No option is attractive

The debate about the environment is usually conducted by the protagonists in terms that are difficult to quantify. The birds will lose out if we destroy their habitat by building barrages across estuaries, of erect monster wind turbines in their flight paths, or humans will lose out by loss of visual amenity - "Not in my backyard!"

What tends to get lost is the economic costs of the alternative energy sources.

Wind energy is "free ", but is not guaranteed - for wind-free days there would have to be a complete back-up of similar capacity. Wind farms typically operate at about 27% efficiency, so we would expect on average to have to produce three times as much electricity in other ways.

Wave power would produce electricity, probably more reliably, but at a very high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance on June 17th published results suggesting that wave electricity costs about 19 pence per kilowatt hour more than conventional generation, and that if we were to transfer only 20% of national generation to this source would produce an annual extra bill of £15 billion per year, or about 1.2% of GDP.

So despite the claims that we have a very long coastline, wave power does not seem to be the solution for more than a small part of our generation. (Of course, in time our experience could help us learn more efficient generation.....)

Perhaps because it is faster to construct, the Government is on the point of permitting 10,000 additional wind turbines, to add to the 2,000 we already have. The wind, when it blows, may be free, but costs are significant in preparation (assessment, planning, etc), in construction and operation and also in maintenance. The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that the most efficient wind generation costs about two and half times per kilowatt hour as nuclear or coal generated electricity.

There is no way of avoiding very large extra costs with these renewable sources of energy - to be met by consumers, or perhaps partly subsidised out of taxation!

The problem, of course, is that we have to meet the requirements of the EU that we must by 2020 use renewable sources for 15% of all energy, which means that 40% of all electricity be produced by renewable sources.

The dithering of NuLabour, which has dallied for many years, means that we are running out of time rapidly for the planning and construction of renewable generation in the next 12 years. Major construction of nuclear sites would hardly come on stream, assuming that the EU counts nuclear as renewable - it will because France is so committed to it. Even wave, tidal or wind sites would face difficulty by 2020.

Expect some failure, as we build some clean coal burning generation as a stop gap, and begin a programme of nuclear, wind and wave generation too late to meet the deadline. Expect also that prices will rise significantly, even compared with the present levels.