https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUOdXfF6ks&feature=youtu.be
https://www.fertilizerdaily.com/20190905-yara-and-nel-to-produce-green-ammonia/
Saturday, 26 October 2019
Thursday, 24 October 2019
Labour's 'nuclear is renewable' claim is an insult to dead uranium miners
In a 'boiler room' coup Labour seems to be secretly plotting to re-launch the new nuclear build programme by renaming nuclear power as 'renewable'. Their 'expert report' argues that the current level of nuclear generation needs to be maintained, which means building more nuclear power on top of Hinkley Point C. But they seriously expect nobody to notice this because they are calling the new nuclear renewable.
In fact even the report recognises that more nuclear power is not needed to meet Labour's decarbonisation targets. But what it does not stress enough is just how costly the new nuclear commitment will be, and swallows whole the nuclear industry's claim that the next nuclear power station will be cheap. In fact the report backs the Government's 'blank cheque' approach to nuclear funding in that the state will pay all the bills, whatever they are, and make it very difficult for anybody to do a comparison with renewable energy - because renewables would look much, much cheaper.
The biggest cheek of the report is to say 'For the purposes of this analysis, we have considered nuclear power as a contributing towards renewable and low-carbon energy supply' (Section 4.13) https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ThirtyBy2030report.pdf
Nuclear power cannot be considered renewable. These power plant will be fuelled by a non-renewable energy source, uranium. Apart from anything else uranium mining is associated with very high levels of lung cancer among its workers. That is according to research carried out by a section of the US Health Service dealing with occupational helath and safety . See
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html
In their studies, amongst the increased levels of death, around 400 out of around 4000 miners studied dies from lung cancer - whereas the normalised rate for the study should have been several times less than this - less than 100. Various other diseases were found to be at much higher than expected levels. Altogether the study found that amongst the miners 1595 had died compared to an expected number of 986 deaths.
It really is an insult to these people and their families that they are being airbrushed from reality through the fake argument that nuclear power is 'renewable.
And of course all the reactors planned for the UK are URANIUM reactors.
Sunday, 20 October 2019
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/10/19/edfs-pr-is-as-bankrupt-as-its-reactors/
https://www.ft.com/content/c63ebe88-bcde-11e9-89e2-41e555e96722
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/07/edf-unions-call-for-hinkley-point-project-to-be-postponed
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-edf-restructuring-strike/edf-unions-plan-massive-strike-to-stop-proposed-restructuring-idUKKBN1W21BP
https://www.ft.com/content/c63ebe88-bcde-11e9-89e2-41e555e96722
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/07/edf-unions-call-for-hinkley-point-project-to-be-postponed
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-edf-restructuring-strike/edf-unions-plan-massive-strike-to-stop-proposed-restructuring-idUKKBN1W21BP
Monday, 14 October 2019
Wednesday, 2 October 2019
How the Fixed Term Parliament Act has destroyed our constitution
The coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives tore a gaping hole in the British constitution that was not understood at the time but through which we are now falling headlong. It has allowed a zombie Government to stagger about in the middle of the greatest British political crisis for several decades when in fact it should already have resigned.
The hole was created by the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) which was seen at the time as a clever expedient to ensure that the coalition led by David Cameron could not be easily dismantled. But it had the unintended consequence of destroying the carefully woven set of conventions that underpinned the notion of confidence in the Government.
The Government is apparently ignoring the pre-existing convention that it should resign if it loses a vote of confidence using the excuse that its wish to call an election has been thwarted under the rules of the FTPA. But the way our constitution has always worked is that whilst the outgoing PM had the power to call a General Election, this has been subservient to the fact that PMs have only stayed in office if they have the confidence of the House of Commons. You can see this in some examples quoted by Catherine Haddon, below. For example Baldwin resigned, in 1923, only after losing a vote on his Queen's Speech following the 1923 General Election to allow Ramsay Macdonald to form a Labour Government.
The way that the Government (aided implicitly by the Opposition in that they have so far not tabled a vote of confidence) have so far behaved is to make us look more unstable than Italian Government. In that case, as illustrated very recently, when it became apparent that he no longer had a Parliamentary majority (given Salvini's defection from the Govt), PM Conte tendered his resignation. He has only continued because a new Government coalition has been formed.
Yet Johnson, despite having no majority on the key issue of the day, has sat tight. The acid test of whether the British constitution has been totally blown is whether a) he will lose the vote on his Queen's Speech after October 14th and b) if he loses whether he resigns. If he does not resign, the UK will be an even bigger global laughing stock than it already is. Our constitution will be plainly totally shot, with conventions that no longer work in the light of the FTPA and the bankruptcy of British politicians.
It may not be the politicians' fault that there are deep divisions over Brexit, but it patently IS their fault that this zombie Government continues to stagger on. Either it should resign or the Opposition must no-confidence it under the terms of the FTPA if it won't go otherwise. Anything else is total lunacy.
http://theconversation.com/hung-parliaments-have-voted-down-the-queens-speech-before-heres-what-happened-79384
The hole was created by the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) which was seen at the time as a clever expedient to ensure that the coalition led by David Cameron could not be easily dismantled. But it had the unintended consequence of destroying the carefully woven set of conventions that underpinned the notion of confidence in the Government.
The Government is apparently ignoring the pre-existing convention that it should resign if it loses a vote of confidence using the excuse that its wish to call an election has been thwarted under the rules of the FTPA. But the way our constitution has always worked is that whilst the outgoing PM had the power to call a General Election, this has been subservient to the fact that PMs have only stayed in office if they have the confidence of the House of Commons. You can see this in some examples quoted by Catherine Haddon, below. For example Baldwin resigned, in 1923, only after losing a vote on his Queen's Speech following the 1923 General Election to allow Ramsay Macdonald to form a Labour Government.
The way that the Government (aided implicitly by the Opposition in that they have so far not tabled a vote of confidence) have so far behaved is to make us look more unstable than Italian Government. In that case, as illustrated very recently, when it became apparent that he no longer had a Parliamentary majority (given Salvini's defection from the Govt), PM Conte tendered his resignation. He has only continued because a new Government coalition has been formed.
Yet Johnson, despite having no majority on the key issue of the day, has sat tight. The acid test of whether the British constitution has been totally blown is whether a) he will lose the vote on his Queen's Speech after October 14th and b) if he loses whether he resigns. If he does not resign, the UK will be an even bigger global laughing stock than it already is. Our constitution will be plainly totally shot, with conventions that no longer work in the light of the FTPA and the bankruptcy of British politicians.
It may not be the politicians' fault that there are deep divisions over Brexit, but it patently IS their fault that this zombie Government continues to stagger on. Either it should resign or the Opposition must no-confidence it under the terms of the FTPA if it won't go otherwise. Anything else is total lunacy.
http://theconversation.com/hung-parliaments-have-voted-down-the-queens-speech-before-heres-what-happened-79384
Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Is Hinkley C going the same way as the French and Finnish EPR disasters??
As EDF announces major cost overruns and delays after having only recently started major construction works for Hinkley C, it seems that this project is heading for the same sort of financial disasters suffered already by the other two European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) being built in Finland and France. Yet the Government is going ahead with a financial model, the 'Regulated Asset Base' (RAB) to finance the next EPR at Sizewell C, that would mean electricity consumers would have to pay for cost overruns over and above EDF's own ridiculously low estimates of costs.
EDF has announced cost overruns of up to £2.9 billion pounds and delays for HPC that almost certainly mean it will not be generating in 2025. This is on top of the already high cost of building EPRs - at a cost to the electricity consumer of £92.10 in 2012 prices (now over £100 per MWh), and even that is only so 'low' because the contract involves paying this price (inflation uprated) over 35 years!
EDF, in its statement issued today talks about the project being 'first of a kind' (in the UK). But the project is not 'first of a kind' at all when we look at similar designs being implemented in Finland (Olkiluoto) and France (Flamanville), still uncompleted over many years and with costs in these cases having risen to more than three times their initial estomates. Who would put any money on this being the last cost overrun announcement for Hinkley C from EDF? Certainly not me!
In fact EDF only started 'pouring concrete' on the base of the plant in Spring this year, so if there are cost overruns and delays projected now, much much worse is likely to come.
The most outrageous aspect of this affair is that EDF expect us to believe that Sizewell C will be substantially cheaper to build than even the projections EDF made before the latest cost overrun announcement. The Government has in effect agreed it will swallow such a projection by EDF and then undertake to saddle electricity consumers with cost overruns over and above these absudly low estimates.
With offshore wind costs having fallen to well under a half of the cost of Hinkley C, it seems especially odd that the Government should be giving financial preference to new nuclear power. Yet new nuclear power will make integration of renewables more difficult since the nuclear power will, according to their contracts, always run meaning more times that there will be excess renewable electricity generation. Of course, as suggested in the my last post, any excess renewable energy generation (which would happen even without nuclear power beiung on the system) could be used to generate hydrogen (via electrolysis). This could be used in fuel cells to produce electricity when there was a shortage of wind or sun. This beggars the question, though, of why we are not investing in this technology alongside renewables rather than pouting more and more money down a nuclear black hole and slowing down the decarbonisaion process as a result.
See https://www.ft.com/content/92102452-df62-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
EDF has announced cost overruns of up to £2.9 billion pounds and delays for HPC that almost certainly mean it will not be generating in 2025. This is on top of the already high cost of building EPRs - at a cost to the electricity consumer of £92.10 in 2012 prices (now over £100 per MWh), and even that is only so 'low' because the contract involves paying this price (inflation uprated) over 35 years!
EDF, in its statement issued today talks about the project being 'first of a kind' (in the UK). But the project is not 'first of a kind' at all when we look at similar designs being implemented in Finland (Olkiluoto) and France (Flamanville), still uncompleted over many years and with costs in these cases having risen to more than three times their initial estomates. Who would put any money on this being the last cost overrun announcement for Hinkley C from EDF? Certainly not me!
In fact EDF only started 'pouring concrete' on the base of the plant in Spring this year, so if there are cost overruns and delays projected now, much much worse is likely to come.
The most outrageous aspect of this affair is that EDF expect us to believe that Sizewell C will be substantially cheaper to build than even the projections EDF made before the latest cost overrun announcement. The Government has in effect agreed it will swallow such a projection by EDF and then undertake to saddle electricity consumers with cost overruns over and above these absudly low estimates.
With offshore wind costs having fallen to well under a half of the cost of Hinkley C, it seems especially odd that the Government should be giving financial preference to new nuclear power. Yet new nuclear power will make integration of renewables more difficult since the nuclear power will, according to their contracts, always run meaning more times that there will be excess renewable electricity generation. Of course, as suggested in the my last post, any excess renewable energy generation (which would happen even without nuclear power beiung on the system) could be used to generate hydrogen (via electrolysis). This could be used in fuel cells to produce electricity when there was a shortage of wind or sun. This beggars the question, though, of why we are not investing in this technology alongside renewables rather than pouting more and more money down a nuclear black hole and slowing down the decarbonisaion process as a result.
See https://www.ft.com/content/92102452-df62-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
Sunday, 22 September 2019
How renewable energy can provide its own reserve power through hydrogen
A regular complaint about variable sources of renewable energy is that they need so-called 'back-up' when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, but this problem can disappear if fuel cells powered by hydrogen are brought into play. When the electricity system is producing excessive quantities of renewable energy (as will happen as renewable generation increases) this energy can be stored in various forms, one form being hydrogen which can be stored and then used in fuel cells to produce electricity when it is needed.
An increasing number of demonstration projects are focussed on generating hydrogen from renewable energy sources using electrolysis of water. One project involves making hydrogen directly from seawater https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1850034/floating-wind-to-hydrogen-plan-to-heat-millions-of-uk-homes These systems (renewable energy-hydrogen-fuel cell) are coming down in cost as their constituent parts (wind and solar farms, electrolysis and fuel cells) all come down in price.
Fuel cell deployment is increasing at a rapid pace around the world as an option to provide back up power for buildings, displacing the role that has been performed by diesel generators. A fuel cell, if you like, is a sort of reverse battery in that it converts a fuel into an electric charge rather than the other way around. Fuel cells are considerably more energy efficient in creating motive power compared to internal combustion engines.
Of course we can use lithium or other types of batteries to reduce the need for 'firm' generating capacity to complement variable renewable energy (especially as the increasing amount of electric vehicles can use their battery power to, in effect, store power to be used in the grid). However the need for any fossil fuel or nuclear generating capacity can be completely abolished by building up the volume of fuel cells powered by renewable (so-called 'green') hydrogen.
As the amount of renewable energy generated increases, so the amount of renewable energy (RE) that is sometimes surplus to demand will increase. - The other side of the variable RE coin of course is that often too much energy is generated - This surplus renewable energy (which will be available virtually free of charge) can be used for hydrogen production.
Of course this doesn't mean everything can be powered by hydrogen - many services are better provided by electricity. For example, electric rather than hydrogen cars seem to be taking hold in the market. In the provsion of ordinary space heating it is certainly much more energy efficient to use (electrically powered) heat pumps, either in district heating or individual houses, to provide heat to domestic and commercial buildings. But we do have the resources to produce for some specialised hydrogen markets, and (besides fuel cells providing reserve power as discussed) this can include some specialised industrial heat markets and also aircraft travel.
Hydrogen powered aircraft seem, as a futuristic proposition, to have the edge on electrically powered aircraft since their weight might be a lot lower than that provided by batteries. This weight issue is not quite so crucial on the land, where the refuelling infrastructure that exists in the form of the electricity grid gives electric cars an advantage over hydrogen powered vehicles. However aircraft hydrogen powered flight might take off quicker (joke?) than battery powered planes.
After all, for example, there's enough offshore wind resource in parts of the North Sea to generate over thee times the energy consumption of the entire EU. See https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/06/offshore-wind-power-source-that-could.html
But there is a note of warning to be sounded - we should make sure the increase in hydrogen use comes from electrolysis of water, not from traditional means of obtaining hydrogen from reformation of gas or coal - that is the opposite of decarbonisation.
Clearly what needs to be done is that rather than shovelling a lot of money down a nuclear black hole (eg the Government's plans for giving a huge handout to EDF via their proposed 'Regulated Asset Base' mechanism), they should be putting some money into encouraging deployment of fuel cells, electrolysis and hydrogen production from renewable energy.
An increasing number of demonstration projects are focussed on generating hydrogen from renewable energy sources using electrolysis of water. One project involves making hydrogen directly from seawater https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1850034/floating-wind-to-hydrogen-plan-to-heat-millions-of-uk-homes These systems (renewable energy-hydrogen-fuel cell) are coming down in cost as their constituent parts (wind and solar farms, electrolysis and fuel cells) all come down in price.
Fuel cell deployment is increasing at a rapid pace around the world as an option to provide back up power for buildings, displacing the role that has been performed by diesel generators. A fuel cell, if you like, is a sort of reverse battery in that it converts a fuel into an electric charge rather than the other way around. Fuel cells are considerably more energy efficient in creating motive power compared to internal combustion engines.
Of course we can use lithium or other types of batteries to reduce the need for 'firm' generating capacity to complement variable renewable energy (especially as the increasing amount of electric vehicles can use their battery power to, in effect, store power to be used in the grid). However the need for any fossil fuel or nuclear generating capacity can be completely abolished by building up the volume of fuel cells powered by renewable (so-called 'green') hydrogen.
As the amount of renewable energy generated increases, so the amount of renewable energy (RE) that is sometimes surplus to demand will increase. - The other side of the variable RE coin of course is that often too much energy is generated - This surplus renewable energy (which will be available virtually free of charge) can be used for hydrogen production.
Of course this doesn't mean everything can be powered by hydrogen - many services are better provided by electricity. For example, electric rather than hydrogen cars seem to be taking hold in the market. In the provsion of ordinary space heating it is certainly much more energy efficient to use (electrically powered) heat pumps, either in district heating or individual houses, to provide heat to domestic and commercial buildings. But we do have the resources to produce for some specialised hydrogen markets, and (besides fuel cells providing reserve power as discussed) this can include some specialised industrial heat markets and also aircraft travel.
Hydrogen powered aircraft seem, as a futuristic proposition, to have the edge on electrically powered aircraft since their weight might be a lot lower than that provided by batteries. This weight issue is not quite so crucial on the land, where the refuelling infrastructure that exists in the form of the electricity grid gives electric cars an advantage over hydrogen powered vehicles. However aircraft hydrogen powered flight might take off quicker (joke?) than battery powered planes.
After all, for example, there's enough offshore wind resource in parts of the North Sea to generate over thee times the energy consumption of the entire EU. See https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/06/offshore-wind-power-source-that-could.html
But there is a note of warning to be sounded - we should make sure the increase in hydrogen use comes from electrolysis of water, not from traditional means of obtaining hydrogen from reformation of gas or coal - that is the opposite of decarbonisation.
Clearly what needs to be done is that rather than shovelling a lot of money down a nuclear black hole (eg the Government's plans for giving a huge handout to EDF via their proposed 'Regulated Asset Base' mechanism), they should be putting some money into encouraging deployment of fuel cells, electrolysis and hydrogen production from renewable energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)