Britain is on the brink of the "biggest nuclear renaissance since the 1950s", the Government has claimed, despite fears over the recent disaster in Japan and questions over radioactive waste.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Days after Germany announced it was going nuclear-free, Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said the UK will build a new generation of power stations.
He said that the eight sites earmarked for new reactors will could offer 5,000 jobs, as well as supplying a cheap form of low carbon electricity as coal-fired power stations close down.
Addressing a nuclear industry association conference in London, he will also hit back at criticism that Government officials conferred with the nuclear industry over how to deal with the public relations fall-out from the crisis at Japan's tsunami-hit Fukushima reactor.
According to emails released under Freedom of Information, one official warned the disaster threatened to "set the nuclear industry back globally" and said it was vital not to let anti-nuclear campaigners use it to gain a publicity coup.
There is also renewed concern about nuclear following an explosion at a French nuclear power station. The blaze at the Tricastin plant in Drôme in the Rhône valley came just two days after the authorities found 32 safety concerns at the plant.
In his speech, which comes after the Government confirmed eight sites where new nuclear plants could be developed adjacent to existing reactors, he will say the reaction to Fukushima was "sensible, proportionate and based on the facts".
He will tell the industry: "I want people inside and outside of this room to be in no doubt - the Government's response during and after Fukushima has been based on solid evidence and the advice of the chief nuclear inspector."
He will also say: "The UK has everything to gain from becoming the number-one destination to invest in new nuclear.
"Nuclear is the cheapest low-carbon source of electricity around, so it can keep bills down and the lights on.
"The wider economic benefit cannot be over-emphasised - around 5,000 jobs could be on offer at each of the eight sites we listed as suitable for development, and as we develop a domestic supply chain, all parts of the country could gain from a nuclear resurgence."
He will add: "We are on the brink of the biggest nuclear renaissance since the 1950s.
"The 16 gigawatts of new nuclear generation planned by industry equates to investment of around £50 billion with the construction of each reactor delivering investment equivalent to that for the 2012 Olympics."
The coalition Government is backing a new generation of nuclear power, despite previous Liberal Democrat opposition to the technology, with ministers insisting it will not be subsidised by tax-payers.
But the Government has been accused of bringing in hidden subsidies, for example in proposals to reform the electricity market which could favour nuclear but not other forms of low-carbon energy such as renewables.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem Energy and Climate Change minister, faces a rebellion from his own party over the issue.
A large group of backbenchers are gearing up to rebel against a key section of the government’s finance bill which focuses on the so called 'hidden subsidies' like the carbon floor price.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
China’s power stations generate ‘future spike’ in global warming
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Sulphur pollutants from coal-fired power stations in China have tended to cool the global climate over the past decade in contrast to the warming effect resulting from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, scientists have found.
A study has shown that the levelling of global average surface temperatures between 1998 and 2009 can be explained by the cooling effect resulting from the sulphur-containing gases emitted from mainly Chinese power stations over the same time period.
Although carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past decade, surface temperatures have not followed the same rapid increase seen in the previous three decades, which has led some climate sceptics to suggest that global warming this century has "stopped".
However, a study by Robert Kaufmann, of Boston University, and his colleagues has discovered that the levelling off of surface temperatures during this period can be explained by the sulphate particles released into the atmosphere from coal-burning power stations. This has the effect of reflecting sunlight and heat away from Earth.
"Humans affect the climate in two ways. They warm it by emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and they cool it by emitting sulphur in the form of sulphate particles which have the effect of reflecting sunlight," Dr Kaufmann said.
"The rapid growth of the Chinese economy over the past decade and the amount of coal they used to fuel it has tended to cool the climate, which offset to some extent the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions," he said.
"This means that taken together, humans have had relatively little effect overall on global average surface temperatures over the 10 years, which means that natural fluctuations have predominated," he added.
Between 1998 and 2007, Chinese power stations doubled the amount of coal they burned, from 1,392 million tons to 2,892 million tons. Many plants did not have clean-air "scrubbers" to take out sulphur-containing pollutants. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, points out that 1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of El Nino, a Pacific Ocean climate phenomenon that tends to warm the global climate. After 1998, global surface temperatures showed little warming until 2009, when they rose again.
The scientists used a computer model of the climate to show that natural fluctuations, such as variations in solar activity as measured by the record low in sunspots, cannot on their own explain the observation.
Simon Lewis, of the University of Leeds, said that the study could be easily misinterpreted: "While sulphur emissions do have a cooling effect, this is only short-term. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a long-term planetary warming."
Sulphur pollutants from coal-fired power stations in China have tended to cool the global climate over the past decade in contrast to the warming effect resulting from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, scientists have found.
A study has shown that the levelling of global average surface temperatures between 1998 and 2009 can be explained by the cooling effect resulting from the sulphur-containing gases emitted from mainly Chinese power stations over the same time period.
Although carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past decade, surface temperatures have not followed the same rapid increase seen in the previous three decades, which has led some climate sceptics to suggest that global warming this century has "stopped".
However, a study by Robert Kaufmann, of Boston University, and his colleagues has discovered that the levelling off of surface temperatures during this period can be explained by the sulphate particles released into the atmosphere from coal-burning power stations. This has the effect of reflecting sunlight and heat away from Earth.
"Humans affect the climate in two ways. They warm it by emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and they cool it by emitting sulphur in the form of sulphate particles which have the effect of reflecting sunlight," Dr Kaufmann said.
"The rapid growth of the Chinese economy over the past decade and the amount of coal they used to fuel it has tended to cool the climate, which offset to some extent the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions," he said.
"This means that taken together, humans have had relatively little effect overall on global average surface temperatures over the 10 years, which means that natural fluctuations have predominated," he added.
Between 1998 and 2007, Chinese power stations doubled the amount of coal they burned, from 1,392 million tons to 2,892 million tons. Many plants did not have clean-air "scrubbers" to take out sulphur-containing pollutants. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, points out that 1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of El Nino, a Pacific Ocean climate phenomenon that tends to warm the global climate. After 1998, global surface temperatures showed little warming until 2009, when they rose again.
The scientists used a computer model of the climate to show that natural fluctuations, such as variations in solar activity as measured by the record low in sunspots, cannot on their own explain the observation.
Simon Lewis, of the University of Leeds, said that the study could be easily misinterpreted: "While sulphur emissions do have a cooling effect, this is only short-term. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a long-term planetary warming."
America's Newfound Energy
By LIAM DENNING
For all the talk of Uncle Sam being past his prime, he's surprisingly sprightly when it comes to one thing: energy production.
Amazingly, Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy that analyzes field data, foresees U.S. combined oil and gas output actually surpassing its prior 1972 peak in the early 2020s. Long-term declines in natural gas and oil output have reversed in recent years. On another front, coal exports in the year ended in March topped 90 million tons, up 42% and the highest level since the mid-1990s.
The coal industry is restructuring to take advantage of this. Big miners such as Arch Coal have led consolidation in the sector, aiming to control more metallurgical coal. This higher value coal, used in steel-making, is in great demand in China.
U.S. demand for coal has fallen this past decade and remains under pressure as power plant emissions standards tighten. However, demand elsewhere is expected to keep growing strongly. Recent floods in Australia, disrupting supplies from the world's biggest coal exporter, have encouraged buyers to diversify their sources. Apart from U.S. miners, that is good news for railroad operators such as CSX Corp. ferrying cargoes to and from ports.
With regards to gas, the current controversy about hydraulic fracturing of shale gas will prompt tougher regulation. But gas's combination of cleaner emissions relative to coal and low cost makes a broad ban highly unlikely. Last week, New York state's top environmental official recommended allowing hydraulic fracturing to go ahead, albeit with some restrictions.
Huge new shale gas reserves, creating excess supply, have kept U.S. prices stuck at less than half the level being paid in Europe and Asia. Owners of largely idle gas import terminals such as Cheniere Energy want to build export facilities alongside them to let excess supply escape the U.S. As and when this happens, it should serve to both raise U.S. gas prices to the benefit of producers and further globalize gas flows. That will put pressure on producers that historically enjoyed dominance in captive markets, such as Russia's Gazprom.
Cheaper gas-fired electricity, meanwhile, should displace more carbon-intensive coal-fired plants. It should also present a significant challenge to more expensive, less reliable low carbon technologies such as solar power. And it provides U.S. manufacturing with a cost advantage relative to other regions: Witness the revival of chemicals production by the likes of Dow Chemical utilizing cheaper natural gas liquids.
Similar to what's happened with shale gas, shale oil output from areas like the Bakken formation stretching beneath North Dakota and Montana is rising quickly. Rystad expects U.S. oil production, which bottomed out at 5.4 million barrels per day in 2008, to reach 7.4 million barrels per day by the end of the decade.
This won't win the U.S. independence from oil imports. But it is good news for U.S. refiners in the Midwest like newly listed Marathon Petroleum Corp. They have been enjoying the benefits of refining North American crude oils like West Texas Intermediate trading at discounts to foreign grades like Brent because, similar to gas, there isn't enough pipeline capacity to get it quickly to world markets. Extra domestic oil should bolster this trend until new pipelines are built.
Shifts in America's relative energy dependence tend to have far-reaching consequences: It's no coincidence that U.S. oil output peaked in the early 1970s, just before prices went haywire. The resurgence in Uncle Sam's energy output will also serve to shake up companies, markets and their investors.
For all the talk of Uncle Sam being past his prime, he's surprisingly sprightly when it comes to one thing: energy production.
Amazingly, Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy that analyzes field data, foresees U.S. combined oil and gas output actually surpassing its prior 1972 peak in the early 2020s. Long-term declines in natural gas and oil output have reversed in recent years. On another front, coal exports in the year ended in March topped 90 million tons, up 42% and the highest level since the mid-1990s.
The coal industry is restructuring to take advantage of this. Big miners such as Arch Coal have led consolidation in the sector, aiming to control more metallurgical coal. This higher value coal, used in steel-making, is in great demand in China.
U.S. demand for coal has fallen this past decade and remains under pressure as power plant emissions standards tighten. However, demand elsewhere is expected to keep growing strongly. Recent floods in Australia, disrupting supplies from the world's biggest coal exporter, have encouraged buyers to diversify their sources. Apart from U.S. miners, that is good news for railroad operators such as CSX Corp. ferrying cargoes to and from ports.
With regards to gas, the current controversy about hydraulic fracturing of shale gas will prompt tougher regulation. But gas's combination of cleaner emissions relative to coal and low cost makes a broad ban highly unlikely. Last week, New York state's top environmental official recommended allowing hydraulic fracturing to go ahead, albeit with some restrictions.
Huge new shale gas reserves, creating excess supply, have kept U.S. prices stuck at less than half the level being paid in Europe and Asia. Owners of largely idle gas import terminals such as Cheniere Energy want to build export facilities alongside them to let excess supply escape the U.S. As and when this happens, it should serve to both raise U.S. gas prices to the benefit of producers and further globalize gas flows. That will put pressure on producers that historically enjoyed dominance in captive markets, such as Russia's Gazprom.
Cheaper gas-fired electricity, meanwhile, should displace more carbon-intensive coal-fired plants. It should also present a significant challenge to more expensive, less reliable low carbon technologies such as solar power. And it provides U.S. manufacturing with a cost advantage relative to other regions: Witness the revival of chemicals production by the likes of Dow Chemical utilizing cheaper natural gas liquids.
Similar to what's happened with shale gas, shale oil output from areas like the Bakken formation stretching beneath North Dakota and Montana is rising quickly. Rystad expects U.S. oil production, which bottomed out at 5.4 million barrels per day in 2008, to reach 7.4 million barrels per day by the end of the decade.
This won't win the U.S. independence from oil imports. But it is good news for U.S. refiners in the Midwest like newly listed Marathon Petroleum Corp. They have been enjoying the benefits of refining North American crude oils like West Texas Intermediate trading at discounts to foreign grades like Brent because, similar to gas, there isn't enough pipeline capacity to get it quickly to world markets. Extra domestic oil should bolster this trend until new pipelines are built.
Shifts in America's relative energy dependence tend to have far-reaching consequences: It's no coincidence that U.S. oil output peaked in the early 1970s, just before prices went haywire. The resurgence in Uncle Sam's energy output will also serve to shake up companies, markets and their investors.
Solar energy is at a crossroads – and the government must do a U-turn
The government has a choice – invest in solar and create jobs, or slash subsidies and cripple British industrial growth
Mark Twain once said that he was "seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one". I sometimes wonder if this government, which seems so wilfully short-sighted when it comes to good opportunities, shares the same problem. The UK solar industry, currently standing at a crossroads, is a case in point.
At a meeting on solar power organised by the Renewable Energy Association in parliament last week, we saw strong evidence – including in a recent report by Ernst and Young (pdf) – that solar has huge potential to deliver affordable and secure energy, and can play a significant role in the decarbonisation of our economy.
But if the government sticks with its policy of slashing support for large-scale solar projects, the potential for the industry to flourish here in the UK will be completely undermined.
In its review of the responses to the feed-in tariffs (Fits) consultation, the government admits that while changes to Fits may have a negative impact on investor confidence in both the solar photovoltaics (PV) sector and other renewable energy sectors, it is determined to make them because "the need for fiscal responsibility across all areas of government spending is a key objective of the coalition government."
From the outset, the government has looked at feed-in tariffs throughthe wrong end of the telescope. It has asked how little it could get away with spending in the short term and worked forwards from there – rather than looking ahead to the huge benefits that could come from significant investment, and working backwards.
Ministers are completely wrong to argue that the Fits programme has become an expensive measure that needs to be controlled. In the first year of the feed-in tariff, the actual spend on the scheme was only £11m. And that is not £11m just for solar – it is £11m for all technologies.
They are also wrong to suggest that Fits are adding unacceptably to energy bills. While I would prefer to see support for solar and other renewables coming from general taxation instead of from levies on bills, I do think it is important to keep things in perspective.
Last year, the cost of the solar Fit on a typical household energy bill was less than 1p per month. And the forecast cost of the domestic levy for all renewables support in this financial year is £1 – or just 0.08% of a typical household energy bill.
And the irony is that in opposition, current members of the government criticised the last government for its "modest" PV Fit scheme. The Liberal Democrats, in particular, went into the last election promising to triple the ambition of Labour's offer – saying Labour weren't doing enough. Yet now the government wants to do even less.
The evidence in favour of a different approach is overwhelming; with the right investment now, solar power can be cheaper, or at least no more expensive than average energy to produce (so-called grid parity), in the UK within a few years – and in countries with better-supported solar industries, much sooner than that.
The strength of feeling against the changes is clear – 81% of respondents to the Fit review disagreed with the proposed reduction of support for solar, and all respondents who commented on the largest PV generation band felt that the proposed tariff would not provide sufficient incentive for any installations at this scale.
This is bad news for jobs, bad news for the economy and bad news for the environment. Because despite our famously unreliable weather, the UK receives very similar levels of irradiation (sunlight) to Germany – which now employs 100,000 people in its solar industry (around 10 times the number employed in the UK). Ernst and Young's analysis clearly shows that our government is putting similar potential benefits for the UK at risk.
It is particularly frustrating that the government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, has failed to appreciate the worth of a more dynamic approach, arguing instead that solar power remains too expensive in the short term and that the UK should instead buy in renewable power from overseas later.
Compare this with the huge financial support that has been given to nuclear for decades. The government is so committed to reviving nuclear in the UK that the Commons energy and climate change select committee recently warned that the government risks distorting its planned reform of the entire electricity market .
Solar power has had a fraction of the support that nuclear has received over many years. In the short term, a gap remains between costs and returns: profitability is not currently possible without Fit support. Which means that fast-tracked reviews and slash-and-burn policies simply scare off many investors.
Given the potential of the solar industry to speed the UK's transition to a sustainable economy, hopefully the government will reconsider its solar policy. This would be yet another coalition U-turn that I would welcome.
Mark Twain once said that he was "seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one". I sometimes wonder if this government, which seems so wilfully short-sighted when it comes to good opportunities, shares the same problem. The UK solar industry, currently standing at a crossroads, is a case in point.
At a meeting on solar power organised by the Renewable Energy Association in parliament last week, we saw strong evidence – including in a recent report by Ernst and Young (pdf) – that solar has huge potential to deliver affordable and secure energy, and can play a significant role in the decarbonisation of our economy.
But if the government sticks with its policy of slashing support for large-scale solar projects, the potential for the industry to flourish here in the UK will be completely undermined.
In its review of the responses to the feed-in tariffs (Fits) consultation, the government admits that while changes to Fits may have a negative impact on investor confidence in both the solar photovoltaics (PV) sector and other renewable energy sectors, it is determined to make them because "the need for fiscal responsibility across all areas of government spending is a key objective of the coalition government."
From the outset, the government has looked at feed-in tariffs throughthe wrong end of the telescope. It has asked how little it could get away with spending in the short term and worked forwards from there – rather than looking ahead to the huge benefits that could come from significant investment, and working backwards.
Ministers are completely wrong to argue that the Fits programme has become an expensive measure that needs to be controlled. In the first year of the feed-in tariff, the actual spend on the scheme was only £11m. And that is not £11m just for solar – it is £11m for all technologies.
They are also wrong to suggest that Fits are adding unacceptably to energy bills. While I would prefer to see support for solar and other renewables coming from general taxation instead of from levies on bills, I do think it is important to keep things in perspective.
Last year, the cost of the solar Fit on a typical household energy bill was less than 1p per month. And the forecast cost of the domestic levy for all renewables support in this financial year is £1 – or just 0.08% of a typical household energy bill.
And the irony is that in opposition, current members of the government criticised the last government for its "modest" PV Fit scheme. The Liberal Democrats, in particular, went into the last election promising to triple the ambition of Labour's offer – saying Labour weren't doing enough. Yet now the government wants to do even less.
The evidence in favour of a different approach is overwhelming; with the right investment now, solar power can be cheaper, or at least no more expensive than average energy to produce (so-called grid parity), in the UK within a few years – and in countries with better-supported solar industries, much sooner than that.
The strength of feeling against the changes is clear – 81% of respondents to the Fit review disagreed with the proposed reduction of support for solar, and all respondents who commented on the largest PV generation band felt that the proposed tariff would not provide sufficient incentive for any installations at this scale.
This is bad news for jobs, bad news for the economy and bad news for the environment. Because despite our famously unreliable weather, the UK receives very similar levels of irradiation (sunlight) to Germany – which now employs 100,000 people in its solar industry (around 10 times the number employed in the UK). Ernst and Young's analysis clearly shows that our government is putting similar potential benefits for the UK at risk.
It is particularly frustrating that the government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, has failed to appreciate the worth of a more dynamic approach, arguing instead that solar power remains too expensive in the short term and that the UK should instead buy in renewable power from overseas later.
Compare this with the huge financial support that has been given to nuclear for decades. The government is so committed to reviving nuclear in the UK that the Commons energy and climate change select committee recently warned that the government risks distorting its planned reform of the entire electricity market .
Solar power has had a fraction of the support that nuclear has received over many years. In the short term, a gap remains between costs and returns: profitability is not currently possible without Fit support. Which means that fast-tracked reviews and slash-and-burn policies simply scare off many investors.
Given the potential of the solar industry to speed the UK's transition to a sustainable economy, hopefully the government will reconsider its solar policy. This would be yet another coalition U-turn that I would welcome.