Posts Tagged policy

NIA’s SMR conference: great discussion, now we need action

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on March 3rd, 2017

On Monday, the Nuclear Industry Association held its Small Modular Reactor conference. Weinberg Next Nuclear were delighted to attend and our director Stephen Tindale was one of the many speakers.

The conference was opened by Tom Wintle, deputy director of SMRs, decommissioning and waste at the department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Though he spoke very eloquently about the importance of nuclear, and SMRs to the government, particularly in regards to the Industrial Strategy’s aims of home grown industries, developing skills, regional rejuvenation and a stronger economy for the growth areas of tomorrow, he would not be drawn on the real issues the audience clearly wanted to hear about: the much delayed SMR competition and the question of public funding at Moorside. Instead, he highlighted changing priorities of the government, with a renewed focus on energy security, consumer bills and the potential for driving exports and capturing a global SMR market in a post Brexit UK. He would also not be drawn on the future relationship with Euratom, saying it was too early to speculate but repeating it was a non-negotiable aspect of exiting the EU, a decision many we spoke to think is premature and will lead to huge hurdles for British nuclear in the future.

Clearly, despite the challenges ahead, the potential and appetite for new nuclear displayed at the conference was immense. Talks followed by Charles Potter of the national Nuclear laboratory who said there were 250 potential sites for SMRs in the UK with an estimate of 70GWe that could be developed. Then Dr John Iris Jones spoke about the nuclear site at Trawsfynydd and how the community, who largely rely on the current nuclear reactor for jobs, were strongly in support of a new SMR and were keen to see progress on the technology.

Our Director Stephen Tindale was on a panel with Mike Middleton of the Energy Technology InstituteLiz Saville-Roberts MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and Tom Greatrex of the Nuclear Industry Association discussing SMRs and Industrial Strategy. He argued the government needed a portfolio of clean energy technologies, and within the nuclear portfolio itself, there are lots of opportunities including load following for intermittent technologies and using up the spent fuel stockpile for energy instead of treating it as waste. When asked about government plans he said the Government have spent enough time building a vision; now, we need action. The action we need to see, Stephen recommended, was the Government telling the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to release sites for advanced nuclear and instructing the Office for Nuclear Regulation to undertake Generic Design Assessments for advanced reactors, expanding their capacity to do so if necessary. 

Later panels discussed achieving and financing SMRs. The former by Chris Lewis from EY and Richard Beake from Atkins discussed the 60x30x2 challenge. This incorporates electricity at less that $60 per mwh, available by 2030 at a cost of $2billion per plant. Nuclear power stations have thus far been failing at this challenge because they are too large and complex, generating much hope that SMRs could be the smaller, simpler solution that will deliver. Counteracting this point was a later finance panel who said getting cost down is over-emphasised as to an investor it sounds like risks. This panel, comprising Fiona Reilly from Atlantic Superconnection LLPAnurag Gupta from KPMG LLP and Gareth Price from Allan & Overy LLP, also argued that BEIS were putting too much hope into an export market as with bigger contributors emerging like China and the US, it is unlikely that the UK will be able to compete. Instead, they argued other costs should be taken into account such as the avoided cost of managing the plutonium stockpile if re-cycled as fuel, and the value of jobs to communities which are worth more than the wages alone. Overall they made a strong statement for state-led nuclear power incorporating the private sector at a later stage of development if possible.

The other sessions of the day and networking were all equally interesting at what was overall an excellent event. However the clear mood is that talking and discussion are not being paralleled with policy progress. The sector desperately needs to see some action from government, to progress with the SMR review, provide certainty for Moorisde and clarify the terms of Euratom membership. Without certainty that the UK is still a nuclear player the sector will easily be lost overseas, to Canada, the USA or Asia, where the necessary action and support is more readily available.

Our response to Scottish Government consultation on draft Climate Plan

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on February 10th, 2017

The Scottish Government released in January a Draft Climate Change Plan along with a consultation on their suggested policies. Weinberg Next Nuclear has responded and our submission is available below. Scotland is leading the UK in decarbonisation and we believe their targets for negative power emissions and overall decarbonisation timescales should be celebrated for their ambition. Continued support for renewables, and significant hope in the potential for Carbon Capture and Storage form the basis of their policy. However nuclear power, which currently supplies a third of Scotland’s electricity, is neglected. Weinberg Next Nuclear believes that nuclear power is an essential element of a a diverse decarbonisation energy mix. Scotland’s nuclear power plants are ageing and even with life extensions, will be unlikely to operate past 2030. Thus without plans for new nuclear power, Scotland risks missing its decarbonisation targets. Instead, Scotland should look at the potential for advanced nuclear power, which can offer low-carbon, reliable electricity, whilst also securing other benefits for Scotland.

 

Written evidence to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee submitted by Weinberg Next Nuclear

  1. Summary
  • Progress, targets and timescales are all good. A net zero target is recommended.
  • Power sector is already driving decarbonisation; however policy to decarbonize power relies too heavily on CCS and neglects nuclear, undermining the Scottish Government’s commitment to decarbonisation.
  • Without a significant policy shift in the power sector Scotland risks no longer meeting its targets.
  • Considerable benefits for Scotland, within e.g. air quality and landscape, can be derived from a new nuclear build programme and should therefore be pursued.
  1. Introduction

Weinberg Next Nuclear is a UK charity promoting safe, secure and sustainable nuclear power as a solution to the energy challenges of today. Weinberg focuses on all aspects of the nuclear power industry as well as the wider energy sector and decarbonisation.

Weinberg Next Nuclear welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Governments call for Evidence on the Draft Climate Plan. As a charity that works across the energy space, we will be directing our response to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee as the energy sector falls within their remit.

  1. Progress, targets and timescales good

As the Committee on Climate Change reported, Scotland is leading the UK in greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Previous targets have been successfully met with a cut of adjusted emissions by 45.8% between 1990 and 2014, exceeding the 2020 target of a 42% cut six years early. These impressive emissions reductions were achieved whilst the Scottish economy grew. This success has made Scotland a leader in the decarbonisation space, second only to Sweden among Western European countries in cutting emissions over this period.

Future targets as set by The Climate Change Act 2009 show good ambition, with an 80% cut by 2050, though a net zero target should soon be discussed. The power sector has previously been the most successful at decarbonising, and future emissions savings may rely on progress in power whilst other sectors are more challenging. The policy for zero, or even negative emissions from power by 2030 is an ambitious target on an ambitious timeline. This level of ambition is needed but it needs policies to match that are currently lacking. Without more comprehensive, diverse power policy, this target is at risk of being missed.

  1. Meeting the Targets: a role for nuclear

The Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee focuses on the following areas, Electricity generation, Reducing energy demand, Renewable energy (renewable electricity and renewable heat), Interconnection, Grid issues and Fuel poverty. These are all key areas of the power sector, and focusing on demand side issues such as interconnection and efficiency as well as the underemphasised renewable heat are vital to overall decarbonisation. But focusing on renewable energy, rather than low carbon energy, is limited. To give the best chance of decarbonisation, Scotland should encourage an all of the above approach including CCS and nuclear.

There is no current CCS in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK. With the cancellation of the CCS competition by Former Chancellor George Osborne the likelihood of imminent CCS commercialisation in the UK is low. Nuclear power on the other hand as point 7.1.5 states supplied,

“just over a third of Scotland’s electricity in 2015. This represents an increase from 2007, when nuclear energy represented 25.7% of Scotland’s electricity supply.”

Additionally 2.2.4 states:

Electricity will be increasingly important as a power source for heat and transport. As a result, the total volume of electricity supplied within Scotland will increase to 2032. System security will be ensured through diverse generation technologies, increased storage, smart grid technologies and improved interconnection.”

Nuclear power is already making up a significant proportion of the low carbon power required to meet the negative emissions electricity generation target by 2030. If unabated fossil fuels are to continue to be replaced whilst electricity demand grows, Scotland will need a reliable form of power.

Pursuing CCS is wise, especially with the potential to combine with bioenergy for negative emissions; on which we welcome the proposal of a whole system bioenergy action plan and suggest it has a large emphasis on sustainability criteria. However with CCS still a significant way from commercialisation, Scotland should not rule out options that are already delivering carbon savings, such as nuclear power.

We recommend Scotland replaces Hunterston nuclear power station with a new nuclear station. Hunterston is due to close in 2023 and though the owner EDF may extend its life, it has been generating since 1976 so will not be able to continue for much of the foreseeable future. When it does close the gap will need to be filled and if renewables are not expanding quickly enough there is a risk of a relapse on emission savings. Torness nuclear power stations’ life has already been extended, but only until 2030. Thus even if the Scottish government met it’s 2030 target, emissions would likely rise again when Torness closes.

With a third of Scotland’s low carbon power due to close down, there is a need for replacement to compliment the expansion of renewables. This will be necessary whether CCS is delivered or not. Advanced nuclear power, with simpler, more secure and more sustainable reactors, can fill this gap, contribute to emissions savings and also generate new opportunities for Scotland (see below section 5).

Though Weinberg Next Nuclear accept the limits to Scotland’s options due to the policy demands of Westminster, the Scottish government now has an opportunity to channel the pro-nuclear sentiment set out by Westminster in the Industrial Strategy into a decarbonisation narrative.

Though Weinberg Next Nuclear recommends a diverse energy supply based on an “all of the above” strategy, there are obvious environmental concerns to take into account. All technologies have their limitations, including nuclear, but these are often overstated. One technology that can cause more damage than others is pumped storage hydropower, which is supported in the draft climate plan. Though hydro provides reliable power, the construction of dams is often fraught with environmental compromises, and the location should be considered, especially in areas of natural beauty such as the Scottish highlands. Nuclear could provide the same power, with additional skills benefits, without the environmental compromises.

  1. Opportunities to secure wider benefits

In line with the UK’s industrial strategy, a renewed nuclear focus could give the opportunity for building a strong nuclear skills and innovation base in Scotland, drawing upon the wealth of experience and expertise that exists. Continuous failure to preserve this expertise is regrettable and could lead to a further ‘brain drain’. Similarly, focusing on building a skills and innovation based economy in Scotland, led by a dual commitment to nuclear and renewables, could see Scotland becoming a leading nation in the world on successful and sustainable decarbonisation.

There are social opportunities to consider to expanding nuclear power. Nuclear power stations are expensive to build but, given their very long lifespans, most of the power produced will be cheap. Fuel prices will not play any significant role as the price of uranium remains low, as well as the fact that uranium is almost 71 000 times more energy dense than natural gas. This has a dual benefit. Firstly, modern nuclear power stations can play a significant role in addressing fuel poverty by reducing the costs of electricity. Secondly, by opting for nuclear power, issues around landscape (e.g. windfarms, commercial solar farms) are less of an issue. This is highlighted in table 1, showing the vast amounts of space required to replace merely one nuclear reactor.

Table 1: Landscape impact

Technology Capacity factor (%) Sq. miles needed to produce 1000 MW
Nuclear 90 1
Wind 32-47 260-360
Solar 17-28 45-75

 

Further social opportunities stemming from a nuclear-led decarbonisation are found within air quality. By opting for a rapid decarbonisation by using long-proved technologies, nuclear power can replace fossil fuel-based electricity generation within timescales that renewables cannot match. If this is coupled with a serious commitment to decarbonise the transport (non-aviation) fleet, the air quality in Scotland could derive considerable benefits. This, in turn, would allow many serious health issues connected with poor air quality in many of Scotland’s cities to be addressed in an adequate manner.

  1. Recommendations
  • Set a net zero decarbonisation target.
  • Acknowledge the urgency of decarbonisation of the energy sector, by changing focus to low carbon energy focus to encompass nuclear and CCS
  • Establishing a nuclear skills and innovation programme in Scotland.
  • Remove the Memorandum on New Nuclear in Scotland, thus allowing for modern nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland.
  • Establish a programme of nuclear new build in Scotland, coupled with a commitment to decarbonise the non-aviation transport sector.

February, 2017

Leaving Euratom: the government should reconsider

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on January 27th, 2017

It has been confirmed that the UK intends to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) as part of the Brexit process. Following their loss in the Supreme Court last week, the government has produced a bill on triggering Article 50 to put to a commons vote. As part of the explanatory notes of this very short bill, was the revelation that Britian will be leaving both the EU and Euratom. Euratom, a separate legal entity to the EU but governed by EU institutions, has controlled nuclear power in Europe since 1957.

The move has been met with shock by the industry, with Dr Paul Dorfman, honorary senior researcher at the Energy Institute at University College London, calling it a “lose-lose situation” due to the potential for reduced competitiveness and reduced safety. There will be increased pressure on the already under-resourced Office for Nuclear Regulation to cover all of Euratom’s responsibilities including non-proliferation inspections, authorizing the sale of nuclear material and safeguarding power, fuel fabrication and waste sites. Alternatively the UK would need to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency for help with this new burden. The decision will likely impact the UK’s plans for new power stations, research, skills development and dealing with the waste legacy.

The decision will also likely mean the eventual loss of the world leading Fusion experiment based in Culham, Oxfordshire, involving 350 scientists and funding from 40 countries, to another country such as Germany or France. This loss could risk perpetrating across the nuclear research space, with the isolation from Euratom making the UK far less attractive for research and innovation leading to a funding and brain drain at the very time the UK is trying to reinvigorate its nuclear leadership through it’s Industrial Strategy.

A complex set of negotiations will now have to take place as most nuclear co-operation with the UK relies on safeguards provided through Euratom. It may not be possible to agree and ratify new agreements before Britain leaves the EU in 2019. According to Vince Zabielski, a senior lawyer at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, “current new build projects will be placed on hold while those standalone treaties are negotiated” meaning possible delays at Hinkley as well as Bradwell, Moorside and Wylfa.

The decision however is not just bad for the UK, but for nuclear as a whole. With the UK one of the last big supporters of the technology, weakening its strength in the field will give power to anti-nuclear camps across the continent.

Weinberg Next Nuclear is very concerned that the departure from Euratom could severely damage the UK’s nuclear industry, with impacts on energy security, industrial competitiveness and decarbonisation objectives. We find no reason why such drastic action needs to be taken. Article 50 deals with the two Treaties of Lisbon: the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However the Euratom treaty is separate, not mentioned in either of the above treaties thus there is no reason for including Euratom in any part of Article 50 debate. As Jonathan Leech, a senior lawyer and nuclear expert at Prospect Law said, “there doesn’t seem to have been any real explanation as to why, because we are going towards the unknown at great speed. Legally we don’t have to [leave Euratom because the UK is leaving the EU],”.

Weinberg Next Nuclear thus urges the government to reconsider and avoid the highly damaging consequences this unnecessary withdrawal could have on the UK’s nuclear future.

New Report: The Case for a Clean Energy Alliance

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on January 23rd, 2017

23 January 2017: Clean energy sectors should set up an alliance to shape a supportive industrial strategy.

The British government is today publishing a consultative green paper on a new industrial strategy. It proposes to offer ‘Sector Deals’ to address sector-specific challenges and opportunities. These would “offer a range of support”, including supporting innovation.

The Government highlights that Britain has strengths in research and development of smart energy technologies. And one of the ten” strategic pillars” will be:

“Delivering affordable energy and clean growth. We need to keep costs down for businesses, and secure the economic benefits of the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

In response to the green paper, the Alvin Weinberg Foundation think tank has published a report on The Case for a Clean Energy Alliance. The report argues that:

 

“An Alliance would bring together like-minded organisations – those concerned with energy security, fuel poverty, economic competitiveness, environment, air quality and climate change – to work towards a common goal of decarbonisation. The renewables, CCS and nuclear sectors do already work together on specific issues, through their trade associations. An Alliance would add value by taking a strategic approach, to complement, not duplicate, the tactical co-operation that takes place between sectors already. The Alliance should not be an alternative public voice for clean energy, but rather unite existing voices.”

“The energy industry needs to offer strategic advice to governments on how best to facilitate clean energy. Some competition between sectors is inevitable: public money is limited. Nevertheless, there are significant questions on which competition is neither necessary nor helpful.”[i]

The criteria for judging what is low-carbon should include the full life-cycle of the technology, including land use change. Full members should be trade associations: companies and civil society organisations could become associate members.

Stephen Tindale, Weinberg director, said:

“An active industrial strategy offers a great opportunity for clean energy. To take advantage, different clean energy sectors should work together more strategically. With all the energy challenges of today, now is not the time for sectoral technology tribalism: it is the time for a Clean Energy Alliance.”

Contact: Stephen Tindale

stephen.tindale@the-weinberg-foundation.org

07941 433780

[i] Strategic questions that an Alliance could address include:

  • Should low-carbon energy technologies continue to receive public financial support into the 2020s?
  • If so, how should such support be delivered – through guaranteed tariffs or through grants?
  • Should public money to support clean energy be raised through taxation or through energy bills?
  • How can the operation of the Levy Control Framework be improved in order to increase investor confidence?
  • Is the Contract-for-Difference approach efficient and fair: should it be reformed or would the resulting regulatory instability undermine any potential benefits?”

Evidence to Lord’s Committee by Director Stephen Tindale

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on December 9th, 2016

Our Director Stephen Tindale gave oral evidence on the economics of UK energy policy to the House of Lord’s Economic Affairs Committee on 15 November. He argued for a more diverse energy mix, more consistent policy and more rapid decision making on key issues.

The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement said little about energy. The spring 2017 Budget therefore becomes a crucial event: for advanced nuclear, tidal lagoons, energy efficiency, CCS and several other climate and energy issues. In our work for Weinberg Next Nuclear we will continue to urge the UK government to make the necessary public investment to move beyond research, at which the UK is very good, to demonstration and deployment, at which the UK is much less good.

 

Lord Tugendhat: A completely straight-up question: can you please explain the work you are doing and how it fits into the UK energy system?

Stephen Tindale: I work for two days a week running the Alvin Weinberg Foundation, which is the only pro-nuclear charity in the UK. Specifically we are pro-advanced nuclear generation for nuclear—fast reactors. We have tried fast breeder reactors in the UK at Dounreay, and that did not work economically. We now need to look at fast burner reactors, because there is no shortage of plutonium and so on. That is one form of advanced nuclear. The other is molten salt reactors, one of which Alvin Weinberg, the US physicist after whom we are named, was building in the 1960s and early 1970s until President Nixon shut it down. It is an advanced technology—it is not just a paper reactor—but it has not been implemented or built more recently, so there is much work to be done there. The rest of the week I am a consultant, and I work particularly for Tidal Lagoon Power. You have just had a discussion about possible new forms of renewable energy. I would say that tidal lagoons are a very good example of that, and I am very happy to talk about that.

Lord Sharkey: Can I ask you two more questions about technology? First, what impact do you expect your own technologies to make over the next 10 years? Secondly, which other technologies will have the most transformative or disruptive effect on the energy sector and which areas should be priorities for research, apart from your own technologies of course?

Stephen Tindale: Over the next 10 years, advanced nuclear will not be a major player in energy systems. Commercialisation is possible over the next 10 years, but there will not be many advanced nuclear reactors operating in 10 years’ time. That does not mean that we should go slow on it, because over the following 10 or 20 years they could become major players, but a decade is too short a period. One of the companies I am working with, Terrestrial Energy, a Canadian-based company, has said that it aims to commercialise by the mid-2020s, so it is possible, at least in its view. That is why further generation 3 existing reactor designs are necessary as a kind of bridge technology to get us to advanced nuclear, which will be a major player not only in electricity but in heat. Industrial heating cannot be delivered by electricity, as I understand it, so some other form of heating is necessary. Bioenergy is possible, but that has lots of downsides relating to land use and biodiversity, so advanced nuclear for industrial heating seems a sensible way forward.

The other company I mentioned, Tidal Lagoon Power, could be a major player in the next 10 years. I very much hope that following the Hendry review the Government will authorise and support the pathfinder proposal for Swansea financially through a CFD. That is necessary, learning by doing and so on, but the company says that it will then build a 3 gigawatt lagoon off Cardiff, and the Welsh Government are very supportive; they have given it a commercial loan. It is therefore possible that by 2026 more than 3 gigawatts will be generated by the Severn.

Lord Layard: I wanted to ask you about Britain’s record in clean energy research compared with other countries’, and in particular about the implications of the Government’s announcement in the spending review that they would double public expenditure on clean energy research by 2020. How would that money be best spent? What kind of co-ordination is needed to produce value for money from that kind of expenditure?

Stephen Tindale: In the nuclear field, the UK remains quite good on research but not good on research and development, or at least not on the development bit, because we have built no nuclear power stations since the early 1990s. What is needed now is to co-operate with the US, depending on what happens there; certainly the Obama Administration was allocating money and giving it out to research and development for advanced nuclear, and the Trudeau Government in Canada are doing likewise. It would be good to talk to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for 25 example, to learn how to make progress on delivering advanced nuclear in a way that not only helps with energy security and climate protection but is a major economic opportunity.

Baroness Wheatcroft: One of the reasons why we have not developed any nuclear power stations over the last decades is presumably because there was a perception that the public were not in favour. We are told in your biography that you spent two decades campaigning against nuclear. Can you tell us where the change of heart came from?

Stephen Tindale: That is a perfectly fair question. Indeed, I spent two decades campaigning against nuclear and drafted the Labour Party’s environment policy in 1994, which said, “No new nuclear”. It took Tony Blair in No. 10 and Gordon Brown some time to shift away from that. I then went to work for Greenpeace. I was always worried primarily about the weapons proliferation risk of nuclear rather than radioactive discharges or waste. At least the nuclear industry is required to look after its waste, whereas the fossil fuel industry just puts it out into the atmosphere. I remained concerned about weapons proliferation. My change of heart occurred in August 2006, when the permafrost in Siberia had a massive melt and released vast quantities of methane, at which point I thought, “Oh dear”—to put it politely—“What can we do about this?”. I then concluded over several months, during which I ended up leaving Greenpeace, that we needed to stop arguing only for “the best”, which in terms of energy supply would be renewables, but we need the good as well. Nuclear, because it is low carbon, is in this sense good.

Baroness Wheatcroft: Climate change trumps nuclear arms.

Stephen Tindale: Correct

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: An easy question: should the Government treat investment in energy technology as part of their so-called industrial strategy? If you think they should, do you really think that government is well placed to start picking winners and deciding where that money should best be deployed? I just wonder whether the experience to date with the very generous subsidies for renewables may have deterred some of the work that should have been done on new technologies.

Stephen Tindale: I agree that energy has to be a central part of the industrial strategy. That is why I welcomed the creation of BEIS. Many of my colleagues in the climate movement were very unhappy that DECC was abolished, but in my view the name of the department is less important than its clout in Whitehall. BEIS has the potential to be a significant player in Whitehall, which I am afraid DECC never was. Industrial strategy should cover not only the job creation potential of energy, or how to promote energy security, but, crucially, innovation. On innovation, as well as the issues I have talked about, carbon capture and storage should be restarted. George Osborne’s cancellation of that competition not only was bad in content but sent appalling signals to the potential investors—actual investors in that case—that there was no regulatory stability in the UK. This is one of our major challenges and obstacles: that energy policy changes too often, even when there is no change of Government. To reinsert carbon capture and storage, maybe not for coal but certainly for gas, would be very good not only to protect the climate and keep up with other countries that are developing CCS but to reassure potential investors. On picking winners, if the market was working well, it would not be necessary for the Government to pick winners. By “working well” I mean if all relevant externalities had been internalised—so not only a carbon price but toxic pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. We are nowhere near that. The carbon price floor in the UK can be argued many ways, but it is about a third of the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS is about a tenth of the cost, so it is a complete waste of time. So we are doing better than continental Europe but not nearly well enough. In my view, the major achievement of the coalition was the emissions performance standard—the regulation to prevent new coalfired power stations without carbon capture and storage. It is not low enough in that it allows unabated gas to be built or to continue, and it does not use a regulatory system to shut coal down quickly, but the market appears to be doing that for other reasons. The role of the Government, given the lack of sufficient carbon prices and other green taxes, is to set the framework, which is what Greg Clark said in his speech to Energy UK earlier this week.

The Chairman:. Can I bring this session to a close by asking you what steps you think the Government need to take to encourage private investment in your particular businesses and in the sector generally?

Stephen Tindale: On nuclear, the Government have started on the right course with their promise of £250 million over five years on nuclear R&D innovation funding. That is part of the mission innovation commitment which the UK has made in the international climate agreement context. It has made a start and it is now running two competitions, but the experience of potential investments in carbon capture and storage competition, as I said, was not great. The Government need to set out a timetable and make some awards as soon as possible—give some money. That will encourage investor confidence. There is no lack of potential investors, but there is too much regulatory uncertainty and instability at the moment. The Government definitely need to counter that. The other thing the Government could do on nuclear is encourage the Office for Nuclear Regulation to assess some of these generation 4 designs. Clearly, the Government cannot tell it to say yes, but they can indicate that they are priorities for UK energy policy: that some of these generation 4 reactor designs should be assessed by the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

The Chairman: It seemed that there was a lack of enthusiasm to invest in what turned out to be Hinkley C. The Government have ended up paying a very high price for it.

Stephen Tindale: Indeed. My view of the European pressurised reactor—the design that might be built at Hinkley, and now that the decision has been made I hope it is built—is that it does not have a great track record. It is quite an old-fashioned design and very complicated. More and more safety features were added to it, rather than a more holistic approach of starting from scratch and building safety intrinsically into the design.

The Chairman: So we are paying a high price for yesterday’s model?

Stephen Tindale: Yes.

Lord Burns: What prices are you expecting for the Swansea lagoon?

Stephen Tindale: Are you asking about the strike price?

Lord Burns: Yes.

Stephen Tindale: It is roughly £120. Okay, that is higher than Hinkley, but it is a global first of its kind. I know that the Treasury does not like talk of global firsts of a kind, but La Rance, the barrage in France that uses broadly the same turbines, was built 50 years ago. Turbine technology has advanced somewhat. We need to test it. That is why the argument that we should go first for a three gigawatt one, to invest in an undemonstrated technological approach, is asking investors to be a bit too brave. If the Government wanted to do three gigawatts, they would probably have to provide all the capital themselves. That is not, apparently, on offer.

 

Nuclear innovation must be part of the climate and energy solution

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on November 1st, 2016

Director Stephen Tindale has written a piece for Bright Blue, the independent conservative think tank. Find the original article published here:

http://green.brightblue.org.uk/blog/2016/10/28/nuclear-innovation-must-be-part-of-the-climate-and-energy-solution

 
Nuclear is a necessary part of the UK’s energy system. It currently provides about a fifth of UK electricity. Reactors are expensive to build, cheap to operate, then expensive to decommission. So it makes sense to run them for as long as regulators say it is safe to do so. Angela Merkel’s decision to close Germany’s reactors early makes no economic sense.

However, the UK has not opened a new nuclear reactor since 1995. (Labour was, for most of its 13 years in power, anti-nuclear.) So most UK nuclear plants are reaching the end of their design life. If we are to meet the legally-binding carbon budgets of the Climate Change Act, new nuclear will be needed, alongside energy efficiency, renewables and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Amber Rudd promised, while Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, that there will be no coal generation without CCS after 2025 – but only if this is consistent with energy security. By this she presumably meant ‘only if there is enough non-coal generation capacity to keep the lights on’. In the broader energy security sense, ‘where does the fuel come from?’, nuclear clearly is consistent: the uranium comes from friendly countries like Australia and Namibia.

The Coalition Government did well to make progress on new nuclear, which the Conservative Government has continued. Prime Minister May has now given final approval to EDF to construct Hinkley Point C. The reactor EDF will build, the European Pressurised Reactor, is a very complicated design – with additional safety features added to an old design. This complexity increases costs. EDF’s efforts to build such reactors in France and Finland have been beset with difficulties, delays and budget overruns.

Nevertheless, now the decision has been made Hinkley should be supported. So should new build proposals on Angelsey and in Cumbria. These projects will use less complex reactor designs, so will very probably be cheaper to build. But they are again not the most modern reactor designs. So the Government should also promote nuclear innovation.

Last year, the think tank I work for, Weinberg Next Nuclear, called for public investment in nuclear innovation. In his Autumn Statement, George Osborne promised £250 million for nuclear R&D. Earlier this year, the Government launched a competition to develop and demonstrate small modular reactors, which can be made in factories. They are then delivered to sites, where the modules can be combined to provide a power station as large as desired. This will almost certainly cut construction costs.

The Government should go further on nuclear innovation, as Weinberg argued in our April report Next Steps for Nuclear Innovation in the UK. Britain has an enormous legacy from past nuclear activities: spent fuel and the largest plutonium stockpile in the world. Burying it in a very deep – and very expensive – hole has been the favoured option of successive governments. A much better approach would be to use the legacy to provide clean energy. Most of the energy that was contained in the uranium remains unused in spent fuel, so the fuel should be re-used, not thrown away. Plutonium can also be used as fuel. Advanced molten salt and fast reactors could deal with the nuclear legacy as well as providing clean energy. Because safety is built into the design, they will be cheaper to construct than the Hinkley design will be.

Why can’t energy policy, including technological innovation, simply be left to the market? Because there is not a proper carbon price, so the market delivers dirty energy, not clean energy. A carbon price set in the UK alone damages competitiveness. There could in theory be an international carbon price at a respectable level (so unlike the EU Emissions Trading System). But this debate has been going on for 30 years, with little progress. We cannot afford to wait longer. As Christine Lagarde has pointed out, climate change is the greatest economic threat of the twenty-first century.

Chancellor Hammond should therefore continue Osborne’s investment in nuclear innovation. He should reverse one of his predecessor’s mistakes and re-start a UK CCS programme. And he should support innovative renewable energy technologies: tidal lagoons, floating offshore wind farms, bioenergy from seaweed. Innovation, like energy policy generally, must include a diverse portfolio.

The Conservative Party has – as the name suggests – a strong commitment to conservation. It has a proud record on climate change: Margaret Thatcher’s 1989 speech to the Royal Society helped shape the global climate agreement reached three years later in Rio. Theresa May and Greg Clark now have the opportunity to build on this record by publishing, then implementing, a clean industrial strategy.

Industrial Strategy Consultation – Weinberg’s submission to BEIS

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on October 17th, 2016

 

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee launched an inquiry this summer to which Weinberg Next Nuclear submitted a response. Our recommendations have now been published and can be found below or at this link:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/business-innovation-and-skills-committee/industrial-strategy/written/38936.html

 

A commitment to industrial strategy is welcome, and must include sustainable development, decarbonisation and energy security at its core.

The debate on the extent of state involvement, in reference to climate change and sustainable development, is a valid one. However, the market is far from free. It would only be free if all externalities were included, but they are not. If there was a strong carbon price the government would be able to be less involved, but there will always be a need for some government intervention. Examples of this include research and development for industrial innovation that often requires initial government support.

The government must ensure that the Climate Change Act remains central. It has now been proven that the costs of action on climate change are far less than the costs of inaction (Stern review), with key industry and market leaders in agreement. The CBI says:

Ensuring that we maintain a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply is vital to British business. Additionally, we must continue to use energy more efficiently. The CBI is lobbying for government to provide a long-term, stable policy framework to enable continued business innovation and investment in the UK’s low-carbon transition.[1]

The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said:

The combination of the weight of scientific evidence and the dynamics of the financial system suggest that, in the fullness of time, climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer-term prosperity. While there is still time to act, the window of opportunity is finite and shrinking. [2]

Christine Laggard, of the International Monetary Fund, agreed saying:

If climate change issues are not adequately addressed—if we keep running those nice energy subsidies, if the price on carbon is not adequately set, if policymakers dont have it on their radar screens—then financial stability in the medium and long-term is clearly at stake.[3]

It is thus essential that this significant threat to industries, markets, and the environment is mitigated.

The government also needs to accompany the targets on climate change with action by investing in future solutions. Research and development must continue to nurture infant industries that not only have the potential to benefit the UK’s energy and environmental security, but could also offer exciting new export potential. Initiatives like the Swansea tidal lagoon (a world first), advanced nuclear power including the SMR competition, floating offshore wind farms, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and advanced bioenergy from algae are all great opportunities for the UK to pursue. Until externalities are internalised, low carbon energy industries will often require public financial support. The UK Government should provide this, where necessary, from taxes not consumer bills, and should also stop subsidies to unnecessary high carbon energy, including coal-fired power stations

An industrial strategy should be about developing new industries, whilst providing what existing industries need. Developing sustainable energy options not only consolidates the UK’s position in the growing green economy but also contributes to achieving affordable, sustainable and secure energy that is essential for existing industries. Some options, such as CCS, could give new life to declining existing heavy industry as a new report suggests[4] and development at already approved nuclear sites could help improve the rural economy in those areas. Combining heat and power provision through systems like district heating, also offer promising mutual benefits once the initial investment and development is made.

Industry needs security, but in the uncertainty wrought by the Brexit vote it also needs consistency. Blocking low cost, green solutions such as onshore wind, is unwise. A consistent approach should be used between energy sources. For example, if local communities are not allowed a veto vote over shale gas developments, they should also not be allowed a veto on wind farms. Whatever is decided on veto policy, it should be consistency across technologies.

Similarly, industry needs consistency over time. Regulatory stability and long-term agendas help investor confidence. One of the key mechanisms for delivering regulatory stability was EU membership. In the Brexit scenario that the UK now finds itself in, it is essential that a stable, consistent and long-term approach to policy is developed, to maintain confidence and ensure industrial progress.

The UK must also ensure it stays competitive and open to EU and global markets, whilst also maintaining its leadership in certain fields. One of these fields is emissions. The Industrial Emissions Directive, is a key policy that keep relationships with Europe strong whilst protecting our local and global environment. It is essential that that this, and other environmental initiatives are maintained and strengthened to allow the UK to continue to be a key part of Europe’s sustainable industrial future.

Finally, the UK should take inspiration from around the world. In the USA, Obama’s “all of the above” strategy allows security in energy to be achieved through variety of supply. Germany became a world leader in wind and solar development largely due to its Stromeinspeisungsgesetz law, ensuring a very attractive feed in tariff for renewables. This policy was so successful they now need to invest in storage and interconnection to integrate the renewables into a wider energy system. Sweden’s NUTEK created demand for new technologies with greater energy efficiency by technology procurement and government guarantees for market demands. By keeping abreast of these policy developments elsewhere, and future-proofing industry by investing in sustainability, the UK can ensure it continues to prosper.

A well-designed industrial strategy can propel the UK into a leading role in a number of policy areas, including energy, as well as provide some much needed clarity in the post-Brexit environment.

 

[1] http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/energy/

[2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx

[3] http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/04/lord-nicholas-stern-identifies-3-obstacles-international-climate-action

[4] http://www.ccsassociation.org/news-and-events/reports-and-publications/parliamentary-advisory-group-on-ccs-report/

Weinberg Next Nuclear are delighted to share this submission from May 2016 by Professor Wade Allison to the Science and Technology Committee of the UK Commons. Wade Allison is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he researched and taught for 40 years as a Fellow of Keble College. He has studied the risks involved in radiological and nuclear accidents as seen from medical, scientific and popular perspectives. He has published two excellent books, in 2009 Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fearand in 2015 Nuclear is for Life: A Cultural Revolution, which Weinberg Next Nuclear highly recommend.

 

1. Summary

Life is naturally well protected against all but the very highest radiation exposures and evolutionary biology has ensured this so that life may survive. The low casualty record in all radiological and nuclear accidents confirms the effectiveness of this protection, as do laboratory experiments and the benefits of radiation as used in clinical medicine for over a century.

The commonly held view that radiation is exceptionally dangerous has been sustained by: a) residual memory of Cold War threats; b) unfamiliarity with the broad role of biology; c) a taste for the more exciting stories of accidents offered by the media; d) the guidance offered by a network of international safety committees that prefers caution to scientific evidence. This guidance has resulted in national regulations that specify that any exposure to radiation should be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), for no scientific reason.

While the radiation released in a radiological or nuclear accident has a small health effect, if any, the emergency procedures taken with international guidance themselves cause suffering, loss of life and severe socio-economic damage, sometimes on a global scale. Current policy that aims to appease public concern rather than educate people about radiation has caused plans for new nuclear plants to be strangled by unjustifiable regulatory hurdles and escalating costs, resulting in uncompetitive energy prices and increased carbon emissions.

Two conclusions:

•          Bottom up, on radiation and  nuclear energy we need a fresh programme of science-wide public education in schools and in the community as a whole via the media, omitting the ghoulish images used in the past. Local UK-based initiatives should contribute to worldwide re-education, for example through the BBC.

•          Top down, on radiation safety we need a complete change in international guidance. This should be based on scientific understanding and evidence, not the unjustified precaution inherent in the ALARA/LNT philosophy.[3]Initiatives for such a change should be pursued and supported by the UK more formally.[4]

2. Scientific background

Because radiation has always been part of the natural environment, life has evolved protection against attack by it. Biological experiments and a century of clinical experience with life-saving radiotherapy have confirmed the efficacy of this protection, even for quite high doses. As for accidents, only in a handful of instances have radiation dose rates been high enough for this natural protection to fail causing loss of life; the largest being 4 deaths at the radiological accident at Goiania (1987) and 43 deaths at the nuclear accident at Chernobyl (1986). Further, because radioactivity (and the radiation it emits) do not catch and spread in the way that fire and infectious diseases do, nuclear and radiological accidents have a rather low direct impact on life, in strong contrast to what is generally supposed.

3. The accident at Fukushima Daiichi

Two weeks after the accident[5] I published an article on the BBC World Service,[6] We should stop running away from radiation. It discussed why the response to the accident was scientifically and sociologically inappropriate. In December 2011 I made a written submission to the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee on the subject.[7] Since the accident I have visited Japan four times, given public lectures there and discussed with doctors, social workers, community leaders, evacuees, school teachers and others involved on the ground.

4. The public view

The real impact of such accidents is transmitted through public opinion and the media. The damage to health is essentially social and mental – it manifests itself as public panic and a loss of confidence in science and society. At Chernobyl and also at Fukushima those who were exposed to radiation felt themselves condemned as if by a curse, resulting in alcoholism, family breakup and attitudes of hopelessness.[8] Few knew anything about radiation except for the historical link in the public consciousness between radiation and nuclear weapons including testing. During the period of the Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race fear of radiation was heightened for political and strategic reasons. However most people are surprised to learn that 99% of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from the blast and fire and that only 1% died of cancer from the radiation explosion. Furthermore the medical records of the survivors families now available after fifty years confirm that there has been no detectable inherited effect from the radiation. The same is true for data from accidents and laboratory studies.

5. The view of the authorities

In their situation for the past 70 years national and international public authorities have been anxious to appease public concern about any radiological accident, and they have adopted an exceptional precautionary safety policy. By legalising radiation exposures only at a very low level it was believed that the public that they would come to no harm. Such a cautious approach may be appropriate for a technology before it is fully understood or when practical experience of it is limited, but for radiation high levels have been in regular clinical use worldwide for over a century so that this policy is restrictive. Nevertheless regulations in all nations do treat radiation as if it were an extraordinary hazard and safe limits are set As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) – in practice this means a small addition to the radiation that would be received anyway from natural processes. Thanks to the protection provided by nature this guidance is overly conservative by a factor in the region of a thousand.

6. When “the impossible” occurs

Under this draconian safety regime it is supposed that accidents should not happen, although this does not  reassure the public about nuclear safety, nor should it. There is no design of nuclear reactor that cannot be overwhelmed by nature and the public should be prepared for this unlikely event. Otherwise, when they see “the impossible” happening, they panic and loose all confidence in the authorities and in the ability of science to protect them – that is a fair description of the disaster that occurred at Fukushima in 2011. Recovery from such a loss of confidence is difficult. Unfortunately the nuclear authorities worldwide see their task in terms of engineering and management only, not radiobiology, teaching and psychology. Their natural reaction has therefore been to improve the physical safety of reactors even further. Unfortunately trying too hard to apply the wrong solution drives up costs without reason. This is the story of Hinkley C, perhaps, designed to be safe beyond the bounds of what is buildable, economic and necessary.

7. Education for confidence and safety

To be effective safety policy should concentrate on education to explain and make dangers more familiar. For example, fire drills are held regularly in institutions to train everybody so that they know what to do in the event of a fire. In addition from an early age every child is taught the danger of fire and how it can easily spread. Although nuclear radiation is far safer than fire people still need to become familiar with it, to know how it is detected with a simple alarm[9] and how to minimise personal exposure to it. Issuing instructions after an accident has occurred and the population is in a state of shock is too late. The public needs to understand beforehand so that individuals can take rapid and decisive action. This provides confidence at all times and informed response to an accident. What happened in March 2011 in Japan in response to the tsunami provides an example. The Japanese are taught about earthquakes and tsunamis at school and in public education. As a result they are prepared, and in the event 96% of those in the inundated region reached safety with only 30 minutes warning after the earthquake. The loss of 18,800 lives was seemingly understood and accepted, but the release of radioactivity from the damaged reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was not, even five years later. For this radiation there had been no public education and no proper plan. The result was widespread public shock even though there was no hospital admission due to the radiation itself – and the scientific evidence shows there will be no loss of life in the next fifty years. However the immediate loss of life caused by the inept and unnecessary evacuation has been put at 1600; wider social effects, from alcoholism to power shortages and increased reliance on carbon fuels, occurred as a result of the mutual loss of trust between the public and the authorities. None of this would have happened if there had been honest explanatory education about radiation, what it does to life (and what it does not), and discussion and familiarity with practice, as for earthquakes or fire.

8.  ALARA and the LNT Model

The authorities with responsibility for radiological accidents and radiation safety have pursued a policy based on ALARA dating back to the 1950s. Its rationale is a hypothesis called Linear No-Threshold (LNT) which basically says that any radiation exposure however slight is harmful. But this is not based on evidence. It is a pseudo-science like alchemy in earlier times. In that case the human emotion of avarice overrode the evidence encouraging the hope that base metals might be turned into gold. Here it is the human emotion of fear that makes the simplistic LNT attractive in spite of the contrary evidence. LNT contradicts the known principles of evolutionary biology and was discredited at length in a unanimous Joint Report published in 2005 by the Académie des Sciences and the Académie Nationale de Médecine, in Paris.[10] The evidence in this report has been denied by the international safety committees who also have not faced up to the cost and suffering for which their guidance based on ALARA/LNT is responsible. There is widespread concern amongst those who understand at this departure from science-based knowledge. In the past couple of years an international ad hocgroup of about 100 professional engineers, doctors, oncologists, biologists, physical scientists and others has joined forces to pursue this injustice in academic journals, internet media, professional societies, lectures, personal and political contacts in countries around the world. Of course it is very hard for any long-standing officially constituted international committee to execute a U-turn, but that is what is required and the policy of the UK should be to press for that.[11]Nations that first wholeheartedly embrace this new perspective of the human relationship with radiation should enjoy an important competitive advantage in the years ahead through cheaper energy, cultural leadership and a cleaner and safer environment.[12] The UK should be one of those nations.

 

Professor Wade Allison can be contacted for questions via this address: wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

 


[1]ISBN 978-0-956275615  www.radiationandreason.com in paperback and Kindle editions

[2]ISBN 978-0-956275646  www.nuclear4life.com  in paperback and online editions.

[3]Acronyms for As Low As Reasonably Achievable and Linear No-Threshold hypothesis, see later

[4]A report quoting an example of such initiatives http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-nuclear-paradigm-shift-1449014295

[5]In this brief submission I use this accident as an example. The Goiania, Chernobyl and other accidents are covered elsewhere..

[6]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

[7]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/risk/m04.htm

[8]http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf

[9]The technology of a domestic smoke alarm could provide a cheap solution if built into a mobile phone.

[10]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16468064

[11]There is a superfluity of  such bodies UNSCEAR, ICRP, NEA, IAEA, WHO, etc. and many national ones too (in US: NAS, NRC, NCRP, EPA with more in UK and Japan).

[12]http://www.thomas-thor.com/blog/blog-61254160345

Weinberg’s response to the Industrial Strategy Consultation

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on September 29th, 2016

A commitment to industrial strategy is welcome, and must include sustainable development, decarbonisation and energy security at its core.

The debate on the extent of state involvement, in reference to climate change and sustainable development, is a valid one. However, the market is far from free. It would only be free if all externalities were included, but they are not. If there was a strong carbon price the government would be able to be less involved, but there will always be a need for some government intervention. Examples of this include research and development for industrial innovation that often requires initial government support.

The government must ensure that the Climate Change Act remains central. It has now been proven that the costs of action on climate change are far less than the costs of inaction (Stern review), with key industry and market leaders in agreement. The CBI says:

Ensuring that we maintain a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply is vital to British business. Additionally, we must continue to use energy more efficiently. The CBI is lobbying for government to provide a long-term, stable policy framework to enable continued business innovation and investment in the UK’s low-carbon transition.[1]

The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said:

The combination of the weight of scientific evidence and the dynamics of the financial system suggest that, in the fullness of time, climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer-term prosperity. While there is still time to act, the window of opportunity is finite and shrinking. [2]

Christine Laggard, of the International Monetary Fund, agreed saying:

If climate change issues are not adequately addressed—if we keep running those nice energy subsidies, if the price on carbon is not adequately set, if policymakers dont have it on their radar screens—then financial stability in the medium and long-term is clearly at stake.[3]

It is thus essential that this significant threat to industries, markets, and the environment is mitigated.

The government also needs to accompany the targets on climate change with action by investing in future solutions. Research and development must continue to nurture infant industries that not only have the potential to benefit the UK’s energy and environmental security, but could also offer exciting new export potential. Initiatives like the Swansea tidal lagoon (a world first), advanced nuclear power including the SMR competition, floating offshore wind farms, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and advanced bioenergy from algae are all great opportunities for the UK to pursue. Until externalities are internalised, low carbon energy industries will often require public financial support. The UK Government should provide this, where necessary, from taxes not consumer bills, and should also stop subsidies to unnecessary high carbon energy, including coal-fired power stations

An industrial strategy should be about developing new industries, whilst providing what existing industries need. Developing sustainable energy options not only consolidates the UK’s position in the growing green economy but also contributes to achieving affordable, sustainable and secure energy that is essential for existing industries. Some options, such as CCS, could give new life to declining existing heavy industry as a new report suggests[4] and development at already approved nuclear sites could help improve the rural economy in those areas. Combining heat and power provision through systems like district heating, also offer promising mutual benefits once the initial investment and development is made.

Industry needs security, but in the uncertainty wrought by the Brexit vote it also needs consistency. Blocking low cost, green solutions such as onshore wind, is unwise. A consistent approach should be used between energy sources. For example, if local communities are not allowed a veto vote over shale gas developments, they should also not be allowed a veto on wind farms. Whatever is decided on veto policy, it should be consistency across technologies.

Similarly, industry needs consistency over time. Regulatory stability and long-term agendas help investor confidence. One of the key mechanisms for delivering regulatory stability was EU membership. In the Brexit scenario that the UK now finds itself in, it is essential that a stable, consistent and long-term approach to policy is developed, to maintain confidence and ensure industrial progress.

The UK must also ensure it stays competitive and open to EU and global markets, whilst also maintaining its leadership in certain fields. One of these fields is emissions. The Industrial Emissions Directive, is a key policy that keep relationships with Europe strong whilst protecting our local and global environment. It is essential that that this, and other environmental initiatives are maintained and strengthened to allow the UK to continue to be a key part of Europe’s sustainable industrial future.

Finally, the UK should take inspiration from around the world. In the USA, Obama’s “all of the above” strategy allows security in energy to be achieved through variety of supply. Germany became a world leader in wind and solar development largely due to its Stromeinspeisungsgesetz law, ensuring a very attractive feed in tariff for renewables. This policy was so successful they now need to invest in storage and interconnection to integrate the renewables into a wider energy system. Sweden’s NUTEK created demand for new technologies with greater energy efficiency by technology procurement and government guarantees for market demands. By keeping abreast of these policy developments elsewhere, and future-proofing industry by investing in sustainability, the UK can ensure it continues to prosper.

A well-designed industrial strategy can propel the UK into a leading role in a number of policy areas, including energy, as well as provide some much needed clarity in the post-Brexit environment.

[1] http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/energy/

[2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx

[3] http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/04/lord-nicholas-stern-identifies-3-obstacles-international-climate-action

[4] http://www.ccsassociation.org/news-and-events/reports-and-publications/parliamentary-advisory-group-on-ccs-report/

New York goes pro Nuclear

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on August 2nd, 2016

In March we were happy to report that nuclear power was gaining acceptance as a clean energy source, specifically in New York. Now there is more good news as the New York State’s Public Service Commission voted yesterday to adopt the New York State Clean Energy Standard, advocating both renewables and nuclear. The overall aim is to increase renewables to provide 50-percent of electricity by 2030, whilst also retaining the state’s six nuclear plants which currently produce 30-percent of electricity.

The plan involves paying subsidies to the upstate nuclear power plants to ensure they keep operating. Nuclear power is struggling at a time of low prices for power and gas but is essential to meet decarbonisation targets and improve air quality. A statement from Governor Cuomo’s office said, “a growing number of climate scientists have warned that if these nuclear plants were to abruptly close, carbon emissions in New York will increase by more than 31 million metric tons during the next two years, resulting in public health and other societal costs of at least $1.4 billion.”

These clear benefits of retaining nuclear were argued by Rob DiFrancesco, director of New York AREA who said “New Yorkers win because they keep abundant, clean sources of power that generate billions of dollars in annual economic activity in the state, while preserving emission free nuclear power plants that help the state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. Although this controversial plan has received much opposition, Eric Meyer, organizing director for Environmental Progress said it appears there are far more in favour than against.

An all of the above energy strategy, combining both renewables and nuclear, as well as storage, interconnection, CCS and efficiency investments, is the best way forward not just for New York, but for everyone. Our next report will be advocating a Clean Energy Consortium in the UK and hopefully many more will soon be following in New York’s progressive footsteps.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/01/why-new-york-state-just-delivered-extremely-good-news-to-the-nuclear-industry/?utm_term=.7c8204d55522

© The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
Read our data protection policy

Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation