UK's marine energy firms will be left trailing in their rivals' wake unless ministers take more visionary approach, MPs warn
Matt Chorley
Sunday 19 February 2012
Britain's dream of leading the world in harnessing the power of the sea is in danger of being sunk by risk-averse, under-ambitious policymakers who are letting foreign rivals dominate a multibillion-pound industry. An influential Commons committee warns that without a "more visionary" approach from ministers and officials, the development of wave and tidal technology will stall and other countries will steal a march on British firms.
Experts believe that up to 20 per cent of the UK's electricity could one day come from devices deployed around the coastline. But the technology is still in its infancy, and a report today from the Energy and Climate Change Committee warns that Britain could cede its pioneering status to other countries unless ministers intervene.
"Britannia really could rule the waves when it comes to marine renewable energy," said Tim Yeo, the Tory MP who chairs the committee. "We are extremely well placed to lead the world in wave and tidal technologies, which could bring significant benefits in manufacturing and jobs, as well an abundant supply of reliable, low-carbon electricity."
But there are fears of history repeating itself. Britain once led the world in wind-power technology, but was leapfrogged by Denmark, which offered financial backing through feed-in tariffs and saw its industry grow dramatically to become the world's leading supplier of turbines.
The Government has a target for 200-300MW of marine capacity by 2020. It is estimated that by 2050 the industry could be worth £340bn worldwide, with Britain potentially able to claim a £76bn share with the creation of 68,000 jobs. The UK has the largest wave and tidal resource in Europe. Unlike wind or solar, wave power is less variable from hour to hour and can be forecast days in advance. There is also a good match between periods of high production and seasonal electricity demand.
The committee raises doubts about the level of public funding available for marine renewables and the way it is administered. The Department for Energy and Climate Change has created a £20m fund and the Scottish Government has £18m available. London and Edinburgh are urged to work together closely to pool the cash, so developers are not forced to bid twice for small pots of money.
At present the cost of generating electricity from a wave farm is around four times that of an onshore wind farm. Stephen Wyatt, head of technology accelerator at the Carbon Trust, said: "Accelerating the pace of cost reduction further will require greater levels of innovation support for the industry."
The select committee took evidence from scientists, industry leaders, environmentalists and ministers. Its report says the absence of ambitious long-term targets for the deployment of marine renewables is hampering investor confidence, and suggests significant public sector investment will be needed. The costs of wave and tidal power schemes are expected to fall by 2020 to a level that makes it commercially viable.
Better connections to the national grid will also be needed, along with a commitment to developing the engineering skills needed to make the industry a global success.
Using the sea to generate power has long been a dream for environmentalists but the development of viable equipment has had a chequered history. In 2008, an "inverted windmill" was lowered into the mouth of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland; it was the first device of its kind in the world, heralding hopes of a sea-power revolution. Other trials followed. Of the eight tidal and wave trials worldwide, seven are taking place in Britain. Most are around the Orkneys, where the European Marine Energy-testing Centre is located. Other key sites include Strangford Lough and north Cornwall, which is expected to become a key test bed for leading companies.
In 2010 the coalition pulled the plug on the idea of a 10-mile, £30bn barrage across the Severn estuary, arguing it was a one-off project which would not be replicated elsewhere, limiting the export opportunities. Last month ministers announced plans for the South-west to become the UK's first Marine Energy Park, placing it at the forefront of the technology's development.
It is hoped scientists, engineers and surveyors will flock to the region. Similar parks are planned for Scotland and Northern Ireland but the move from one-off tests to the deployment of large-scale, commercially viable arrays of devices could be years off.
Dr Gordon Edge, policy director of the industry body RenewableUK, said marine energy is now "on the threshold of commercial viability" and the report paves the way for it to become "a major part of our electricity generation system". But he warned: "We can't afford to have innovation and manufacturing in hi-tech industries go overseas."
The technology giant Siemens announced last week it was taking over the tidal developer Marine Current Turbines. Ted Scheidegger, head of the solar and hydro division of Siemens Energy, said: "We will continue to drive the commercialisation of this promising technology which harvests energy from highly predictable tidal streams. Our target is to secure a leading position in this future business."
The Department for Energy and Climate Change claimed to be "fully committed to spurring on the growth of this industry", but Labour's Caroline Flint claimed that since the coalition was formed, the UK has slipped from third to 13th in the world for green investment. "Marine energy can help make us less reliant on volatile fossil fuel prices and keep energy bills down, cut our carbon emissions and create new jobs and industries in the UK. But we need to move quickly to cement our advantage and stop this opportunity slipping through our fingers," she said.
The Government is under growing pressure to set out a vision for Britain's future energy use. Onshore wind farms, like nuclear power stations, continue to attract vociferous opposition, and more than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron this month demanding "dramatic cuts" to the industry's £400m-a-year subsidies. The solar industry was thrown into turmoil last year when the Department for Energy and Climate Change pulled the plug on funding for generous feed-in tariffs paid to home owners and businesses who installed solar panels.
A carbon capture and storage project at a coal-fired power station at Longannet in Scotland was abandoned after its backers failed to reach a deal with power companies. It is understood ministers will shortly announce a new pilot, this time aimed at removing carbon emissions from a gas-powered plant.
Monday, 20 February 2012
U.S. Joins Effort to Fight Climate Change
By TENNILLE TRACY
WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday the formation of a new global coalition to fight emissions other than carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
The coalition—which includes Sweden, Mexico, Canada, Bangladesh and the U.S.—will be funded with $15 million, mostly from the U.S. It hasn't yet determined which actions it will take to reduce the emissions, nor has it identified specific reduction targets. Such precise goals will be developed in coming months, a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which Ms. Clinton called a "new global effort to fight climate change," is being launched as the Obama administration moves forward with efforts to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities. New rules that require carbon-dioxide cuts follow a failed attempt by Congress to develop a plan to address carbon emissions.
The administration is also putting up federal dollars for clean-energy investments, unveiling a 2013 budget plan this week that sets aside hundreds of millions of dollars for wind, solar and other clean-energy projects.
The coalition announced Thursday will target emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide, as well as soot and hydrofluorocarbons. Together, these emissions account for more than a third of current global-warming developments, a senior administration official said.
The coalition's focus on so-called short-lived pollutants won't replace efforts to slash carbon emissions, for which "the world has not yet done enough," Ms. Clinton said. It aims instead to complement those efforts.
While the coalition hasn't yet addressed specific actions it wants to take, a recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies more than a dozen steps that could be pursued. If these actions are taken, the coalition could slow the rate of global warmth by half a degree Celsius by 2050, Ms. Clinton said, representing 25% of the world's goal.
The UNEP will oversee the day-to-day operations of the coalition.
Methane comes from natural-gas production, landfills, agriculture and other sources. Experts have been particularly interested in methane leaks from natural-gas production, which some scientists say erode the environmental value of natural-gas usage.
Ms. Clinton said the coalition hoped to recruit more global partners in coming months.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday the formation of a new global coalition to fight emissions other than carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
The coalition—which includes Sweden, Mexico, Canada, Bangladesh and the U.S.—will be funded with $15 million, mostly from the U.S. It hasn't yet determined which actions it will take to reduce the emissions, nor has it identified specific reduction targets. Such precise goals will be developed in coming months, a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which Ms. Clinton called a "new global effort to fight climate change," is being launched as the Obama administration moves forward with efforts to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities. New rules that require carbon-dioxide cuts follow a failed attempt by Congress to develop a plan to address carbon emissions.
The administration is also putting up federal dollars for clean-energy investments, unveiling a 2013 budget plan this week that sets aside hundreds of millions of dollars for wind, solar and other clean-energy projects.
The coalition announced Thursday will target emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide, as well as soot and hydrofluorocarbons. Together, these emissions account for more than a third of current global-warming developments, a senior administration official said.
The coalition's focus on so-called short-lived pollutants won't replace efforts to slash carbon emissions, for which "the world has not yet done enough," Ms. Clinton said. It aims instead to complement those efforts.
While the coalition hasn't yet addressed specific actions it wants to take, a recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies more than a dozen steps that could be pursued. If these actions are taken, the coalition could slow the rate of global warmth by half a degree Celsius by 2050, Ms. Clinton said, representing 25% of the world's goal.
The UNEP will oversee the day-to-day operations of the coalition.
Methane comes from natural-gas production, landfills, agriculture and other sources. Experts have been particularly interested in methane leaks from natural-gas production, which some scientists say erode the environmental value of natural-gas usage.
Ms. Clinton said the coalition hoped to recruit more global partners in coming months.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
Scotland could raise £30bn energy fund over 20 years, says Salmond
First minister sets out economic case for independence, claiming better use of natural resources would make Scotland rich
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 19.35 GMT
An independent Scotland could reap a £30bn dividend from a "reindustrialised" green energy sector over the next 20 years, Alex Salmond said on Wednesday night, raising the stakes in his economic case for a break from the union.
The first minister told an audience of academics, students and members of the public at the London School of Economics Scotland's "unparallelled energy resources" would give a fully independent Holyrood "a huge competitive advantage" over the rest of Europe.
Salmond also said if Scotland had had full fiscal control since 1979, the nation would now have assets worth between £87bn and £117bn.
"Under independence we would make the best use of our unparalleled energy resources," he said. "We have 25% of Europe's tidal power potential, 25% of its offshore wind potential and 10% of its wave power potential – not bad for a nation with less than 1% of Europe's population.
"Scotland has a huge competitive advantage. We will be able to produce energy better and cheaper than anywhere else – and in deeper waters".
Salmond cited research by the thinktank Reform Scotland that suggested Scotland could export half the electricity generated by 2020 because of the Scottish government's renewable energy targets.
He said: "Reform Scotland estimates that as a result of our renewable electricity target Scotland would export half the electricity generated by 2020, increasing Scottish exports by £2 billion a year – equivalent to around 17% of Scottish manufacturing exports to the rest of the UK.
"And while renewables will be the source of Scotland's reindustrialisation, in value terms there is at least as much oil and gas still to come out as has already been used - at least 40 years of oil and gas reserves. We still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund.
"If Scotland had been independent in 1979, oil revenues could have reduced our public sector debt from 39% GDP in 1979 to 0% by 1983-84, and we would then have continued to run budget surpluses throughout the late 1980s.
"If we had been able to establish a sovereign wealth fund as North Sea oil revenues started to come on stream, then it is likely that Scotland would currently have financial assets worth anything from £87 billion to £117 billion pounds.
"The debate about independence is about looking forward and creating a better future for Scotland. With that future in mind, we still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund to benefit future generations. Even just £1 billion a year – less than 10% – invested over 20 years, would create a fund for Scotland worth almost £30 billion.
"An independent Scotland would pursue policies of ambition and responsibility. We would use Scotland's natural resources and skilled workforce to build a sustainable economy.
"The rest of the UK has much to gain from the emergence of a secure, prosperous ally to its north. An independent Scotland would seek to make a responsible contribution on the European and world stage - and that would benefit all of the nations of these islands."
David Cameron is to give a speech on Thursday in which he is expected to make a case in support of the Union, after which he will hold talks with Salmond.
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 19.35 GMT
An independent Scotland could reap a £30bn dividend from a "reindustrialised" green energy sector over the next 20 years, Alex Salmond said on Wednesday night, raising the stakes in his economic case for a break from the union.
The first minister told an audience of academics, students and members of the public at the London School of Economics Scotland's "unparallelled energy resources" would give a fully independent Holyrood "a huge competitive advantage" over the rest of Europe.
Salmond also said if Scotland had had full fiscal control since 1979, the nation would now have assets worth between £87bn and £117bn.
"Under independence we would make the best use of our unparalleled energy resources," he said. "We have 25% of Europe's tidal power potential, 25% of its offshore wind potential and 10% of its wave power potential – not bad for a nation with less than 1% of Europe's population.
"Scotland has a huge competitive advantage. We will be able to produce energy better and cheaper than anywhere else – and in deeper waters".
Salmond cited research by the thinktank Reform Scotland that suggested Scotland could export half the electricity generated by 2020 because of the Scottish government's renewable energy targets.
He said: "Reform Scotland estimates that as a result of our renewable electricity target Scotland would export half the electricity generated by 2020, increasing Scottish exports by £2 billion a year – equivalent to around 17% of Scottish manufacturing exports to the rest of the UK.
"And while renewables will be the source of Scotland's reindustrialisation, in value terms there is at least as much oil and gas still to come out as has already been used - at least 40 years of oil and gas reserves. We still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund.
"If Scotland had been independent in 1979, oil revenues could have reduced our public sector debt from 39% GDP in 1979 to 0% by 1983-84, and we would then have continued to run budget surpluses throughout the late 1980s.
"If we had been able to establish a sovereign wealth fund as North Sea oil revenues started to come on stream, then it is likely that Scotland would currently have financial assets worth anything from £87 billion to £117 billion pounds.
"The debate about independence is about looking forward and creating a better future for Scotland. With that future in mind, we still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund to benefit future generations. Even just £1 billion a year – less than 10% – invested over 20 years, would create a fund for Scotland worth almost £30 billion.
"An independent Scotland would pursue policies of ambition and responsibility. We would use Scotland's natural resources and skilled workforce to build a sustainable economy.
"The rest of the UK has much to gain from the emergence of a secure, prosperous ally to its north. An independent Scotland would seek to make a responsible contribution on the European and world stage - and that would benefit all of the nations of these islands."
David Cameron is to give a speech on Thursday in which he is expected to make a case in support of the Union, after which he will hold talks with Salmond.
US wind industry warns 37,000 jobs at risk if tax credit lapses
American Wind Energy Association urges Congress to extend tax credit after measure is excluded from payroll tax bill
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 14.21 GMT
The US wind energy industry yesterday issued a stark warning that its recent progress will stall and 37,000 jobs could be at risk if Congress fails to extend a tax credit widely regarded as critical to wind farm developers.
The American Wind Energy Association warned that an extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) does not appear to have been included in payroll tax legislation currently passing through Congress.
Failure to agree an extension of the tax break would result in its expiration at the end of the year – a scenario that experts claim would have a chilling effect on projects throughout the year.
"The stakes here could not be clearer," American Wind Energy Association chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement. "Economic studies have shown that Congressional inaction on the PTC will kill 37,000 American jobs, shutter plants and cancel billions of dollars in private investment. Congress needs to understand that, with PTC uncertainty, layoffs have already begun and further job losses and even plant closings will accelerate each month as we near expiration in December."
She added that the tax credit has significant bi-partisan support, while companies as diverse as Nike, Campbell Soup and Yahoo have all gone on record to call for the tax break to be extended.
"The broad base of support for wind energy positions us well to get the PTC extended at the next possible opportunity," she said, adding that while it is disappointing the tax breaks have not been included in the controversial payroll tax bill, hope remains that the extension could be agreed later this year.
"The fact that Congress is on the verge of reaching a compromise on such a major piece of legislation bodes well for other legislation," she said. "While Congress decided not to act on tax credit extenders or any energy provisions as part of the payroll tax bill, we are still committed to finding any opportunity for a first-quarter extension. Our campaign continues."
In other Congressional news, the long-running row over president Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline took another twist after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that will allow Congress to approve the controversial project.
The condition was attached to a highway funding bill, which now also includes measures to expand offshore oil drilling and open areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The vote steps up pressure on Senate negotiations, where Republicans are also pushing for Keystone XL approval to be tied to the highway funding bill.
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 14.21 GMT
The US wind energy industry yesterday issued a stark warning that its recent progress will stall and 37,000 jobs could be at risk if Congress fails to extend a tax credit widely regarded as critical to wind farm developers.
The American Wind Energy Association warned that an extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) does not appear to have been included in payroll tax legislation currently passing through Congress.
Failure to agree an extension of the tax break would result in its expiration at the end of the year – a scenario that experts claim would have a chilling effect on projects throughout the year.
"The stakes here could not be clearer," American Wind Energy Association chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement. "Economic studies have shown that Congressional inaction on the PTC will kill 37,000 American jobs, shutter plants and cancel billions of dollars in private investment. Congress needs to understand that, with PTC uncertainty, layoffs have already begun and further job losses and even plant closings will accelerate each month as we near expiration in December."
She added that the tax credit has significant bi-partisan support, while companies as diverse as Nike, Campbell Soup and Yahoo have all gone on record to call for the tax break to be extended.
"The broad base of support for wind energy positions us well to get the PTC extended at the next possible opportunity," she said, adding that while it is disappointing the tax breaks have not been included in the controversial payroll tax bill, hope remains that the extension could be agreed later this year.
"The fact that Congress is on the verge of reaching a compromise on such a major piece of legislation bodes well for other legislation," she said. "While Congress decided not to act on tax credit extenders or any energy provisions as part of the payroll tax bill, we are still committed to finding any opportunity for a first-quarter extension. Our campaign continues."
In other Congressional news, the long-running row over president Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline took another twist after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that will allow Congress to approve the controversial project.
The condition was attached to a highway funding bill, which now also includes measures to expand offshore oil drilling and open areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The vote steps up pressure on Senate negotiations, where Republicans are also pushing for Keystone XL approval to be tied to the highway funding bill.
Why we must phase out nuclear power
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy can and does have disastrous consequences
Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Harms, and Dany Cohn-Bendit
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 16.40 GMT
On 11 March last year, Japan was hit by massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, as well as a nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima.
While global attention has long since shifted elsewhere, the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over. This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy.
One year on, the situation is not under control. The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of "cold shutdown" was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief among nuclear experts.
As the recent rise in temperature in Reactor 2 has shown, the Fukushima facility remains unstable and highly vulnerable to a new earthquake. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that "cleaning up" the disaster will take a hundreds-strong workforce decades to complete.
Beyond the reactors themselves, and the arbitrary 20km exclusion zone, the surrounding area in Fukushima province and beyond will suffer from radioactive contamination for generations to come.
To give a concrete example: the amount of radioactive caesium 137 (which has a half life of around 30 years) released during the Fukushima disaster was 168 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.
It has been estimated that excess deaths, due to radiation exposure in the region, could run into the thousands.
Fukushima, like Chernobyl 25 years before it, has shown us that while the likelihood of a nuclear disaster occurring may be low, the potential impact is enormous.
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether.
Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100% of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90% majority.
The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years.
The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens.
The European level response has been to undertake stress tests on nuclear reactors across the union. However, these stress tests appear to be little more than a PR exercise to encourage public acceptance in order to allow the nuclear industry to continue with business as usual.
The tests fail to assess the full risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors such as fires, human failures, degradation of essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash.
In the UK, the government is determined to push ahead with the development of a new fleet of nuclear reactors, as the partnership announced by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy shows.
The orchestrated effort between coalition officials and the nuclear industry to create a pro-nuclear public information campaign in the days after Fukushima showed that not even a large-scale nuclear incident could halt ministers' obsession with new nuclear. Officials did not even wait for the results of the government's own safety review before rushing to assure the British people that a similar disaster is not possible in the UK.
Now, the proposed electricity market reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear – with the introduction of a carbon price floor likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators.
Despite persistent denials by ministers, this is clearly a subsidy by another name, making a mockery of the coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry. The Energy Fair group is arguing that the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents is technically a subsidy and therefore illegal under EU law – and is now taking the case to the European commission.
Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. But what is also clear is that nuclear fails to make the grade even in economic terms.
As we have seen with the two new nuclear reactors under construction in Europe, the already prohibitive upfront constructions costs have been grossly underestimated. The EPR reactors under construction in Finland and France are both around 100% over budget, with the end date for construction being constantly postponed.
The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions of pounds in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?
One year on from Fukushima, we should not wait for another disaster to finally convince us to give up on nuclear power.
• Rebecca Harms and Dany Cohn-Bendit are co-presidents of the Greens/EFA group in the European parliament
Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Harms, and Dany Cohn-Bendit
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 16.40 GMT
On 11 March last year, Japan was hit by massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, as well as a nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima.
While global attention has long since shifted elsewhere, the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over. This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy.
One year on, the situation is not under control. The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of "cold shutdown" was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief among nuclear experts.
As the recent rise in temperature in Reactor 2 has shown, the Fukushima facility remains unstable and highly vulnerable to a new earthquake. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that "cleaning up" the disaster will take a hundreds-strong workforce decades to complete.
Beyond the reactors themselves, and the arbitrary 20km exclusion zone, the surrounding area in Fukushima province and beyond will suffer from radioactive contamination for generations to come.
To give a concrete example: the amount of radioactive caesium 137 (which has a half life of around 30 years) released during the Fukushima disaster was 168 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.
It has been estimated that excess deaths, due to radiation exposure in the region, could run into the thousands.
Fukushima, like Chernobyl 25 years before it, has shown us that while the likelihood of a nuclear disaster occurring may be low, the potential impact is enormous.
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether.
Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100% of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90% majority.
The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years.
The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens.
The European level response has been to undertake stress tests on nuclear reactors across the union. However, these stress tests appear to be little more than a PR exercise to encourage public acceptance in order to allow the nuclear industry to continue with business as usual.
The tests fail to assess the full risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors such as fires, human failures, degradation of essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash.
In the UK, the government is determined to push ahead with the development of a new fleet of nuclear reactors, as the partnership announced by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy shows.
The orchestrated effort between coalition officials and the nuclear industry to create a pro-nuclear public information campaign in the days after Fukushima showed that not even a large-scale nuclear incident could halt ministers' obsession with new nuclear. Officials did not even wait for the results of the government's own safety review before rushing to assure the British people that a similar disaster is not possible in the UK.
Now, the proposed electricity market reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear – with the introduction of a carbon price floor likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators.
Despite persistent denials by ministers, this is clearly a subsidy by another name, making a mockery of the coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry. The Energy Fair group is arguing that the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents is technically a subsidy and therefore illegal under EU law – and is now taking the case to the European commission.
Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. But what is also clear is that nuclear fails to make the grade even in economic terms.
As we have seen with the two new nuclear reactors under construction in Europe, the already prohibitive upfront constructions costs have been grossly underestimated. The EPR reactors under construction in Finland and France are both around 100% over budget, with the end date for construction being constantly postponed.
The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions of pounds in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?
One year on from Fukushima, we should not wait for another disaster to finally convince us to give up on nuclear power.
• Rebecca Harms and Dany Cohn-Bendit are co-presidents of the Greens/EFA group in the European parliament
Nuclear power is an expensive gamble that may (or may not) pay off
Energy deals could suck in vast resources for generations, or prove one of the most far-sighted government decisions ever
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 15.56 GMT
Britain's energy future starts in Paris with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signing formal agreements for the UK and France to work together on nuclear power. Attention will soon shift to a 500-hectare (1,250-acre) plot in Somerset where the French state energy giant EDF hopes to start work on Hinkley C. If all goes to plan, the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain since 1995 will generate 2,000MW of electricity a year by 2018-2019.
The reality is that few, if any, of the world's 435 working nuclear power stations were built to cost, or on schedule – the prototypes of the two stations EDF wants to build in Britain have taken far longer and proved much more expensive to build than anyone ever expected.
The Paris agreements only allow preparatory work to start, but they do establish one version of the low-carbon electricity future that climate change demands. The deals also address the fact that Britain has very few young engineers to run what may eventually be eight or more nuclear stations, by providing money for a training centre in Bridgwater, Somerset.
However, while EDF's earth-movers arrive in Somerset for Hinkley C, questions about radioactive waste management, long-term fuel supplies, vulnerability to terrorist attack, the risk of radiation, decommissioning, coastal siting, flooding, exorbitant costs and accident liabilities which were all skated over in consultations last year, have not been answered and are likely to come back to haunt governments for generations.
Nuclear critics, like the former energy secretary Chris Huhne, argue that nuclear energy is a tried and failed technology which has needed hundreds of billions of pounds of state subsidies and sweeteners but still generates expensive and dangerous energy.
The question hanging over Britain's new stations will be whether cheaper, safer, alternatives become available. If so, Britain will be embarrassed, chained to a massively expensive technology that will suck in resources for ever. If they do not, the decision to build them may prove to be one of the most far-sighted taken by any government.
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 15.56 GMT
Britain's energy future starts in Paris with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signing formal agreements for the UK and France to work together on nuclear power. Attention will soon shift to a 500-hectare (1,250-acre) plot in Somerset where the French state energy giant EDF hopes to start work on Hinkley C. If all goes to plan, the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain since 1995 will generate 2,000MW of electricity a year by 2018-2019.
The reality is that few, if any, of the world's 435 working nuclear power stations were built to cost, or on schedule – the prototypes of the two stations EDF wants to build in Britain have taken far longer and proved much more expensive to build than anyone ever expected.
The Paris agreements only allow preparatory work to start, but they do establish one version of the low-carbon electricity future that climate change demands. The deals also address the fact that Britain has very few young engineers to run what may eventually be eight or more nuclear stations, by providing money for a training centre in Bridgwater, Somerset.
However, while EDF's earth-movers arrive in Somerset for Hinkley C, questions about radioactive waste management, long-term fuel supplies, vulnerability to terrorist attack, the risk of radiation, decommissioning, coastal siting, flooding, exorbitant costs and accident liabilities which were all skated over in consultations last year, have not been answered and are likely to come back to haunt governments for generations.
Nuclear critics, like the former energy secretary Chris Huhne, argue that nuclear energy is a tried and failed technology which has needed hundreds of billions of pounds of state subsidies and sweeteners but still generates expensive and dangerous energy.
The question hanging over Britain's new stations will be whether cheaper, safer, alternatives become available. If so, Britain will be embarrassed, chained to a massively expensive technology that will suck in resources for ever. If they do not, the decision to build them may prove to be one of the most far-sighted taken by any government.