More delays in EPRs signal more problems for Hinkley C

It's now the middle of 2017 and still, after 12 years of trying to build the French European Pressurised Reactor, there is still no model in operation. Even in China, which has, according to some of its domestic critics, let us say a more relaxed attitude to safety requirements compared to western agencies, the EPR at Taishan is still not generating electricity.
It was 16 months ago that the constructors announced that 'cold start' tests had been successful and that the whole of the plant (including two sets) would be fully functional this year (2017). Now they say that this will not happen, although one set 'will' be running sometime in the second half of this year. But then the plant, which begun construction in 2009, was supposed to be finished in 2013.
This failure does present the question of how it is that other nuclear plant built in China have not been subject to this much delay. How can we explain this? The obvious reason is that the EPR is a turkey that is widely regarded as bordering on, if not actually, 'unconstructable'. The difference with other nuclear plant built in China may simply be that the EPR was designed to suit western safety standards. It's an easy guess to say what this means for Chinese plans to build nuclear power plant in the UK!

In France construction at the EPR at Flamanville began in 2007 and completion by 2019 seems possible but uncertain. The other EPR at Olkiluoto started in 2005 and is about, so they say. to undergo 'cold tests'. On the basis of what has happened in Taishan this doesn't mean that it is about the generate electricity, though.

Of course none of this would be happening unless the French state was shovelling, in stages, numerous billions of euros into the different projects, including, it seems, Hinkley C. The EPR would have been abandoned withoiut these massive payments from the French state. Even many workers and leaders of EDF have marvelled at the paradox of the French Government pouring several billion euros into financing building power stations in other countries, especially the UK with Hinkley C

Of course some day this has to end, and EDF, which has mounting financial problems from various angles, will be restructured, maybe privatised. EDF's own, ageing French nuclear fleet is in deep trouble, and vague Government plans to increase electricity prices to shore them up may be the straw that break's the camel's back of French public tolerance of EDF. Nuclear power stations last 60 years, nuclear supporters will say. Well, only if you carry on paying a lot of money to refurbish them.

Some have said that EDF will get a lot of money when it starts up the Hinkley C project, whenever that is completed - the projected start date of 2026 can be regarded with some scepticism in view of the history of building EPR plant - but by then so much money will have been spent that for so long a period on the EPRs that this could not possibly justify what has been done.

British advocates of the Hinkley C say that the British Government is effectively indemnified by the contract with EDF to build the plant with EDF taking the risk. But that of course assumes that EDF will continue to exist as a company over the next decade. If it does not, and Hinkley C is still half built, we'll see how much that contract and all the lawyers fees that took to draw it up is worth. And the British consumer may be asked to come up with even more money than the �92.50 at 2012 prices for 35 years we are committed to pay at the moment.

What is happening in the USA with the Westinghouse designed AP1000 reactors in Georgia and South Carolina is a bad omen. There there are worries that with Westinghouse's bankruptcy the already increased cost of completing the power plant will balloon, and that electricity consumers will be asked to fork out more and more dollars for projects that never seem to get completed (see http://www.myajc.com/business/kempner-radioactive-question-looms-over-georgia-nuclear-mess-vogtle/LO9kYtkyPgtRfer2SpU8rL/ and http://www.utilitydive.com/news/westinghouse-bankruptcy-could-grind-us-nuclear-sector-to-a-halt/440153/)

It should be remembered that nuclear power is and always has been governed by politics, not commercial considerations. The spectacle of a half-built nuclear power plant (originally began by the nationalised CEGB) having to be re-financed afflicted the last nuclear power plant to be competed in the UK - Sizewell B. Privatisation, in 1990 meant that even though the plant was half-built, it still wasn't profitable under standard commercial criteria for privatised interests to complete it. This experience was wished away among a smokescreen of talk of decommissioning costs, which although real, were besides the point that it was the construction cost that stopped it being completed - until the electricity consumer was given a hefty bill.

Will this happen again and will more British as well as French consumers and taxpayers money be ploughed in to Hinkley C than is already slated? We will have to wait several years for the answer to this question. Meanwhile tremendous amounts of money that could be spent on real green energy that would be working and saving energy and pollution will be poured down a big black and ever deepening hole.


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-Taishan-EPR-completes-cold-tests-0102164.html

http://www.powermag.com/taishan-epr-nuclear-reactor-project-delayed/

http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2016/10/19/milestones-announced-as-finland-s-olkiluoto-3-epr-heads-towards-completion

No commentsRead more

Why the left should focus on countering inequality rather than banging on about globalisation

The 'debate' we are currently having about globalisation, is at best distracting, at worst highly toxic to the cause of spreading peace, equality and green politics in today's world. To put it simply, rather than banging on about globalisation the left and greens ought to be focussing on the issues that count.

I feel moved to say this now because of the terrible spectacle of left-wingers suggesting that it is best to be neutral between the xenophobic right wing (Trump, Le Pen) and the 'neoliberals' (Clinton, Macron). This has a few lurking  echoes with the position taken by communists in the early 1930s in Germany when they refused to back the social democrats and the centre against the Nazis. Now I am not suggesting that Le Pen and Trump are fascists. But there is no doubt that they have encouraged xenophobia, and I totally dismiss any argument that just because they profess antagonism to 'globalisation' they have anything in common with leftist objectives. This should be obvious; on economic grounds alone Trump's economic programme is oriented towards widening tax and state spending inequalities. The same, I am sure, would be the case for Le Pen if she was elected.

What we are left with is some xenophobic notion that the foreigners are taking stuff away from the workers, an impression which I was disturbed to see reproduced in a recent video produced by Momentum (Labour's pro-Corbyn group) supporting rail re-nationalisation. As if the job losses in countries around the world had much to do with foreigners or trade policies.

The point about 'globalisation' is that it actually has very little to do with the reasons we have had economic dislocation, job losses and rising inequality in recent decades. High up on the list of job losses is automation. The old industrial working class are a disappearing force. In addition to this as economies develop, so the employment patterns shift towards services and away from traditional industries. That's good news, by the way for ecology since it means lower energy outcomes. It is happening in China today something which I have noted in my new book 'China's Role in Reducing Carbon Emissions' , which, by the way you can buy as an e-book for �25 from Routledge now at  https://www.routledge.com/Chinas-Role-in-Reducing-Carbon-Emissions-The-Stabilisation-of-Energy/Toke/p/book/9781138244412

It's not that countries just buy their industrial products from somewhere else with lower labour costs - you can find some example of that - but that's not what is changing the patterns of work and economy. As in China, after a certain point the need to put in place the initial foundation of infrastructure, road, rail, bridges, water supplies, electricity wires etc declines. The surge in people buying many manufactured products such as fridges and TV sets declines to replacement rates once most families have got them. In other words demand for manufacturing declines relative to earlier industrial phases. Moreover, information technology and robots is dramatically reducing the number of workers needed to produce such products.That doesn't mean unemployment rises, but it does mean that people do different jobs.

This 'deindustrialisation' is not specific to particular places and the result of 'foreigners'. It is not connected in any particular way with what people call 'globalisation' either (see an LSE blog post below about this). You could actually have siege economies 'protected' by high tariffs and the same trends would be visible in almost exactly the same way. I don't recommend protectionism, I emphasise. Putting someone out of a job somewhere else will not even even do any good for your domestic economy, especially when the economic retaliation sets in and acts as a political bedfellow to rising xenophobia.  Going on about globalisation actually encourages such dead-end thinking.

What we need is not a self-defeating 'jobs for Brits' , Americans, French etc narrative but a drive to reverse the  devastating trends towards inequality throughout the world that have been going on since the 1980s (see some references below). This has a lot to do with changing marginal tax rates. The political right has had us locked in what is a distracting argument that somehow lowering higher income tax rates will not harm the total tax take. That's dubious, although it gets a lot of attention.

What is almost always avoided is the evidence that reducing taxes on higher income earners simply encourages them to go for higher and higher salaries. The most important point about the reduction in marginal tax rates for the better off that has occurred since the 1970s has nothing to do with the tax take. It is the fact that in any given company, the top bosses will be encouraged to take bigger and bigger salaries at the expense of the rest of the workforce. Yes, there is evidence for this generated by the famous Professor Picketty. The CEOs are simply taking the money off the rest of us, not increasing productivity. They would not do this if the tax system was a much more progressive one. The claim made for regressive tax systems is that they increase prosperity for everyone. Yet, even in the narrow term of economic growth figures this claim does not stack up since growth levels in the West have been lower since the 1980s than before.

Of course we can rightly criticise centrist politicians, including Macron, for implying that a political project called globalisation is somehow necessarily connected to the technological changes in information and robots and that this has a lot to do with trade liberalisation. Whatever the arguments about trade liberalisation, such trends are irrelevant to the issue about technological change and income inequality. And in any case the trends towards increased international trade are not as strong as is generally believed.

Our focus, however, should definitely not to point to some sort of equivalence between Macron and Le Pen and shy away from backing Macron as (I was devastated to see) was done by Melenchon. It should be to stop going on about globalisation and talk about the most important issues of encouraging international peace and cooperation, equality and ecological protection.


See http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/public/PikettySaezStantcheva2013.pdf

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/04/28/de-industrialisation-rather-than-globalisation-is-the-key-part-of-the-brexit-story/

Piketty, T., Saez E., and Stantcheva, S.,  (2014) "Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities", American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol 6(1), 230-71. 
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/public/PikettySaezStantcheva2013.pdf

References on income inequality since the 1970s:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ft-graphic-20160320-snap-htmlstory.html

https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2015-01.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/OECD-Income-Inequality-UK.pdf

No commentsRead more

So why are China's carbon emissions stabilising and will this continue?

This question is answered by the newly published book: China�s Role in
Reducing Carbon Emissions - The Stabilisation of Energy Consumption and
the Deployment of Renewable Energy.

Published by Routledge

By David Toke, University of Aberdeen, UK

This book discusses the prospects for China achieving
radical reductions in carbon emissions, within the context
of the current economic and political landscape. With a
particular focus on technologies such as such as wind
power, solar power and electric vehicles, Toke examines
the way in which China is transitioning to a state of stable
energy consumption via a service-based economy and
heavy investment in non-fossil energy sources. The book
concludes that China may be set to reduce its carbon
emissions by around two-thirds by 2050.

20% Discount Available - enter the code FLR40 at
checkout*

Hb: 978-1-138-24441-2 | �76.00

eBook: 978-1-315-27694-6 | �27.99

* Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer or discount and only applies to
books purchased directly via our website.
For more details please contact: Elena Tsang, Marketing Assistant,
elena.tsang@tandf.co.uk
For more information visit:
www.routledge.com/9781138244412
www.routledge.com/9781315276946

No commentsRead more

Government admits gas is substituting for cheap renewables

In the latest Government forward energy projections the Government implicitly admits that reductions in contracts to be awarded for renewable energy are to be replaced by more generation from natural gas plant.

You can see an analysis by Carbon Brief of the Government's latest projections. The Government recognise that the costs of renewables have continued to fall but for reasons that Carbon Brief has been unable to find out (from Government) the Government have cut back its previous projected growth in renewable energy.

Well, I can tell you why the Government has cut back its projections of renewable energy even though onshore wind and onshore solar have become the cheapest electricity supply sources: the Government prefer more expensive, carbon emitting natural gas for political reasons. They much prefer seeing UK natural gas reserves run down to having windfarms and solar farms built.

However the Government has even let the cat out of the back. Carbon Brief (CB) explain this, taking readings from from the latest political tealeaves (posing as models) generated by the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). So says CB's Simon Evans:
'Finally, in the latest BEIS projections, the output of renewables dips in the early 2020s. BEIS says: �This is due to a number of factors, including the temporary increase in gas generation to maintain system flexibility.� Consequently, gas output picks up the slack in the projections. See https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-dramatic-shift-uk-government-outlook-gas-clean-energy

I notice that Cornwall Energy insight are saying that there is a possibility of a 'technology neutral' bidding round for renewable energy coming around soon for new renewable energy to be installed after 2020. http://www.cornwall-insight.com/newsroom/all-news/are-you-prepared-for-the-next-contracts-for-difference-allocation-round-

Technology neutral? Well, only in the sense that it's a bit like a race when you go around and break the legs of the strongest runners before you start. Only technologies like offshore wind and tidal power will be allowed to compete for contracts. Onshore windfarms and solar farms would be barred.

I think it is quite funny when economists at large call for 'technology neutral' bidding auctions to supply electricity. It was only a few years ago it was assumed that this would lead to gas fired power stations followed by nuclear power with renewables energy having to have a separate rather larger subsidy scheme for them to be economic. The wise consultants hired by the power industry establishment to justify their own existence would sneer at the alleged green fantasists like me for suggesting that this was not what would happen in the future! Now, though reality has turned out to be different from all those glossy consultants reports that the industry paid so much money for (note, I'm not talking about Cornwall Energy here!)

Today separate rather larger subsidy schemes are reserved for nuclear power and 'capacity markets' for fossil fuel power schemes. These people need the subsidies, so much in the case of Hinkley C that not only are EDF to be paid loads more than onshore wind is getting paid per MWh (under the Renewables Obligation) but EDF, the developers, are also getting handouts from the French Government!

In fact all onshore wind and solar need now is a level playing field with the rest. But instead they get nothing. Nix. Not a sausage. In fact they are banned from been given any government contracts to supply electricity!

It rather reminds me of Ken Livingstone's saying 'If voting changed anything they'd abolish it'. In this case of course you can read a parallel saying that 'if technology neutral auctions of electricity contracts gave lots of opportunities to onshore wind and solar they would abolish them' (for onshore wind and solar).

That's precisely what they have done!

No commentsRead more

Why we need smart grid charges before smart meters

We desperately need green NGOs and campaigners to campaign for time-of-day-electricity charging. Then we will get real smart meters, not the sham ones that are being installed now. The so-called smart meters, being rolled out in a house near you, are mainly a bit of meaningless hype which won't do the very thing that popular mythology thinks they will do - that is ensure that electricity prices are geared so that they fit in with when electricity is being generated.

The Government and OFGEM need to implement grid and distribution charges that would discourage electricity companies from supplying energy at peak times. Such charges would make it much more likely that the electricity industry would encourage their consumers, through their pricing policies, to consume less electricity during peak times.

As the green energy revolution gathers pace, and the number of electric cars increases we ought to be making the system really smarter. This involves incentivising consumers to charge their electric cars and perform other functions (wash clothes etc) at times when there is a surplus of generating capacity rather than when there is a shortage.

But practically none of the 53 million smart meters being rolled out across the country will do this. I have heard of one small supplier that offers tariffs according to time of day, but regrettably such efforts will be stymied by the failure of the electricity system to encourage this type of scheme.

In theory electricity suppliers will have an incentive to encourage their consumers to buy electricity at times when there is a surplus of electricity, and thus when it is cheapest on the wholesale electricity markets (ie power coming from power generators). Alas, the system does not do enough to encourage this. This is because if a brave electricity company (eg 'Green Energy') does introduce time-of-day pricing they will help their competitors as well by reducing the general prices on the wholesale market. The other electricity companies will just act as free loading parasites and the smart company will be sharing their gains with them.

One solution to this is for the Government to regulate the electricity distributors to ensure that they introduced substantial charges on suppliers for use of the system when there is peak demand for electricity. Thus all electricity suppliers will have a greater interest in introducing 'time-of-day' electricity charging schemes. Then we might see some real smart meters being installed that allow this. There are some small variable charges for using the system at the moment but they are paltry compared to what needs to be done to encourage a decentralised energy system that responds to consumers and clean energy needs rather than the needs of the big electricity companies.

Electricity distributors also need to be given more incentives to develop storage systems on their local electricity 'feeder' systems rather than increase distribution capacity through bigger transformers etc.

However this will not happen if the electricity industry is left to itself. The Government and OFGEM will shuffle a few reports and do nothing of any consequence. All the electricity industry  will do, as witnessed by the current smart meter fiasco, is to channel slogans about how consumers can be greener into feather bedding their own interests. In this case this doesn't extend much further than saving costs on sending around somebody to read the electricity meter! Rather than put all their efforts into ensuring system flexibility the network operators emphasise how we need more power lines to be built.

Organisations like FOE and 10:10 need to get to grips with the smart meter issue and start making demands. Otherwise we shall carry on hearing the same old stories about how we need dozens of gigawatts more of centralised power stations - rather than decentralised, variable renewable energy sources. The committees that decide policy are stuffed with with the representatives of the existing energy establishment. Slogans like decentralised energy and smart energy systems will remain meaningless marketing catchphrases used by the electricity industry merely to reproduce themselves as near as possible in their current form.

Please don't let this happen!

This post has been reproduced in Cleantechnica: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/17/need-smart-grid-charges-smart-meters/
and also in The Ecologist: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988782/green_groups_must_denounce_the_sham_smart_meter_scandal.html


Some useful references:

http://www.greenenergyuk.com/Tide

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/20/electric-cars-uk-power-grids-charging-peaks-sse-demand-side-response

http://www.eurelectric.org/media/169888/20032015_paper_on_smart_charging_of_electric_vehicles_finalpsf-2015-2301-0001-01-e.pdf

No commentsRead more

Tens of billions of taxpayers money at risk as pressure mounts to spend billions more on new nuclear

Giant portions of public spending are now at risk of pouring down a nuclear power black hole as calls for the Government to make direct investments into new nuclear power plant intensify. Ultimately the sums at risk would be much larger than the Government's own estimates of the cost of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Former Minister and House of Commons Energy Committee Chair Tim Yeo is the latest to call for the Government to take 'minority' equity shares in new nuclear m projects. There has been a flurry of such demands in the wake of the near bankruptcy of Toshiba, who spearhead the 3GW proposed plant at Moorside in Cumbria.

In fact nuclear power is proving to be virtually undeliverable and ruinously expensive in western countries. Toshiba's problems stem from the fact that they own Westinghouse who are responsible for the construction (so-far non-construction) of AP1000 reactors in South Carolina and Georgia in the USA. These plant are as costly as the failing French EPR design that is so disastrous in  the cases of the Finnish and French reactors, something which is bankrupting the French nuclear industry and EDF.

Despite the manifest bankruptcy of the technology, rather than question whether it is right to continue with the new nuclear programme, its supporters are in effect wanting to bet the British economy on it. If the Treasury are forced against their will to sanction 'equity' stakes in new nuclear reactors, the losses and., eventually, all the liabilities will fall on the UK Government. Nobody else will invest in the projects unless the Government guarantees the lot. Hinkley C (3.2GW planned) will cost over �24 billion according to the European Commission. The reactors at Moorside and Wylfa, assuming they cost similar amounts, would thus make the taxpayer responsible for around �50 billion of debt. People will claim that the Government is 'only' taking a minority equity stake. That's how it will start, and then would represent an enormous amount of state spending and liabilities. After all one quarter of �24 billion is still �6 billion. But it won't end there, as sure as night follows day, not with the construction costs as well as the rest. It never does with nuclear power!

Normally of course under the Government's 'low carbon' programme, project raise their own finance and the project owners earns their money from premium price contracts (CfDs) awarded through the Government. That is always the case with renewable energy projects. They find their own money. Electricity consumers pay a premium price to enable this on their bills. But now for nuclear to go ahead, so it is said, not only will the consumers have to pay a high premium price, but taxpayers will have to fund at least part of the construction as well. This is money, please note, that will disappear from the Government's coffers as the plant is built - it is not something that will be shuffled onto future generations like decommissioning

The fact that the Government is effectively financing the building will produce a conflict of interests with the Government negotiating with itself in setting the CfD price. No doubt a 'lower' CfD price will be set (that is less than the notorious Hinkley C price) when in fact it will be the taxpayer that will end up paying out countless billions for the projects.

Annual spending on primary education is around �26 billion. Hence building just Moorside will give the Government liabilities (which are likely to be paid by the Government) which will rival this spending.

But then to listen to some people, you'd think building Moorside was more important than closing down all primary schools for a year.

It isn't.

Some sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/25/yeo-treasury-needs-pour-billions-nuclear-projects/

No commentsRead more

No we don't need any more nuclear power stations to power electric cars

Desperate to cover the latest catastrophic meltdown to hit the nuclear industry as Toshiba sinks under the weight of its failures to construct nuclear power plant through its Westinghouse subsidiary, nuclear supporters are spreading fake news about the alleged need for new nuclear power stations to power electric cars.

Last Saturday the Times published a headline stating 'Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants'. I organised the submission of a letter to the Times objecting to the headline. The letter has not been printed, although today they did carry a correction (lower left hand corner, page 26) that the headline �was a significant miscalculation based on a confusion of energy and power. We apologise for the mistake�.
Yet, the headline and story was repeated by The Mail on the very day the Times retracted it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215622/20-new-nuclear-power-stations-needed-electric-cars.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

Will the Mail also carry an apology? I doubt it. 

Of course, as could be expected, far from the Toshiba meltdown causing the UK Government to re-think its nuclear strategy, there are reports that the UK Government is now considering putting billions of pounds of taxpayers money at risk to prop up the failing Moorside nuclear project. Moorside is dependent on the AP1000 reactor design that has failed so miserably and catastrophically to be delivered in the USA (in South Carolina and Georgia). It has ruined Toshiba.  Up until now the Hinkley C project (to be developed by EDF) is relying on a 35 year payment of �92.50 in (2012 prices - now about �97/MWh) and on EDF being propped up by large infusions of cash from the French Government. 

The electricity consumer will have to pay for Hinkley C, but no more than �2 billion of taxpayers money is being risked as a guaranteed loan. But now people seriously expect the Government to step in as equity providers for Moorside where no company in the world would have the madness to risk their money without a Government guarantee to foot the bill.  Indeed the taxpayer plan to fund Moorside is likely to escalate so that tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money could do down a nuclear black hole, as well as the electricity consumer paying over the odds for 35 years. See https://www.ft.com/content/fc9d036e-ea44-11e6-967b-c88452263daf

It is surely madcap politics to take as a lesson from the fact that a technology is failing for the Government to re-double its efforts to back it - pouring tens of billions of money that could be spent on public services (that is already in very short supply) down the drain for power plant that may take several decades to be built.

Meanwhile of course wind and solar pv farms don't need any taxpayer money. They can be built at lower prices than nuclear power - but of course the Government is only now issuing contracts for nuclear power!

Paul Dorfman made some useful comment on the Toshiba meltdown at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXA8NsM1W7c&app=desktop

See our letter below:

Sir,

We are concerned about the highly tendentious headline �Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants� (report February 11th). The story speculated about the need for increased electricity supply.

The headline implies dogmatically that increases in non-fossil generation can only come from nuclear power rather than green energy. Why not speculate instead about the number of windfarms, solar farms or energy efficiency measures needed?

The changing profile of UK electricity requires a flexible supply system based on variable renewable energy, storage, power plant reserves and responsive demand and charging systems - not outdated, inflexible and, so far, undeliverable nuclear power.

In the last 15 years renewable energy has expanded from around 3 per cent to what will soon be 30 per cent of UK electricity consumption. In the same period not a single nuclear power plant has come on line, nor is likely to at least until 2026, and even then only with luck and huge expense.

Signatories:

Corresponding signatory:
Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Politics, University of Aberdeen, tel 07583568643, email: d.toke@abdn.ac.uk, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen, Kings College, Aberdeen AB24 3QY

Jeremy Leggett, Solar Century, email: jeremy.leggett@solarcentury.com

Jonathon Porritt, Forum for the Future, email: JPOffice@forumforthefuture.org

Professor Andrew Stirling, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email: a.c.stirling@sussex.ac.uk

Professor (Emeritus) Dave Elliott, Department of Engineering and Innovation, Open University, email: david.elliott@open.ac.uk

Tom Burke, Chairman, E3G, email: tom.burke@e3g.org

Professor Mark Pelling, Department of Geography, Kings College London, email: mark.pelling@kcl.ac.uk

Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, email: g.p.walker@lancaster.ac.uk

Professor Jeffrey Henderson, Professor of International Development, University of Bristol, email: Jeffrey.Henderson@bristol.ac.uk

Professor (Emeritus) Andrew Blowers, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Open University, email: andrew.blowers@open.ac.uk

Professor (Emeritus) Bryan Wynne, Science Studies, Lancaster University, email: b.wynne@lancaster.ac.uk

Professor Mark Lemon, Institute for Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montford University, email: m.lemon@dmu.ac.uk

Dr Alan Terry, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of West of England, email: Alan.Terry@uwe.ac.uk

Dr Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email P.Johnstone@sussex.ac.uk

Dr David Lowry, independent consultant email: drdavidlowry@gmail.com

Dr Abhishek Agarwal, Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Policy, Robert Gordon University, email: a.agarwal@rgu.ac.uk

Dr. Gabor Sarlos,  Senior Lecturer,  University of Worcester, email:  g.sarlos@worc.ac.uk

Emily Cox, Associate Tutor, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email: E.Cox@sussex.ac.uk

David Thorpe, Sustainability Author and Consultant, email: hello@davidthorpe.info

Michel Lee, Senior Analyst, Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy, email ciecplee@verizon.net

Dr Matthew Cotton, Lecturer, Department of Environment, University of York email: matthew.cotton@york.ac.uk

Katherine Begg, email: kgbegg@googlemail.com

Dr Paul Dorfman, The Energy Institute, University College London, email: p.dorfman@ucl.ac.uk

Dr Ben Fairweather, Faculty of a Technology, De Montford University, email: nbf@dmu.ac.uk

Dr Ian Fairlie, independent consultant, email: ianfairlie@gmail.com

Dr Matt Watson, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Sheffield, email: M.Watson@sheffild.ac.uk

No commentsRead more

Will US force the UK to water down GM food rules in a Trade Deal with the USA?

Newspapers are already carrying stories about how the UK may be forced to accept GM food from the USA under a trade deal. But how realistic is this? The answer, ultimately, is probably no, but the probability is that the UK Government will start off by vacillating. This will re-ignite the British GM food controversies that exploded after the first US imports of GM food neared European shores in 1996.

American farmers will undoubtedly press the US Government to demand that the UK abandon EU rules about labelling of GM and to scrap rules which ban imports of milk and beef products from cows treated (in the US) with somatropin (BST). BST is a GM growth hormone enzyme that makes cows more 'productive'.

I actually doubt that the US will achieve a total victory here, although they might be offered some concessions.  The idea that consumers want to know if a food product is made from GM food is well entrenched in British consumer culture, and it is difficult to see how the UK Government could afford to row back from the labelling of GM foods, at least in principle. We should remember that it was the Daily Mail which campaigned vigorously against GM food in the late 1990s with tasty headlines such as 'Frankenstein Food Fiasco'.

There will be a lot of talk about how the UK will now be able to give authorisation to grow GM crops, but the fact is that the big retailers won�t stock anything that has to have a GM label. As a result there is little prospect of commercial GM farming in the UK starting anytime soon. In addition, a lot of US food cannot be sold in the UK since it contains GM food products and the US does not allow GM food to be labelled to allow supermarkets to know the difference between GM and non-GM US food.

It is perhaps even more unlikely that British politicians would be allowed to legalise imports of milk and beef from the US. There is plenty of evidence that cows treated with BST suffer adverse health effects, not least from the side-effects of increase in milk they are induced to yield, and the animal welfare lobby in the UK is, if anything, rather stronger in the UK than even (other) EU countries generally.

Ultimately the areas of conflict are likely to be what the trade negotiators will say are 'marginal' issues. But anti-GM food campaigners won't see it that way. You can see from the coverage of the run-up to the (now abandoned) attempts at a US-EU trade agreement and also the TPP (involving anti-BST Canada) that there were arguments about standards for testing how much GM food and BST milk there is in food imports from the USA. The UK will be under great pressure to water down the 'zero-tolerance' approach to food imports that demands certification on non-GM content that currently obtains under EU rules. The EU didn't give way in its negotiations, but will the Brits have the same resolve? Maybe, eventually, after some prodding from the Daily Mail and a campaign from environmental groups.

Another major point of controversy of course will be the adjudications mechanism used to decide disputes between the US and the UK in a bilateral trade agreement. The proposed EU-US trade deal fell down ultimately precisely on this point. Campaigners in Germany and other EU states pointed out that the adjudication mechanism would allow privileged access by multinational corporations to get their way over environmental and social legislation without any recourse to democratic accountability. Now, at first sight you'd expect the UKIPers under their 'take back control' slogan to involve rejection of such tyranny. Surely much worse than the EU which was at least subject to political pressure from democratically elected politicians? But no, because to some the 'take back control' slogan is but a cover for giving even more control over our lives to the corporations!

We can look forward to a big and long row about the UK-US trade deal!

David Toke is author of 'The Politics of GM Food' (2004, London: Routledge)

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/05/eu-gm-food-imports-us-canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-milk-imports-hormones-1.3276739

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/159908_en.html

No commentsRead more

How Scotland could double the amount of low carbon electricity being generated for the same amount of consumer spending

A new report written by me has just been published by the Scottish Green Party on how spending on renewable energy rather than nuclear power will result in around twice as much low carbon electricity being generated . It explains how the Scottish Government could be given new powers to fund renewable energy out of the monies that Scottish consumers would otherwise have to pay for new nuclear power.

See https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/Scotland%2527s%20Wind.pdf

See Scottish Green Party press release https://greens.scot/news/energy-report-for-greens-shows-how-to-double-our-power

Executive Summary:

This report argues that the costs of delivering the UK s low carbon programme could be reduced substantially if the Scottish Government were given powers to fund its own renewable energy programme. This could be done by giving the Scottish Government control to spend money that would otherwise be added to Scottish electricity consumer bills to fund the Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power plant (and any other new nuclear plant). UK electricity consumers will each have to spend around �16 a year extra for 35 years to pay for HPC. If Scottish consumer s money was spent on supporting renewable energy rather than paying for their share of Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant then, even on conservative calculations, nearly double the amount of electricity would be generated from wind power as from Hinkley C. The costs of onshore windfarms and also offshore windfarms even on current prices need much less support from consumer surcharges to generate an equivalent amount of electricity compared to HPC. Wind power costs are falling rapidly, with some especially low prices being reported in Denmark and The Netherlands. Under such a programme organised by the Scottish Government the cheapest onshore windfarms could start generating in 2020 and offshore windfarms organised under a new, Danish-style framework, could be online in 2026. The Scottish Government s own preference for renewable energy over nuclear power lends support to the suggestion that the Scottish Government should be able to use Scottish consumers money to pay for new renewable energy rather than new nuclear power. Moreover the best value for money for Scottish consumers in terms of generating non-fossil fuels is likely to come from the Scottish Government having powers to fund its own renewable energy programme from Scottish consumer bills. This is because the Scottish Government will be able to decide on what contract length to offer wind developers, for example offering to pay guaranteed prices for 20 years rather than 15 years as done by the Westminster Government now with renewable energy. Also, the Scottish Government will be able to organise a much more effective offshore windfarm programme than is being done by the Westminster Government. The Westminster Government s methods are increasing the costs of offshore wind by leaving too much uncertainty to be dealt with by developers. The Scottish Government could organise a much cheaper offshore wind programme on the lines done by the Danish Energy Agency. This is likely to lead to lower costs and less confrontation in the courts over planning issues than is the case with the current offshore windfarm programme.

No commentsRead more

Why leaving the EU is a bit like building nuclear power stations

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


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/have-cake-and-eat-it-aide-reveals-brexit-tactic-wrj58bjbn

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503908/54538_EU_Series_No2_Accessible.pdf

No commentsRead more

Why Trump might not make much of a difference to action on climate change

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 references:

https://www.epa.gov/mats/healthier-americans

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061901630121X

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2016/03/27/the-seven-countries-most-vulnerable-to-a-debt-crisis/#35b8777a4edc

http://grist.org/briefly/nicolas-sarkozy-proposed-a-carbon-tax-on-american-made-goods-if-trump-pulls-out-of-climate-accord/?utm_content=buffer8f4d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

No commentsRead more

Why I was right to predict that UKIP would become the largest party

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.

No commentsRead more

Social Science research boosted by right-wing Tory ex-Minister

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/

No commentsRead more

Ofgem action against small generators threatens to destabilise capacity market

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/

No commentsRead more

All green energy supporters should shun the Tories and join a Progressive Alliance

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

No commentsRead more

�The newest windfarm in Aberdeenshire � a good omen for renewable energy?�

�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.

No commentsRead more

EDF leaders get desperate over Hinkley C

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

No commentsRead more

Labour 's 'choose a policy' approach to nuclear power looks like chaos

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!

No commentsRead more

How British research academics will be encouraged to emigrate by new research rules

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

No commentsRead more

Why UK Government will be signing a blank cheque for Hinkley and Bradwell in one go

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.

No commentsRead more

Could Trump Deliver U.S. Energy Independence?

Oil Use

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);

Resulting in net imports of 24% (49% minus 25%).

⁽¹⁾ About 78% of gross petroleum imports is crude oil.In 2015, the U.S. consumed about 19.4 million barrels per day; imported
~9.4 MMb/d ; exported ~4.8 MMb/d; with resulting net imports of 4.6 MMb/d.

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:

1. Field production of oil/other petroleum liquids has more than doubled.²
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 ExportsThus, 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:

1. Configuration/Design of many U.S. Refineries to use heavy oil.
2. 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

U.S. Petroleum Imports
(2015) 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.

U.S. Oil Imports by Type 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 ⁶ Historically, 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:

1. Most of this oil is high quality light crude, relatively easy to refine in refineries that are not terribly complex.
2. 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

⁽⁷⁾ As of January 1, 2014, there were 133 operating refineries with atmospheric crude oil distillation units (ACDU) totaling capacity of 18.9 million barrels per stream day. Heavy capacity denotes refineries with coking capacity; light capacity denotes refineries without coking capacity..

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):

1. Financial Arbitrage on lighter oils.
2. Ability to use lower cost heavier crudes in complex Refineries.

The impact of these structural advantages are reflected in the below graphic -- where U.S. Refineries can have a profit margin as much as $6/bbl over their international competitors:^10
(10) US refining flexibility sustains export opportunities, profitability.

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.

Facebook:

---

Additional Resources:
US refining flexibility sustains export opportunities, profitability (excellent)
Why are U.S. Oil Imports increasing in 2017?
Gas Glut in U.S. and Europe -- Bloomberg
Is Russia Influencing Trump�s Thoughts on Energy? (Texas Monthly)
Summary: Effects of Removing Restrictions on U.S. Crude Oil Exports
The myth of US self-sufficiency in crude oil -- Energy Matters Blog.
Who is Buying U.S. Crude Oil? (Bloomberg)
1st quarter 2016 Refiner Profits Decrease
Oil Rich Venezuela Imports U.S. Crude Oil
IEA warns of ever-growing reliance on Middle Eastern oil supplies
When U.S. President Eisenhauer Restricted Imported Oil
Trump is Wrong on Trade Agreements (Wall St. Journal)

Energy Information Agency (EIA) Analysis:
Effects of Removing Restrictions on U.S. Crude Oil Exports
U.S. Crude Oil Production Forecast Analysis of Crude Types
What Drives U.S. Gasoline Prices
U.S. Crude Oil Production to 2025: Updated Projection of Crude Types

Energy Information Agency Data:

No commentsRead more