Renewable energy providing more electricity than coal and nuclear power combined in Germany Independent Solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power generates nearly half of country’s output. Emma Snaith, 25 Jul 19,
Renewable sources of energy produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power combined for the first time in Germany, according to new figures.
Solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power generation accounted for 47.3 per cent of the country’s electricity production in the first six months of 2019, while 43.4 per cent came from coal-fired and nuclearpower plants.
However, some scientists have attributed the high renewable power output to favourable weather patterns and “market-driven events”.
Fabian Hein, from the think tank Agora Energiewende, told Deutsche Welle the 20 per cent increase in wind production was the result of particularly windy conditions in 2019……..
Renewables accounted for 40 per cent of Germany’s electricity consumption in 2018, according to government figures.
Germany is aiming to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022. Its renewable energy has been rising steadily over the last two decades thanks in part to the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which was reformed last year to cut costs for consumers.
But Germany still relies heavily on coal, gas and lignite for its energy needs.
..electricity production from solar panels rose by six per cent, natural gas by 10 per cent, while the share of nuclear power in the country’s electricity production has remained virtually unchanged.
The Government’s proposed new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ (RAB) means of funding nuclear has just been published, and it is living as far down to its expectations as could be expected. I’ve ploughed through the sometimes (deliberately?) convoluted description of the scheme and translated a few key passages to help you understand it all.
The Government failed to learn from the days when nuclear power were constructed from the 1950s to the 1990s. In those days nuclear power was very expensive, but the Government was able to con the public into believing that it was cheap. They did this by making sure the public could not understand the vaguaries of nuclear power funding and by putting all of the cost overruns that building the power stations involved onto consumer bills without them noticing. Basically, we are reurning to these days when the public was kept in the dark about the cost of building nuclear power plant and the same public will be paying for the cost overruns resulting from the project.
The Government made the mistake of giving a contract price for Hinkley C. Although it featherbedded the developers EDF by giving an ultra long premium price contract (35 years) and the promise of Government lending to cover the bulk of the costs, the contract (CfD) allowed some sort of comparison to be made with competitior sources. Solar and wind power’s costs have fallen well below the price given to Hinkley C (£92.50 in 2012 prices).
So now the Government, having learned this mistake, has produced the RAB. This will allow the Government, though an appointed ‘Regulator’ to launder electricity consumer’s money to pay for the inevitable cost overruns, whilst the Regulator assures the public that this all represents ‘value for money’. The project that is earmarked for RAB funding is Sizewll C, involving the same reactor type (EPR) as is being constructed at Hinkley C.
What some key passages mean:
1. ‘Despite the progress at HPC, the challenges facing the global nuclear industry have meant that replicating a CfD model for further new nuclear projects has proved very challenging. Few project developers have a balance sheet that can accommodate the £15-20bn cost of delivering a new nuclear project, and financial investors have been unwilling to invest during the construction phase given the long construction period and risk of cost increases and delays. We are therefore looking to work with the sector to develop an alternative funding model for new nuclear projects that can attract private finance at a cost that represents value for money to consumers and are considering its wider applicability to other firm low carbon technologies’ (page 9) Translation: The Hinkley C contract (CfD) was a big boobie by the UK Government since it showed just how expensive nuclear power could be even if we believe the developers own (French Government backed) hopes that the project works out as planned. The nuclear industry around the world has tanked – all the projects in the West this century have been monumental disasters and even the French EPR model built in China took twice as long to build as planned. (As a rule of thumb the cost is more or less directly proportional to its construction time). So no private investor in their right minds would invest in nuclear power. So, essentially, we’ve got to give the next nuclear project a state-backed blank cheque and cover this up by having a Regulator publish a lot of accountancy jargon that will fool the public into thinking they’re getting a reasonable deal
2. ‘A large-scale new nuclear project bears some similarities with the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) project, in that it is a complex single asset construction project with a significant upfront capital expenditure requirement, long construction period and a long asset life. In developing a potential nuclear RAB model, we have taken the model used for TTT, which was also developed under a RAB, as a starting point, whilst recognising that new nuclear projects are greater in scale and face specific challenges that were not relevant to TTT’ (page 11) Translation:Nuclear power stations are not real power plant, but rather they are giant civil engineering projects involving lots of radiation when they get switched on, and thus complex measures to protect the public. However, this great complexity means they are much more prone to cost overruns compared to projects like the TTT, so we have to make sure that the consumer picks up the tab for the cost overruns, whilst pretending that this is a normal well run civil engineering project, which it isn’t of course.
3. ‘A target total construction cost would be set for the project company which would be used as the Baseline for incentivisation and risk sharing. If construction costs increased above the Baseline, a portion of the additional costs would be added to the RAB, such that the impact would be shared between investors and suppliers (and through them, their consumers) (page 14)…(this approach will) ‘provide clarity and certainty to investors, suppliers and consumers, which is particularly important for a large single-asset project with a complex and relatively long construction period’ (page 15) Translation:The Regulator will produce lots of impenetrable accountancy jargon based on hilariously optimistic projections about construction times and costs which the regulator will swallow whole. When the inevitable happens and costs overrun the investors will still get a reasonable rate of return on their investments and the electricity consumers will pay for most of the cost overruns.
4. ‘Role of the Regulator
We currently consider that the Regulator should have responsibility for protecting the interests of consumers, whilst having regard to the ability of the project company to finance the project i.e. construction and operation of the plant’ (page 19) Translation:The Regulator will have no choice but to adopt the ridiculously optimistic cost projections and construction time estimates made by the developers (EDF). They will declare the whole project great value for money for the consumer, whilst in practice allowing the developer to run up whatever bills they want and pass most of them onto the consumer. A facade of an auditing system will be set up, but since EDF have all the information anyway, the Regulator will not be able to make more than token adjustments even if they wanted to.When the time comes for the consumer to shell out for cost overruns the Regulator will not want to point this out too much as they will get the blame.
‘The EPR technology has now started commercial operations in China’ (pages 8-9) Translation: So far the constructions of the EPR have been disastrous in all cases, in Finland, France and even in China. The last one is a bit of a shocker. It took twice as long as planned to get the first reactor at Taishan generating electricity – that’s despite the fact that the Chinese have a massive reserve of workers and engineers compared to us, and, as our Office for Nuclear Regulation has put it, a different approach to health and safety compared to what is practiced in the UK. Of course EDF are announcing a ‘triumph’ of early construction at Hinkley C – yet they have only just started seriously constructing the project in March this year having spent a lot of money since 2013 acheving remarkably little. But EDF have the French Government to rely upon to fund its own (French state owned) reactor model at Hinkley. In the case of Sizewell C, through the aegis of the so-called RAB mechanism, it will be the British electricity consumer who will be paying for the cost overruns.
Guardian 23rd July 2019 Let’s face it: nuclear power is hideously dear and far from ideal. The
government should be backing renewables, not tying itself to an expensive
nuclear future. That bill-payers got stuffed in the deal that brought the
Hinkley Point C project into existence is beyond dispute these days.
Even government ministers barely quibble with the National Audit Office’s
assessment that consumers will be paying through the nose for 35 years.
Instead, the defence has tended to run along these lines: don’t worry,
we’ve triggered a “resurgence” in the nuclear industry in the UK and
the next reactors will be relative bargains.
Now here’s the government’s latest effort to resurrect the show – “an innovative
funding model”. Of course, it’s not really innovative. The “regulated
asset base” (RAB) approach, which could be used at Sizewell B in Suffolk,
and is intended to copy the design of Hinkley, is common in other parts of
the utility world.
Aside from exposing consumers to the cost of overruns,
RAB in effect also requires them to provide financing at zero interest, a
point made by the National Infrastructure Commission last year. Little
wonder, then, that the juice should be cheaper than Hinkley’s – some of
the costs will be hidden from view.
The same NIC report said: “There is limited experience of using the RAB model for anything as complex and risky as nuclear.” Second, no financing model can disguise the core truth about
nuclear – the technology is hideously expensive. Even after recognising
the need to have secure “baseload” supplies, it recommended
commissioning only one more nuclear plant, on top of Hinkley, before 2025.
That remains a commonsense analysis. Renewables are winning the price race.
Let us pray, then, that a love-in with RAB does not reignite ministerial
fantasies about a “resurgence” in nuclear. We don’t want a
resurgence. We want to build as few new reactors as possible.
Although the initial commitment is just £18m, it will allow the consortium to mature the design of the reactors. The move, which is subject to a final sign-off, would still require significant levels of additional investment before the reactors can become a commercial reality. The UK aero-engine maker has long argued that its technology in this sphere should be regarded as a “national endeavour” to develop nuclear skills that can be used to create an export-led industry.
A consortium spokesperson said on Tuesday that the £18m investment would be used to “mature the design, address the considerable manufacturing technology requirements and to progress the regulatory licensing process”. He added: “We believe with early co-investment by the government, this power station design is a compelling commercial opportunity.”
Rolls-Royce and its team, which includes Laing O’Rourke and Arup, was one of several consortiums that bid in an initial government-sponsored competition launched in 2015 to find the most viable technology for a new generation of small nuclear modular reactors (SMRs). Most of these will not be commercial until the 2030s
Supporters argue that they can deliver nuclear power at lower cost and reduced risk. They will draw on modular manufacturing techniques that will reduce construction risk, which has plagued larger-scale projects. However, when a nuclear sector deal was finally unveiled last June, the government allocated funding only for more advanced modular reactors.
MRs, which typically use water-cooled reactors similar to existing nuclear power stations, were omitted from funding even though they were closer to becoming commercial. Rolls-Royce threatened last summer that it would shut down the project if there was no meaningful support from the government.
Ministers have in recent months scrambled to recast Britain’s energy policy after the collapse of plans to build several large reactors and on Monday evening published proposals to finance new nuclear plants by having taxpayers pay upfront through their energy bills. The government added that, as part of its plans to fund advanced nuclear technologies, it would make an “initial award” of up to £18m under the industrial strategy challenge fund to the Rolls-Royce-led consortium in the autumn. The consortium has said any government funding will be matched in part by contributions from the companies as well as by raising funds from third-party organisations.
Guardian 23rd July 2019 The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of
any cost overruns or construction delays. In a consultation document
launched on Monday night, officials said the model is “essential” to
attract private investors to back the UK’s new nuclear ambitions at a
price that is affordable for bill payers. The public purse would also
compensate nuclear investors if the project was scrapped. The new funding
structure could be used to prop up EDF Energy’s £16bn plans for a new
nuclear reactor at Sizewell B in Suffolk, which was left in doubt after
fierce criticism of the costs surrounding the Hinkley Point C project in
Somerset.
A Horizon spokesman said it “warmly welcomed” the announcement. He added: “As we said when we announced the suspension of our projects, a new funding and financing model is one of the essential steps if we are to potentially restart our development activities.
“We will now look in detail at what the government has set out and continue our engagement with them on this issue.”
It allows investors to receive returns before the projects have been completed. The government said RAB had “the potential to attract significant investment for new nuclear projects at a lower cost to customers.”
But it said “significant challenges” remained, including raising capital and creating appropriate risk sharing arrangements.
The government has invited responses to the proposals, set out in a consultation paper. A White Paper on energy is expected later in the year……https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49085776
Leaked government analysis reveals UK demand for new nuclear power plants, Times, 23 July 19, Britain needs to build a fleet of nuclear or carbon-capture power plants equivalent to a dozen Hinkley Point Cs to hit climate change targets, a leaked government analysis suggests.
Up to 40 gigawatts of non-intermittent low carbon power stations could be needed in 2050 to reduce Britain’s emissions to “net zero”, ministers believe.
Just one is under construction: EDF’s 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset.
Greg Clark, the business secretary, disclosed the estimates to industry in a private meeting on Monday as his department published plans for a new funding model to support such plants.
Consumers on hook for cost overruns at nuclear plants, Emily Gosden, Times 23rd July 2019,Energy consumers and taxpayers could have to pay for cost overruns at new nuclear plants after the government backed a funding model proposed by EDF.
The business department said last night it believed the “regulated asset
base” model that the French energy giant wants for its proposed Sizewell
plant in Suffolk could reduce consumer bills compared with the subsidy
contract used to back the £20 billion Hinkley Point plant EDF is building
in Somerset.
A consultation document published last night confirms that
consumers would, however, be asked to start paying for the plants on energy
bills while they were still under construction and to share in the risks of
cost overruns.
In the case of an extreme overrun, the government –
effectively the taxpayer – could either have to step in and pay the extra
cost or scrap the project and pay compensation to investors. Under the
regulated asset base model, the developer would receive a regulated price
to give it a return on its investment expenditure, including during the
construction period, and this would be levied on energy bills.
TASC 22nd July 2019 Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has called for plans for a twin nuclear
reactor development at Sizewell to be scrapped after the fourth
consultation documentation reveals no new data upon which to judge the true
environmental, social or infrastructure impact.
Having reviewed the documentation, TASC expressed extreme disappointment, although not
surprise, at the lack of extra detail included. Chris Wilson, TASC Press
Officer, said “Many respondents to the stage 3 consultation asked for
more environmental information.
Yet, despite EDF promising that the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would play a “key role” in
finalising their proposals, we now know that these will not be available
until the Development Consent Order (DCO) is submitted to the Planning
Inspectorate. Therefore, the environmental impact on people, places, flora
and fauna, will not be available for public consultation before EDF submit
their DCO. This makes the job of making an accurate assessment of EDF’s
plans impossible”.
22/07/2019 –PARIS (Reuters) – French utility EDF <EDF.PA> could prolong planned outages at its two Golfech nuclear reactors because of a heatwave expected across France this week, the power utility said on Monday.
EDF plans to halt production at the 1,300 megawatt (MW) Golfech 2 reactor from Tuesday until July 29 and will stop power generation at Golfech 1 on Wednesday until same day next week.
The utility had said on Friday that it could halt electricity generation at the 2,600 megawatt (MW) Golfech plant in southern France because of high temperatures forecast on the Garonne river, water from which is used to cool the reactors.
EDF said on Monday that the current forecast for the end of the outages was based on available temperature forecasts and that the outages at both reactors could be prolonged.
The company’s use of water from rivers to cool its reactors is regulated by law to protect plant and animal life. It is forced to cut output when water temperatures rise or when river levels and the flow rate are low.
Another spell of sizzling temperatures is expected in France and much of western Europe this week, the second heatwave this summer. A record temperature of 46 degrees Celsius (114.8 Fahrenheit) was set in southern France last month.
Separately, EDF delayed the restart of its 1,500 MW Chooz 2 nuclear reactor by a couple days to Aug. 1, saying that the planned maintenance outage could be extended because of the amount of work required for its second 10-year overhaul.
(Reporting by Bate Felix; Editing by David Goodman)
Greta Thunberg awarded first Normandy Freedom Prize
Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg wins France’s first Freedom Prize, SBS News, A 16-year-old Swedish climate champion has received the first Freedom Prize in France, and has urged people to recognise the link between climate change and “mass migration, famine and war.”
Swedish teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg, whose Friday school strikes protesting government inaction over climate change helped spark a worldwide movement, has received the first Freedom Prize in France.
Flanked by two WWII veterans who sponsor the prize, the 16-year-old accepted the award at a ceremony in the northwestern city of Caen, Normandy, on Sunday.
“This prize is not only for me,” Greta said. “This is for the whole Fridays for Future movement because this we have achieved together.”
She said she would donate the AU$28,000 prize money to four organisations working for climate justice and helping areas already affected by climate change.
The prize was awarded before an audience of several hundred people and in the presence of several D-Day veterans, including France’s Leon Gautier and US native American Charles Norman Shay.
Greta said she had spent an unforgettable day with Mr Shay on Omaha Beach, one of the sites of the 1944 Normandy landings that launched the Allied offensive that helped end World War II.
Paying tribute to their sacrifice, she said: “the least we can do to honour them is to stop destroying that same world that Charles, Leon and their friends and colleagues fought so hard to save for us.”
Mr Shay said that young people should be prepared to “defend what they believe in.”………
She said the “link between climate and ecological emergency and mass migration, famine and war was still not clear to many people” and urged change.
New UK nuclear plants could be paid for upfront through energy bills, Consumers face financial burden of future projects even before they are built Ft.com, David Sheppard and Harry Dempsey, 22 July 19,
The UK government has thrown its backing behind proposals to finance new nuclear plants by having taxpayers pay upfront through their energy bills as it looks to reinvigorate a sector beset by cancellations and high costs. The consultation on the new financing model, which aims to lower overall costs by having consumers fund future nuclear projects before they are built, comes as the government targets cutting carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.
Half of all new nuclear projects planned in the UK have collapsed in the past year after failing to secure the necessary private financing, including Hitachi’s decision to suspend the £20bn Wylfa plant in north Wales and Toshiba’s cancellation of its development in Moorside, Cumbria. Seven of the UK’s eight existing nuclear plants are set to close by 2030.
But the proposal is likely to face criticism for loading risks on to consumers and the government at a time when renewable alternatives to nuclear like wind and solar are rapidly becoming cheaper. Boris Johnson, who is widely expected to become prime minister later this week, has in the past supported nuclear projects but also criticised their high costs.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is launching a three-month consultation on the proposals, said it believed the new financing model had the “potential to reduce the cost of raising private finance . . . thereby reducing consumer bills”.
France’s state-backed EDF Energy has been a vocal champion for the proposed model, known as Regulated Asset Base or RAB, after the cost of its Hinkley Point project in Somerset was heavily criticised for its cost to consumers.
BEIS said using an RAB model for future projects was suitable as companies such as EDF would look to replicate the Hinkley Point design in future plants. EDF said on Monday that its proposed Sizewell C plant would be a “near replica” and therefore “cheaper to construct and finance”. …..
Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist Doug Parr criticised the proposal saying it would shift liabilities from private investors to taxpayers. “The nuclear industry has gone in just 10 years from saying they need no subsidies to asking bill payers to fork out for expensive power plants that don’t even exist yet, and may never,” Mr Parr said.
The government is expected to release its highly anticipated energy white paper in summer, which will indicate future electricity generation plans, with the UK’s 2013 energy strategy widely seen as defunct due to the faltering nuclear projects. https://www.ft.com/content/e2cf07ae-acaa-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2
BÜCHEL, Germany — Eleven international peace activists entered the Büchel Air Base southwest of Frankfurt early this morning to deliver what they called a “Treaty Enforcement Order” declaring that the sharing of US nuclear weapons at the base is a “criminal conspiracy to commit war crimes.”
Upon entering the base’s main gate with a printed “cease and desist order,” they insisted on seeing the base commander to deliver the order in person.
“We refuse to be complicit in this crime,” said Brian Terrell of Voices for Creative Nonviolence in Chicago, Illinois. “We call for the nuclear bombs to be returned to the US immediately. The Germans want these nuclear weapons out of Germany, and so do we.”
The group included people from Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All eleven were detained by military and civilian authorities and were released after providing identification. This is the third year in a row that a delegation of US peace activists has joined Europeans and others in protesting the US nuclear weapons at Büchel. The local group Nonviolent Action for Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (GAAA) convenes the International Action Week, demanding permanent ouster of the US nuclear weapons, cancellation of plans to replace today’s B61s with new hydrogen bombs, and Germany’s ratification of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
“Delivery of the ‘Cease and Desist Order’ is an act of crime prevention,” said John LaForge, of the US peace group Nukewatch and coordinator of the US delegation. “The authorities think the entry is a matter of trespass. But these nuclear bomb threats violate the UN Charter, the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.” he said, adding, “Interrupting government criminality is a duty of responsible citizenship.”The activists included: (from the United States) Susan Crane, Richard Bishop, Andrew Lanier, Jr., Brian Terrell, Ralph Hutchison, and Dennis DuVall; (from the UK) Richard Barnard; (from The Netherlands) Margriet Bos, and Susan van der Hijden; and (from Germany) Dietrich Gerstner, and Birke Kleinwächter.
Susan van der Hijden of Amsterdam, who is just back from the US where she visited the Kansas City, Kansas site of a factory working on parts of the new replacement bomb, known as the B61-12. “The planning and training to use the US H-bombs that goes on at Büchel cannot be legal, because organizing mass destruction has been a criminal act since the Nuremberg Trials after WWII,” van der Hijden said.
I watched the “Chernobyl” miniseries, and I was struck by the accuracy. The scene on the roof of the reactor as depicted in the fictional episode, was accurate in so much detail, compared to the 1986 real film.
There were many who risked their lives after the Chernobyl disaster — but none more so than a man desperate to show the world what happened,LJ Charleston, 21 July 19 When Soviet filmmaker Vladimir Shevchenko took his camera onto the roof of Chernobyl’s reactor four in the aftermath of the fatal explosion, he had no idea he was right in the middle of what was — in April 1986 — the most dangerous place on earth.
He also had no idea that his chilling documentary Chernobyl: Chronicle of Difficult Weeks, about the clean-up of the radioactive material at Chernobyl, would be his very last.
He died of acute radiation sickness a year later.
The award-winning film director, who was working for Ukrainian TV at the time, was said to have been quite unaware of the dangers he was putting himself in when he agreed to film from the roof next to reactor four.
He’d been hired to film in the exclusion zone. But his gravest error was agreeing — along with two assistants — to climb up to the most lethal area of all, just days after one of the worst man-made disasters of all time.
Even 33 years after the explosion, Shevchenko’s film is still an eerie reminder of the sacrifices made by those who risked their lives in the clean-up efforts at Chernobyl.
Today, as the world focuses once again on those events due to HBO’s series Chernobyl, it’s worthwhile putting the spotlight on the courageous Shevchenko.
He gave his life so that we could see with our own eyes what went on during the clean-up. It was, at times, incredibly basic and put so many lives at risk.
And, by doing so, Shevchenko was unknowingly filming his own death……
Shevchenko, who was the first and only film maker allowed on location in the exclusion zone of Chernobyl, is best known for Chernobyl — Chronicle of Difficult Weeks. You can watch the full cut of his film here.
The film is entirely in Russian, although it’s believed people are currently working on English subtitles. It includes interviews with beleaguered scientist Valery Legasov, now famous due to the HBO series in which he’s played by Jared Harris.
Legasov committed suicide two years after the disaster, on the anniversary, due to the horror of his experiences and the lies he had to tell the International Atomic Agency in Vienna to cover up Soviet mishandling of the event.
Shevchenko’s footage of Chernobyl has not been widely seen and the fact he lost his life a year after the explosion has been completely obscured, as his name isn’t listed on official records of deaths. At the time, his two assistants were receiving hospital treatment, but there is no word of what became of them.
Sydney archaeologist Mr Robert Maxwell, the only archaeologist who has worked in Chernobyl across two field excursions, told news.com.au Shevchenko was well-respected and trusted to film the clean-up efforts, as it was such a highly sensitive time for the Soviets.
“He was granted permission to film the clean-up, including the incredibly dangerous work of the ‘biobots’,” Mr Maxwell said, referring to the name given to the workers sent in to clean up……..
THE ‘BIOBOT FOOTAGE’
One of the most memorable and unbelievable scenes in the TV series Chernobylfeatures liquidation workers on the roof, using shovels to throw highly radioactive material back into the core.
If it wasn’t for Shevchenko’s 1986 footage, we would not know that this happened. The men could only work in frantic 90 second shifts; any longer and their exposure to the radiation would be fatal.
What makes the footage so compelling is that we can clearly see some men picking up the radioactive graphite with gloved hands. We also see Shevchenko filming from the roof top, wearing only a flimsy mask and cap for protection. Then we can see how badly damaged the footage is as the radiation makes an impact on the film itself.
It’s harrowing to see how much work the men are doing with their hands.
This is Shevchenko’s footage focusing on the rooftop clean-up.
Chernobyl. Cleaning the roofs. Soldiers (reservists). 1986.
Times 20th July 2019 Nuclear power plant will suck fish to their deaths, The Times, Ben Webster,, Oceans Correspondent, July 20 2019 It has been described as a giant plughole under the sea, sucking in 130,000 litres of water a second along with vast numbers of fish. The twin inlet tunnels stretching two miles out into the Severn estuary are so big that a
double-decker bus could drive through them.
The system will cool a new
nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset but
conservation groups say it will kill up to 250,000 fish a day and must be
altered or scrapped. They say that EDF, the French state-owned energy
group, has grossly underestimated the system’s impact on marine life in the
estuary, a special conservation area.
A 5mm mesh will be installed to
prevent larger fish being swallowed but the groups, including the Blue
Marine Foundation, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and Somerset Wildlife Trust,
say many fish will be fatally injured when pressed against it. Small fish,
eels and the fry of many species, such as salmon, whiting and cod, will be
sucked through the mesh and into the cooling system.
The groups say it
could damage the population of twaite shad in the UK, a small herring-like
fish that used to spawn in the estuary by the millions but has dwindled to
tens of thousands.
EDF says the system will kill about 650,000 fish a year.
It has asked to vary its original permits and planning permission for the
power station to allow it to remove an “acoustic fish deterrent” from the
cooling system. It argues that, even without it, the impact of the system
on fish populations will still be “negligible”. EDF says fish will be
adequately protected by other measures, one which will slow the water
entering the system and another which will return to the sea the fish
sucked in.
Conservation groups argue that scientific analysis they obtained
of the cooling system shows far greater harm to marine life. This analysis
is partly based on measurements of fish swallowed by the cooling system of
Hinkley Point B, a nearby nuclear power station which consumes a quarter of
the sea water that will be extracted to cool Hinkley C.
They want the
government to reject EDF’s application and, if the company cannot mitigate
the damage, force it to use other ways to cool the station, such as cooling
towers or ponds.
James Robinson, of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, said:
“The authorities must decide if it’s worth building a giant plughole to
suck millions of sea animals to their deaths, in one of our most important
protected marine areas, in order to produce electricity.” Charles Clover,
director of Blue Marine Foundation, said the groups would also challenge
plans by EDF for a similar system at its proposed new nuclear power station
at Sizewell in Suffolk.
