Design and Simulation:These are some books which are recommended as a reading list.
1- Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles from Fluid Mechanics to Vehicle Engineering. Edited by Wolf-Heinrich Hucho
2- Hucho-Aerodynamik des Automobils Stromungsmechanik.Warmetechnik. Fahrdynamiik.Komfort
Wind Turbine DesignPrimary objective in wind turbine design is to maximize the aerodynamic efficiency, or power extracted from the wind. But this objective should be met by well satisfying mechanical strength criteria and economical aspects. In this video we will see impact of number of blades, blade shape, blade length and tower height on wind turbine design.
Modelling Complex Mechanical Structures with SimMechanicsModeling physical components or systems in Simulink® typically involves a tradeoff between simulation speed and model fidelity or complexity: the higher the fidelity of the model, the greater the effort needed to create it..
Biomass Energy Vs. Natural GasIn 2009, natural gas prices plunged to below $4 per MMBtu where many "Experts" are saying that prices will remain low for decades as a result of technology break-throughs allowing for sizable increases in natural gas supply for North America. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) just released data projections reflecting this potential increased supply in natural gas.
Britain's efforts to leave the EU are a bit like trying to build nuclear power stations, that is it takes a lot longer than you expect, you're not quite sure it will actually happen and it is very expensive.
Of course we have to decide what Brexit actually means. Whatever the status of the 'have our cake and eat it' notes may be as reported in The Times this morning, this will be viewed as fantasy by many except if you take the Daily Mail very seriously. Leaving the EU could actually be much like Norway or Switzerland's position in that we take all of the rules, including rules on free movement of people. We just won't have any say on them. That'll mean we can whinge all we like with the absolute assurance that we can't do anything except shout at the foreigners rather than speak their language. A perfect English sereotype!
However the notion that we can leave and have some sort of Canadian-plus style of free trade agreement with the EU any time soon (as implied in the Times story) is stretching things too far. Like Hinkley C, such a thing might be possible in theory in many years to come, but in the near-term it is not going to happen. In terms of the EU a Swiss-type agreement is much more likely. That's because trade deals take an awful long time to negotiate, and as we have seen with the EU-Canada agreement, are fraught with the difficulties of getting every EU nation to agree with it. It's taken 7 years to negotiate this agreement, and it is not finished yet.
Sure, the UK could agree a quickie-ish exit from the EU, within or around 2 years as stipulated in the much-mentioned article 50. That would be covered by the Article 50 injunction that a leaving deal would be agreed by a qualified majority in the EU. But the subsequent agreeement detailing trading relationships would have to wait, leaving the UK having to face trade tariffs in the (could be very lengthy) meantime. The Government has already given assurances to British industry that this will not happen of course (Nissan, CBI etc). So what's to give? Well, not the EU, since it is sticking very hard to the principle of free movement in its negotiations with Switerland who seem to be accepting a face-saving compromise in order to stay in the Single Market. So, logic has it that the UK might get a more speedy deal if it simply accepts a Swiss type deal, since that appears to be much more a la carte than much else on offer. The Government would trumpet that it has got a concession that British employers could, if they wanted, give British people first peiority in job appointments, but that would be all they could do apart from reinstate the social security chnages that were agreed by David Cameron.
Even that of course maybe looking on the hopeful side because that will enable an optimistic reading of what is possible within two years.
Of course you might say, and UKIP et al seem to be saying this, why not just leave and take the tariffs. Well, we're back to the assurances given to Nissan etc, which rules that out, and anyway business will riot (not a pretty picture). So using the chess analogy, the Government is in check, and can't get out of check within several years unless it concedes staying in the Single Market. The effective choices of the UK Government become reduced either to staying in the EU as we are at the moment under some temporary basis, or doing a Swiss or Norweigian style deal. Given that the Government does not want to go into a General Election in 2020 without any imminent prospect of leaving, the UK Government is in a very weak negotiating position. It will have to accept what is offered. A Swiss deal is almost certainly the best it will get (although there's plenty of Remainers who will still say that full membership is still best!).
Those are the rules of the game, and the only plausible way out of it is if the game, that is the EU, collapses in the meantime. Much as Nigel Farage seems to want this, the collapse of the euro at least is not something that anyone who has money in a bank would wish for.
Below (underneath the link to the Times article) is a link to a UK Government discussion of leaving the EU. see page 14 in particular
The election of Donald Trump probably means that, one way or another, the USA will pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, but this may make less difference to how much carbon the world would have emitted than what you might think.
For a start the Paris Agreement already has enough national states as signatures representing a high enough proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions to remain valid with a US withdrawal. The Agreement requires there to be signatories representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions, and there's more than that left in the agreement without the USA.
Second, internally, such downwards pressure on carbon emissions as there is is mainly bound up with technological changes or policies that are likely to continue anyway. Coal consumption in the US has fallen by around a quarter since 2008, but. according to a recent paper published in The Electricity Journal this has very little to do with Obama, and almost all to do with the increased availability of cheap natural gas. The growth in production of shale gas has been the factor that has reduced the demand for coal and led to the closure of increasing numbers of ageing coal fired power plant. Another factor reducing coal use is the growth of renewable energy - mainly wind and solar. These technologies are promoted by a bi-partisan Congressional agreement on a policy of production tax credits (wind) and investment tax credit (solar). These will decline in force and run out in 2020. However, many Republican Congressmen are relatively sympathetic towards renewable energy, and there are possibilities that some form of tax credit support could be renewed. The Republicans may not care much for the climate issue, but they are interested in helping people, including often the renewable energy industry, make money.
Certainly Trump is likely to want to short-circuit Obama's 'Clean Power Plan' which was being pursued through the aegis of the Environmental Protection Agency, although even here, many states will continue with their own clean power plans. Trump may order the reversal of the regulations restricting mercury and toxic emissions, compliance with which makes coal plant more expensive. However, as stated already, coal power plant are being retired without this measure anyway. In addition it is unlikely that the revision of standards to allow more mercury and toxic emissions will please many people given that the EPA estimates that otherwise between 4000 and 11000 people will die each year from poisoning by these toxics. Resistance to Republican initiatives to pare down environmental regulations may prove to be rather sturdier and more effective than the anti-environmentalists bargain for.
Third, there is the global impact of Trumps' protectionist trade strategies to consider. Trade restrictions on China, and quite possibly even the EU, may help relieve competitive pressure on some US industries, but they will, overall, make the world poorer. China's economy is less robust than it appears, with rising levels of bank debts and it is vulnerable to US pressures to increase the value of its currency. Indeed, my outlook is that there will be anything from a global slowdown in economic growth to a full-blown world economic meltdown. This of course, to a greater or lesser extent, will have a downward pressure on carbon emissions and probably more than offset the impact of Trumps's reversal of Obama's internal energy measures. On top of that of course, there are suggestions that the EU could impose a carbon tax on US imports to offset reductions in environmental performance by UK goods and services. This idea actually comes from Nicolas Sarkozy.
Some time before the EU referendum I predicted that a 'leave' vote would make UKIP the largest party. Well, I am very sad to admit that I was absolutely right. It's just that the Conservative Party has morphed into UKIP-lite.
My argument ran that as it became obvious that the UK could not simultaneously remain in the EU's Single Market for economic purposes and have solely British control over immigration rules then support would shift to UKIP and the Tories would split. What has happened is that the Government has stolen UKIP's clothes and is heading for chauvinism and economic isolation. There's a joke being made to Americans now. Why not come over and buy some property here? You'll get a nice house and change from $100!
The proposed rules about companies saying how many 'foreigners' are employed is a measure bound to inflame prejudice and threaten the livelihoods of people who have settled here in good faith. It is being reviled around the world as a sign of how the last country in Europe to embrace xenophobia in the 20 the century has taken the lead in this ignoble pursuit in the 21st century.
But perhaps the most ludicrous action of all in this package of petty chauvinism announced at the Tory Conference are the proposals to limit 'foreign' students. Apparently Amber Rudd is considering proposals so that overseas students will only be able to obtain work visas if they study at some universities, rather than 'lower quality' courses. According to one of her advisers quality will be measured by whether the universities are one of the two dozen members of the Russell Group of universities.
This proposal would do little, if anything to reduce overseas student numbers as the Russell Group universities would simply expand the intake to recruit the students who would have gone to non-Russell Group universities before. Meanwhile it would do severe financial damage to the rest. It would be an incredible piece of policy nonsense given that recently the Government proposed to ruin the top universities by linking home student fee rises to how well the universities scored in the National Student Survey (NSS) (see previous blog on why this is nonsense). That would mainly favour the non-research intensive universities who tend to do better in NSS scores.
I struggle to understand how it is that a Programme we run at Aberdeen University (or at places like the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex, Robert Gordon University also in Aberdeen etc) is 'lower quality' to one organised at a university in the Russell Group. But it is now. Because Amber Rudd says so. They'll be no NSS on that one I'm sure!
Of course if Amber Rudd fails to divide and rule the universities she may use the option of simply stopping overseas students getting work visas at all. But if this leads to large cuts in income from overseas students then then that would even more surely ruin the universities more thoroughly than will happen anyway with the loss of EU research income and the decline in numbers of EU students studying in the UK.
There's no good argument for doing this, bar the notion that this may nominally cut the numbers of so-called immigrants (students are counted in this list). It is ludicrous to claim that the students I teach at my and other universities are low skilled people, presumably who will put out British people out of jobs picking fruit or cleaning toilets. No they might compete with university lecturers for their jobs of course - but I can assure you that very, very, few of us mind about that!
But facts and expert opinion have departed from being regarded as having any relevance in UKIP Britain. Experts are weak liberal internationalists who have no country. The Prime Minister has sacrificed her country in the race to save her Party by transforming it into UKIP.
Peter Lilley, the ex-Tory cabinet minister, gave an unexpected boost to social science research when he implied that social science research was needed to estimate the impact of an administrative change he brought in when he was a minister in the 1990s. But what this (surprising?) boost does illustrate is that there is some hope to defend social science research from what I hear as the increasing howls of 'what's the point of all this' that I hear these days. This is especially strong after the EU referendum and the Brexiteer sneering at 'experts'.
Peter Lilley, in a Radio 4 Programme (broadcast earlier today) was actually discussing whether civil servants, in preparing lists of policy options, should include an option 'of doing nothing'. When asked whether this had led to long term changes in how policies are assessed he responded 'that's something for social science research to determine'! So get your ESRC applications in now, folks (although jolly good luck, because these days only about one in ten or so of proposals get funded!).
This boost was a little unexpected partly because the intensity of dismissal of social science research has strengthened in the wake of the EU referendum, with social scientists being attacked as being 'shamen' in one memorable attack from a right wing opinion leader that I can remember. It's nice to have somebody on the political right who thinks it is sometimes useful. Of course lots of people say that we social scientists should just focus on teaching. Now we have to do this of course, as well as research, but what all those wailing at us for spending so much time on research fail to answer is that when we do put a lot of effort into teaching:
Where exactly do we get the material to teach from?
I ask this question when people tackle me on the way that (so they say) academics 'waste' time on doing research when they could be helping students. and I must say that the responses seem pretty thin. People seem to simply ignore the point I make, or refer to some 'body of knowledge' out there which we can use. But where on earth do people think this 'body of knowledge' comes from? The Guardian, or Times perhaps? Well, they in fact tend to either recycle un-evidenced opinion or, wait for it, research published by academics. Or perhaps the Daily Mail? I won't comment in that one. Besides providing students with material to discuss and learn, social science research can answer a lot of questions that the people want to know about (including Peter Lilley it seems).
The Government have got very confused about all of this in their proposals for a 'Teaching Excellence Framework'. Initially at least, they seemed to be moving towards a proposal whereby the universities that did best in the national student satisfaction surveys league tables were allowed to increase their fees. Which seems ok at first sight until you understand that, as a very general rule, the universities that students most want to get into (ie research intensive universities) happen to be the ones that tend to come often towards the bottom of the 'teaching satisfaction' league tables. So would they be starved of funds and forced to sack the boffins?
So what does the Government want to do? Destroy places like Imperial College, and the LSE that don't do well enough in student satisfaction surveys but who generate very high quality research as represented by international league tables? Despite the fact that students want to get into these sorts of places most of all! Of course, as we can see in Scotland, which boasts lots of top-rated universities (eg Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and others), a fees system is not necessary for UK students.
But maybe the universities should not expect too much help from the Government. After all they are tainted with the liberal internationalism that is so hated now by Brexit Britain.
There is an irony that, unintentionally, the Brexiteers, by bringing down the value of the pound, have made studying in Britain a lot more attractive for overseas students. This might go some way to replacing the loss of EU funds for research if it leads to increased numbers of students coming in from abroad. But I suspect Theresa May will order her ministers come up with some 'options' to put a stop to that sort of comeback! Of course doing nothing to limit overseas students numbers would be one option that the universities would favour! But will a 'doing nothing' option be on the cabinet committee agenda? By the way, if you want to join in (or just look at) the 'Energy Politics' facebook group at the University of Aberdeen go to https://www.facebook.com/groups/1110798358955201/
In pursuit of a complete failure to understand the problems with its own 'capacity market' Ofgem seems about to make things a whole lot worse by reducing capacity margins - by taking away the incentives to a lot of small scale generators whose existence helps to keep the electricity sector running.
Ofgem runs on a piece of fantasy theory that the capacity market will work better if the 'distorting' benefits to so-called 'embedded;' generators are taken away. In fact the opposite it the case. Ofgem's concern that proposed big gas power stations cannot win bids at sufficiently low prices to put them into business partly because of the small generators is total nonsense. Without the small generators the price at which the required capacity will be supplied by the big power stations will increase not fall. The problem has to do with the principles and practice of the capacity market, and has nothing to do with the small generators who currently provide a valuable service. Ofgem's actions are akin to destroying a table leg in order to save the table.
The central problem is that future prices for electricity that the power stations could sell on the wholesale power markets are very uncertain, and quite likely to fall. Given this it will require very high capacity market prices (which will put consumer energy bills up by large amounts) to evince the capacity that Ofgem wants from gas fired power stations.
A big part of the problem of course is that increasing parts of electricity supply are being paid for outside of the wholesale power markets, through the Renewables Obligation or contracts for difference. This will only increase in the future, especially if Hinkley C comes on line (whenever that may be). Note: this has nothing to do with so-called renewables 'intermittency' , it is to do with 'liquidity' being siphoned away from the wholeslae power markets to pay for low carbon energy sources - which has to be done of course, otherwise they will not come on line.
The answer to all of this is to offer new generators firm long term contracts so that they can have income guarantees in the future - this may involve some sort of 'take or pay' scheme for all generators at least, in the form of a contracts for difference arrangement as applied to the generators. - But this approach is bound to end up being a lot cheaper than the Government's current approach which consists on the one hand of giving the capacity payments to every generator and on the other hand (in these proposals) of driving the small generators out of business by taking away the income they need to provide capacity to the whole of the system.
The problem has a lot to do with ideology. Ofgem and civil servants seriously believe that somehow in a world of decarbonisation you can run wholesale power markets according to some imaginary free market trading arrangement. People must learn to be more pragmatic and tear themselves away from economic models that have little bearing on the real world. For the story on Ofgem's proposals see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/24/industry-faces-160m-energy-hit-under-overhaul-of-power-plant-rul/
The Green Party and Jonathon Porritt have been organising campaigns to unite people to form a 'Progressive Alliance' that would co-ordinate efforts to defeat the Conservatives. There is hardly an area for which this is not more necessary than green energy. That means renewable energy and energy conservation.
Tories who oppose support for renewable energy are getting their way despite the fact that green energy is much more popular than nuclear power or fracking which is their preferred means of deriving energy. This is despite the fact that both of these options are much more difficult to deliver compared to renewables or energy efficiency.
Behind the spectacle of Hinkley C Point being, in reality, postponed again (until at least 2026) because of the inability of the nuclear industry to deliver, the Government refuses to offer contracts to several thousand MW of onshore wind that are in the planning system, or solar farms that could be quickly put together. It has postponed the issuing of contracts for new offshore windfarms. Targets for zero net energy housing have been abandoned. Local authorities have been stripped of their powers to make developers build buildings to a higher energy efficiency standard than the minimum requirements. As the UK leaves the EU the right wing will be straining at the leash to cut down the environmental protection rules, including EU inspired energy efficiency standards for machines and buildings. I could go on.......
All the Government seems likely to do now is to oversee the ramping up of incentives for fossil fuel power plant under the capacity mechanism and think of crazy schemes to fund nuclear power through back-door blank cheques.
Of course the predominantly anti-green Brexiteers hold green energy to ransom. Despite the fact that green energy is very popular the anti-green faction hides behind a front of xenophobia to push through policies that the public really does not want. It's classic right wing politics of course.
So it seems nothing will change until we get rid of the Tories. Divided the centre and left will fall. Together we can win.
See Jonathan Porrit's blog for some general further thoughts: http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/progressive-alliance-laying-foundations
�The newest windfarm in Aberdeenshire � a good omen for renewable energy?�
Roger McMichael from the company ENGIE who are building the Cairnborrow windfarm in north west Aberdeenshire will be coming along to talk on Friday September 16th at noon in room New Kings (NK) 3 at the Kings College, University of Aberdeen. He will talk about renewable energy policy as well as the windfarm that is currently under construction. You can see some details of the windfarm at http://www.westcoastenergy.co.uk/�/work-begins-on-10mw-cai�/ You can see the position of New Kings Building at:http://www.abdn.ac.uk/about/campus/maps/view/36/ All are invited to this meeting.
EDF leaders are now in such a state of panic over their Hinkley C proposals that desperate messages were being sent out to tell the British Government that they need to take a �6 billion equity share in the proposal. Signals are coming from Downing Street that the Government wants to decouple Hinkley C from the 'deal' with China allowing them to build their own nuclear power plant at Bradwell. The Chinese have responded that they would no longer be interested in funding their (approx one third) share of Hinkley C.
A Chinese response of withdrawing from the Hinkley C deal would be entirely logical from their point of view since the only point of taking a huge risk of funding Hinkley C would be the possibility (in their imagination at least) of opening up a western market for their own nuclear power stations. The 'deal' with China was always a bizarre arrangement compared to the normalities of building power plant and really reflects earlier desperate attempts by EDF and some pro-nuclear allies in the UK to prop up what had become, by 2012, a project of increasingly dubious commercial realities.
I know that some people still occasionally produce projections that on the basis of the now notorious 35 year contract to pay EDF �92.5 per MWh in 2012 prices (now worth about �97 per MWh) EDF can still make a profit on a rate of return of around 7 per cent. But, and this is a VERY important 'But' without a) the ability to finance the bulk of this from bank loans as opposed to equity capital which needs to be serviced by much higher returns and b) any reasonable certainty that the project would be delivered relatively close to projected cost and timescale, then the scheme is something that no sane boardroom in the private sector could possibly ever contemplate taking on.
The Treasury has quietly edged away from offering the sort of guarantees that would have allowed EDF to take out bank loans to finance the deal - fearing quite rightly that the guarantees would most likely be transformed in the fullness of time to a state funded blank cheque. Meanwhile the construction disasters for the Hinkley-style EPR models in Finland and France have made the achievement of cost and timescale delivery projections look like, as they say these days, a 'heroic' ambition.
So it is no surprise that there would be no private sector takers for the Hinkley C investment. Centrica withdrew their plans to invest in Hinkley C in 2012, and remember that the previous year the other privately owned big electricity companies had walked away from the British nuclear programme. But a foreign Government with their own techno-political agenda, China, then decided, in effect that Hinkley C might act as a 'loss leader' for their ambitions to be major nuclear exporters. I think this hope is much misplaced and that China should stick to exporting the solar panels, but I shall reserve that story for another time.
Of course if one country has a political agenda in investing in another, then it is hardly a surprise if the host country (in this case the UK) considers its own political agenda, as we read in the papers. But the point here is that this issue (China's involvement) only arises simply because the Hinkley deal is commercially inferior to the various other clean energy options that the UK has at its disposal, none of which will have any major problems in delivery or financing. The only problem here is that the Government does not want to offer any long term contracts for them - and is even (now) delaying offering contracts for some more offshore windfarms.
People can often be heard to say that nuclear power is needed to provide energy security. Yet what is remotely secure about the technology which you don't know whether or when it will be delivered? Indeed, this produces the opposite - insecurity!
EDF's desperate plea that the British Government take over the Chinese share in Hinkley C is unlikely to be welcomed by Treasury officials who would (or at least should) see that as tantamout to locking in the British state to shovelling money down a black hole, with a lot more inevitably following the first �6 billion equity.
See FT report: https://www.ft.com/content/0b80e672-70ea-11e6-a0c9-1365ce54b926#axzz4Io1bYUFm
With Labour trying to face several ways at once it looks more like chaos as the front bench tries to please everybody and fails to satisfy anybody at the same time.
Jeremy Corbyn is quoted (quite rightly in my view) as saying that 'Tories have just put up the cost of your electricity by giving a blank cheque to EDF for a power station that doesn�t work' See: https://dwpexamination.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/jeremy-corbyn-facing-backlash-from-unions-momentum-activist-and-shadow-business-minister-over-hinkley-c-nuclear-opposition-huffington-post/
On the other hand, Labour's energy spokesperson Barry Gardiner is said to be in favour of the Hinkley C power station but at a lower cost to the consumer. See Ian Fairlie's piece at: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988060/if_its_jobs_they_want_labour_and_the_unions_must_back_renewables_not_hinkley_c.html
How to reconcile these two views? Well, you could say that Labour wants to pay a slightly lower price for a power station 'that doesn't work'. Alternatively, you can just choose the particular policy that comes closest to your particular taste. That's one way of running a political party I suppose, though even (nay, I say, ESPECIALLY) the Green Party has somewhat more coherent policy responses than Labour!
As for the trade unions, well that depends on whether you are a French union or a British one. The British trade union position is that it's ok if somebody else pays for Hinkley C, and of course the French unions are opposing the deal because they know that they will end up paying a lot of money (and jobs) for it!
Of course, as Ian Fairlie argues, there's plenty of jobs in alternative clean energy sources to Hinkley. One estwhile Momentum supporter has attacked Corbyn as being an 'anarchist' for his position on Hinkley. Well, I'd more see the Labour position as being much closer to chaos! There's a big difference!
The just published 'Stern Review' on how research outputs of UK academics are going to be valued is likely to seriously blight the careers of British academics and lead to a 'brain drain' as they seek to advance their careers abroad. A change in the arcane rules of the 'Research Excellence Framework' (REF) will mean that the work of British academics is now likely to be of much higher value to foreign universities than British ones.
Under the practices of academia every 6 years British university departments are assessed for the quality of their research output, and this exercise, now known as the 'Research Excellence Framework' (REF). The original purpose of this exercise was to have some rational basis for distributing monies for research time and resources between university institutions, although the amount of money at stake has diminished as austerity measures have taken their toll.
One of the criticisms of the process has been, as the Stern Review, says, that 'smaller institutions with strong teams in particular areas which have previously been potential targets for �poaching�(para 99 point iv). Under the existing system if somebody if doing well then they would have good prospects in applying for a job with another university since the academic would carry with them their research output. Either the host university would have to give an offer of promotion to the academic to keep them, or the academic would most likely leave to take up the new post at a different university. However this had the side-effect that people could be poached by departments who either had greater prestige in a particular area or at least had resources to offer people more money.
But now under the Stern review recommendations if British academics switch from one department in one university to a different university then they will no longer take the value of their research outputs. This could lead to some odd effects. One effect could be that towards the end of each cycle there would be a sort of vague 'transfer window' during which academics who had amassed good records and who could blag themselves about their future could get jobs in other universities. However, another, rather more perverse effect is that in between such times staff would most likely find themselves like beached whales who could not get promotion in other British universities since their research output could no longer be transferred.
Note that I say, promotion to 'British' universities, because the same rules would not apply abroad. British academics would be welcome in other countries since these foreign universities would in no way be bound by the UK REF rules and would be able to use the value of their research in the international league tables of universities without suffering any financial penalty. Indeed in some ways the British university who has 'lost' the staff would actually benefit. Why? well they would retain any research output made by that academic while they were working there whilst the university would no longer have to pay for it! More bizarrely of course, universities could actually dismiss people, make them redundant, and still report their work to the REF!
Of course there are lots of gremlins waiting to crawl out of this piece of do-goodery by Lord Stern, but I would emphasise the particularly irksome gremlin that it is highly likely that lots of British academics will move abroad to further their careers. Really, all Lord Stern's attempt to stop 'poaching' is doing is creating a different, arguably much greater problem. At least with the current problem of poaching it was British universities who were getting the benefit. Now it will be the foreign universities who will be doing the poaching and getting the benefit. And, post Brexit, many academics are just looking for good excuses to emigate anyway!
See: Building on Success and Learning from Experience https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf
Theresa May may have gained short term kudos for 'stamping' her authority on the Hinkley decision by delaying it until the Autumn. But in reality all she may have done in the long term is emphasised the fact that she sanctioned a decision that resulted in the biggest industrial disaster to have affected the country in modern times. Once the Government signs the project it will be committed to footing the bill for a long running engineering construction foul-up, whatever the terms of the Government's contract may actually say.
It should be obvious from the problem that EDF has had with its attempts to build the two reactors at Okiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in Normandy that there is a very high chance that the project will end in disaster, organised by a company whose leaders ignore commercial logics in pursuit of a discredited piece of technology - the hallmark of a nationalised industry that controls the state. But now EDF say they will go ahead, in 2019, with 'pouring concrete' (ie starting building proper) once Flamanville has 'proved' itself. Yet even this timetable may not happen, pushing EDF further into its financial crisis and producing even more handouts from the french state to EDF.
The UK Government, for its part claims that it will be under no legal obligation to pay for any cost overruns. True, we understand that the contract that awaits signature says that the Hinkley C power plant must start generating by 2033 if the premium price payments of �92.50 in 2012 prices (�97 per MWh in today's prices) are to be paid. But that is a legal nicety that obscures the political blank cheque that the UK Government will be signing this Autumn.
Imagine the situation in ten years time. It is 2026, and EDF, is beset by generally unfavourable market conditions, having in any case to pay increasing amounts of money to refurbish its own French nuclear fleet. It is facing mounting construction cost overruns on the still far from completed Hinkley C construction and EDF tells the French and UK Governments that it cannot complete the project without further financial injections. We then have the spectacle (as we did in the case of Sizewell B in 1990) of a half-built nuclear power project with no money to finish it. There will then be a political demand that it must be completed. The terms of the contract between EDF and the UK Government will then become irrelevant, and the UK Government will have to pay untold extra billions to finish the project, and fund it thereafter, the only limits being what cost-sharing it can achieve with the French Government itself.
Of course Theresa May, who is said to be reluctant to agree to the Chinese demand on behalf of CGN to be given the right to build a 'Huang' Chinese power plant at Bradwell in Essex, may seek to alter the terms of this agreement. The Chinese have agreed to invest in Hinkley C on the basis that the Bradwell project will be allowed. Indeed the Chinese are responsible for a third of the equity in the project. But the controversies and issues around this Chinese project are likely to considerable.
Apart from controversies over 'security' issues (about which I do not know enough to comment) there are going to be arguments about validation of the safety protocols for the plant. In China there have been complaints that the safety criteria have not been rigorous enough for nuclear power stations. The problem from the point of view of the British Government is that if the Chinese have put money into the Hinkley project, then the British Government will be under great pressure not be seen to be too choosey with the approval of the power plant. Will Bradwell be built according to British or Chinese safety standards? Then there is the issue with the financing and power price for the Bradwell project. Again, the Government will be under great pressure to give the project good terms, or be accused by the Chinese of having reneged by other means on the Hinkley agreement.
If Theresa May says that she will agree to Hinkley C but will not agree to the Bradwell project, then it is likely that the Chinese will walk away from Hinkley, thus ending the project - unless the French Government came up with even more money and risk-taking. But of course if Theresa May now does give approval for the present scheme, give or take some public relations concessions, then it is May that will go down in history as having personally approved not just a Hinkley disaster but a political and industrial crisis over the Chinese nuclear power project at Bradwell.
Of course by 2030 under this scenario we will still probably have no power from the new nuclear power plant, but otherwise we would have been able, by then, to have put on line maybe another 20 per cent of our power from renewable energy from the money. That is, just using the money that we would be committing to non-existent nuclear power stations, and not including any other renewables we would have put on line anyway.
Breaking Story (3/13/18): The Financial Times has a story which mirrors the major points of our following blog article -- Go Here.
"We will become and stay totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel" -- Donald Trump.
Key Background Points for Today's Blog: In discussing U.S. foreign oil dependency, two measures are used:
Gross Imports % -- Total Imports/Total Petroleum Used.
Net Imports % -- (Imports minus Exports)/Total Petroleum Used.
What does Energy Independence even mean? In a context of U.S. foreign energy independence, it is oil and only oil that's relevant.
Oil remains the dominant fuel used in the U.S., accounting for ~37% of total energy consumption in 2015. Oil is consumed mostly within the transportation sector, with very little used for electricity generation (~1%).
Metrics Used: Almost always when U.S. foreign oil dependency is discussed in the Media, it will be net imports that is being referenced. Inferring this metric, the EIA states "In 2015, about 24% of the petroleum used by the United States was imported from foreign countries -- the lowest level since 1970".
(Note: EIA data available on-line only goes back to 1973)
But only citing net imports does't tell a whole story. Of the total petroleum used in the U.S. in 2015:
A whopping 49% came from foreign countries (gross imports)1;
25% was exported (mostly as refined products, e.g. gasoline & diesel);
In using Net Imports as the most commonly cited metric, an assumption is thus inferred that Exports must reduce the foreign dependency of Gross Imports. Today, we will explore whether this is an appropriate assumption.
Gross Versus Net: The significance between gross versus net imports is a relatively recent development. For decades prior to the current boom in domestic oil production, yearly U.S. exports were very constant at ~5% of total petroleum used. However, during the past 9 years (breakthroughs in fracking, horizontal drilling), two things have dramatically changed:
Field production of oil/other petroleum liquids has more than doubled.2
Petroleum exports have increased by 5 times.3
(2) From 5.5 million barrels per day (2006) to 12.6 million bpd (Feb. 2016). (3) Primary U.S. petroleum exports are diesel, gasoline, and natural gas liquids.
Percentage of U.S. Petroleum Exports
Thus, while it may be technically correct that U.S. dependence on foreign oil (using the metric of net imports) is at the lowest level in 45 years, the composition of this metric is very different today than in 1970.
1970
2015
Change
Gross Imports:
29%
49%
+20%
Exports
05%
25%
+20%
Net Imports
24%
24%
zero
Looking at the above numbers, one might "conclude" that the U.S. is now just importing more crude, refining it, and then exporting the end-use products of this foreign oil (gasoline, diesel) -- with a "net" of zero.
But the Import/Export paradigm (model) just isn't this simple due to:
Configuration/Design of many U.S. Refineries to use heavy oil.
U.S. Refineries using financial arbitrage to gain competitive advantages in high value World Gasoline/Diesel Markets.
Foreign Sources of Oil: This metric can also be misleading. While it is emphasized that Canada is the "single" largest foreign country supplier to the U.S. (2.81 million bpd) -- OPEC countries import a comparable amount of oil (2.65 million bpd).4
Understanding Some Oil Basics: In long-term forecasts through 2040, the EIA projects that U.S. dependency on imported oil (net imports) will continue at an ~25% level.
Historical and Projections of U.S. Oil Production & Consumption:
So with the U.S. oil boom, why are we still importing so much foreign oil? The answer is found in the fact that not all crude oil is the same. It can have a density ranging from heavy to light, sour (high sulfur content) or sweet; priced internationally (Brent) or priced domestically (West Texas Intermediate).
Type of Oil: In 2015, ~90% of imported crude oil was heavier, with a gravity below 35 degrees API. At the same time, more than 70% of the crude oil produced in the Lower 48 states was light oil or condensate with an API gravity above 35 degrees.
As the below chart illustrates, as U.S. production of light & medium crude has increased, U.S. refineries have reduced their imports of lighter oils.
However, note that imports of foreign heavy crudes have increased.
The market value of a crude stream reflects its density and sulfur content. Crude oils that are light and sweet (low sulfur content) are priced higher than heavy, sour crudes.
This is because products like gasoline which sell at a significant premium to other products (e.g., residual fuel oil) can be more easily and cheaply produced using lighter, sweeter crude oil in simpler refineries.5
Note how close Brent and WTI are in characteristics.
Pricing Benchmarks for Oil: West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is a benchmark at which oils produced in the U.S. trade. Internationally, about two-thirds of all crude contracts reference a Brent benchmark. For various reasons, internationally priced oil (Brent) has traded at a premium to domestic priced crudes (WTI) for the past decade6.
Stated another way, domestic U.S. oil has been trading at a discount from Internationally priced Brent Oil.
Spread Between Brent Versus WTI
6Historically, some reasons have included the U.S. export ban on most crudes resulting from the Arab Oil Embargo in the 1970's; excess domestic production and storage.
What the Heck Is Going On? With the exceptional increase in U.S. oil production from tight shale formations/fracking (e.g., North Dakota, Texas, etc.) there is good and bad news:
Most of this oil is high quality light crude, relatively easy to refine in refineries that are not terribly complex.
However, many U.S. refineries can not use this lighter oil.
Design of U.S. Refineries: Prior to the shale boom, many U.S. Refiners guessed wrong in their planning. They spent billions of dollars to configure plants for heavier and sour foreign oils (the type from Canada and OPEC countries). For example, a high percentage of refineries (especially the Gulf Coast) have coking capacity that can upgrade heavy crude oil into higher-valued lighter products.7
As a result of this infrastructure investment, the U.S. now has more complex Refineries than anywhere else in the world -- as shown in the below graphic which includes the Nelson Complexity Index:
Understanding the U.S. regional (called PADDs) composition of refineries ranging from simpler to complex (catalytic crackers, reformers, cokers) help explain the type of oils primarily used within each region.8 (8) Recognizing that higher and lower API oils are always blended for specific Refineries to optimize production.
For example, Refineries in PADD 1 (East Coast) are generally not terribly complex and thus will use more lighter oils. In PADD 3 (Gulf Coast), 81% of Refineries have coking capacity -- explaining their use of more heavier oils.
U.S. Oil Field Production
Primary Source & Type of Crude Used in Refineries9
PADD 1
01%
Domestic Light
PADD 2
20%
Canada Heavy
PADD 3
60%
Heavier Foreign
PADD 4
08%
Canada Heavy & U.S. Light
PADD 5
11%
50% Foreign Heavy
Total
100%
The overwhelming majority of Canadian oil goes to PADD 2. Most of the Middle East imports are received in PADD 3 (e.g., Saudi Arabia owned Motiva Refineries). Heavy crude imports from Mexico and Venezuela also primarily go to PADD 3 (e.g., Venezuela's CITGO Refineries). The majority of African oil is consumed in PADD 1. (9)U.S. Department of Energy Report, pages 15, 26.
Arbitrage: But historically, there's been more to understanding U.S. imports and exports other than just Refinery configuration -- something called arbitrage.
Oil Arbitrage: The practice of U.S. Refineries buying lower cost U.S. light oil (pegged to WTI), refining it, and exporting/selling gasoline to World markets that mostly used higher cost oil (pegged to Brent).
Gasoline is an international commodity. A U.S. refiner could as easily sell their product to the international market if that would maximize their profit. According to the U.S. Department of Energy study, "Brent crude oil prices are more important than WTI crude oil prices as a determinant of U.S. gasoline prices".10
Thus, U.S. Refineries have had two highly significant market advantages in selling high-end products to both the U.S. and World markets (gasoline to Mexico & South America; diesel to Europe):
Financial Arbitrage on lighter oils.
Ability to use lower cost heavier crudes in complex Refineries.
Nobody Knows Just How Dependent the U.S. is on Foreign Oil? As previously argued, using a dependency metric of Net Imports would be totally appropriate under a paradigm/model where crude is imported, refined, with the end-product (e.g., gasoline) of this foreign oil exported:
But the Import/Export Paradigm isn't this simple as U.S. Refineries also: (1) Process Domestic lighter crudes into gasoline and diesel fuel for export; (2) Import heavier foreign crudes for Domestic consumption:
Additional Flows of U.S. Refineries' Imports/Exports
Exporting gasoline produced from domestic light crude to China wouldn't decrease U.S. foreign dependency on heavy crude imports from Saudi Arabia.
Thus in using Net Imports as a dependency metric, it would be important to know its composition. Remember, the basic tenent in using Net Imports is that somehow, Exports decrease U.S. Gross Imports dependency.11 (11) Gross Imports of 49% minus Exports of 25% equals Net Imports of 24%.
Incredibly though, not even the Energy Information Administration (EIA) can answer this question:
"We cannot determine the exact amount of crude oil produced in the United States that is consumed, as refined products, in the U.S."
In using EIA data though, we can at least frame the "How Much" question of foreign oil dependency -- where of the total Petroleum Consumed, about 50/50 came from Imports and Domestic Production, with 25% Exported:
In using two fictional scenarios, U.S. Dependency on Foreign Petroleum Resources can be "framed" as somewhere between 32% and 65%:
Scenario 1: ALL domestic oil is consumed within the U.S. Scenario 2: ALL imported oil is consumed within the U.S.
Petroleum in the U.S.:
Low Domestic Use of Imports
High Domestic Use of Imports
Total Processed
100%
100%
Exported
(25%)
(25%)
Consumed Only in U.S.
75%
75%
Produced & Used Only in U.S.
51%
26%
Imported & Used Only in U.S.
24%
49%
Foreign Dependency
32%
65%
Potential Actions: Regardless of what "metric" that one believes is appropriate -- Donald Trump is correct in elevating foreign oil dependence as an important issue in this Presidential election:
While the old GOP mantra of "Drill Baby Drill" and eliminating environmental regulations will assuredly be a Trump meme, will he show depth and breath on this issue? The following are some items that could be proposed:
Refinery Tax Credits: As discussed, a major cause of foreign oil dependency is the configuration of U.S. Refineries to use heavy oil. Without incentives, Refineries are not going to simply walk away from their sunk investment and spend money to reconfigure yet again to primarily light oils. Federal incentives could be an investment tax credit (similar to solar energy) and/or accelerated tax depreciation (e.g., a one year write-off).
Oil Production Tax Credit: Another Federal incentive could be a tax credit (similar to yearly credits given to wind and nuclear) for the domestic production (per barrel) of heavy crudes. The U.S. has vast undeveloped resources of heavy oil in the Alaska North Slope.
Repeal Jones Act on Oil Transportation ; Shipping between U.S. ports costs significantly more than international voyages. This is largely because of a ~100-year-old federal law (Jones Act) which requires domestic cargoes to travel on U.S.built, owned and crewed vessels. A qualifying U.S. tanker currently commands rates from 3 to 4 times more than a non U.S. tanker of the same size.12,13
The Jones Act explains how importing oil from half way around the world (Middle East OPEC countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.) can be cheaper than transporting oil via tanker from the U.S. Gulf Coast area to East and West Coast markets.
Tariffs on Imported Oil: While very much of a long-shot, an oil tariff could get political support from two unlikely bedfellows: the domestic oil industry and the renewable energy industry. The domestic oil industry would love a tariff because it protects the industry from the competition of cheaper OPEC oil imports. Saudi Arabia's current price suppression strategy specifically targets the high-cost hydraulic fracturing or fracking in deep shale deposits that has been largely responsible for the rise in U.S. oil production.
The renewable energy industry might well join the oil industry in supporting such a tariff because a high oil price makes alternatives to oil more attractive.14
Final Thoughts: When Foreign Oil Dependency is discussed, a metric stated in percentages can lose some of its impact as to a "big picture". The below graphic puts foreign oil dependency in a clearer perspective of dollars. Even using "Net Imports", the trade impact is a whopping deficit/negative $123 billion per year ($246.5 less 62.7 less 60.7).
The Significance of Oil Imports on the U.S. Trade Balance:
A recent AP story further illustrates this point as the U.S. Trade Deficit hit a 10 month high ($45 billion) from a big rise in imports of oil and Chinese-made computers, cell phones and clothing.
The media is full of stories that EDF is about to announce a 'final investment decision' on Hinkley C nuclear power station, whereas the logic of its own press statements suggest that the project is in fact in deep freeze. Once again, EDF's superb public relations is convincing people that its disastrous Hinkley C power plant project is moving ahead, whilst the reality is that it is announcing that the project will not be started until at least 2019. And even this date seems to be associated with the commissioning of the terribly delayed sister project at Flamanville.
I have lost count of the number of times that EDF has sparked speculation that it is about to announce a final investment decision for the project. These 'announcements', given through press briefings about which EDF bristles with annoyance if people question their connection with reality, have occurred several times since 2012.
And yet EDF's own press release in effect says the opposite of the 'final investment decision' press stories that EDF have inspired.The document, released by EDF on July 21st, actually says: 'The first concrete of reactor 1 of HPC, scheduled for mid-2019, would coincide with perfect continuity with the start-up of the EPR at Flamanville, scheduled for the end of 2018'
So, what is actually happening is that, as experts familiar with the saga know only too well, EDF is confirming that Hinkley's construction could not possibly begin until the safety issues surrounding the reactor design have been cleared and the working of the Flamanville project has been demonstrated. This is not going to happen for a minimum of THREE YEARS. Of course even this possibility defies commercial logic given that the project would bankrupt EDF without massive subsidy from the French state.The UK has agreed in principle to pay EDF (in June 2016 money) 97 per MWh for 35 years of operation for the project, but even this price would not go close to covering the risk that EDF would take with the project. Hence the need for a massive state handout. The French unions and many financiers and managers inside and outside the company regard the whole thing as a politically motivated piece of industrial suicide.
Even the UK Treasury has long since sidled away from the project, effectively cancelling its offer for guaranteeing the bulk of the loans that EDF would hope to take out for the project. Indeed, contrary to what seems to be widely assumed, the UK Government has not even offered EDF a legally binding contract. It beggars belief how seriously one can take a project that has not even got an offer of a contract from the people who are supposed to be paying for it! But then the project has long since departed from being based on any sense of commercial reality, and linkages with commercial reality have always been tenuous, as they will be with any nuclear power project that has to meet the sort of safety standards demanded in developed countries these days.
Whatever 'decision' will be reached at next week's EDF Board meeting, it will, as EDF clearly state, not lead to the construction of the Hinkley project being started. But it will be just a continuation of the public relations pantomime that we have been witnessing for several years now.
See EDF's press release at: http://media.edfenergy.com/r/1127/hinkley_point_c__the_board_of_edf_called_to_consider_a
Early pronouncements from Philip Hammond and David Davis indicate that the Government is set to abandon hopes of remaining within the Single Market as the price the UK will have to pay for imposing immigration controls on EU citizens. This strategy is clearly aimed at pacifying those who prioritise reduction of immigration within the Tories and also reducing the attacks from the xenophobic right, whose 'respectable' wing resides in UKIP.
Politically this might take the shine off the electoral threat to Conservatives posed by UKIP in the short term, but this threatens to unravel in the longer term and it will be at great cost to the British economy.
It seems that Hammond is fighting a rearguard action to preserve internal market market access for British financial services, but how successful and costly that will be to the British exchequer remains to be seen. But the British economy now faces having nearly half its trade facing not only tariffs in the EU but also falling prey to non-tariff trade barriers as the EU changes its rules to which the UK will not be subject.
In terms of energy our influence in regulations governing energy markets will decline and the automatic upgrading of energy efficiency standards and labels that comes with the EU will cease. Directives on renewable energy and energy efficiency will cease to apply.
There will be a lot of talk about trade agreements with the USA and maybe others, but in reality nothing can be effected until after the UK formally leaves the EU, which, according to David Davis, is likely to be in December 2018. That implies the issue of an article 50 notice in December of this year (2016).
In the longer term (which may not be very long at all!) this attempt to feed the monster of xenophobia is likely to fail as the hard right demand more and more stricter immigration controls. The targets of abuse have already been widened from just perceived EU migrants to muslims, and soon no doubt others.
'The hopes of self-styled 'civilised' Brexiteers such as Daniel Hannan are being dashed. His 'libertarian' eurosceptical views favouring continued free movement and internal market membership outside of the EU have merely ended as being ballast to pave the way for the objectives of the anti-immigration English nationalist lobby. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-tory-campaigner-admits-brexit-immigration-some-control-a7102626.html
�Always look on the bright side of life�. That was a theme associated with the �Life of Brian� (as is strife within the popular fronts of the Labour Party these days of course, but I won�t go into that now). So what�s good about Brexit? Well, it might be a crushing blow to our British economy and environmental laws, but in other ways it might actually help.....
One way Brexit will definitely help is that the green interest groups will find it easier to get their way on various environmental issues in EU institutions. The UK won�t be around to perform their usual watering-down role! Take the issue of air pollution. The UK has been an opponent of tightening up EU air pollution regulations. As the Guardian reported on June 3rd this year; �EU states have agreed to water down a proposed law aimed at halving the number of deaths fromair pollutionwithin 15 years, after intense lobbying from the UK that cross-party MEPs have condemned as �appalling�......Some 14,000 people will die prematurely every year across Europe from 2030 as a result, if the weakened proposal is implemented, according to figurescited by the environment commissioner, Karmenu Vella.�
Then there is the issue of chemicals which scientists say are killing bees. The EU banned farmers using neocontinoids in 2014, and bees are said now to be recovering, but the UK dragged its feet at first allowing the NFU to use the chemicals in 2015. In the USA the chemicals are still used widely and bee numbers are declining. In the UK the number of bees declined by 15 per cent in 2015 according to the Beekeepers Association, continuing a trend that has set in for many years.
Under pressure from the NFU the Government has allowed farmers to carry on using these chemicals. Of course, once more over the cliff, our British lemming friends must go!
Then there is the issue of renewable energy targets. The UK, under great pressure, accepted the 2009 EU Renewable target which was set as a mandatory commitment for 2020. We�re now set to get 30 per cent of our electricity from renewable energy by 2020, even if we haven�t met our target from energy as a whole. However the UK Government has strongly resisted a further rigorous target for 2030. Clearly, without the UK, the EU could set a stronger renewable energy and energy efficiency ambition! Moreover, anti-nuclear greens may be cheered by news that Chinese investors in Hinkley C are spooked by financial instability in the UK and the declining value of the � making it even less likely that the Hinkley C nuclear power development will go ahead ahead.
Now, think about it, under Brexit, the UK will have a bad environment. But at least it will be better in the rest of the EU! Progress in implementing a range of environmental initiatives in the EU will be a lot smoother and more effective! Indeed, if by some miracle the UK does remain inside the internal market, the UK will have to obey the EU environmental laws anyway, but won�t be able to have any say in making them! Ideal, you could say!
But there is one pretty sure way in which the environment is likely to benefit from Brexit, and that is reducing UK energy consumption and thus reducing carbon emissions. That�s because the Brexit-inspired reduction in economic growth will reduce energy consumption. Indeed, the Government will now find that the need to build new conventional power stations is much reduced or even abolished with Brexit. The UK�s power demand has, in any case, been going down since around 2005. Now it is set to continue to decline with slower economic growth, or even plummet with a recession. Not only will we need less power plant and coal and gas burning but people will not be able to afford to heat their own homes as much. Less energy consumption means lower carbon dioxide emissions! Another environmental winner from Brexit. See a previous post for more details http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/with-brexit-uk-may-not-need-any-more.html
But of course there is the �piece de resistance�, they say, in a language now increasingly banished from English schools. That is Brexit as a means to deter any other country from thinking about quitting the EU! With so much economic and political chaos in the UK, populist politicians who where thinking about asking for referendums about EU or euro membership are now forgetting the idea or having serious second thoughts.
So as the UK descends into political and economic chaos, think about the gains, the supreme sacrifice we are making in saving the EU from the English anti-green menace....not to mention reducing carbon emissions!......
The Dutch Government has awarded a contract to build two 350 MW Borssele offshore windfarms for 87 euros per MWh (�74 per MWh), some 25 per cent cheaper than the current value of the contract for Hinkley C. The contract has been awarded to DONG, in which the Danish Government has a majority share.
This price for Borssele 1 and Borssele 2 includes transmission costs but, unlike the case of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station, the price does not include any offer of loan guarantees from the Government. Hinkley C is routinely reported as being paid �92.50 for a 35 year contract, but this is in 2012 prices. The current (jJune 2016) price is �97 per MWh, which puts it as being a lot more expensive than the Borssele offshore wind project.
Offshore wind prices have been tumbling in the past couple of years compared to earlier contracts awarded in the UK. Last year Vatenfall won a contract with the Danish Government to build the 400 MW Horns Rev plant at 103 euros per MWh (�88 per MWh) although this figure does not include transmission connection costs.
So why have costs for offshore wind been falling so much, and how come the costs appear to be so much lower than the UK's, whose last (2015) auctions revealed prices for offshore wind of around �120 per MWh?
According to DONG, their cost reduction can be ascribed to: 'The reduction of cost of electricity is driven by cross-industry collaboration, ongoing innovation of wind turbines and blades, continuous improvements of foundation design and installation methods, higher cable capacity, a growing and competitive supply chain and not least the synergies from building large-scale capacity sites such as Borssele 1 and 2. In addition, the Dutch sites offer good seabed conditions as well as good and stable wind speeds, which contribute to high output from each turbine.' http://www.dongenergy.com/en/media/newsroom/news/articles/dong-energy-wins-tender-for-dutch-offshore-wind-farms
It should be noted that both the Danish and the Dutch tender processes are much superior to the relatively 'laissez faire' approach of the British, an aloofness that increases uncertainty and thus investment costs. In the Dutch and Danish cases the sites have been carefully evaluated for technical and planning considerations before the tender, and permits have been assured. In the case of the UK, developers are left to bear the risk of these factors.
Although the UK Government has said it wants to give contracts for more offshore wind schemes, timing of this has been thrown into uncertainty by recent political events. It is now far from certain that the (new?) ministers at the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change will adhere to agreements about issue of future 'contracts for differences' (CfDs) that have been made between Osborne and Rudd. Nevertheless, RenewableUK calculates that offshore wind schemes, including those which already have finance and planning in place for construction, will provide 10 per cent of UK electricity supply by the year 2020. However, the UK Government is refusing to make any contracts available for the cheapest electricity power option, onshore wind, which is currently being installed under the Renewables Obligation for around �70 per MWh.
For further information see also: thttp://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/06/dong-passes-offshore-wind-cost-milestone-three-years-early/ https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2015/09/33953992.pdf
One largely unintended consequence of 'Brexit' is that the economic uncertainty and reduced economic growth are likely to produce a further fall in electricity demand which may mean we do not need any more big power stations other than those already being built. Lost behind the usual blizzard of insistence that blackouts will result if we don't build more gas and nuclear power plant is the fact that electricity demand has fallen over the last decade. According to Government figures (see DECC energy statistics) electricity demand fell from 406 TWh in 2005 to 359 TWh in 2015. Even since the economy began to grow again after the crash consumption fell from 384 TWh in 2010.
The reasons for the decline are threefold. First electricity prices have remained high. A lot of this is because we are having to import increasing quantities of natural gas from abroad, and that gas is more expensive than what we have enjoyed coming from the now depleting North Sea fields. Grid costs have increased and green levies such as the carbon floor price have put prices up. Second, energy efficiency policies (including energy efficiency standards introduced by the EU) have repressed demand, and thirdly economic growth these days is much less energy intensive than it used to be (even in the 1980s) because of a switch from industrial production to services.
But now Brexit seems likely to reduce economic growth to at best a few points of a per cent in the near and perhaps more prolonged future. Consensus Economics, for example, has predicted UK economic growth to be down to 0.4 per cent in 2017. Any rate of economic growth below 2 per cent per annum seems likely to see falling electricity demand on the basis of recent experience. In addition, as Cornwall Energy Associates have pointed out, electricity prices are going to keep on rising. Ok, perhaps by not as much as an increase in the longer term as if we had Hinkley C (which seems now even more likely to be cancelled), but they will still rise.
If you put all of the factors together electricity demand seems likely to fall, perhaps quite substantially. Aurora energy have already been projecting (before Brexit) that our new power station requirements for the medium term would be modest.
The Government has yet to make good use of its levers to make the electricity system more flexible. The National Grid has been criticised by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee for alleged conflicts of interests which deter it from making optimum use of demand side response and other demand reduction techniques. There is only a snails pace response by the Government to encourage the more widespread adoption of electricity storage techniques. In addition to that the National Grid already has, through the 'Supplementary Balancing Reserve' the means to take-up supply from power stations that might otherwise be closed down.
In the 2030s we are likely to see an increasing demand for electricity to power electric cars. Yet such demand has great potential to fit into an electricity regime increasingly dominated by fluctuating renewable energy sources. ''Grid to vehicle' and 'vehicle to grid' electricity systems will act as a crucial means of matching demand to supply.
I do also disagree with arguments suggesting that the alternative to Hinkley C is gas fired power plant in the quest for decarbonisation of our electricity supply. It is not. It is renewable energy, and the Government is ignoring vast resources of cheap onshore wind and solar power, in addition to the resources of offshore wind. All of these options are going to be a lot cleaner, cheaper and certainly much more deliverable than new nuclear power.
As predicted in earlier posts on this blog the UK is heading for the worst of all worlds compared to retaining full membership of the EU. Boris Johnson, in a staggering u-turn, has effectively accepted a 'Norweigian' solution whereby we are bound by the EU's rules (including free movement of labour) except that the UK will have no say in making the rules to which we will be subject! See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037
But at least the British experience will dissuade others from trying the same!
Of course the protection of the economy and the rights of free movement of people are important, vital, objectives, and indeed this concession may take some of the sting out of the Scottish Government's challenge (see previous post). However papering over the cracks torn in the national fabric created by an unnecessary and ill-fought referendum will now be achieved at a terrible political cost. Besides the evisceration of UK influence in and outside the EU, UKIP will be given a major boost as that they will now claim that they have been sold out by Boris Johnson and others in the new Government.
Of course Johnson is trying to make out that somehow Britain will increase controls over migration into this country. This surely must be cloud cuckoo land. The idea that the EU is now going to give into British demands now that they are not in the EU to a greater extent than if we are members is itself nonsense. To imagine that the EU are now going to concede to the Swiss in their arguments with the Swiss over immigration controls and anybody else order to agree terms with the UK is the most fanciful of all proposition. The EU are not about to change the whole basis of the original Maastricht Treaty in 1992 for the sake of some trade deal with the British.
'Open Europe' have given a simple explanation of Norway and Switzerland's position at http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/
But now we face the whirlwind of rising xenophobia. UKIP represents the 'respectable' face of this movement, while in the wings the English Defence League and other far right movements harass people perceived be a 'foreigner'. But as we go into the General Election UKIP will now be presenting itself as the 'guardian' of the Leave vote. Many right wing Tories will be torn between supporting them and the Tory leadership. The result looks like the UK is turning in a very short period from being a tolerant country to just another state with a rising tide of racism and xenophobia. As UKIP's influence expands, so does their influence over policies, such as green issues, over which they have little real support among the population, but which damage society and the environment.
The terrible irony is that one of, perhaps the main, architect of this situation, Boris Johnson, is set to take over the leadership of the country!
I hate to say 'I told you so' but check out what I wrote near the end of March at http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/how-brexit-could-make-ukip-largest.html UKIP is successfully hijacking the support of many poorer sections of the population on the basis of the age-old technique of 'blame the foreigner'.
A few days ago I was reading a good popular account of British history written by the archaeologist David Miles (The Tribes of Britain, Phoenix, 2006) and on page 340, he describes conditions in England in the late 17th century. That period saw the arrival in the UK of many 'Hugenot' people fleeing persecution in France. He wrote on page 340:
'The arrival of Hugenot workers did not meet with universal approval. People complained that they worked too cheaply, drove up the rents and the prices of timber and coal, polluted rivers, ate strange food - such as garlic, snails, oxtail soup and root vegetables. The number of refugees was exaggerated. Popular prejudice blamed them for the Great Fire of London in 1666, and illogically assumed that they were papist agents of the powerful french state'.
So what's new today?
Well, a new twist is that the power and influence of Germany is increasing, ironically, precisely at a period when the Germans want to be part of a democratic Europe. In effect they are being forced to take a leadership position they do not want. We read about how there are a stream of countries lining up to have referenda about leaving the EU. Well, usually far right parties are saying that - will they get into power? Will any other EU political leader do a Cameron? Maybe not after the growing chaos and ludicrousness that is represented by the British example.
But there would be a growing absurdity if this happened. Like the UK, they would leave, then come to a trade agreement with the EU that would mean they would have to accept EU rules over which they had no control. Imagine it, an increasing number of countries leaving the EU and economic decision-making to Germany!
It's ludicrous, I know.
The reality is that Europe is now so interconnected that it is extremely difficult for one country, even as big as the UK to simply walk away. But, now we have three important countries, Norway, the UK and Switzerland who have decided to give away their effective sovereignty over wide ranges of policy areas to a body over which which they have no control leaving a reluctant Germany to make decisions on their behalf!
Germany - the sovereign power in Europe by default!
We can see in the headlines that Nicola Sturgeon is threatening to 'veto' Brexit on the grounds that consent from the Scottish Parliament is required to stop Scotland being subject to EU laws. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244 Are we heading for a full blown constitutional crisis with Scotland simply refusing to withdraw from the EU?
Well, probably not in that sense, but the upshot is likely to be in a sort of quid-pro-quo that the Scottish Government's desire for a another independence referendum will be granted before the UK leaves the EU. As is argued in a legalistic explanation which you can see at: https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/25/can-the-scottish-parliament-block-brexit/ (and thanks to Paul Cairney for pointing this commentary out), it is the case that for 'normal' legislation the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be needed if Westminster wishes to amend the 1998 Scotland Act. And this Scotland Act specifies that Scotland is subject to EU law.
The apparent downside for the First Minister's strategy is that Brexit is hardly 'normal'! In practice Westminster could amend the 1998 Scotland Act and assume, with some confidence, that the judiciary would uphold Westminster's version of the law. Despite what some of the more excited supporters of Scottish independence may be tempted to suggest, the Scottish Government is not going to make a unilateral declaration of independence under these circumstances.
But then I strongly suspect Nicola Sturgeon realises the likely legal outcomes but is highlighting this issue as part of the pursuit of a strategy to induce the Westminster Government to grant a further 'indyref'. Failure by Westminster to give this concession, and an attempt to disarm the SNP Government by staging, and winning, a new referendum on Scottish independence, is likely to have increasingly problemmatic political consequences. Indeed as tempers rose in the years leading up to the 'Brexit' legislation being passed by Westminster the stage could be set for mass demonstrations, especially one timed for the day that Westminster passed the amendment of the 1998 Scotland Act. Thousands of demonstrating Scots arriving at Westminster..........etc etc
No, the most likely outcome is that Westminster will agree to another indyref to take the sting out of this. The problem for the Westminster Government in dealing with this is that now the ranks of nationalist voters are being supplemented by former unionists who are changing their tune after their votes to remain in the EU have been frustrated. And there are some quite surprising shifts taking place. For the moment the Scottish Government's storyline is to keep Scotland in the EU, as well as preparing the way for another referendum on independence. In this they will have the support of the Scottish Greens, giving the strategy a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Even the Scottish Liberal Democrats appear to be showing some sympathy with this and Kezia Dugdale is sounding pretty ambivalent.
Whatever people may say, however, Scotland can't stay part of the EU and part of the UK if the UK leaves the EU. Apart from anything else, the EU will not entertain an application from just a part of another country. Scotland will have to leave the UK first, and then apply to join the EU. But in that case the EU is likely to be a lot more helpful to Scotland than they were in 2014. Many in the EU would want to reward Scotland. Meanwhile many in the EU want to punish the UK with poor trade terms in order to stop other countries (eg the Swiss) picking and choosing rights such as immigration controls. The Institute for Fiscal Studies say there would be big economic penalties for Scotland in leaving the UK. Certainly public finances may suffer very substantially as long as oil prices stay relatively low. But in the current uncertain economic circumstances facing the UK (or reduced UK), such arguments may not carry as much weight as you would think, especially with bravado from Holyrood being spread about possibilities for Edinburgh replacing London as an EU financial centre etc. Besides, how seriously did the people who voted to leave the UK in our recent EU referendum take the predictions of economic disaster? Identity politics seem to be ruling the roost in today's world, like it or not.
Of course it is possible that this strategy could be undermined if Marine Le Pen won the French Presidency next year and talked about 'Frexit'. But it doesn't look like she'll win at the moment. It is beginning to look like it will be a struggle for a divided 'rest of UK' and a weakened unionist position within Scotland to hold the unionist line in another indyref which is may occur as early as a year or 18 months time. Yes, the break-up of the UK is looking now like a very plausible proposition. In that way then, we are heading for constitutional crisis.
Understanding the U.S. regional (called PADDs) composition of refineries ranging from simpler to complex (catalytic crackers, reformers, cokers) help explain the type of oils primarily used within each region.8 
