Standard content for Members only

To continue reading this article, please login to your Utility Week account, Start 14 day trial or Become a member.

If your organisation already has a corporate membership and you haven’t activated it simply follow the register link below. Check here.

Become a member

Start 14 day trial

Login Register

“Paterson has made some serious points on energy”

After a party conference with a deafening silence on energy policy, finally a senior Tory has come out and put forward some plans for the UK’s energy future.

However, probably to the dismay of the husky-hugging prime minister, that Conservative was Owen Paterson – the dethroned environment secretary.

He came out and said the Climate Change Act – something he voted in favour of – should be suspended or even repealed.

This will not happen: no ­government could take the stance of turning its back on the legally binding commitment.

However, Paterson did push the case for small modular nuclear reactors, combined heat and power (CHP) plants and demand management, as well as indigenous shale gas.

These points have been lost in the outrage, but away from the vitriol directed at Paterson, there is a semblance of sense.

Demand management is starting to be introduced and there are calls for DSR to be able to bid into the demand-side response market.

CHP would also help to reduce energy bills, helping in particular those in fuel poverty to heat their homes.

Small nuclear reactors – still some years away – could allow for a quicker rollout of new nuclear and open up new ­potential sites. And shale gas, the fabled “bridge” fuel, could help displace coal generation and increase the security of the UK’s gas supplies.

In his own unique style, Paterson has made some serious points on the energy debate. Not that anyone will listen to him.