of the Glasgow-based Tidal Energy firm Nautricity, disputes that. "In coastal waters, the force of the (tsunami] wave diminishes with depth. Where a flexible mooring system is used on a tidal device, this introduces a proportion of shock absorption, which means it may be able to withstand the 'reduced' wave force and remain intact, losing only a blade or two. That would mean the short-term loss of power, but not the complete loss of generation plant; blade replacement will bring a tidal device back on stream a lot faster than rebuilding and re-commissioning a nuclear reactor; and without serious risk to the lives of the surrounding population."

According to Professor David Ingram from Edinburgh University's Institute for Energy Systems: "As the tsunami wave approaches the shore, the front slows down and water piles up, making the wave deeper. This means boats, wave power machines and tidal turbines in deep offshore water may not suffer from the tsunami, provided mooring lines are long enough and they aren't hit by debris. A Dutch yacht moored off Phuket survived the tsunami unscathed. Devices closer to shore would experience massive changes in water level and sudden strong currents. They're also more likely to be hit by debris and swept out to sea as the wave retreats."

So no-one can be sure. But a marine-energy-dependent Japan would probably be in a far better situation today. Japan's neighbours certainly would.

There is something truly crazy about highly educated societies which have somehow failed to exploit the safest, most accessible and most basic natural assets.

The tide is predictable 100 years ahead, and its movement round our shores never stops.

But harnessing the tides isn't easy.

Many small devices will be needed - not one single large installation like an oil rig. So it will be harder to moor, maintain and securely connect them to the grid. But they'll have to withstand the "ordinary" force of North Sea storms as well as expensive oil installations and remain economically viable.

Centuries without easy access to our own natural assets of land, coast and sea, mean Scots have little experience of designing and testing marine energy devices.Thanks to the Crown Estate Commission - the London-based estate agents in charge of allocating marine licences - it's the highest bidder or the biggest utility who wins the lease, not the most promising, interesting or local design. The Crown Estate even decides eligibility for the coveted Saltire Prize and they'll pick the winner - not the Scottish Government.

Tidal and wave device developers urgently need "no strings attached" time in the water - without a crippling and immediate pressure to perform. The slightly calmer inner Pentland Firth could be developed as a tidal test centre like Orkney's wave test centre EMEC, bringing much needed non-nuclear jobs to Caithness.

The Crown Estate Commission could be shown the door immediately through amendments suggested by campaigners to the Scotland Bill - the allocation of licences could be taken over tomorrow by Marine Scotland.

New industry guidelines soon to be produced by the EU-funded, Edinburgh-based Equimar project must be adopted by device developers to create common standards. Research must be funded to find lighter weight devices and cheaper construction materials.

Does Scotland need nuclear? The Fukoshima tragedy doesn't really change the basic argument. Do we want to harness our own marine assets or not?

Investors need to see cross-party political support for marine that won't waver with a change of administration at Holyrood. Otherwise an alternative to nuclear will remain possible, but not quite in place.

A tidal-powered Islay could yet be a turning point for Scotland, Britain... and post-tsunami Japan.