Councils facing budget cuts could make savings and create jobs by using green energy incentives, says Simon Parker
Simon Parker
The Guardian, Wednesday 16 February 2011
In the late 19th century, Birmingham faced a crisis. The city's poor had to put up with putrid wells and slum housing, while the council struggled to find the money to improve things. A big part of the answer for the mayor, Joseph Chamberlain, was to buy the local gas and water works. Armed with the income from these utilities, Chamberlain set about transforming the face of his city.
Just as poor sanitation and miserable living conditions were the defining problems for cities in that era, so climate change is arguably the great challenge for our generation. And some of the answers look remarkably similar to those that emerged in Chamberlain's day. Once again, cash-strapped local government is set to lead the way.
Key are the government's feed-in tariff and renewable heat incentives. These pay over the odds to encourage the development of greener energy. Definitive figures are hard to come by, but a New Local Government Network report, Power and Money, estimates that the total subsidy is about £12bn over the next 20 years.
This creates some exciting opportunities for councils. At a time when some local government budgets are being cut by nearly 9% a year, renewable energy provides a rare source of new funding – and one that appears to come with Eric Pickles's blessing. Local authorities are starting to talk about solar panels on the roofs of car parks and maybe even wind farms in the midst of council estates.
Some are already acting. Wrexham council plans to install solar panels on about 3,000 council properties. It is projecting a profit of about £29m, doubling its investment over 25 years.
But direct returns are only one part of the benefit. All this green investment can also soften the blow of public job losses by creating new eco-friendly jobs in the private sector. Kirklees council's Skills for Climate Change programme, for instance, is providing support for local businesses to take advantage of the green economy – the council has already created 130 local jobs through a scheme to insulate homes in the area.
In Devon, the council has successfully promoted the deployment of woodfired central heating and hot water systems that will shortly be eligible for the renewable heat incentive. At the same time, it has provided support and advice to help local landowners make a profit from their woodlands, by converting unused land to provide wood fuel and improving the quality of existing forests.
There is huge scope for councils to use this new gas and water municipalism to help tackle the cuts – either by investing themselves or working with business to deliver cheap energy. But the development of these schemes is being held back by a lack of clear policy from Whitehall. The feed-in tariff is under review after less than a year in operation. The renewable heat incentive has had its launch date put back.
This prevarication is severely limiting the public sector's appetite for renewable energy. Of nearly 20,000 feed-in tariff installations last year, only 275 were on community properties.
While councils are being encouraged to think differently, the government is sending mixed messages about how entrepreneurial it wants them to be.
• Simon Parker is director of localism thinktank NLGN. Power and Money is available at nlgn.org.uk
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
China enters race to develop nuclear energy from thorium
Scientists and private firms in China have embarked on a major new push to develop liquid-fluoride thorium reactor technology
Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.
What you're imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.
Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change.
Thorium – which is found in large quantities across much of the world – could be used to create nuclear energy in various ways. But the approach that impressed the Manchester Report panel so much was a currently obscure technology called the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR).
I wrote at the time:
"This technology was developed by the US military in the 1950s and 1960s and was shown to have many benefits. For example, reactors of this type can be smaller than conventional uranium reactors, partly thanks to their low-pressure operation. Despite its early promise, research into liquid-fluoride thorium reactors was abandoned – the most likely reason being that the technology offered no potential for producing nuclear weapons."
There's a big difference between a demonstrably good idea and a multimillion-dollar research and development programme, however, so it's exciting to hear about a major new push to actually develop LFTR technology in China. Thorium-energy expert Kirk Sorensen recently blogged about the announcement of the new scheme at the Chinese National Academy of Sciences in late January. Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski followed up with a story claiming that a private company in China is aiming to build a prototype within five years that can produce electricity at for as little as 6.8p per kilowatt hour (much cheaper than the retail price of power in the UK today).
Despite not making a ripple in the wider press, there's a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct – and their arguments are certainly very compelling – then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race. And the stakes are high: as Sorensen reports, the project "aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation". It will be very interesting to see what happens next.
Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.
What you're imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.
Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change.
Thorium – which is found in large quantities across much of the world – could be used to create nuclear energy in various ways. But the approach that impressed the Manchester Report panel so much was a currently obscure technology called the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR).
I wrote at the time:
"This technology was developed by the US military in the 1950s and 1960s and was shown to have many benefits. For example, reactors of this type can be smaller than conventional uranium reactors, partly thanks to their low-pressure operation. Despite its early promise, research into liquid-fluoride thorium reactors was abandoned – the most likely reason being that the technology offered no potential for producing nuclear weapons."
There's a big difference between a demonstrably good idea and a multimillion-dollar research and development programme, however, so it's exciting to hear about a major new push to actually develop LFTR technology in China. Thorium-energy expert Kirk Sorensen recently blogged about the announcement of the new scheme at the Chinese National Academy of Sciences in late January. Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski followed up with a story claiming that a private company in China is aiming to build a prototype within five years that can produce electricity at for as little as 6.8p per kilowatt hour (much cheaper than the retail price of power in the UK today).
Despite not making a ripple in the wider press, there's a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct – and their arguments are certainly very compelling – then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race. And the stakes are high: as Sorensen reports, the project "aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation". It will be very interesting to see what happens next.
Could underwater nuclear stations be headed for the English channel?
Ecologist: Plans for undersea nuclear reactors around the coast of France could see a boom in uptake of the technology – but serious questions about costs and waste remain unanswered
Robert Williams for the Ecologist guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 February 2011 11.35 GMT Since the oil shocks of the 1970's the French government has invested heavily in nuclear power. At that time, most of the electricity in France came from oil fired power stations, and the oil was imported mostly from the Middle East. With no oil or gas fields of its own and coal fields almost exhausted, it began a large-scale nuclear energy programme.
There are now 58 nuclear reactors in France, which provide nearly 80 per cent of the country's electricity supply. Now, in a bid to bring dependable energy to remote coastal communities, the French government has decided to give the green light to a different kind of nuclear power programme - smaller nuclear reactors to be based on the ocean floor.
In January, France's naval construction firm DCNS agreed on a joint two-year study of a concept for submerged nuclear power plants together with French company Areva, Electricité de France and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Promoters say these could provide energy for millions of people in coastal locations worldwide.
The concept for the nuclear submarine, known as FlexBlue, involves a cylindrical vessel about 100 meters long and 15 meters in diameter that would encase a complete nuclear power plant with an electrical capacity of between 50 MW and 250 MW. By comparison Sizewell B power station in Suffolk has an output of almost 1200MW.
Flexblue would comprise a small nuclear reactor, a steam turbine-alternator set, an electrical plant and associated electrical equipment. Submarine power cables would carry electricity from the Flexblue plant to the coast.
With costs significantly cheaper than traditional onshore reactors - estimated at several hundred million Euros compared to about 5 billion Euros for a full-sized reactor - French engineers believe it could lead to a boom in the uptake of nuclear power.
The French are not the only ones interested in offshore nuclear power. The Russians have already developed the design for a floating nuclear power plant which uses two 70-MW reactors derived from those used in Russian submarines and icebreakers and launched a prototype last year.
The French's flexblue plants would be designed to be moored on a stable seafloor at a depth of 60 to 100 metres a few kilometres off shore. A system of ballast tanks would be used to raise or lower the plant during installation and for major maintenance, refuelling or dismantling.
The reactors would be adapted for continuous power generation. Flexblue would use power plants of a standard design requiring very limited site-specific tailoring. This makes these plants fundamentally different from land-based nuclear power plants, which must be tailored in terms of civil engineering to accommodate local site constraints.
Flexblue nuclear plants would be stationary subsea installations with no independent means of propulsion. They would be transported by purpose-built vessels similar to those currently used to install offshore platforms. These same vessels would carry Flexblue plants to approved shipyards for refuelling, major maintenance and eventual dismantling.
DCNS aims to design Flexblue plants so that they can be remotely controlled from a shore-based facility. Each plant would, however, include an onboard control room giving operators local control over critical operations, including startup and some maintenance phases. The plant would also be directly accessible at all times by mini-submersibles. Maintenance would be based on proven procedures similar to those used by DCNS for many years to maintain, update and extend the life of naval vessels.
The cost of the reactors is estimated to be in the region of several hundred million Euros, compared to about 5 billion Euros for a full-sized reactor. DCNS Chairman and CEO Patrick Boissier said, 'preliminary studies show that we should be compatible with the cost of renewable energies, and better than solar power.'
Long-term storage plans for highly radioactive waste are still to be decided but DCNS confirmed all dismantling and decommissioning would be done onshore.The company claims that Flexblue plants would be designed from the outset to prevent any contact between nuclear materials and the marine environment. Underwater submersion would also provide a natural means of cooling the reactor, they say, as well as enhancing security, and the only substance released into the environment would be the seawater used for cooling.
Cores would be protected by three barriers: fuel cladding, reactor vessel and hull. The designers argue that immersion in sea water would ensure an infinite natural means of passive cooling and permit inherent safety and security. In addition, each plant would also be protected against potential intruders. The French argue that a submerged power plant would be less vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, or floods, and would be far less vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Sceptics are concerned that warmer water released from the reactors could be dangerous for local ecosystem. And, should there be a nuclear accident 'the sea will be destroyed,' according to the President of Anti-nuclear organisation Crilan, based in Cherbourg. 'The fierce warming-up of the water will cause a massive thermal shock that will destroy sea life.'
However, supporters of Flexblue have attempted to downplay concerns suggesting the undersea reactors would be based entirely on proven technologies, simply combined in a new way. They say with two-thirds of the world's population currently living within 80 kilometres of the sea the new technology could make nuclear power more attractive to countries. For more remote locations, the nuclear reactors could allow for a fast and efficient way to add electrical supply to the region without needing any surface-based infrastructure, including the kind of supply systems needed for coal or oil-powered stations.
Robert Williams for the Ecologist guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 February 2011 11.35 GMT Since the oil shocks of the 1970's the French government has invested heavily in nuclear power. At that time, most of the electricity in France came from oil fired power stations, and the oil was imported mostly from the Middle East. With no oil or gas fields of its own and coal fields almost exhausted, it began a large-scale nuclear energy programme.
There are now 58 nuclear reactors in France, which provide nearly 80 per cent of the country's electricity supply. Now, in a bid to bring dependable energy to remote coastal communities, the French government has decided to give the green light to a different kind of nuclear power programme - smaller nuclear reactors to be based on the ocean floor.
In January, France's naval construction firm DCNS agreed on a joint two-year study of a concept for submerged nuclear power plants together with French company Areva, Electricité de France and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Promoters say these could provide energy for millions of people in coastal locations worldwide.
The concept for the nuclear submarine, known as FlexBlue, involves a cylindrical vessel about 100 meters long and 15 meters in diameter that would encase a complete nuclear power plant with an electrical capacity of between 50 MW and 250 MW. By comparison Sizewell B power station in Suffolk has an output of almost 1200MW.
Flexblue would comprise a small nuclear reactor, a steam turbine-alternator set, an electrical plant and associated electrical equipment. Submarine power cables would carry electricity from the Flexblue plant to the coast.
With costs significantly cheaper than traditional onshore reactors - estimated at several hundred million Euros compared to about 5 billion Euros for a full-sized reactor - French engineers believe it could lead to a boom in the uptake of nuclear power.
The French are not the only ones interested in offshore nuclear power. The Russians have already developed the design for a floating nuclear power plant which uses two 70-MW reactors derived from those used in Russian submarines and icebreakers and launched a prototype last year.
The French's flexblue plants would be designed to be moored on a stable seafloor at a depth of 60 to 100 metres a few kilometres off shore. A system of ballast tanks would be used to raise or lower the plant during installation and for major maintenance, refuelling or dismantling.
The reactors would be adapted for continuous power generation. Flexblue would use power plants of a standard design requiring very limited site-specific tailoring. This makes these plants fundamentally different from land-based nuclear power plants, which must be tailored in terms of civil engineering to accommodate local site constraints.
Flexblue nuclear plants would be stationary subsea installations with no independent means of propulsion. They would be transported by purpose-built vessels similar to those currently used to install offshore platforms. These same vessels would carry Flexblue plants to approved shipyards for refuelling, major maintenance and eventual dismantling.
DCNS aims to design Flexblue plants so that they can be remotely controlled from a shore-based facility. Each plant would, however, include an onboard control room giving operators local control over critical operations, including startup and some maintenance phases. The plant would also be directly accessible at all times by mini-submersibles. Maintenance would be based on proven procedures similar to those used by DCNS for many years to maintain, update and extend the life of naval vessels.
The cost of the reactors is estimated to be in the region of several hundred million Euros, compared to about 5 billion Euros for a full-sized reactor. DCNS Chairman and CEO Patrick Boissier said, 'preliminary studies show that we should be compatible with the cost of renewable energies, and better than solar power.'
Long-term storage plans for highly radioactive waste are still to be decided but DCNS confirmed all dismantling and decommissioning would be done onshore.The company claims that Flexblue plants would be designed from the outset to prevent any contact between nuclear materials and the marine environment. Underwater submersion would also provide a natural means of cooling the reactor, they say, as well as enhancing security, and the only substance released into the environment would be the seawater used for cooling.
Cores would be protected by three barriers: fuel cladding, reactor vessel and hull. The designers argue that immersion in sea water would ensure an infinite natural means of passive cooling and permit inherent safety and security. In addition, each plant would also be protected against potential intruders. The French argue that a submerged power plant would be less vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, or floods, and would be far less vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Sceptics are concerned that warmer water released from the reactors could be dangerous for local ecosystem. And, should there be a nuclear accident 'the sea will be destroyed,' according to the President of Anti-nuclear organisation Crilan, based in Cherbourg. 'The fierce warming-up of the water will cause a massive thermal shock that will destroy sea life.'
However, supporters of Flexblue have attempted to downplay concerns suggesting the undersea reactors would be based entirely on proven technologies, simply combined in a new way. They say with two-thirds of the world's population currently living within 80 kilometres of the sea the new technology could make nuclear power more attractive to countries. For more remote locations, the nuclear reactors could allow for a fast and efficient way to add electrical supply to the region without needing any surface-based infrastructure, including the kind of supply systems needed for coal or oil-powered stations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
