At a global level, the report concludes that, as with the much-heralded ‘nuclear renaissance’ of recent times, SMRs will not be built in any significant scale.
Whether the economies claimed from the use of production line techniques can be achieved will only be known if reactors are built in very large numbers, and at significant cost.
Spending so much time and effort pursuing such an uncertain technology, at a time when the ‘climate emergency’ has now reached the political and public lexicon in requiring urgent attention, does not appear to be an effective use of taxpayer resources.
In the overall view of the report authors, the prospects for SMRs in the UK and Worldwide are limited and not worth the huge levels of effort or finance being proposed for them.
NFLA support joint report with the Nuclear Consulting Group which looks at the prospects of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in the UK and globally and concludes they will not be built to any significant scale http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nfla-joint-ncg-report-on-smrs/ 25 Jul 19
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) welcomes cooperating with the Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG) in its development of one of the most detailed analyses of the technologies being developed to create small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the UK and around the world. This report concludes there remains fundamental barriers to any significant development of this new nuclear technology, and its prospects for creating some kind of ‘nuclear renaissance’ are unlikely to be realised.
The report has been developed by Professor Stephen Thomas of Greenwich University, Dr Paul Dorfman of University College London and NCG Founder, Professor M V Ramana of British Columbia University, and the NFLA Secretary. (1) The global nuclear industry has put forward SMRs as a panacea to the problems of high cost and the difficulty of financing large nuclear reactors; a ready-made alternative that can fill the gap.
However, as the NCG / NFLA report outlines in detail, there are huge obstacles to overcome. Some of these are technical issues, others are around building up an effective supply chain, while the financing of such schemes will only be possible with significant and large subsidy from the public purse.
The report starts with considering the failures in delivering larger nuclear reactors, and then takes in turn each type of SMR technology that has been put forward by companies involved in the nuclear industry.
The report outlines in some detail UK Government policy on SMRs. It notes that after some considerable early promotion of the technology, interest has markedly cooled, despite another fairly limited amount of money being offered to develop the technology, announced earlier this week. (2) The report notes the extraordinary set of conditions set out by Rolls Royce to be met by the UK Government if it is to invest significant amounts of money in its own SMR design, which the authors argue could and should not be committed to at a time when serious doubts remain about the economic viability of the technology.
At a global level, the report concludes that, as with the much-heralded ‘nuclear renaissance’ of recent times, SMRs will not be built in any significant scale. The authors note that the two main rationales for SMRs – promised lower overall project costs and lowering the risk of cost overruns by shifting to an assembly line approach – are more than offset by the loss of scale economies that the nuclear industry has pursued for the past five decades. Indeed, many of the features of the SMRs being developed are the same ones that underpinned the latest, failed generation of large reactors. Reactor cost estimates will remain with a large degree of uncertainty until a comprehensive review by national nuclear regulators is completed, the design features are finalised and demonstration plants are built. Whether the economies claimed from the use of production line techniques can be achieved will only be known if reactors are built in very large numbers, and at significant cost.
Spending so much time and effort pursuing such an uncertain technology, at a time when the ‘climate emergency’ has now reached the political and public lexicon in requiring urgent attention, does not appear to be an effective use of taxpayer resources. Abundant evidence shows that renewable energy supply, storage, distribution and management technologies are being developed ever cheaper and swifter at a time when real urgency is required across society and government to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. SMRs are no answer to creating low-carbon economies by 2030 or close to that date. Governments should consider this report carefully and not be diverted by an unproven technology inherent with many difficult issues still to overcome.
In the overall view of the report authors, the prospects for SMRs in the UK and Worldwide are limited and not worth the huge levels of effort or finance being proposed for them.
NFLA Steering Committee Chair Councillor David Blackburn said:
“This excellent independent analysis on the prospects for small modular nuclear reactors needs to be read by the new Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom and senior civil servants in the UK Government who have been providing support to the development of small modular nuclear reactors. It is clear from this joint report between the NCG and the NFLA that this technology is not the panacea to kick start new nuclear reactors, far from it. As Councils around the country declare ‘climate emergencies’ it is clear from this report that scarce available resource should not be spent developing this technology but rather diverted into renewable energy, smart energy, energy efficiency and energy storage projects instead. As large new nuclear like at Moorside and Wylfa has failed to be realised, it is time now to move away from small nuclear reactors as an expensive sideshow to the critical needs of mitigating carbon.”
Report co-author Professor Steve Thomas added:
“Nuclear proponents are saying that SMRs will be the next big thing – but the reality is they are as expensive as large reactors, produce the same waste, carry the same radiation risks, and are a long way from any real deployment.”
Ends – for more information please contact Sean Morris, NFLA Secretary, on 00 44 (0)161 234 3244.
Notes for editors:
(1) NCG / NFLA report – Prospects for Small Modular Reactors in the UK and Worldwide, July 2019
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Prospects-for-SMRs-report-2.pdf
(2) Energy Live News, Government mulls investing £18 million to develop UK’s first mini nuclear reactor, 23rd July 2019 https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/07/23/government-mulls-investing-18m-to-develop-uks-first-mini-nuclear-reactor/
July 27, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK |
Leave a comment
|
 Dave Toke’s green energy blog, https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-laymans-guide-to-regulated-asset-base.html, 23 July 2019
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.
|
|
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/23/lets-face-it-nuclear-power-is-hideously-dear-and-far-from-ideal
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Rolls-Royce gets government commitment for mini nuclear reactors UK aero-engine maker seeks to spearhead development of export-led industry https://www.ft.com/content/32ee2100-ad43-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2 Sylvia Pfeifer in London, 24 July 19,
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.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK |
Leave a comment
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/23/new-uk-nuclear-plants-government-cost
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Nuclear funding proposal ‘essential’ for restarting Wylfa, BBC, 23 July 2019
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
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.
The proposed “regulated asset base” (RAB) model would see consumers pay for the plants on their bills during construction, but would expose them and taxpayers to the… (subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/reforms-in-funding-planned-to-meet-demand-for-nuclear-power-plants-j3n0mln0l
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
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.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/17cbe1b8-acbd-11e9-b657-11944f524f2a
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
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”.
https://www.tasizewellc.org.uk/
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, opposition to nuclear, UK |
Leave a comment
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
July 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
 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.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e0c7e83e-aa68-11e9-89e4-5e7e89de8df9
|
|
|
July 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, technology, UK |
Leave a comment
Guardian 19th July 2019 Britain’s first climate “citizens assembly” opened its final session
on Saturday morning at which more than 50 Londoners will decide on
carbon-cutting measures they want their district to enact in order to
confront climate change.
Camden’s Citizens Assembly, convened to
interrogate what locals, neighbourhoods and the council can do for the
environment, is deliberating action that would reduce fossil fuel usage in
homes and public buildings and on roads. The wishlist will be considered by
the council as it draws up an environment action plan for 2020.
The outcome
of the assembly will be closely watched by other councils planning to
follow suit this year, and by Westminster which will hold its own national
climate assembly in the autumn. Council officials say there is a clear
intention to implement at least some of the recommendations.
“I hope
there will be some concrete action that we can take forward as a
council,” said Georgia Gould, the council leader. “That’s the idea of
it being an open process – you are letting go of that control. Our
climate is in a crisis and we need to act in radical new ways and this
assembly is part of developing those new ideas.”
July 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, UK |
Leave a comment
The Energyst 18th July 2019 The GB electricity system operator has suggested demand-side response (DSR) is more reliable than nuclear power in its latest Capacity Market auction
guidelines. National Grid ESO has given DSR a de-rating factor of 86 per
cent, while nuclear is de-rated to 81 per cent.
DSR is also deemed to be
marginally more reliable than biomass, coal and most interconnectors, per
the guidelines. Industry participants suggested the move reflected the
expertise of DSR providers in managing their portfolios. “Presumably [the
de-rating factors] reflects recent reliability of the UK nuclear fleet, and
superior performance of aggregators in delivering contracted response,”
wrote Jon Ferris, strategy director at energy blockchain firm Electron.
His comments were welcomed by the Association for Decentralised Energy.https://theenergyst.com/national-grid-dsr-more-reliable-than-nuclear/
July 22, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ENERGY, UK |
Leave a comment
National Grid ESO 12th July 2019 Reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is achievable but requires immediate action across the energy system. National Grid Electricity System
Operator’s Future Energy Scenarios report maps out credible pathways and
scenarios for the future of energy for the next 30 years and beyond.
Based on input from over 600 experts, it looks at the energy needed in Britain,
across electricity and gas – examining where it could come from, how it
needs to change and what this means for consumers, society and the energy
system itself.
The report outlines five potential energy futures –
including net zero by 2050 – and is intended to stimulate debate rather
than provide definitive predictions. It highlights the importance of
different parts of the energy industry working together and details the
critical actions needed to accelerate the decarbonization of the system.
The analysis shows the positive role electric vehicles can play in
decarbonization, with a predicted 35 million electric vehicles by 2050
providing greater flexibility and supporting increased energy from
renewable sources. During periods of oversupply EVs could be used to store
excess electricity with the potential to store roughly one fifth of GB’s
solar generation for when this energy is needed. It also outlines large
scale changes in how power is generated, including growth in wind and solar
generation as coal plants close. There are domestic actions too – homes in
2050 will need to use at least one third less energy for heating than
today, with over 7 million hybrid heat pumps installed by 2050 to provide
continued flexibility.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/pathways-2050-national-grid-eso-publishes-2019-future-energy-scenarios
July 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ENERGY, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
BANNG 12th July 19 Blowers asks what might happen at Bradwell if the East coast floods again as in 1953 During the night of 31 January/1 February, 1953, in the moonlit dark, dead heart
of winter, the Essex Coast was struck by a surging storm, flooding the
creeks, overpowering the sea defences and leaving a trail of disruption,
destruction and death in its wake. I recollect my own astonishment when
walking to church that Sunday morning at the sight of the flooded factories
of the Hythe at Colchester.
I wonder what might happen to the low-lying
lands around the Blackwater if such a storm surge occurs again and if,
heaven forbid, a new nuclear power station had been built at the Bradwell
site. What must be recognised is that, with global warming and rising seas,
destructive storm surges, flooding and coastal erosion are quite likely
events over the lifetime of a new nuclear plant on the vulnerable shores of
Bradwell. In the circumstances it is difficult to conceive how the site can
be considered potentially suitable now, let alone into the next century
when decommissioning and radioactive waste management will become hazardous
operations.
https://www.banng.info/news/the-return-of-the-great-tide/
July 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, UK |
Leave a comment
