Low Carbon Subsidies for All!

Through the queens speech the coalition government announced a series of energy market reforms, in the form of the energy bill, that they hope will provide an adrenaline boost to the flagging industry, mainly in the form of complex subsidies. However, as has been apparent with most announcements regarding the energy industry from the government, there are still large areas of policy shrouded in mystery.

The system the government is trying to implement works around low-carbon electricity (from renewable or nuclear sources) can sign long-term contracts to supply at a preferential rate, so effectively legislating against carbon emissions. While this on the face of things looks like a step in the right direction the head of climate change at WWF-UK had some harsh criticism of the legislation, while saying it was a step in the right direction he indicated that it did not nearly go far enough.

One significant implication of the legislation is that it will effectively subsidise the Nuclear Industry as it is a low carbon source of electricity, which is at odds with the coalition agreement, that there would be no state subsidies for nuclear power. Incentives have been shared across, what the government has been to classify as, low-carbon industries; though surely a worry is that the renewable industry will be stifled in the UK, compared against more established technologies.

If we take a look at the German Company Strabag’s development of serialised wind turbine installations, and the speed of that development, we can see what can be achieved focus is placed on renewable energy. This goes to highlight that while the renewable industry is growing in this country at a very healthy rate more can be achieved with greater support.

The Nuclear industry by its very nature is a slow developing beast with small evolutionary design changes targeted towards safety rather than taking revolutionary design steps. This approach being taken to ensure that we have the safest plants possible, as we are dealing with radiation sources after all. If we take a look at the development on the EPR plant at Flamenville in France we can see how slow Nuclear can progress.

The government is worried, and so should we all, about the impending likelihood of black outs and, with the nuclear renaissance faltering, needed to promote growth within the energy sector. With the energy bill they hope to achieve that, unfortunately as the bill seems to be lacking in detail in some areas and over complex in others, the likelihood of success is uncertain.

The future energy balance in the UK must be made up from a mixture of renewable and nuclear in order to be anywhere near the targets set for 2050 on reducing carbon emissions and we must develop a smart grid in order to deliver electricity to where it is needed. That is why clear direction is needed from the government on such issues and while the UK may not ever be a major contributor to global nuclear technology we still have the opportunity to be world leading in renewable/clean technology.

Also posted @ the Developing Engineers Blog!

CCS a Panacea for Climate Change...

This week the UK government announced a new initiative to promote the development of Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) technology, after the total flop of the last scheme. The CCS roadmap can be split into three distinct parts: the first provides research and development funding, the second grants for the construction of plants and the third funds the running costs, which makes this an attractive scheme for industries looking to develop CCS.

Heralded by the government and fossil fuel companies as a panacea for CO₂ reduction; they say it’ll enable polluting fossil fuel plants to run with ‘zero’ carbon emissions (an 80-90% reduction), a view many will question. Now I will try and answer some key questions: what are the merits of CSS, will it actually work on an industrial scale and what part does it have to play in reducing global warming and aiding theUK in meeting its 2020 and 2050 targets?

As you may know, the idea behind CCS technology in power generation is to enable the stripping of CO₂ from the emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants (pre or post combustion) and to then store it , normally very deep underground or under the sea. The technology behind CCS is largely unproven on an industrial scale and the storage component is an unknown element. The injection of CO₂, and essentially the storage of CO₂, has been used to prolong the life of oil wells in enhanced oil recovery but if this method of storage is stable is unknown.

What has to be remembered is that with CCS we are still producing vast quantities of CO² by burning non-renewable fossil fuels, it doesn’t reduce emissions we’re just storing them away. We do not know how reliable the storage of CO₂ is, and whether or not it will escape or dissipate and rise to the surface adding to global warming in the future. Also, it’s virtually impossible to measure the success of the storage solution and/or any CO₂ escape from deep sea storage. This is also not to mention the problems that may be caused to the pH level of the sea and the effects that it may have on sub-sea ecosystems.

Ok, so if there are so many uncertainties surrounding CCS, and potential pitfalls, what place should it have as one possible solution to reach our 2020 and 2050 emission targets? Well while I do not under any circumstance see this as a long term solution to reducing emissions, especially as we will run out of fossil fuels before long, I do think in the short term it does have a key part to play if we want to have any hope of achieving the targets set for 2020 and 2050 as we are woefully behind with our development of low carbon and renewable energy.

While this new scheme will be welcomed by investors and will aid in meeting the UK’s targets in reducing CO₂ emissions we all have to remember that it still involves burning a fast depleting finite resource where security of supply is a significant concern. CCS isn’t the solution to climate change, or the energy gap, but it may have a supporting role.

A New Horizon for the UK’s Nuclear Future

There has been some very significant developments for the Nuclear Industry in the UK, with E.ON and RWE (nPower) [Horizon Nuclear Power] pulling out of the UK Nuclear New Build Programme, and on Monday the largest decommissioning contract ever will being awarded to the Babcock Dounreay Partnership to decommission Dounreay, by the far the biggest blemish of the nuclear industry.

Now in regards to the decision by EDF and RWE, if you believe the Energy Minister, Charles Hardy, this move was not down to a lack of confidence in the UK Nuclear Industry but due to, “pressures elsewhere in their businesses”, though it may have more to do with the lack of confidence in Nuclear as a whole following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Whatever the reason for this decision, the fact is that this leaves the Nuclear New Build Programme in a severely weakened position and presents a stark truth that the UK cannot rely on private and foreign investment for our core infrastructure.

The big players that are left, and that the government is relying on to plug the energy gap, are EDF/Centrica (or British Gas) and Nugen, with EDF/Centrica being by far the most serious players. However with cost of a new nuclear plant rising, partly after increased safety precautions have been implemented following on from the Fukushima disaster, and the slow progress and higher than expected cost of EDF’s flagship nuclear reactor, the European Pressurised Reactor, in Flamanville, the continued support by these big players should be viewed with extreme caution.

The governments existing policy of no subsidies for nuclear power will have to come under review in the not too distant future, else the risk of the new nuclear sector collapsing is very real. Now I don’t agree with subsidies for nuclear power, as I believe it has already cost the country enough over decades of poor management leading to heavy decommission costs and that we should focus on more sustainable power. But we have already invested heavily in proving New Nuclear Build Designs and paving the way for their installations so to abandon now would leave the country out of pocket and with a serious and fast approaching energy gap.

Finally I will briefly consider the blemish that is Dounreay and the ever protracted decommissioning process, which at last count was estimated to finish in 2032. Dounreay was, in my opinion, the most poorly managed nuclear facility that the country has ever ran and more a experimental play house for the development of nuclear power and fuel than ever a well run facility. There have been stories of rooms that were out of bounds for decades due to radiation, which have only recently been decommissioned, and nuclear waste leakage into the waterways. The decommissioning process is incredibly complicated and to trust that it will be more cost effective to hand this over to a private firm is incredible at the least.

I have no worries on the ability of Babcock to perform the decommission and I am sure that the people involved will not actually change much due to the limited suitably qualified resource that this country has; though to presume that this will reduce costs is in my opinion a foolish one. It should also be noted that Babcock has an ever expanding portfolio of highly sensitive and very significant operations in this country. Private companies exist for one purpose, to make money, which any sensible person cannot disagree with; however to put them in charge of public infrastructure and services and expect them to act altruistically is incredibly naive.

Take a look at the developing engineers blog!

Onshore Wind Farms, a Brief Debate

Sorry for the long delay since my last post; a lot of things have changed including my Job and location but I'm back now blogging on my view of the renewable future, I'm also mirroring some of my posts on the developing engineers blog... take a look.

I have chosen to take a look at an issue that has featured in the news recently and seems to be always a point of contention for many people, onshore wind farms.

This weekend it was reported by The Telegraph that 101 conservative MPs have demanded that annual subsidies for onshore wind farms should be ‘dramatically cut’. This is also paired with a concern regarding the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF), which they say hinders any effective opposition to onshore wind farms.

I will focus mainly on the issue subsidies and the wider issue of funding. Firstly without subsidies it is hard to see how anyone could justify, economically, the merits of commissioning onshore wind farms if subsidies did not exist; if anything subsidies do not go far enough in encouraging growth in an emerging market and there review and subsequent scale back will only help us further fall short of 2020 emissions targets.

Firstly I am not in full agreement with the construction of onshore wind farms as the sums often don’t add up; with the amount of electricity actually produced not that great. However at this current point in time we don’t have many viable alternatives, I certainly would rather they remove solar subsidies in this country which were only ever a cursory nod towards the direction of the renewable energy sector, than halt the construction or subsidies for onshore wind farms.

Maybe we should look at the reason why we need such subsidies especially as the opportunity for the UK to be a renewable industry hub is banded about so much by the current government. The infrastructure to support the wind industry in this country is currently not there and the waiting list for wind turbines is a lengthy one, with these and other factors leading to high costs. In August 2009 Vestas moved operations from the Isle of Wight due to uncertainty regarding the industry and of lack of assurance from the government that it will back wind energy; only now are we seeing proposals again for wind turbine manufacturing in the UK, which could always fall down if support is not there for renewable development.

If the government, or more correctly the conservative side of, continues to attack the industry then the costs of renewable energy will continue to rise and become less attractive to potential investors; though maybe this is a preferred option as if renewable energy costs rise it will only give more substance to the Nuclear argument.

Now I cannot say that onshore wind farms are the solution to the energy balance or the best option in renewable energy but green subsidies are a vital component in encouraging growth the renewable energy sector that without them will surely stagnate. Would you rather have a coal or nuclear power plant on your doorstep?

To end on a positive note Nick Clegg has come out in defence of wind power subsidies and renewable energy as a whole, so at least someone is fighting for renewable energy just a pity they have little sway in government...

Also go take a look at the developing engineers website! www.developingengineers.com

Biofuels Role in the Global Food Crisis and GM Energy Crops

Reports this week have highlighted the possibility that increased production of Biofuel crops has a negative impact on the world food supplies. Specifically if we focus on the US large areas of agricultural land is being used for the growth of corn for the production of bio-ethanol (in 2010 40% of corn grown in the US was used for bio-ethanol) and even more worrying now is the use of GM crops that have been designed to aid in the production of bio-ethanol and, though not inedible, are not suitable for food manufacture. This all leads to a decrease in the levels of food crops being grown, which coupled with poor yields across the globe lead to inflated prices. This in turn, Aid organisations warn, will lead to worsen a global food crisis and in particular divert more corn away from famine hit countries such as Somalia.

Now I want to focus on the production of GM energy crops; these are crops that essentially have been altered to produce the enzyme amylase, which speeds breakdown of starches in the production of bio-ethanol, an enzyme usually added in the production process. The corn has been designed by Swiss pesticide firm Syngenta and is branded Enogen. Now this raises a few significant issues first as mentioned previous is the diversion of corn from the food market leading to increased costs, effectively pricing out poorer nations. The second is the risk of contamination, which could see Enogen cross pollinating with normal corn which could render food crops unusable. 

According to data supplied by Syngenta the North American Millers’ Association say that 1 kernel in 10,000 could damage food products. Essentially if amylase was to be introduced into corn destined for food production, by cross-contaminated plants, then this will lead to starch breakdown reducing the corn chips to useless mush. Syngenta have stated that the appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent cross-contamination; however failure to prevent cross-contamination in previous GM breeds cast doubt on this claim. Even if the risk is low the potential consequence, if cross-contamination was to occur, is very high, which surely raises the question whether GM energy crops should be used at all.

As more and more land is devoted to the production of energy crops this obviously in turn reduces the land that would normally be available for food crops therefore leading to lower yields and increased prices and considering the potential impact GM crops could have on food production globally the big question is whether energy crop production will continue to be feasible.

One should note however the American government is expected to put an end to corn ethanol subsidies, which may have an effect on the price of corn and the eagerness to grow corn for bio-ethanol production. The impact however is thought to be minor as the subsidies where mainly eaten up by major oil companies. You can read more on this at the guardian website.

Radical Reforms in UK Energy Policy

With all the news focused on NoW, Rupert Murdoch and the corruption associated you will have been forgiven if you failed to fully take notice of the huge energy reforms announced last week by Chris Huhne.

Given only a cursory glance by many of the major news avenues in the UK media Chris Huhne’s announcement shows a welcome commitment by the government to reduce emissions and ensure greater energy security; not to mention the inevitable brown and black outs the country faces if significant investment is not made, in Chris Huhnes own words, "We have to stop dithering, you can have blackouts or you can have investment. Which do you want?".

 

This reform indicates an end to the liberalised electricity market implemented by the Thatcher government, in by which the private sector would provide competition and keep prices low. This did work in the short term when the electricity market was essentially oversupplied however it made no plans for long term and has part resulted in the sad state of affairs we are now; facing significant global warming and with little to no long term energy security.

The UK needs significant investment in low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, nuclear and possibly carbon-capture (though the merits of this technology are in doubt both in capture and storage); if it is to avoid falling foul of the European Union’s and its own emissions targets and the threat of brown and black outs. To try and achieve this aim Chris Huhne and the government’s white paper outlined a strategy to guide private investment; this includes a minimum carbon price, contracts with energy suppliers for low-carbon energy, a regulation setting maximum emissions levels, a set of payments to ensure sufficient capacity and a new energy efficiency obligation.

While this is definitely welcome news the worry is that these reforms will not go far enough. Firstly Chris Huhne also used this announcement to usher in a new “dash for gas”, now as I have stated previously in this blog a push for natural gas will only result in the UK being depenedant on greenhouse emitting fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and will risk significantly stifling investment in the renewable industry, which is still in its infancy in this country. The IEA’s own executive director Nobuo Tanaka, stated in a press conference in London, "While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change." So the last thing that the UK needs is a new “dash for gas”, to do so would end any hope of the UK ushering in a green revolution and would inevitably put us on the back foot compared to the rest of Europe.

Secondly over the coming years 9 of the UK’s oil and coal fired power stations are due to be decommissioned along with the last remaining Magnox and two AGR nuclear reactors; this will result in a significant energy gap, with brownouts a certainty and blackouts predicted by 2016. Unless miraculously the UK can construct and commission its planned nuclear power plants and invest significantly in renewable energy there is no avoiding this and that will take unprecedented investment in low-carbon energy. Though this investment could lead the UK to becoming a clean-tech hub for Europe, revitalising the manufacturing industry, creating new jobs and leading to greater economic stability.

In conclusion the energy reforms announced by Chris Huhne are essentially a good thing however unless they are backed up by significant investment and action from the government in the direction of low-carbon energy, and associated infrastructure, (and not a new “dash for gas”) then the UK have no chance of keeping the lights on let alone reaching its emissions targets.

UK Government’s Unfaltering Nuclear Support

It was reported in the guardian on the 30^th of June that the UK government exchanged correspondence with the Nuclear Industry shortly after the Fukushima incident in an attempt to reduce the potential negative outcome. This information was made available under the Freedom of Information Act and highlights the strong ties the government have with the Nuclear Industry. If we take a look at this objectively it’s no big surprise that the nuclear industry and the government department responsible for nuclear energy would be in contact with each other immediately after the incident, as they would naturally want to protect their investments.

However do these emails suggest just that or does it point to the idea that the UK government has decided blindly on nuclear energy as a complete solution to fuel the future, a view taken by many anti-nuclear groups.

The decision was made by the last government to opt for nuclear power as a solution to climate change a decision based on a mixture of cost, availability and probably the influence of certain major stakeholders. Since then a large amount of investment has been used for the Generic Design Assessment of third generation nuclear plants by both the government and stakeholders and in this economic climate both parties do not want to lose out on their investment. The worry is that renewables in the UK remain largely underfunded and that with that the opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in renewable technology is slowly slipping away.

Unfortunately the view of many pro and anti nuclear activists is that there must be only one sole solution to future energy production, a view that is simply not sustainable. If we were to pick nuclear as a sole solution we would run out of Uranium and suffer from an inflexible power source which produces large quantities of toxic and nuclear waste. If we were to pick renewable as a sole solution then we cannot cope with the fluctuations in power with the current grid system and there is little infrastructure available. The energy mix needs to be considered with investment in nuclear in the short-term and significant investment in renewables in the short to long-term if the UK has any chance of reaching its emissions targets for 2020 and 2050.

Obviously the Fukushima incident was going to have an effect on the global nuclear industry and its frail public support in the UK was inevitably going be a worry for the UK government, but the question has to be asked whether these emails show an unfounded loyalty for a sole nuclear solution.