I suppose when you are evaluating the costs of various power sources, you have to interpret the data, but the Committee on Climate Change has interpreted it in a pro-nuclear direction. The Committee says that nuclear power is the cheapest low carbon option, even cheaper than onshore wind. Well, in that case how come,in the USA, that nuclear power gets both the same tax credit subsidies as wind power, but gets in addition loan guarantees from the Federal Government? How can nuclear be said to be cheaper than wind power under this set of circumstances when it requires much bigger state support than wind power?. Please Committee on Climate Change, explain this paradox to us.
The fact is that the Committee on Climate Change gloss over the fact that nuclear power would not get financed by pension funds and banks without some sort of guarantee that the loans and equity returns will be repaid. That is the only way that nuclear power stations in the West, currently only four power stations in the US (2), Finland (1), France (1), are being built. So how much is the Committee on Climate Change's calculations worth?
Judge for yourself.
One wonders how the Government is going to hide the need to give guarantees for nuclear loan repayments. Probably by being in as much denial and using as much smoke and mirrors as it is using to hide the nuclear power subsidies it is already planning as part of the electricity market reforms it published last December. It will be interesting to see how they do it - and hide the fact that nuclear will get financial guarantees denied to renewable energy sources.
For some further comments of mine on this subject, see the current issue of Renewable Energy Focus, pages 4-6: http://e-ditionsbyfry.com/ActiveMagazine/welcome/rrf/rrf110501130727.asp
Please also see my account of the electricity market reform proposals which was carried in the previous issue of Renewable Energy Focus, pages 24-26:
http://e-ditionsbyfry.com/ActiveMagazine/welcome/rrf/rrf110301131626.asp
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Are Liberal Democrats turning against nuclear?
Are the Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg, turning against nuclear power? No. Statements recorded by Nick Clegg fearing that nuclear power will be too expensive to be funded by the private sector in a post-Fukushima world seem more likely to be an attempt to throw some verbal sops to anti-nuclear Liberal Democrats who are fighting the local elections. There is no sign that the Electricity Market Reform (ERM), published in December, will be dropped, and that the Government's proposals for secret subsidies to be given to build nuclear power stations will be seriously amended.
The Government has chosen a very obscure and confusing way of cross subsidising nuclear through its 'contract for differences' proposal in the ERM. Nuclear power developments will be given guaranteed premium prices which will be funded by electricity consumers. The obscurity helps to cloak the breach of Tory and Lib Dem election promises not to subsidise nuclear power.
A further smokescreen of proposed increases in carbon taxes is added to attempt to hide the subsidies, The Government, in a further attempt to hide all this says that electricity prices will be a lot higher in ten years time because of its proposals for increases in the carbon floor price. In ten years time, note, not now. How can the Government increase prices in ten years time when it will not do it now? It can't. They will not in ten years time either! But it is all part of a smokescreen to hide the subsidies for nuclear and the fact that the subsidies for renewables are being cut to in order to fund nuclear power.
Added to this, prospective nuclear developers want their investments to be guaranteed by the Government. They will probably achieve some sort of scheme to do this, even though this is a facility that is denied to renewable energy developers, such as offshore wind companies, who could very much do with such guarantees to reduce their costs. Whether we shall hear about this is another matter. Democratic consultation is being suspended for nuclear energy issues to enable the people who know better to make the choices that the ordinary people are not clever enough to make. Questions will be deflected on the grounds of 'commercial
confidentiality'. All in keeping with the Liberal Democrat manifesto, of course.
The Government has chosen a very obscure and confusing way of cross subsidising nuclear through its 'contract for differences' proposal in the ERM. Nuclear power developments will be given guaranteed premium prices which will be funded by electricity consumers. The obscurity helps to cloak the breach of Tory and Lib Dem election promises not to subsidise nuclear power.
A further smokescreen of proposed increases in carbon taxes is added to attempt to hide the subsidies, The Government, in a further attempt to hide all this says that electricity prices will be a lot higher in ten years time because of its proposals for increases in the carbon floor price. In ten years time, note, not now. How can the Government increase prices in ten years time when it will not do it now? It can't. They will not in ten years time either! But it is all part of a smokescreen to hide the subsidies for nuclear and the fact that the subsidies for renewables are being cut to in order to fund nuclear power.
Added to this, prospective nuclear developers want their investments to be guaranteed by the Government. They will probably achieve some sort of scheme to do this, even though this is a facility that is denied to renewable energy developers, such as offshore wind companies, who could very much do with such guarantees to reduce their costs. Whether we shall hear about this is another matter. Democratic consultation is being suspended for nuclear energy issues to enable the people who know better to make the choices that the ordinary people are not clever enough to make. Questions will be deflected on the grounds of 'commercial
confidentiality'. All in keeping with the Liberal Democrat manifesto, of course.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Renewable energy is more reliable than nuclear
Far from nuclear power being reliable and renewable supplies being unreliable, the facts suggest the exact opposite. We can forecast production from wind turbines or solar farms hours in advance, but you cannot predict the sudden breakdowns in nuclear power plant. You don't need to look at the Fukushima crisis to understand that - just look at the UK where Sizewell B, the most modern British nuclear power station, went offline in May 26th 2008 leading to widespread blackouts across parts of the UK. This sort of incident is much more dangerous to the task of keeping the lights on than anything reneweable energy will throw up. The sheer size of these nuclear power plants and their inherent instability is a major threat to the continuity of the electricity supply system. - That is before you even consider the safety issues.
We can cope with variable production from renewables with a variety of hi-tech, low cost, measures - and minimise the need for extra 'back up'gas power stations. These hi-tech measures include demand side management techniques which involve shaving off the peaks in peak demand (using price signals to shift demand from one period to the next), building more interconnectors to shift power around Europe and gain the benefit of systems such as storage offered by Norweigian hydro, and in the future using 'extended range' electric cars to manage the variability of renewable supplies. See previous blog about electric cars - you can shift between petrol and electricity modes in these vehicles according to the variability in renewable production using computerised price signals - the same principle which applies to demand management using smart grids and giving the National Grid more incentives to use demand management techniques.
Is the Government going to adopt these hi-tech measures in its 'electricity market reform' (EMR)? Of course not! The aim of the EMR is to cut back the renewables programme and shift the incentives to nuclear power. Far from incentives being given to encourage demand side management or energy efficiency in the electricity system, bungs will be offered to the electricity companies to build more power plant. In fact there's more than enough gas power stations coming on line to provide loads of 'back up' already. The only reason you might need all of this plant is to provide emergency supplies when nuclear power stations break down unexpectedly!
We can cope with variable production from renewables with a variety of hi-tech, low cost, measures - and minimise the need for extra 'back up'gas power stations. These hi-tech measures include demand side management techniques which involve shaving off the peaks in peak demand (using price signals to shift demand from one period to the next), building more interconnectors to shift power around Europe and gain the benefit of systems such as storage offered by Norweigian hydro, and in the future using 'extended range' electric cars to manage the variability of renewable supplies. See previous blog about electric cars - you can shift between petrol and electricity modes in these vehicles according to the variability in renewable production using computerised price signals - the same principle which applies to demand management using smart grids and giving the National Grid more incentives to use demand management techniques.
Is the Government going to adopt these hi-tech measures in its 'electricity market reform' (EMR)? Of course not! The aim of the EMR is to cut back the renewables programme and shift the incentives to nuclear power. Far from incentives being given to encourage demand side management or energy efficiency in the electricity system, bungs will be offered to the electricity companies to build more power plant. In fact there's more than enough gas power stations coming on line to provide loads of 'back up' already. The only reason you might need all of this plant is to provide emergency supplies when nuclear power stations break down unexpectedly!
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Oil price hike - it's not just Libya
Commentators have fixed on Libya as the explanation for the latest oil price spike - but this is a trigger, not the cause of a crisis that will only be (temporarily) relieved by a slowdown in world economic growth. The underlying cause is simply that expansion in oil supply activities is unable to keep pace with the expansion in demand for oil.
The discussion about 'peak oil' probably oversimplifies what has been a rather more subtle trend since the 1970s that expansion of supply of oil has increasingly been unable to keep pace with demand. The oil crises of the 1970s were initially resolved by world economic recessions, especially at the beginning of the 1980s, but then the oil supply issues were ameliorated by technological shifts away from using oil as a fuel source. Countries around the world stopped using oil in electricity generation, less oil was used in industry and less oil was used for heating. This technological shift gave the world the false impression that there were no more oil supply pressures. Oil prices fell, and also fuel efficiency of vehicles, which had risen during the 1970s and early 1980s, fell once again.
The problem the world faces now is that demand for oil use in transport, especially motor vehicles, has continued to surge, with there being no expected barrier to this continued expansion - that is short of considerable oil price increases which choke off demand and induce people to buy more energy efficiency motor vehicles. This is the underlying problem - Middle Eastern political crises are triggers that make a chronic problem into a crisis. The point is that this present oil price spike would have happened anyway, perhaps in one or two years' time, regarded of political developments in the Middle East.
The problem that the world has now is that the market will not deliver the required technological shift away from oil use in transport any time soon. The market response is to induce purchase of more energy efficient vehicles, but only so long as oil prices remain very high with an ever-present danger of oil price spikes which lead to recessionary consequences. In this situation there is no such thing as 'sustainable' economic growth in any sense of usage of these terms. Indeed, the economic outlook for the coming period is bleak in that a world economic slowdown seems inevitable. Then only way this oil crisis will be resolved is likely to be by economic recession.
Of course Governments could do more interventionist action - although it seems for many US Republicans you probably have as much chance of persuading them that Karl Marx was not such a bad guy after all as to convince them of the necessity of immediate tight restrictions on motor vehicle fuel efficiency. The US actually did some of this in the 1970s with 'Corporate Average Fuel Economy' (CAFE) regulations - but things have moved on since those days when regulatory action by the state was not regarded as being quite so much the work of the Devil as it is viewed today.
In fact even such action will not be enough on its own. We need a shift towards electric cars. The state could help shift this in the right direction by incentivising so-called 'extended range' engines. These use a small petrol (gas) engine to power an electric motor with a small battery that can be used for small range travel and topping up the engine. These fit well into an electricity system powered by variable (renewable) electricity sources. These energy sources will never run out, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The discussion about 'peak oil' probably oversimplifies what has been a rather more subtle trend since the 1970s that expansion of supply of oil has increasingly been unable to keep pace with demand. The oil crises of the 1970s were initially resolved by world economic recessions, especially at the beginning of the 1980s, but then the oil supply issues were ameliorated by technological shifts away from using oil as a fuel source. Countries around the world stopped using oil in electricity generation, less oil was used in industry and less oil was used for heating. This technological shift gave the world the false impression that there were no more oil supply pressures. Oil prices fell, and also fuel efficiency of vehicles, which had risen during the 1970s and early 1980s, fell once again.
The problem the world faces now is that demand for oil use in transport, especially motor vehicles, has continued to surge, with there being no expected barrier to this continued expansion - that is short of considerable oil price increases which choke off demand and induce people to buy more energy efficiency motor vehicles. This is the underlying problem - Middle Eastern political crises are triggers that make a chronic problem into a crisis. The point is that this present oil price spike would have happened anyway, perhaps in one or two years' time, regarded of political developments in the Middle East.
The problem that the world has now is that the market will not deliver the required technological shift away from oil use in transport any time soon. The market response is to induce purchase of more energy efficient vehicles, but only so long as oil prices remain very high with an ever-present danger of oil price spikes which lead to recessionary consequences. In this situation there is no such thing as 'sustainable' economic growth in any sense of usage of these terms. Indeed, the economic outlook for the coming period is bleak in that a world economic slowdown seems inevitable. Then only way this oil crisis will be resolved is likely to be by economic recession.
Of course Governments could do more interventionist action - although it seems for many US Republicans you probably have as much chance of persuading them that Karl Marx was not such a bad guy after all as to convince them of the necessity of immediate tight restrictions on motor vehicle fuel efficiency. The US actually did some of this in the 1970s with 'Corporate Average Fuel Economy' (CAFE) regulations - but things have moved on since those days when regulatory action by the state was not regarded as being quite so much the work of the Devil as it is viewed today.
In fact even such action will not be enough on its own. We need a shift towards electric cars. The state could help shift this in the right direction by incentivising so-called 'extended range' engines. These use a small petrol (gas) engine to power an electric motor with a small battery that can be used for small range travel and topping up the engine. These fit well into an electricity system powered by variable (renewable) electricity sources. These energy sources will never run out, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
New book on the politics of renewable energy published
Ecological Modernisation and Renewable Energy, published by Palgrave this month, discusses the emergence and development of the new renewable energy industry. David Toke reinvigorates ecological modernisation (EM), a key theory of environmental development. Renewable energy was developed from the grass roots into an industry that is challenging the position of conventional fuel sources by maintaining a distinct identity which attracts popular support. Toke analyses this 'identity EM' and highlights the continuing role of alliances between the renewable industries and environmental NGOs. The politics of technological identity are explored in several case studies which include studies of California in the 1970s and 1980s and the USA since the 1990s. Other countries discussed include Denmark, Germany, Spain, UK, Australia and China. Examination of what policies are needed to promote renewable energy is carried out through analysis of institutions, interest and discourse to cut through stereotyped debates about whether 'market based' or 'command and control' strategies are better.
In its concluding section the book also contains a critique of David Mackay's work, in particular for MacKay's numerical treatment which appears to reduce the importance of renewables compared to other ways of interpreting the statistics. Toke questions MacKay's wisdom of relying on a strategy which is heavily reliant on development of nuclear power.
See entry on Palgrave website: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=327250
In its concluding section the book also contains a critique of David Mackay's work, in particular for MacKay's numerical treatment which appears to reduce the importance of renewables compared to other ways of interpreting the statistics. Toke questions MacKay's wisdom of relying on a strategy which is heavily reliant on development of nuclear power.
See entry on Palgrave website: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=327250
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Stop Government cuts to solar (and wind)!
This month the Government has announced moves to cut funding to solar power as well as wind power. We knew that a lot of Tories hate wind power, but spending on commercial solar pv is another example of what the Government wants to cut in the Renewables Programme in order to shift resources to nuclear power. The Government is reviewing support, under the small (up to 5MW) feed-in tariff scheme, to support solar photovoltaic (pv) schemes over 50 KW in size. The feed-in tariff for small renewable energy projects was approved in 2008.
Amazingly, Chris Huhne, the energy frontman for what is allegedly the 'greenest ever government' sees commercial solar pv schemes as a 'threat'. That is according to the title of a DECC press release that says: 'Huhne takes action on solar power threat'. The press release (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_010/pn11_010.aspx) says that commercially sized solar pv farms 'might soak up money intended to help homes, communities and small businesses generate their own electricity'. What money is this? Actually it is electricity consumers' money which the Government prefers to divert to nuclear power rather than solar power. Has the Government asked the electricity consumers whether they would prefer to see their money spent on solar farms rather than nuclear power? Please let your MP what you think of all of this, preferably by writing to them to support funding solar power rather than nuclear power. See more details of the support solar campaign on:
http://wesupportsolar.net/
Meanwhile, Chris Hendry has signalled a clampdown on funding for onshore wind power. In a press release trying to placate anti-wind Tory backbenchers he said:
What are unsuitable locations for windfarms, one wonders? Where there is a local Tory MP with the wind up? Yes, I assume that is what they mean. But of course an advantage for the Government in cutting spending on wind power is that (for a given level of electricity consumer bills) the less money is spent on windfarms, the more money is left for spending on nuclear power! The 'review of the funding mechanism' to which Chris Hendry refers is part of the Electricity Market Reform which this blog has already denounced as a means of curbing renewable energy expansion in favour of nuclear power. Once again I say, stop the efforts to cut renewable energy funding; on the contrary spend more on renewable energy instead of spending to subsidise nuclear power. Write to your MP telling him/her this!
Amazingly, Chris Huhne, the energy frontman for what is allegedly the 'greenest ever government' sees commercial solar pv schemes as a 'threat'. That is according to the title of a DECC press release that says: 'Huhne takes action on solar power threat'. The press release (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_010/pn11_010.aspx) says that commercially sized solar pv farms 'might soak up money intended to help homes, communities and small businesses generate their own electricity'. What money is this? Actually it is electricity consumers' money which the Government prefers to divert to nuclear power rather than solar power. Has the Government asked the electricity consumers whether they would prefer to see their money spent on solar farms rather than nuclear power? Please let your MP what you think of all of this, preferably by writing to them to support funding solar power rather than nuclear power. See more details of the support solar campaign on:
http://wesupportsolar.net/
Meanwhile, Chris Hendry has signalled a clampdown on funding for onshore wind power. In a press release trying to placate anti-wind Tory backbenchers he said:
'Wind turbines should be positioned where the wind resource is strongest. So this year we are bringing forward a full review of the funding mechanism, so we can ensure that subsidies will not make it attractive to put windfarms in unsuitable locations.' See http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/hendry_onshore/hendry_onshore.aspx
What are unsuitable locations for windfarms, one wonders? Where there is a local Tory MP with the wind up? Yes, I assume that is what they mean. But of course an advantage for the Government in cutting spending on wind power is that (for a given level of electricity consumer bills) the less money is spent on windfarms, the more money is left for spending on nuclear power! The 'review of the funding mechanism' to which Chris Hendry refers is part of the Electricity Market Reform which this blog has already denounced as a means of curbing renewable energy expansion in favour of nuclear power. Once again I say, stop the efforts to cut renewable energy funding; on the contrary spend more on renewable energy instead of spending to subsidise nuclear power. Write to your MP telling him/her this!
Friday, 4 February 2011
How renewables get squeezed with nuclear power
Using figures from the Government's own Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics we can see how the nuclear construction programme will squeeze the renewables programme. On the most plausible projections renewables share of UK electricity generation is likely to remain less than 20 per cent, certainly a lot less than the 30 per cent quoted as the target by the Government. In this way the demands of companies like EDF can be met for renewable development to be limited so that the commercial interests of nuclear power will be protected.
The Government plans to build 16 GW of nuclear power by 2025, according to its 'National Policy Statement'. When this amount is added to the existing commitment to build new gas combined cycle generation turbines (CCGTs), it is simple to see that there is no chance of renewables making anywhere near the 30 per cent target share of electricity (by 2020 or any other time). According to the Government’s proposals renewables will, through the proposed ‘low carbon mechanism', either be in direct or indirect competition for resources (paid by electricity consumers through increased prices) with nuclear power. There will be no level playing field in this ‘competition’ between nuclear and renewables. No doubt nuclear will be given back-door guarantees for support which will not be available for renewable energy developers, as is always the case with nuclear power.
The figures speak for themselves on how renewables will be crowded out using average load factors (per centage time that plant generate on average in the UK compared to their maximum production). 16 GW of new nuclear power stations at an 80 per cent load factor produces 141 TWh per year. 39 GW of the existing (or planned) CCGTs at just 67 per cent load factor gives 229 TWh. UK Electricity supply for 2009 was 357 TWh, so even if this increases to 450 TWh renewables will be left with just 80 TWh, or less than 18 per cent of total electricity supply. It should be remembered that UK electricity demand/supply has been static over the last decade because of high energy prices, so supply might not even increase to 450 TWh by 2025. It should also be remembered that this 18 percent residue will become smaller as schemes for carbon capture and storage are developed.
Note that 25GW of CCGTs is already constructed and operating! There's no doubt about that! Gas already generates around 40 per cent of UK electricity, and those gas plant are relatively recently built, so will be around for a long time. Note that another 14 GW of CCGTs are being planned or constructed now.
It is hardly surprising therefore, that the UK Government is proposing ‘auction’ style mechanisms for awarding contracts to supply renewable energy, misleadingly called ‘feed-in tariffs’, as a backdoor method of constraining renewable growth after 2017. These auctions, tried and failed in the 1990s (and in all other cases where they have been tried around the world), are almost designed to constrain renewables while maintaining a fiction of relatively ambitious targets. They will severely limit renewable and especially wind power development after the Renewables Obligation is phased out in 2017. Under 'auction' systems prospective developers tend to make unrealistically low bids for contracts to supply renewable energy in order win in the auctions, and then half of the projects are not implemented because of poor likely economic returns. In the case of onshore wind the problem is even worse since half of the remaining projects fail to achieve planning consent in the UK.
Note that 25GW of CCGTs is already constructed and operating! There's no doubt about that! Gas already generates around 40 per cent of UK electricity, and those gas plant are relatively recently built, so will be around for a long time. Note that another 14 GW of CCGTs are being planned or constructed now.
It is hardly surprising therefore, that the UK Government is proposing ‘auction’ style mechanisms for awarding contracts to supply renewable energy, misleadingly called ‘feed-in tariffs’, as a backdoor method of constraining renewable growth after 2017. These auctions, tried and failed in the 1990s (and in all other cases where they have been tried around the world), are almost designed to constrain renewables while maintaining a fiction of relatively ambitious targets. They will severely limit renewable and especially wind power development after the Renewables Obligation is phased out in 2017. Under 'auction' systems prospective developers tend to make unrealistically low bids for contracts to supply renewable energy in order win in the auctions, and then half of the projects are not implemented because of poor likely economic returns. In the case of onshore wind the problem is even worse since half of the remaining projects fail to achieve planning consent in the UK.
Of course the auction system presents the Government with an alibi for lack of delivery of renewable energy. It simply blames the developers. We need a transparent, open ended system of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy with good rates set for each technology as exists in Germany with no constraints on who can get contracts provided they are supplying renewable energy such as wind, solar, small hydro, biogas, wave, tidal stream etc. Of course the Renewables Obligation at the moment would be much preferable compared to what the Government are proposing. It is an expensive system, but we need reforms to the system that continues to encourage capacity build up,not a system that constrains renewables for the benefit of nuclear power development.
The bulk of the Round 3 proposals for offshore windfarms will never be implemented under the Government proposals. Really, the UK should be generating 50 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2025, but instead we will be sailing off into what the Government apparently sees as a nuclear powered future. Those of us who believe that a renewable future is far preferable to a global nightmare of uranium depletion followed by fast breeder reactors seem, at the moment, to be failing to get our message across. Do we need to wait five years before we realise that this Government's priority is nuclear power rather than renewable energy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)