Germany may be determined to abandon nuclear but elsewhere in Europe countries including the UK are embracing the technology.
By Louise Gray
France, home to 58 of 143 reactors in the EU, has traditionally been the cheerleader for nuclear.
The country generates more than 75 per cent of electricity from nuclear and President Sarkozy said it was "out of the question" to end nuclear power after Fukishima.
France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany.
In fact France has plans to expand nuclear both at home and abroad.
France is so good at building nuclear power stations, it is likely to be the main company developing new plants in Britain.
MUK ministers recently said there would be a nuclear renaissance bigger than the 1950s.
The UK currently has 18 reactors generating about 18 per cent of its electricity.
All but one of these will be retired by 2023 but there are plans to build up to ten new plants, with the help of the French.
By 2030, it is predicted nuclear could provide a third of electricity, alongside a third from ‘clean’ fossil fuels and a third from renewables.
That leaves just Germany, that has promised to go nuclear free by 2022, out in the cold.
However this could be tough. Until recently Germany got 23 per cent of its power from its 17 nuclear reactors, nine of which are currently running at full capacity.
Green campaigners claim the country can lead the way by making up for the loss of nuclear with renewables but businesses fear this will put up energy prices and cause black outs.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Andhra Pradesh at the forefront of Indian 'coal rush'
Energy generated from new coal-power stations in this single state could eclipse emissions from an entire country
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 July 2011 14.03 BST
A single Indian state is to build a new fleet of coal-power stations that could make it one of the world's top 20 emitters of carbon emissions – on a par with countries such as Spain or Poland.
The proposed coal plants in the south-eastern state of Andhra Pradesh are part of a wider Indian "coal rush" to bring power to the country's hundreds of millions living without electricity. They face opposition from local people and environmental NGOs who warn of farmland being turned over to opencast mines and coasts being threatened with pollution from ports that will handle coal.
In an echo of the Chinese economy in the 1990s which depended on the exploitation of vast reserves of coal, India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
The epicentre is Andhra Pradesh which, with a population is 84.7 million people, is now expanding its power production by 800%. Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW. In comparison, the UK's installed electricity capacity is 75GW, but is expected to rise to 100GW in the next two decades. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
But, say activists, the Indian coal rush is being met by opposition, deaths and violent repression. Local protesters in Andra Pradesh say that the power will mostly be exported to large cities, heavy industry and neighbouring states, while local people are left with a legacy of pollution and toxic dumps.
"In many areas locals have protested against proposed coal plants," Babu Rao, a former Indian government official turned anti-coal activist, said in a statement. "We have had several reports of the police reacting violently against protesters, intimidating villagers, as they struggle to protect their livelihood and habitats."
"The sheer scale of this expansion has left local communities to bear the brunt of an increasingly violent onslaught of land acquisition and displacement, corruption and intimidation, and a toxic legacy of localised pollution," Justin Guay, of the US Sierra Club's International climate programme, blogged recently.
But India's breakneck economic development has also led to protests over power shortages in cities and industries unable to meet orders.
Growing frustration at the government's decison to block the expansion of coal mines in some of India's most heavily polluted coalfield areas is thought to have contributed to this week's removal of Jairam Ramesh from the environment ministry.
Ramesh was widely blamed by the coal and power ministries for delaying mine expansion approvals and for India not meeting its coal production targets. Ramesh relaxed rules for coal developers under intense pressure in the days before he was moved, but bans on new mining in several hundred blocks with a potential of over 600m tonnes of coal remain.
Separately this week, international watchdog groups also complained that Indian coal companies were trying to earn hundreds of millions of carbon credits from the coal expansion. The Krishnapatnam plant has been registered with the UN clean development mechanism (CDM) and, if approved, could generate 3.5m carbon credits a year.
Eva Filzmoser, director of the CDM Watch group in Germany, wrote in a recent statement: "The registration of the coastal Andhra project brings the total number of coal projects registered to five, representing roughly 68m credits worth over €680m. With another 31 projects in the pipeline, potentially generating hundreds of millions of artificial credits worth billions of euros in windfall profits, there is an urgent need to suspend this methodology."
Reliance, the plant owner, says that UN funds are needed to build a plant using the most advanced anti pollution technology but critics counter that India's "ultra mega"-sized plants must by law be equipped with such equipment.
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 July 2011 14.03 BST
A single Indian state is to build a new fleet of coal-power stations that could make it one of the world's top 20 emitters of carbon emissions – on a par with countries such as Spain or Poland.
The proposed coal plants in the south-eastern state of Andhra Pradesh are part of a wider Indian "coal rush" to bring power to the country's hundreds of millions living without electricity. They face opposition from local people and environmental NGOs who warn of farmland being turned over to opencast mines and coasts being threatened with pollution from ports that will handle coal.
In an echo of the Chinese economy in the 1990s which depended on the exploitation of vast reserves of coal, India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
The epicentre is Andhra Pradesh which, with a population is 84.7 million people, is now expanding its power production by 800%. Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW. In comparison, the UK's installed electricity capacity is 75GW, but is expected to rise to 100GW in the next two decades. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
But, say activists, the Indian coal rush is being met by opposition, deaths and violent repression. Local protesters in Andra Pradesh say that the power will mostly be exported to large cities, heavy industry and neighbouring states, while local people are left with a legacy of pollution and toxic dumps.
"In many areas locals have protested against proposed coal plants," Babu Rao, a former Indian government official turned anti-coal activist, said in a statement. "We have had several reports of the police reacting violently against protesters, intimidating villagers, as they struggle to protect their livelihood and habitats."
"The sheer scale of this expansion has left local communities to bear the brunt of an increasingly violent onslaught of land acquisition and displacement, corruption and intimidation, and a toxic legacy of localised pollution," Justin Guay, of the US Sierra Club's International climate programme, blogged recently.
But India's breakneck economic development has also led to protests over power shortages in cities and industries unable to meet orders.
Growing frustration at the government's decison to block the expansion of coal mines in some of India's most heavily polluted coalfield areas is thought to have contributed to this week's removal of Jairam Ramesh from the environment ministry.
Ramesh was widely blamed by the coal and power ministries for delaying mine expansion approvals and for India not meeting its coal production targets. Ramesh relaxed rules for coal developers under intense pressure in the days before he was moved, but bans on new mining in several hundred blocks with a potential of over 600m tonnes of coal remain.
Separately this week, international watchdog groups also complained that Indian coal companies were trying to earn hundreds of millions of carbon credits from the coal expansion. The Krishnapatnam plant has been registered with the UN clean development mechanism (CDM) and, if approved, could generate 3.5m carbon credits a year.
Eva Filzmoser, director of the CDM Watch group in Germany, wrote in a recent statement: "The registration of the coastal Andhra project brings the total number of coal projects registered to five, representing roughly 68m credits worth over €680m. With another 31 projects in the pipeline, potentially generating hundreds of millions of artificial credits worth billions of euros in windfall profits, there is an urgent need to suspend this methodology."
Reliance, the plant owner, says that UN funds are needed to build a plant using the most advanced anti pollution technology but critics counter that India's "ultra mega"-sized plants must by law be equipped with such equipment.
A research revolution to save the planet
If promises are kept, development finance is set to rise to $100bn. Shouldn't we be investing this money in developing clean technologies?
At a workshop on climate change and the media, held by the Asia Europe Foundation ahead of the annual Asia Europe summit, I was struck by an argument put forward by Shell. One of their senior officials presented the company's forecast of energy needs in 2050. According to Shell, there will be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050 but, if everyone uses energy like theUS, it will be like having a planet of 72 billion people. Hopefully they won't, so according to Shell's guestimates, energy demand is likely to rise by about 64% in the developing world, and by 3% in the already industrialised world.
Overall, Shell reckons the world will need to be producing about twice as much energy in 2050 as we are today. But given climate constraints, this energy will have to be delivered with half as much CO2 pollution. How?
The main block to clean energy is making it affordable. With the technology we currently have, for the same unit of energy, coal costs $0.04, gas $0.08, wind $0.12 and solar a whopping $0.20.
The price of dirty energy has clearly got to go up. Coal provides 40% of the world's energy, today, but in the US 80% of CO2 from power generation is from coal. This has a lot to do with absurd subsidies that are literally paying people to ruin the planet.
Somehow the cost of renewable energy has got to come down. Shell wants us to be realistic about how fast renewable technologies can come on stream in a big way. Liquid Natural Gas technology was first developed in 1964 and it produces just 2% of world energy. Wind energy started in the 1970s and produces just 1% today. To get those percentages into double digits will take decades, at that rate of technological advance.
But while Shell's forecasting is certainly worth listening to, they get it wrong on technology. In decades past, investment in research and development to bring technologies forward has been a fraction of what was required. If we were to invest more, progress would be rapid. It is the difference between having 1,000 universities working on a problem instead of 100.
Deep K Datta-Ray, of the Times of India, says India's position on climate change had shifted dramatically in recent years. The continent has gone from being reticent about accepting responsibility to act - arguing that India's impact on global warming has been minimal, and it already faced with the problem of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - to taking a strategic decision to become a climate change leader.
What prompted the change of heart? Simple. Forget the international wrangling over whose fault it is, it is in India's national interest to act, based on a basic cost-benefit analysis.
First, 70% of Indians depend in some way on agriculture. The smallest shift in the timing of the monsoon, or in the amount of rainfall, drastically affects agricultural yields.
Second, 300 million people live by the coast – a rise in sea levels matters.
Third, glaciers are retreating in the north of India, directly affecting the huge water needs the country has.
And fourth, there is a tension between the need to continue to extract raw materials for development and export, while at the same time protecting the greenest parts of India, where these materials are found.
With clean technology incorporated into the manufacturing base, the products required to lift millions of Indians from poverty could be made with much less carbon pollution.
The key is what India is doing about it. While China has become the world's manufacturing hub in recent years and India wants to become its research hub. Billions of dollars have already been set aside for research. The main focus of Indian civil servants at the Cancun summit was influencing the agreement's section on technology, because that is where it believes it has the most to offer, and the most to gain.
Crucially, India's ability to make significant changes rapidly is similar to that of China's. Some 70% of economic activity is carried out by the Indian state even after years of liberalisation, meaning that ideas formulated in the centre can be spread to different localities across the huge sub-continent to see what works. In contrast, President Obama is struggling to get even a minimal cut in US emissions of 2% to 3% on 1990 levels through Congress.
Pessimism about the speed with which humanity can develop clean energy is misplaced. Research is the missing factor in the predictions made by Shell and others. But it won't come cheap. While India and China (which has the world's largest solar power industry) continue to invest in research out of clear national self interest, and while pioneers in Europe and the US do the same, the international community should use its money smartly.
Climate finance is the new kid on the block in international development finance, set to rise to US$100bn by 2030 if promises are kept. That is almost as much as the entire aid budget. But so far almost none of it is allocated to research and development. Instead, complex schemes paying poor countries to produce less CO2 and helping them cope with a changing climate are being developed.
As a thought experiment, just imagine what would happen if all that money were invested in research instead of preparing for climatic crisis? Might an R&D revolution in clean technology actually save the planet?
At a workshop on climate change and the media, held by the Asia Europe Foundation ahead of the annual Asia Europe summit, I was struck by an argument put forward by Shell. One of their senior officials presented the company's forecast of energy needs in 2050. According to Shell, there will be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050 but, if everyone uses energy like theUS, it will be like having a planet of 72 billion people. Hopefully they won't, so according to Shell's guestimates, energy demand is likely to rise by about 64% in the developing world, and by 3% in the already industrialised world.
Overall, Shell reckons the world will need to be producing about twice as much energy in 2050 as we are today. But given climate constraints, this energy will have to be delivered with half as much CO2 pollution. How?
The main block to clean energy is making it affordable. With the technology we currently have, for the same unit of energy, coal costs $0.04, gas $0.08, wind $0.12 and solar a whopping $0.20.
The price of dirty energy has clearly got to go up. Coal provides 40% of the world's energy, today, but in the US 80% of CO2 from power generation is from coal. This has a lot to do with absurd subsidies that are literally paying people to ruin the planet.
Somehow the cost of renewable energy has got to come down. Shell wants us to be realistic about how fast renewable technologies can come on stream in a big way. Liquid Natural Gas technology was first developed in 1964 and it produces just 2% of world energy. Wind energy started in the 1970s and produces just 1% today. To get those percentages into double digits will take decades, at that rate of technological advance.
But while Shell's forecasting is certainly worth listening to, they get it wrong on technology. In decades past, investment in research and development to bring technologies forward has been a fraction of what was required. If we were to invest more, progress would be rapid. It is the difference between having 1,000 universities working on a problem instead of 100.
Deep K Datta-Ray, of the Times of India, says India's position on climate change had shifted dramatically in recent years. The continent has gone from being reticent about accepting responsibility to act - arguing that India's impact on global warming has been minimal, and it already faced with the problem of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - to taking a strategic decision to become a climate change leader.
What prompted the change of heart? Simple. Forget the international wrangling over whose fault it is, it is in India's national interest to act, based on a basic cost-benefit analysis.
First, 70% of Indians depend in some way on agriculture. The smallest shift in the timing of the monsoon, or in the amount of rainfall, drastically affects agricultural yields.
Second, 300 million people live by the coast – a rise in sea levels matters.
Third, glaciers are retreating in the north of India, directly affecting the huge water needs the country has.
And fourth, there is a tension between the need to continue to extract raw materials for development and export, while at the same time protecting the greenest parts of India, where these materials are found.
With clean technology incorporated into the manufacturing base, the products required to lift millions of Indians from poverty could be made with much less carbon pollution.
The key is what India is doing about it. While China has become the world's manufacturing hub in recent years and India wants to become its research hub. Billions of dollars have already been set aside for research. The main focus of Indian civil servants at the Cancun summit was influencing the agreement's section on technology, because that is where it believes it has the most to offer, and the most to gain.
Crucially, India's ability to make significant changes rapidly is similar to that of China's. Some 70% of economic activity is carried out by the Indian state even after years of liberalisation, meaning that ideas formulated in the centre can be spread to different localities across the huge sub-continent to see what works. In contrast, President Obama is struggling to get even a minimal cut in US emissions of 2% to 3% on 1990 levels through Congress.
Pessimism about the speed with which humanity can develop clean energy is misplaced. Research is the missing factor in the predictions made by Shell and others. But it won't come cheap. While India and China (which has the world's largest solar power industry) continue to invest in research out of clear national self interest, and while pioneers in Europe and the US do the same, the international community should use its money smartly.
Climate finance is the new kid on the block in international development finance, set to rise to US$100bn by 2030 if promises are kept. That is almost as much as the entire aid budget. But so far almost none of it is allocated to research and development. Instead, complex schemes paying poor countries to produce less CO2 and helping them cope with a changing climate are being developed.
As a thought experiment, just imagine what would happen if all that money were invested in research instead of preparing for climatic crisis? Might an R&D revolution in clean technology actually save the planet?