pro-nuclear analyst calls for Hinkley C to be abandoned

Chris Goodall, one of those pro-nuclear greens who saw the radioactive light a few years ago but who didn't notice the sheer uneconomic nature of nuclear power has now realised that the Hinkley C project is such a shambles that it ought to be abandoned. He reports the comments of a nuclear engineering expert as saying that the Hinkley C EPR design is 'unconstructable'.

Goodall fears for the future of nuclear power if the project goes ahead. But then all EDF has to do is to take the UK Government for the complete suckers that they are since they have given the project a blank cheque in all but name to pay for what is all but certain to be a colossal financial disaster. It will be the UK Government, or more precisely, UK electricity consumers who will pay dearly, most likely well over and above the the facade of the �92.50 per MWh over 35 years price tag, complete with �10 billion of loan guarantees.

He says: 'by focussing on the increasingly unpopular EPR design, the country may have saddled itself with an unmanageable and hugely expensive construction project that will sour the prospects of all other nuclear technologies for another generation.

Perhaps those of us who still believe in the value of nuclear power should pray that sceptical investors refuse to commit their funds to the Hinkley project.'

I'm sorry Chris, but those of us who thought more deeply about nuclear  a long time ago realised the project was doomed in the post 1950s world. Goodall's article comes out with gems such as the notion that engineers could learn from one large nuclear power project to another is false since each project is unique for a given site so that there is little transferable learning. Well I'm sorry, Chris, but I remember Steve Thomas (now at Greenwich University) telling me precisely this way back in 1991 when I went to visit him when he was working at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex.

You're really not telling us anything we don't know already.

But now Chris is giving credence to the gathering nonsense about small 'modular'  nuclear reactors. Oh give me strength! Please........I know people go on about small PWRs in nuclear submarines. These things cost billions to build, not all on the reactors of course, but it looks like it cost hundreds of millions of pounds just to build a reactor that generates a few megawatts of electricity! And that's with an easy, implicit solution, to coolant supply problems.

What the latter day 'green converts' to nuclear power should recognise quickly is that the very nature of nuclear power, requiring expensive containment and other safety mechanisms to meet 21st century standards makes it a very unlikely possibility for solving the 21st century's problems.

You can see Chris's article at:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2605273/unconstructable_hinkley_c_could_end_uks_nuclear_dream.html

No commentsRead more

If Hinkley C is cheaper than wind power why does it need loan guarantees?

As the pro-nuclear establishment is now keen to justify EU state aid for Hinkley C it is trying to argue, against the forces of reality, that the deal makes nuclear power cheaper than onshore wind. Hinkley C is getting �92.50 for 35 years with 65 per cent (�10 billion) loan guarantees. Onshore wind, from 2017, is getting at most �90 per MWh for 15 years with no loan guarantees. How can Hinkley C possibly be cheaper?

 Look at the further details and the notion that nuclear is cheaper looks even shakier. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is conducting 'auctions' for wind power contracts under electricity market reform (EMR) which means that in practice the windfarms getting contracts will be paid less than �90 per MWh. If these schemes got loan guarantees then they would be even cheaper since the cost of borrowing would be much less. And then there is the difference in contract lengths, (15 versus 35 years)  for which the justifications are dubious. See my earlier blog post http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/wind-power-history-blows-away-ed-daveys.html

Of course in reality the likely cost overruns for Hinkley C will make the plant in practice rather more expensive than this 'deal' implies, and clauses in the contract that allow the Government to 'vary' prices paid to the nuclear operators will most likely be invoked to give the operators more money than the current 'deal'. In addition the British taxpayer is highly likely to have to pay out on the loan guarantees. The European Commission has done absolutely nothing to protect British electricity consumers and taxpayers from these problems. Far from protecting consumers, the whole point of the deal is to protect the developers. They know that once the project is started the UK Government will feel obliged to make sure the project is completed. See my post at http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/european-commission-issues-smokescreen.html

I hope to see the day that Hinkley C is completed. Now that is not because I want to see the plant built (far from it), but simply because I hope to live for many years longer!

So.......Its not just that onshore wind is cheaper than nuclear power, there's just no comparison between them.

No commentsRead more

The Failure of Conservatives on Global Warming.

Global Warming

Conservatives have allowed and seemingly even wanted Liberal
Ideology to Hijack the Global Warming/Climate Change Debate.

As a Pew Opinion Poll reflects, Global Warming has become yet another chapter in the ongoing U.S. Culture Wars between Liberals and Conservatives. This gulf in beliefs is especially wide with people who identify with the Tea Party movement (very anti "Big Government") -- where 41% surveyed were "Deniers", believing that Global Warming just isn't happening.

Where the News and Public Media emphasizes the extreme polarization and conflict, rarely is it conveyed what most climate scientists can actually agree on.

Agreement on the Basic Science: Global Warming Theory is based on Nobel Prize winning science1 -- which is clearly not "Junk Science". One basic concept area that everyone can relate to is Rayleigh scattering -- of why the the sky is blue. Applications

of the fundamental chemistry and physics of Global Warming theory are used in aircraft design, missile defense systems, and the space program.

---

¹ This includes: Rayleigh scattering and distillation, van der Waals (equations of state), Wien's law, Planck's constant (central to radiation theory).

Probably 99% of Climate Scientists can agree on a core of basic beliefs that does represent "a consensus on settled science":

1. CO₂ is a Greenhouse Gas;
2. Adding CO₂ will have a warming effect on the Planet;
3. CO₂ levels have risen dramatically during the Industrial Age;^{2 3}
4. In the past ~200 years, the Earth has warmed.
5. For the past 60 years, a large part of this warming is human driven.⁴

---

² NOAA data for 650 million years; NOAA data for past 1,000 years; IPCC AR5.
³ The level of CO² is now 42% above pre Industrial Revolution levels.
⁴ Views on what "large part" means -- a percentage of ~50% (Curry) to 100% (Schmidt).

CO2 Levels:

Temperature Levels:

Science Uncertainty: But understanding Climate Science/Change is much more than just this "basic science". Called a "Wicked Problem", this involves extremely complex issues of our Planet's natural variability (wind and ocean currents), geological events (e.g., volcanoes) and feedback loops.

Where Climate Scientists can and do sharply disagree is how much and how quickly human driven greenhouse gases will effect global temperatures and regional climates through:

1. Feedback Loops (e.g., cloud formation);
2. Impacts on Natural Variability (climate oscillations, e.g., El Nino).
3. The predictive ability of Forecasting Models (e.g., the "Pause").

In describing "Wicked Problems", perhaps the best analogy ever coined was by U.S. Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld of knowns and unknowns -- where applied to Climate Change there are:

1. Known Knowns (the Basic Science);
2. Known Unknowns (natural variability and feedback loops).
3. Unknown Unknowns (things we don't even know that we don't know).

The Rhetoric of Uncertainty: But it's important to understand that the current unknowns do not disprove a scientific consensus in the above "core beliefs". A good example of this is the current Global Warming "Pause" -- where for the past ~15 years there have been:

1. No statistically significant increases in Earth's land temperature,
2. Even though CO₂ levels continue to significantly increase.⁵

---

⁵ Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by ~25%.

Deniers or extreme Skeptics/Contrarians saying or implying this "Pause" disproves a core of "Basic Science Beliefs" is a classic application of anti-science. One can try to poke all the gotcha holes they want in "Theory X", but doing so doesn't prove an alternative "Theory Y" (e.g., a tactic used by Biblical Literalists that their attempts to cherry-pick supposed holes in the theory of evolution proves Creationism beliefs).

Ideological Hard-liners can also create all the ubiquitous "conspiracy theories" (i.e., Climategate) they want -- but this still won't change the above 99% Consensus either.

In Public Opinion Wars, the terms "settled science and consensus"
are a reaction to the incendiary statements of many Republicans.

Conversely, Anthropogenic (human driven) Global Warming Advocates need to do a much better job in their communication of uncertainty -- especially their defensiveness. A good start would be a well versed "consensus" recognition that Climate Scientists don't yet adequately understand the sensitivities of this "Wicked Problem" -- especially the ability of current Climate Models to predict near term decadal impacts.⁶

---

⁶ Called Transient Climate Response or TCR.

Clearly, CO₂ parts per million levels and temperatures have not responded in a linear cause and effect fashion in the short-term (as many initially believed). Maybe the long-term progression of Global Warming is a stair-step function (with pauses of decades or more). Maybe its a exponential log function when some thresholds are broken through until equilibrium. Maybe, its a combination of these functions with warming interacting and compounding natural variabilities on things we currently just don't even know about (unknown, unknowns).

We do know this -- if anything does happen with severe consequences, we won't be able to fix it as changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration levels can persist for centuries. With a trajectory to double the Earth's CO₂ levels, mankind is conducting the biggest science experiment of all time involving very deep uncertainties.

Reaching a Consensus: A TED presentation provides a good perspective of how to be effective when taking on difficult, wicked problems. The lecture uses a example of Dr. Alice Stewart, who in the 1950�s thought she had found a solid statistical link between expectant Mothers who had received x-rays and childhood cancers. But while Dr. Stewart was eventually shown to be correct, it took the medical science community over 25 years to achieve a consensus in proving and accepting this linkage.

For over two decades within the medical and public policy arena, Dr. Stewart was labeled an Alarmist in her Catastrophic warnings.

As the TED lecture explains, science is most often messy and laborious. In resolving challenges, the Right Kind of both Advocate and Skeptic is needed in an environment of some basic trust -- not driven by tribalism and hard-line ideologies of political, religious, economic, and even academic special interests or egos.

Conservative Hot Buttons: In recent years, negative ideological "values" messaging from Conservative Think Tanks, Media Sources, and Religious Groups have associated and demonized environmental policy initiatives as big-government, socialism, anti-free markets, job loss, and even with Faith (worshiping the Green Dragon).

Global Warming is framed to hit all the hot buttons of Conservatives to create a perfect storm.

The effectiveness of this negative messaging is absolutely evident in national polling, where partisan divides on environmental issues are greater than on major issues like the budget deficit, health care, and Social Security.

Widest Partisan Differences Over Issues
(% rating each a top priority)

Issue:	Rep	Dem	Ind	Diff
Protecting the Environment:	28%	65%	48%	-37%
Problems of Poor & Needy:	32%	64%	48%	-32%
Reducing U.S. Budget Deficit:	80%	49%	66%	-31%
Dealing with Global Warming:	14%	42%	27%	-28%

Clearly, environmental issues have become a "hot button" among many Conservatives -- a litmus test in defining one's personal values:

"Global warming is a religion of a secular left that rejects the God of creation in favor of worship of creation. . . Any of those involved in the science of global warming oppose capitalism in general and America in particular. They are maladjusted, Al Gore type angry people in need of prayer." (Erick Erickson of RedState.com)

History of Republican Environmental Leadership: The current adversarial and combative attitude toward environmental issues hasn't always been the case. The Republican Party has a rich history in leadership and bi-partisan cooperation to address numerous serious environmental issues.

Two vivid examples are ozone depletion (President Reagan) and air quality (under both Bush Administrations) -- where significant improvements have been achieved without destroying the economy, advancing socialism, or worshiping a supposed Mother Earth.

Air QualityClick To See Improvement

Ozone HoleClick To See Improvement

When past Republican EPA Administrators⁷ serving under every Republican President thinks Anthropogenic (emissions from human activity) Global Warming is a real and serious threat, this should mean something to Conservatives -- no matter what Al Gore believes.

---

⁷ Ruckelshaus (Nixon), Thomas (Reagan), Reilly (Bush), Whitman (Bush).

Where Have the Conservative Thinkers Gone?: By reducing Global Warming/Climate Change to Culture Warfare, Conservatives have and continue to fail miserably. The Problem isn't "Junk Science" of liberal scientists, its the "Junk Thinking" by Conservatives. They are forgetting the very core principles of conservatism, and how these principles should be applied to any policy issue.

Fundamental Ideological Differences Between Liberal Vs. Conservatism

The "True Problem" for Conservatives is that from the get-go, the issue of Global Warming was hi-jacked by Liberal Ideology policy proposals. Conservatives have never developed meaningful and consistent policy alternatives based on their principles to pro-actively tackle this issue.

By arguing that no or little actions are warranted, Conservatives are choosing to play a very dangerous and high stakes "winner take all" game. No person on this Planet knows how the science or politics of Global Warming will eventually play out. Two things can absolutely happen: (1) Breakthroughs in science confirming the theory where the timing and consequences are unquestionably serious; (2) The occurrence of extreme weather events which overwhelms public opinion (correct or not) to demand immediate major policy actions.

Waiting to develop, taking a pro-active leadership position, and establishing credibility on conservative policy alternatives is a non-starter. If swings in public opinion do occur to take action, it will be too late. Liberal policies (e.g., carbon taxes) will be too entrenched and Conservatives' credibility will be shot (labeled as obstructionists).

Liberal Vs. Conservative Approaches to Global Warming PolicyIn their policy approaches to Global Warming, Liberals never really address:

1. No matter how a U.S. Carbon Tax is packaged, it will still be a regressive tax -- disproportionately impacting the poor.
2. Impact of a Carbon Tax on U.S. Manufacturing competitiveness. Will it result in increased imports, just outsourcing carbon emissions?
3. Any Cap & Trade System would be a new Wall St. toy. Remember how these financial derivatives wrecked the World's economies?
4. A Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard would take Decision Making out of the hands of our Engineers and place it with Politicians.

A Conservative Path : By bashing Liberals less and studying science more, there just might be a way out of this mess. Using an approach advocated by Dr. Ramanathan called "Fast Mitigation", a sound-science foundation for "no regrets" climate policies can be developed -- reflecting

and consistent with the Republican Party's history of environmental leadership and commitment on hard issues (e.g., ozone depletion, acid rain, air quality).

Fast Mitigation (basically targeted to improving air quality) coupled with policies to spur high economic growth using international trade just might provide the ticket needed. With pro-active "smart and creative" conservative leadership, meaningful and immediate reductions in the "Global" trajectory path of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved.

Fast Mitigation: While CO2 is about 77% of total greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the only thing that contributes to global warming. Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases and dark soot particles -- called short-lived climate pollutants: Methane Ground-level Ozone (smog) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) Dark Soot Particles

The warming effect of these short-lived climate and air quality pollutants (which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade) delivers a very big punch. Methane is over 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in causing warming. Some HFCs can have a warming potential 11,000 times greater than CO₂.

Global Warming Potential of CO₂ & Short Lived Climate Pollutants ⁸

Greenhouse Gas:	Global Warming Potential Factor	Warming Time Potential
Carbon Dioxide:	1	>1,000 years
Methane:	21	12 years
Hydrofluorocarbons9:	1,300	14 years
Smog (O3):	.25	hours/days

---

⁹ Based on the most commonly used auto refrigerant (HFC-134a). A new refrigerant (HFO-1234yf) with a GWP that is just 4 times that of CO₂ and exists for only 11 days is scheduled to become the new standard for automakers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.

According to Dr. Ramanathan, the warming effect of these pollutants is currently about 80% of the amount that CO₂ causes.

Changes in Radiative Forcing from Human Activity Emissions
Since the Industrial Revolution of 1750 (in W/m2)

Decision Making Under "No Regrets": Often the words "no regrets" are used as code "to kick the can down the road" by just calling for more research. Used in a correct context, "No or Low Regrets" should be a process of best efforts to make good decisions, especially under deep uncertainties.

With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority to regulate CO₂ under the Clean Air Act (CAA)¹⁰ and EPA now promulgating Regs, Conservatives can try to:

1. Overturn the law by re-writing the CAA (through the election of a GOP President & super majorities in Congress).
2. Further fight the law in the Courts (e.g., current EPA Lawsuit).¹¹
3. Conduct Guerrilla Warfare (defunding EPA's Budget to enforce Regs).
4. Make the law better (or less onerous) through Bi-partisan cooperation.

---

¹⁰ Defined as a pollutant agent under the CAA effecting weather or climate.
¹¹ Both of the first two paths involve deep uncertainties. For example, to overturn EPA Regulations would likely require a super majority (60 votes) in the U.S. Senate. Also, based on other CAA legal precedents, overturning EPA authority is highly questionable.

What Conservatives should be very concerned about are the potential consequences if policy opposition is unsuccessful. By not developing pro-active alternatives, a huge void is created. If public opinion does ever demand immediate action (e.g., from catastrophic weather events) -- it will almost certainly be a liberal top/down approach based on command/control:

1. Carbon Taxes
2. Cap and Trade
3. Federal Energy Mandates (Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard).

Attributes of a Conservative Plan: A pro-active approach to Global Warming based on Fast Mitigation and economic growth (through international trade) fills this current Policy void -- and directly addresses what many consider catastrophic messaging that liberal policy actions must be taken immediately (e.g., carbon taxes, etc).

Buying Time: While Fast Mitigation to reduce short lived carbon pollutants is not a long term cure-all to Global Warming (AGW), it could have a dramatic and immediate effect in decreasing the growth rate (trajectory) in global atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

Trajectory of Global Greenhouse Gases Since 1850 In Policy decision making, Fast Mitigation can buy some time (perhaps several decades according to Dr. Ramanathan) for our scientists and engineers to hopefully figure out this "Wicked Problem" and how to best address it:

1. Sensitivities of global temperatures and climate to increased CO₂.
2. Technology Breakthroughs (solar, natural gas fracking, nuclear, etc).

Improving Air Quality: In forming public opinion, a picture can be worth a thousand words. For many Americans, connecting with the need to reduce CO2 emissions (a colorless, odorless gas) can be difficult. Fast Mitigation targets known air quality pollutants (such as heavy truck diesel exhaust) that everyone can connect with for cleaner air.

Also, applied on a regional and local basis, Fast Mitigation can be tailored to reflect conservative principles of flexibility and de-centralized bottom-up approaches (compared to one-size-fits-all) targeted to where air quality issues are of higher concern.

Building Low Carbon Global Markets through Economic Growth: Using international trade to address concerns of Global Warming/Climate Change is a perfect example of applying conservative principles of bottom-up, de-centralized, flexible, and reward based no-regrets policy actions.

If reducing the trajectory path in green-house gases is to be truly treated as serious on a global stage, pragmatic lessons must be drawn from international trade -- where reciprocity reigns supreme. No country eliminates or reduces its trade barriers without reciprocal and meaningful concessions from trading partners.

As discussed in previous blogs (including criticism of the Obama Administration on coal use), the template of building low carbon markets is pretty straight forward:

1. Developing countries would commit (with verifiable standards) to building low carbon intensity economies by purchasing high technology/energy efficient American products.
2. In exchange, the U.S. would give Developing Countries unpreceded access into U.S. markets for their products.
3. Simply stated, this Policy approach accentuates stuff we're good at (high technology products) and stuff that Developing Countries are good at (low labor cost products) -- a Win/Win.

An example of this would be current U.S. efforts to create a large free-trade zone encompassing 11 other Pacific Rim countries (excluding China) -- called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A good first-step would be for the U.S. to create some global "Enterprise Zones" with friendly developing nations (e.g., India, Philippines) to test the effectiveness of using trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

1. Specific Industries would be targeted to develop and implement "Low Carbon Standards" (LCS) using U.S. high energy efficient technology.
2. In return, the U.S. would give special access into U.S. markets for these LCS products.

Facebook:

---

Additional News Stories:
Simple Explanation of Infrared Radiation
Basics on Global Warming Theory (Nobel prize winner, Dr. Molina)
Climate Etc. Blog thread on the Pause.
Wall St. Journal on Environmental Concerns since 1976.
Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases (GWP)
Climate Models -- (N.Y. Times)
Fast Mitigation in India -- (Washington Post)
U.S. Policy on Methane emissions -- (N.Y. Times)
U.S. Methane emissions -- (Slate Magazine)
CO2 Equivalents -- (Wikipedia)
Social Cost of Carbon -- (U.S. EPA)
Black Carbon and Arctic Sea Ice -- (What's Up With That Blog)
Estimated Impact of CO2 Power Plant Regs by State -- (Bloomburg News)
Comments on Fast Mitigation by Dr. Curry of Georgia Tech -- (Climate Etc.)
Comments on Black Carbon by Dr. Curry -- (Climate Etc.)
EPA Looking at New Regs on Methane Emissions -- (Fuel Fix).
Political Polarization and the Media -- (Pew Research).
Religion Vs. Evolution (Pew Research).
Who Wants What from the EU 2030 Climate Framework -- (Carbon Brief)
Global Carbon Trading -- (The Independent)
EPA Says U.S. Smog Rules Should be Tightened
True Conservative -- The American Conservative
Republicans Supporting a Carbon Tax? (Weekly Standard).
A Lesson that Carbon Tax Proponents Should Learn from Maryland.
Global Warming Blog/Twitter Wars -- How Much and How Fast.
Investors Support to Reduce Methane Emissions
Obama Readies Sweeping List of Executive Actions -- (Politico).
U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal -- (N.Y. Times).
Americans Trust Obama More Than Republicans on the Environment -- (Pew Research).
Air Pollution & Global Warming -- (Nature Magazine).
New Carbon Tax Bill Introduced in U.S. Senate.
Methane Reductions in Oil & Gas Industry.
GOP and Industry Will Fight EPA Proposed Reg on Smog -- (Politico).
Poll: Why People Don't Believe in Global Warming -- (Business Insider).
Advanced Nuclear Power Technology -- (MIT Research).
Obama Proposal on Methane.
The Damaging Effects of Black Carbon

Real-Time World-wide Map of Air Quality:

No commentsRead more

Hinkley C deal likely to wipe out UK renewables spending

A comparison of the payments schedule for Hinkley C and government projections of renewable energy spending plans suggests that from 2023 spending on first Hinkley C, and later other nuclear power stations, will obliterate spending on renewable energy.

As can be seen from the National Audit Office's (NAO) report on the 'levy control framework' (LCF) , a device used by the Treasury used to monitor and control renewables spending, spending on renewables (paid from consumer electricity bills) rises by an average of around �500 million a year from 2014-2021. Yet, assuming that the projected 3.2 GWe Hinkley C runs at 90 per cent availability, and assuming recent wholesale power prices of around �50 per MWh, consumers will be paying just over �1 billion a year extra to pay for Hinkley C - over 35 years. This is TWICE the annual increment for new renewables allowed under the LCF at the moment. In addition to this electricity consumers or taxpayers will also be liable to pay for construction cost overruns because the Treasury is underwriting �10 billion of the loans for the project.

If one assumes that the Treasury continues to apply the same cap on 'low carbon' generation spending as it is doing at the moment the spending on Hinkley C would mean that there would not be any spending on new renewable energy schemes possible until 2027. The payments under the Renewables Obligation to renewable generators come to an end in 2027, releasing around �3 billion under the cap. Yet, after 2027 spending on new nuclear is likely to gobble up all or most of this budget.  Assuming the same cap on total spending remains, even after 2027 renewables spending is likely to be little or nothing. This is because spending on two further 3.2 GWe nuclear projects (Sizewell C and another nuclear project) will take up most (or quite possibly more than all) of the �3 billion 'cap' on spending on renewables released through the end of the renewables obligation.

The details of the NAO's report on renewable energy spending can be seen at http://www.nao.org.uk/report/levy-control-framework-2/#

It should be noted that the Treasury actually projects spending on renewable energy to end by 2021. Within that spending on the 'feed-in tariff' for new small renewable projects tails off to almost nothing by 2018. See page 32 in the NAO report.

What this does reveal is that the Government effectively occupy a sort of 'through the looking glass world' where after 2021 renewable energy is expected to be a mature set of technologies not needing any premium price support whilst nuclear power is a 'new' (??!) technology that needs support for 35 years per project, along with state underwriting. The fact that renewable energy sources are much more popular than nuclear power (according to the Government's own polls as well as independent polls)  cuts no ice with this view.

The biggest joke on the consumer will happen when, as is perfectly likely, oil and gas prices fall back to the levels that have been common outside of oil crisis periods. Then consumers will have to fork out staggering sums for 'new' nuclear power stations, and certainly a lot more, each year, than the annual cost paid to renewables under the Renewables Obligation - for Hinkley C until at least 2058, even longer when other new nuclear power stations come on line.

No commentsRead more

How more nuclear will waste wind power

As noticed by Chris Goodall, in his column in the Guardian environment network, wind power production has for the first time exceeded nuclear. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/uk-wind-power-bests-nuclear-power-for-a-few-symbolic-minutes

But what Goodall misses, it seems completely, is that building more nuclear power stations will simply waste more wind power. He seems to claim that 'all' the investment in wind power will be 'wasted' unless we build a lot more interconnectors etc to accommodate fluctuating wind power supplies. Well, we do need more balancing of a variety of types, including demand response, interconnectors and as it gets cheaper, various types of storage, but it is an exaggeration to say that 'all' wind investment will be wasted.

The big waste comes with the nuclear investment. The problem with the ability of the electricity system to absorb more variable wind power supplies lies with the inability, and unwillingness, of nuclear operators to turn down their production when there is more wind power than can be absorbed by the grid. So obviously building more nuclear power stations (which are more expensive, MWh for MWh anyway than onshore wind for example) will only make the situation worse - more wind power will be wasted than will otherwise be the case without the nuclear power.

It would be helpful if Chris made this point - but I can see why he doesn't, because he advocates more investment in nuclear power. This is the biggest problem as far as Chris Goodall's commentary is concerned. He should clearly re-think his support for building more nuclear power before he starts to implicitly criticise wind power for its variability.

No commentsRead more

European Commission issues smokescreen 'protection' to hide consumer exposure over Hinkley C

The European Commission, in signalling its intention to give the green light to the British Government's Hinkley C nuclear power plant deal under the 'state aid' permission procedure has failed miserably to protect British consumers against the consequences of what must be the highly likely outcome of cost overruns in building the Hinkley C plant. Instead it has issued what must be seen as a smokescreen of 'protection' to British electricity consumers by asking the British Government to introduce rules clawing back profits made by EDF. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/eu-britain-edf-nuclear-idUKL6N0RY3FE20141003?irpc=932

Observers might be forgiven for imagining that the 35 year contract for Hinkley C, underpinned by �10 billion of state loan guarantees paying higher premium prices (�92.50) than privately built onshore windfarms receive for only 15 year contracts, will give EDF and their Chinese partners big profits. However this impression is an artefact of the ludicrous propaganda perpetrated for many years that nuclear power stations are potentially profitable, competitive, operations. They are no such thing. Hinkley C is most likely to result in further major  commitments being made by British electricity consumers or taxpayers to bail out the near inevitable cost-overruns of building Hinkley C.  The fact that only state owned companies (French and Chinese) are prepared to undertake the risk of this project, and even then backed by what will emerge in the fullness of time as an effective blank cheque by the British state, is a testament to the sheer bankruptcy of new nuclear build as a commercial proposition.

The nuclear constructors may set dates for commissioning of the project, but in reality they have no idea when they will be finished. The firm probability is that they will take a lot longer to build the plant than what is said in the wishful thinking that passes for pro-nuclear reports on the subject. All three EPRs (the model being used for Hinkley C) being built in Finland, France and China are acknowledged by the constructors themselves as running considerably behind schedule. And we do not even know whether the plant will work very well when they are switched on!

Assurances that the British consumers will not face any further liabilities for building the plant are politically worthless. Why? because if, on the basis of experience, the plant are not build on time and (thus) cost, then the constructors are very likely to ask the UK Government for more financial support. The British Government is unlikely to say no in such circumstances, whatever the Department of Energy and Climate Change claim today. Are they going to allow a half-built nuclear power station to remain as a monument to British folly, to be mocked by people around the world? No, they will commit British people to spending more money on the project to complete the dinosaur, no doubt backed by a new application to the European Commission for 'state aid', which the EU Commission will be minded to accept (as usual). You think this unlikely? Well, it has happened almost exactly like this before. Sizewell B nuclear power station, using a relatively well known PWR design, was left financially stranded when British electricity industry was privatised in 1990 and the new private electricity industry said they could not finance its completion. The Government responded by levying a 'fossil fuel levy' on electricity consumers to pay for the plant to be completed. Indeed the European Commission went along with this on the condition that the levy ended in 1998.

It is about to start again. So is a new comedy show of building more nuclear power in the UK.

No commentsRead more

Daft rumours spread about wind turbines and noise without any scientific basis

Anti-wind campaigners have broken completely new ground today by using a piece of research that had absolutely nothing to do with wind power to claim that wind turbines damaged people's hearing. Even though the story was nonsense, this hardly matters for the media involved. Just like the nonsensical europhobic story about capacity power auctions (see previous blog) this is an example of how there is an expanding market to cater for growing, feverish, hysteria among the backwoodsmen right wing in British politics. I reproduce part of a media release from RenewableUK, the trade association, below, which, as far as I can see, gives a reasonable summary of this affair:

RenewableUK slams false media reports claiming wind farms affect hearing

RenewableUK says media speculation that wind farms can affect people�s hearing is incorrect and irresponsible.  

Several national newspapers wrongly claimed today that research published in the journal Royal Society Open Science showed a possible link between wind turbines and deafness.

The expert who wrote the paper, Dr Markus Drexl from the University of Munich, told RenewableUK that the media had misrepresented his work, saying �It is certainly misleading and an over-interpretation of our results to state that living close to wind farms may cause hearing impairment or deafness. Our research did not include any work at wind farms�.

RenewableUK�s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, said: �Unfortunately, some reporters got it wrong - this is a classic case of Bad Science. When you actually read the scientific paper, it doesn�t make any mention of wind farms whatsoever. That�s because the level of low frequency noise that the scientists used in their tests was significantly higher than anything that anyone living near a wind farm could possibly experience.

�The Australian government published some excellent research on this last year which stated that the modest level of low frequency sound from wind turbines is actually insignificant. It�s well understood by acoustics experts that low frequency sound doesn�t pose any health risk to communities around wind farms and frankly it�s irresponsible scaremongering to suggest otherwise.�

For further information, please contact:

�              Robert Norris, Head of Communications, 020 7901 3013 or 07969 229913, Robert.Norris@RenewableUK.com

�              Adam Wentworth, Communications Officer, 020 7901 3038 or 07791 702702 Adam.Wentworth@RenewableUK.com

Notes:

1.    RenewableUK is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. Formed in 1978, and with more than 575 corporate members, RenewableUK is the leading renewable energy trade association in the UK.

2.    Royal Society Open Science paper: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royopensci/1/2/140166.full.pdf

No commentsRead more

Blind British Europhobia as Times tilts at subsidies to euro power plants

If ever there was a story that perfectly reflected the increasing frenzy of europhobia in the UK it is the story in today's Times newspaper headed ' Britons may foot bill for power plants in Europe'. The story springs from the fact that under the UK Government's new 'capacity mechanism' designed to build up power plant capacity in the UK, the auctions to procure this capacity will also have to be open, heaven forbid, to plant based outside the UK.

Never mind the fact that the only reason that this will happen is if the power plant can supply energy more cheaply than British based plant; never mind the fact that four out of six of our major energy utilities are owned by non-British companies anyway; never mind the fact that trying to build a common electricity market will actually help the UK (and every one else) achieve more secure sustainable energy supplies, it just adds to the mindless anti-EU feeding frenzy that is Britain today. The fact that such a system will help the common good doesn't cut much ice either since increasing numbers of Brits (you'd think by reading the press) would rather cross the other side of the road before helping anything called 'euro'.

See http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article4222871.ece

Of course it may not be too long before so-called 'back-up' capacity of power stations are not so important. Storage technology is developing, and some potentially revolutionary developments are in the pipeline. An HSBC report indicates that in Germany it  may not be too long before it is at least as economic to supply your power needs for solar pv using energy storage as deriving your electricity supply from the grid. See http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/energy-storage-generators-biggest-losers-50615

In the UK, of course, this may be delayed as the premium prices awarded to nuclear power stations will allow nuclear power to supply power to supplant supplies from solar pv at least until 2058 (the earliest time that the Hinkley C power station will stop receiving its 35 year projected premium price). This decision, of course, is just about to be legitimised by the European Commission (some irony here).

No commentsRead more