Cornerstone Global

By Lucian J. Hudson

Partner and Managing Director, Cornerstone Global Associates

6th September 2010

August might be a time for rest and recuperation for some, but the live wires of the Cambridge Sustainability Network never stop. The Cambridge University Programme for Sustainable Leadership recently organised a first-rate debate which WSP hosted at their offices in Chancery Lane.

The motion was carefully crafted, ostensibly to avoid too stark a choice between being pro and anti nuclear:  “This House believes that nuclear power cannot make a meaningful contribution to the UK’s climate and energy security.”

As the debating teams met beforehand to agree strategy and tactics, it was far from clear from the impressive list of participants drawn from different sectors -a mix of business, NGOs and academia-  which way the vote would go.  The chair made a point of also putting value on the way the arguments were delivered.   

Two teams of three were lined up to present the case for and against. The debate was then open to the floor.  I was part of the team arguing against the motion. Cornerstone Global Associates does not have particular policy positions for or against nuclear energy: we work with government, business and civil society, and help our clients tackle challenges where collaborative and holistic approaches can make a difference.  Most of the partners, consultants and associates are of a generation who believe that sustainable development is integral to society. Many of us- but not all of us- believe that you can be pro green and pro nuclear. 

My two team-mates were steeped in experience working in the nuclear industry.  If they glowed, it was because of their mastery of the brief rather than anything else. They looked nothing like Homer Simpson. If Homer were ever to meet his Maker, it would be less because he works at a nuclear power plant, and more because of his extra-curricular activities and love of junk food.

My perspective was slightly different from theirs. Like them, I think that the nuclear industry can make a strong business case for nuclear power- but in the battle of perceptions, the nuclear industry needs to go the extra mile to win hearts and minds so that it is perceived as a new technology- a technology that we actually want rather than one we just put up with.

There was a time when proponents of sustainable development had to persuade and convince. What we now can take for granted in policy and business circles and mainstream public opinion had to be fought for. I was the official spokesman for the UK delegation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002; championed the first sustainable development strategy for what is now the Ministry of Justice; and supported two successive Foreign Secretaries, Margaret Beckett and David Miliband, and their special representative on climate change, John Ashton, to make tackling climate change one of the main strategic priorities in British foreign policy. 

On this main point my team-mates and I we were at one: nuclear has to be part of the energy mix if the UK is to achieve ambitious carbon reduction targets – reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050- while replacing 40% of the UK’s current generation supply.

However much I want to see a real push on renewable energy, I do not believe that any single technology can or should be the sole focus. The UK Government only recently  published work by DECC on potential 2050 pathways, demonstrating the even greater challenge of achieving the 2050 goals without nuclear, not to mention the significant additional cost. One of my team argued that nuclear power had already been making a valuable contribution to the UK’s low carbon energy sector for the past 50 years. At current generation levels, our 8 nuclear plants generate 9GW and save 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. The challenge in meeting the carbon reduction targets is compounded by the need to decarbonise Britain’s heat and transportation sectors, which will increase electricity demand by up to 50% by 2050.

At a time of risk and uncertainty, the best course of action is not to put all one’s eggs in one basket, but to hedge one’s bets (Cambridge Judge Business School’s Professor Stefan Scholtes has used probability theory to support this approach to managing risk and uncertainty).  The next step is to collaborate and innovate.

Supporters of action on climate change need more than ever to build alliances. Nuclear is an attractive part of the energy mix because it maintains security of supply, decarbonises generation, and is affordable – helping the UK industry retain its competitiveness. Research published by Mott MacDonald, on behalf of DECC, indicates that nuclear power is the lowest cost low carbon generation type.

Adding nuclear power as part of a diversified energy mix need not be seen as demonstrating less commitment to tackling climate change. Abu Dhabi is providing leadership here. When Abu Dhabi decided to introduce nuclear power to its energy basket to address shortages, it opened Masdar City as a centre of innovation and technological excellence in renewable energy. My colleague, Ghanem Nuseibeh, a civil engineer by training, has been closely involved in the energy debate in the UAE, and sees a growing commitment to developing clean energy, while addressing the safety and security issues around nuclear waste.

The motion was defeated by 29 votes to 24.  Although it is great to be part of a winning team, far more important are two sets of questions that are left lingering. How does one demonstrate that nuclear power is part of a longer term future green vision? And how does society begin to manage better its own consumption of energy? The climate change and security debate must in good part be about shaping, as well as responding to, demand.