• French group Areva wants to build a Mox plant at Sellafield
• Greenpeace fears 'yet another subsidy for new nuclear'
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 February 2011 20.37 GMT
Nuclear companies could be paid by the government to buy recycled nuclear fuel from a new taxpayer-funded plant, to reduce the country's stockpile of plutonium.
The government has proposed building a mixed oxide, or "Mox", facility, which uses plutonium to make nuclear fuel, although it admitted the plan was not economic as this type of fuel is relatively expensive to produce.
However, it said that such a plant – which would cost an estimated £500m – was the best way to dispose safely of the UK's stockpile of 112 tonnes of plutonium, built up over the past 50 years.
The Guardian has learnt that, at the end of 2009, the French reactor group Areva submitted a proposal to the government to build a Mox plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. An industry source involved said that, for the plan to be economically viable, a government subsidy would be needed to pay companies to buy the Mox fuel, which costs about £1m a tonne – a third more than conventional nuclear fuel. Modern reactors typically use about 1,000 tonnes of fuel over a 60-year lifetime, so an operator would have to be subsidised to the tune of about £250m to make buying Mox fuel economic.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace's chief scientist, said: "This could easily end up as yet another black hole for taxpayers' money. The use of the UK plutonium stockpile in reactors could be yet another subsidy for new nuclear."
The Mox plant at Sellafield has produced 15 tonnes of fuel in nine years of operation, against an original target of 560 tonnes over 10 years. It is not expected to be able to convert the remaining plutonium stockpile before its scheduled closure. The small amount of fuel that has been produced has been shipped to Japan to be burned by reactors there.
A government spokesman said that a new plant could also export Mox fuel, or could supply new reactors built in the UK. A paper from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the partially state-funded body that manages the UK's legacy nuclear sites, said that using the fuel domestically would have the advantage of reducing transport costs and security concerns.
The spokesman said: "Reuse of legacy plutonium would not be a subsidy for new nuclear. The issue of legacy plutonium has been left unresolved for too long, and this consultation is about finding a solution that represents value for money to the taxpayer."
The government insists that nuclear companies will not receive "specific subsidies" for new reactors, which, as low-carbon forms of generation, are entitled to more general funding. Its consultation paper said that tried-and-tested technology did not yet exist to allow for the safe long-term disposal of plutonium in an underground repository.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Engineers urge government to act now to 'climate-proof' UK infrastructure
Report sets out how transport, water, power and communications systems can be made more resilient to effects of climate change
Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 10.29 GMT
Generating power from human waste and resurfacing the UK's road network are among the recommendations made by engineers in the most extensive study to date of how to protect the country's infrastructure from the worst effects of climate change.
Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and more intense storms are expected to become more common as the world warms. This means vital infrastructure – including transport, sewage and water treatment, and electricity and communications networks – is vulnerable to severe damage. But the UK is unprepared for these effects, according to the leading professional bodies for engineers.
"We need to have a debate on this – it all depends on what politicians are prepared to do," said David Nickols, chair of the water panel at the Institution of Civil Engineers, and one of the authors of the report published today by the Royal Academy of Engineering and seven other professional engineering bodies, representing nearly half a million engineers.
The engineers said all of the country's infrastructure could be rendered more resilient to the probable effects of climate change, but this would require new regulations from the government.
For instance, in order to take some of the strain off water systems, sewage could be diverted to anaerobic digestion works, where it could be used to generate electricity and heat. More reservoirs would also help to ensure clean water systems remained operational, and help to control flooding by acting as storage for the more intense rainfall expected in a warmer climate.
Pavements and road surfaces might also have to be changed, as the UK's current road system has not been built to withstand high temperatures.
Flooding is the most serious of the likely effects of climate change, as it would cause most damage to vital infrastructure, according to the engineers. Nickols warned that many people would have to get used to being at risk of flooding. He predicted that the current state of affairs, where everyone is insured and government agencies have the remit to try to protect all homes from flooding, was likely to be unsustainable in the longer term. "We as a society should not try to defend everyone 100% of the time – that does not make sense to me."
As part of last year's comprehensive spending review, the government has cut funding for flood defences. However, it is not known yet exactly which flood defence projects will have to be cancelled as a result.
Work must begin immediately to ensure that the UK's vital infrastructure can be protected against the worst effects of climate change, the engineers warned. To provide full protection could be expensive, but as this infrastructure is constantly being maintained, providing protection against climate change can be built into the repair schedule. Nickols noted that infrastructure spending is likely to double in the next decade in any case.
If the UK succeeds in building more resilient infrastructure, that could be an attraction to investors, added Prof Will Stewart of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. He said companies seeking sites for their IT systems, such as large data banks, already take local infrastructure into account in making their decisions, so businesses could be reassured if the UK were able to demonstrate its infrastructure could withstand climate change.
Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 10.29 GMT
Generating power from human waste and resurfacing the UK's road network are among the recommendations made by engineers in the most extensive study to date of how to protect the country's infrastructure from the worst effects of climate change.
Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and more intense storms are expected to become more common as the world warms. This means vital infrastructure – including transport, sewage and water treatment, and electricity and communications networks – is vulnerable to severe damage. But the UK is unprepared for these effects, according to the leading professional bodies for engineers.
"We need to have a debate on this – it all depends on what politicians are prepared to do," said David Nickols, chair of the water panel at the Institution of Civil Engineers, and one of the authors of the report published today by the Royal Academy of Engineering and seven other professional engineering bodies, representing nearly half a million engineers.
The engineers said all of the country's infrastructure could be rendered more resilient to the probable effects of climate change, but this would require new regulations from the government.
For instance, in order to take some of the strain off water systems, sewage could be diverted to anaerobic digestion works, where it could be used to generate electricity and heat. More reservoirs would also help to ensure clean water systems remained operational, and help to control flooding by acting as storage for the more intense rainfall expected in a warmer climate.
Pavements and road surfaces might also have to be changed, as the UK's current road system has not been built to withstand high temperatures.
Flooding is the most serious of the likely effects of climate change, as it would cause most damage to vital infrastructure, according to the engineers. Nickols warned that many people would have to get used to being at risk of flooding. He predicted that the current state of affairs, where everyone is insured and government agencies have the remit to try to protect all homes from flooding, was likely to be unsustainable in the longer term. "We as a society should not try to defend everyone 100% of the time – that does not make sense to me."
As part of last year's comprehensive spending review, the government has cut funding for flood defences. However, it is not known yet exactly which flood defence projects will have to be cancelled as a result.
Work must begin immediately to ensure that the UK's vital infrastructure can be protected against the worst effects of climate change, the engineers warned. To provide full protection could be expensive, but as this infrastructure is constantly being maintained, providing protection against climate change can be built into the repair schedule. Nickols noted that infrastructure spending is likely to double in the next decade in any case.
If the UK succeeds in building more resilient infrastructure, that could be an attraction to investors, added Prof Will Stewart of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. He said companies seeking sites for their IT systems, such as large data banks, already take local infrastructure into account in making their decisions, so businesses could be reassured if the UK were able to demonstrate its infrastructure could withstand climate change.
Solar energy firms threaten legal action over feed-in tariffs
Companies seek legal advice after ministers announce fast-track review to prevent 'solar farms' from claiming subsidies
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 February 2011 17.55 GMT
Solar energy firms are threatening to take legal action against the government after ministers said they could stop large-scale commercial "solar farms" from hoovering up a green electricity subsidy.
After a Guardian report on Sunday, the government announced it will launch a "fast-track" review of the feed-in tariff scheme, which was launched only last April. The scheme subsidises households that install solar panels or other small- and medium-scale renewable energy projects. But ministers say that too many companies are planning to build "solar farms", where fields are filled with solar panels, which would take up funds intended for households.
In response, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that the large-scale solar projects for housing associations, schools and hospitals that are going through the planning system would generate almost twice as much electricity as the planned solar farms. These projects are likely to be suspended or even scrapped while there is uncertainty about the level of pay-out they would receive, the REA said.
Gaynor Hartnell, the association's chief executive, said: "Some of our members have been talking about legal action when these concerns started to be raised about ground-mounted PV [photovoltaic]." She added that companies were taking legal advice after Monday's confirmation of a review by the government but declined to name them.
In last October's spending review, the government allocated £360m to the scheme for 2014/2015. Greg Barker, minister of state for climate change, told the Guardian that large-scale solar installers that were operational by the summer, when the review is expected to be completed, would continue to benefit from the subsidy even if it were cut for future projects. "We are simply acting to ensure that all technologies get their fair share of funding and that funds aren't all hoovered up by one technology or a small group of people," he said.
Next Energy Capital, an Italian company that is seeking to install solar farms in the UK, said that only large-scale projects can bring about the critical mass and amount of investment required to develop the UK's solar industry.
In January, Cornwall council granted planning permission for its fourth solar farm – the 5MW Lanhydrock PV solar farm. Other counties, including Dorset, Devon and Cambridgeshire, also have proposals on the table. According to Cornwall council, more than 60 domestic and foreign companies have expressed an interest in developing solar farms in the county, the UK's sunniest.
According to the latest figures from energy regulator Ofgem, 22,500 renewable electricity projects, with a total capacity of 80MW – less than 0.1% of the UK's total electricity supply – benefit from the tariff. More than half this comes from solar, and the target is to increase this 50-fold by 2020.
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 February 2011 17.55 GMT
Solar energy firms are threatening to take legal action against the government after ministers said they could stop large-scale commercial "solar farms" from hoovering up a green electricity subsidy.
After a Guardian report on Sunday, the government announced it will launch a "fast-track" review of the feed-in tariff scheme, which was launched only last April. The scheme subsidises households that install solar panels or other small- and medium-scale renewable energy projects. But ministers say that too many companies are planning to build "solar farms", where fields are filled with solar panels, which would take up funds intended for households.
In response, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that the large-scale solar projects for housing associations, schools and hospitals that are going through the planning system would generate almost twice as much electricity as the planned solar farms. These projects are likely to be suspended or even scrapped while there is uncertainty about the level of pay-out they would receive, the REA said.
Gaynor Hartnell, the association's chief executive, said: "Some of our members have been talking about legal action when these concerns started to be raised about ground-mounted PV [photovoltaic]." She added that companies were taking legal advice after Monday's confirmation of a review by the government but declined to name them.
In last October's spending review, the government allocated £360m to the scheme for 2014/2015. Greg Barker, minister of state for climate change, told the Guardian that large-scale solar installers that were operational by the summer, when the review is expected to be completed, would continue to benefit from the subsidy even if it were cut for future projects. "We are simply acting to ensure that all technologies get their fair share of funding and that funds aren't all hoovered up by one technology or a small group of people," he said.
Next Energy Capital, an Italian company that is seeking to install solar farms in the UK, said that only large-scale projects can bring about the critical mass and amount of investment required to develop the UK's solar industry.
In January, Cornwall council granted planning permission for its fourth solar farm – the 5MW Lanhydrock PV solar farm. Other counties, including Dorset, Devon and Cambridgeshire, also have proposals on the table. According to Cornwall council, more than 60 domestic and foreign companies have expressed an interest in developing solar farms in the county, the UK's sunniest.
According to the latest figures from energy regulator Ofgem, 22,500 renewable electricity projects, with a total capacity of 80MW – less than 0.1% of the UK's total electricity supply – benefit from the tariff. More than half this comes from solar, and the target is to increase this 50-fold by 2020.