The Energy Bill - The Biggest Energy Reform in 20 Years

On Tuesday the government announced the draft energy bill detailing the biggest energy reforms the UK’s seen in the last 20 years. The bill was immediately greeted with concern over the possibility of higher energy bills and a stifling of the renewable energy market, the latter due to the complexity of the bill possibly favouring large corporations.  I therefore will be taking a brief overview of the bill and will try to make sense of what has been drafted. As engineer’s the direction the country takes will have an effect on the opportunities available to us, the success of the energy bill could mean a boom for UK engineering, though if it fails to boost the industry it could have quite the opposite effect.

Electricity Market Reform (EMR)

To start with the leading star of the bill, EMR, which is lauded as a bill to attract £110b of investment to replace our ageing electricity generation capability, upgrade the national grid, and ensure that we can cope with rising electricity demands. Now straight away the idea that by 2020 we will have developed and implemented a smart grid capable of serving our energy needs and able to cope with the transition to low-carbon energy generation is, in my opinion, optimistic to say the least.  What’s worrying is that the bill claims to be a one stop fix for every ill that the energy industry faces.

If we break down the EMR it details six provisions:

·         Contracts for Difference (CfD).

The showpiece of the EMR touted as instruments to provide long-term stable and predictable incentives for investment in low carbon generation. These contracts give energy companies fixed guaranteed prices, which should be above the standard, for each unit of low-carbon energy generated; this guaranteed price will be known as the strike price. Now the aim of the CfD is to negate the risks that may otherwise deter investors; low-carbon energy generation is commercially expensive and the payback without incentives would be lengthy.

OK to try and explain thinks lets think if someone asks a farmer to grow some organic veg, the farmer may so no as the cost to set this up are high. But then if someone was to say to this farmer, I will pay you ten times the going rate of normal veg for your organic veg. This would give the farmer the assurance that he will get his money back and then make healthy profit, CfDs work in the same manner.

Now the CfD will apply to all methods of low-carbon energy generation; not just renewables but nuclear too, which could hugely benefit a stumbling UK nuclear renaissance. This is a two-fold point of contention, firstly it could stifle renewable development, especially smaller firms, in favour for nuclear, and secondly that government had previously pledged that there would be no subsidies for nuclear power.

I believe that the CfD doesn’t go far enough in promoting growth in the renewables sector, and especially in relation to developing technology, it may encourage certain areas but these may not be best placed. For example if an energy company, say Windalot, want to develop low yield wind farms in non-ideal locations the CfD could possibly make this feasible, if the strike price is high, which would not be the best use of resource. The same would be if it encouraged further misplaced resource in installing low efficiency solar panels in a country which receives minimal sunshine...

The other issue of a government u-turn on nuclear subsidies is only really a shock if you have never looked into the nuclear industry before. Factors involved with nuclear development, which includes the complex construction, management of nuclear waste, and most costly safety, means that the sums don’t balance without some sort of incentive. The government has always supported nuclear in one way or another despite ever increasing costs; the idea of that support not being there for the future was always farcical.

The CfD may help boost an uncertain renewable industry though the benefits should be well managed to ensure that the most appropriate technologies profit. They will also be a help to the floundering nuclear industry, which has faced ever more uncertainty over the past year. It also may help to keep the lights on if it boots energy development. However as the strike price will not be set until 2013 and implementation started in 2014, uncertainty may again deter the correct level of investment the industry desperately needs.

·         Final Investment Decisions (FID) or Investment Instruments.

These tools are there to plug the gap until the CfD come into force, with the hope that they will bring forward investment. The scheme aims at providing significant support to key low carbon projects that could be delivered over the next two years, however this is at the secretary of state's discretion. More detail on how this will work is still needed and RenewableUK has urged developers to enquire if their renewable projects may be eligible. So FIDs while being lauded as an early incentive to encourage development, their applicability is yet to be known causing further unease with developers, which may nullify any potential benefit before CfDs.

·         Capacity Market.

The capacity market works on the premise that the government set out a prediction on the demands for electricity over a period of time and the capacity needed to ensure consistent supply. Providers old and new will be invited to bid for contracts to supply capacity, which will take place 4-5 years before the capacity is required. Upon winning the bid providers will enter a capacity contract, which will pay the costs to cover their capacity in the delivery years, if they cannot provide capacity they will face penalty fines.

A worrying area of the policy however is the section where wind power is labelled inconsistent and nuclear generation less flexible, a very sweeping statement indeed, and the fact that it also points to gas compounds my worries. Properly located wind farms have proven to be very predictable in their generation output and nuclear power stations are designed to provide constant base loads. The policy points to fossil fuels as the answer to peak load capacity needs, when we should be developing other methods, along with a smart grid, to cope with these peak loads. The move away from fossil fuels needs to be undertaken at some point so why not start developing the technology to deal with this now.

·         Conflicts of Interest and Contingency Arrangements.  

These arrangements are in place as the government will entrust the operation of the EMR to a private company: the National Grid. The bill will outline powers that allow the government to intervene were there ever a conflict of interest between parties. So if the National Grid tried to implement the EMR in a manner that favoured themselves but not the interest of the country, or in line with the objectives of the EMR, then the government has the power to intervene. Whether the government would intervene is another matter as historically they have favoured business over the well being of the country; we only have to look at a failed car industry to notice that. So think of the government as Judge Dredd... they are the law... they have the power to put a stop to anything...if they see fit.

·         Renewables Transitional.

This sets out how the transition from the current system of Renewable Obligation (RO) will transfer to the new CfD. Existing operators will be able to choose between the CfD and the RO; and for all new operators, as of 2017, only CfD will be available. So effectively giving existing operators the choice of what they see as more of a profitable option going forward. The government also hope this will negate any negative impact to investment while the CfD is implemented. Those operators that choose to go down the RO route will receive the full 20 years’ support as promised when taking out the RO. The 2017 date may also be flexible if projects are delayed for reasons of force majeure.

·         Emission Performance Standard (EPS).

The EPS is in place to prevent the construction of high emission power plants, with the hope of putting an end to polluting fossil fuel fired plants that do not conform to the emission standards, particularly coal fired power plants. It still allows the construction of fossil fuel fired plants that conform to the standard so still leaves the door open for plants that use the, currently fictional, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology and low emission gas fired plants. Here I’d say the EPS does not go far enough and should push more towards zero emissions from power generation and not leave the door ajar for fossil fuels...but it’s a start we’ve all waited for for a long time and for that we can be a little grateful.

The Rest of the Bill

 Along with the EMR the Energy bill is also made up of the following sections that further detail the reforms:

·         Strategy and Policy Statement (SPS)

o   The SPS will try to ensure that the regulator, Ofgem, and the Government are both heading in the same direction. It’s hoped that it will further clarify the roles of the regulator and the government to ensure that the regulatory changes and development of the energy sector are prioritised correctly. A sort of instruction manual for the energy bill to ensure that is operated correctly... let’s just hope that it’s easier to follow than your average instruction manual!

·         Nuclear Regulation

o   The government has introduced Nuclear Regulation, which gives the currently-interim Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) statutory footing.  As the civil regulator for the nuclear industry in the UK, and an agency of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the ONR is responsible for the safety and security of civil nuclear activities and administers nuclear licenses on the HSEs behalf – a role previously undertaken by the HSE Nuclear Directorate and Department of Transport’s Radioactive Materials Transport Team.

·         Government Pipe-Line and Storage System (GPSS)

o   The GPSS was created to provide a secure oil distribution network for the UK at the start of World War Two in 1939. As the years have gone one the network has extended and developed to now cover approximately 2500km of pipe-lines and numerous storage depots, pumping stations and associated sites. The GPSS provides links around the country supporting major airports and Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites and is currently managed on behalf of the government by the Oil & Pipelines Agency, which is a public corporation sponsored by the MoD. The Energy Bill outlines the plan to sell off the GPSS to private investors as it is that government ownership is not necessary to ensure the requirements of the MoD. The same old argument will surely arise however that if you sell a commodity to a private firm then there focus will be to make money so the impact on the MoD and civil airports etc. may be significant, though the government is keen to play any potential impact down. The fact that we own very little of our own infrastructure does not seem to concern the government...

·         Miscellaneous

o   The aptly titled misc. section, which actually refers to a section on Offshore Transmission. This bit of legislation will allow developers to transmit electricity form an offshore source to the onshore grid without the need for a licence. Currently  the Electricity Act 1989 prohibits this, which is a significant barrier to an offshore power grid and development of offshore power generation as some electricity transmission is seen as necessary before commissioning equipment. Again, a step in the right direction but bizarrely hidden in the footnotes.

So that is the Energy Bill summarised, well to a certain degree anyway, although there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding it which may impact on the effectiveness of the bill.  After its unveiling it received widespread condemnation for not going far enough in providing assurance and direction for the energy sector. The biggest worry was the promotion of gas fired power plants as their inclusion in the bill could lead to development in the wrong direction, towards a fossil fuel future. I agree that to meet emissions targets and to continue to power the country we need a mixture of nuclear, renewables and, if it can work, CCS, but we should not direct investment towards a continuing reliance on a depleting resource that is damaging to the atmosphere and largely dependent on foreign import. I know some people will say shale gas can provide a viable and reliable supply but extraction methods are questionable to say the least and the associated emissions may be more harmful than coal fired plants, not to mention our resource of shale gas is small at the very best.

The Energy Bill may be a good start, though may be fatally flawed by one sentence in Annex D that could render the Energy Bill potentially useless in its promotion of low carbon energy, “Exceptions: power to make exceptions to maintain energy security”. This exception could be used to override the bill and enable the construction of the dirtiest of power plants if they can be deemed necessary to maintain energy security; a get out of jail free card for the greenest government ever.

The full two part entry has been published at the developingengineers blog.

 Follow me on twitter @LMY1985.

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!

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!

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.

Italy Confirms Nuclear Rejection

It has been confirmed today that Italy will not be reviving nuclear power and will instead focus on renewable energy. Approximately 95% of the Italian people who voted in the referendum rejected Silvio Berlusconi's plan to revive nuclear power in Italy. This is another indication of the damage that the Fukushima incident has dealt to a fragile nuclear industry, which has spent decades trying to change its poor image after Chernobyl, and the perceived reaffirmation of public opinion against nuclear power across Europe. This could be an indication of a shift in what the public perceive as acceptable risk which could lead to wholesale changes across the nuclear industry. While it was largely expected, this has surely dealt another blow to the ‘Nuclear Renaissance’.
 
Link: BBC - Italy rejects Berlusconi's nuclear power plans

IEA Warning Against Natural Gas as the Sole Solution

The International Energy Association (IEA) has issued a statement that natural gas is not a ‘panacea’ in solving climate change. The IEA’s 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."

However the IEA report is purely stating the fact that if we continue to use carbon emitting technology in generating energy then instead of carbon free generation (i.e. renewable and nuclear) then global warming will continue to happen, which while maybe worthy as a statement the value of the research may be overrated.

Natural gas has been the reason for significant reductions in carbon emissions in the UK and similarly for various other countries, however this research points out the obvious in that while it produces half the carbon of burning coal it still produces carbon. You must also look upon the fact that it is a fossil fuel with a finite amount available and with possibly unsustainable and even harmful extraction methods. This can be seen with shale gas extraction; where shale gas extraction will become more prominent as conventional natural gas reserves run low.

If we take a brief look at shale gas and its extraction methods we can see that this particular method of sourcing natural gas and its use can possibly lead to the release of more green houses gases, methane in particular, than other fossil fuels; a view expressed in the US EPA report into the emission factors for greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and gas industry in 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf. The report concluded that shale gas emits much larger amounts of methane that conventional natural gas.

If we also look at recent extraction attempts in the UK shale gas extraction/fracking has been linked to frequent earthquakes, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/small-earthquake-in-blackpool-major-shock-for-uks-energy-policy-2291597.html. It must also be noted that the pollution caused by the chemicals used in extraction will have a negative environmental impact.

With significant potential environmental implications, a finite quantity and the fact that it still emits greenhouse gases then surely natural gas is only a short term solution to the long term problem of climate change.

Germany's Answer to the Nuclear Question

Germany announced this week that it will effectively cease its nuclear programme by the end of 2022 based on the recommendations of the Ethics Commission for Security Energy. This will begin with the immediate shutdown and decommission of 7 nuclear facilities, that have been offline since the Fukushima incident and the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, and will be followed by a staged process of shutdown and decommission for the remaining 9 facilities; 6 by 2021 and three by 2022. While the Fukushima incident sparked Germany to review its nuclear renaissance, the decision will not be purely based on the scientific merit and the safety of nuclear facilities; the rising popularity of the SDP and the Greens and the cementing of anti-nuclear opinion by the German public will surely have been defining factor for this decision.

The announcement by Germany cannot be seen as a revelation as they only decided on pursuing nuclear power in 2010; under Gerhard Schröder the decision was made to make a comprehensive and irreversible move away from nuclear power by 2022, a decision reversed by Angela Mirkel in 2010, against the popular opinion of the German people. This would surely mean that Germany did have plans to accommodate this change prior to the announcement this week?

In 2010 Germany generated approximately 23% of its electricity and 11% of its energy from nuclear power, and to remove nuclear power will result in a significant shortfall and if not dealt with adequately potential blackouts and increasing energy imports. Germanys answer is a 10% reduction in electricity consumption and to double the amount of renewable energy generated to 35%, with a preference for offshore wind; both very ambitious targets to set.

How Germany will achieve these targets and if this will equate to a nil net import of energy/electricity is surely questions that need to be asked. Targets set in 2010 stated that by 2020 renewable electricity production in Germany will be at 35%, so the news today that this will also contribute in filling the gap left by nuclear is perhaps a little farcical. Would this indicate that Germany may not have been totally committed to these targets before this decision, offsetting the cheaper continued nuclear option with the more expensive renewable alternatives, or would it point to the notion that Germany may not have a contingency plan for the energy gap left by the removal of nuclear power? Whatever the answer the ambitious target of 35% will be difficult to achieve without significant improvement to the supporting electrical and renewable infrastructure, which will require unprecedented investment and support by the German government.

The 10% reduction in electricity consumption may be even more ambitious but again should not be seen as a revelation as the target set in 2010 was a 50% reduction on 2008 levels by 2050; so it should be expected that plans for the reduction should have already been in place, though any significant reduction in consumption will be costly.

If Germany cannot meet the shortfalls and have to increase energy imports from other nations (i.e. France) then there is no way to guarantee that the energy they import has not been generated by nuclear facilities, making a mockery of the announcement to move away from nuclear and possibly a case of ‘not in my back yard’. It may also lead to a greater reliance on fossil fuels and in particular Coal and even though the German government will point to carbon capture technology this is unproven and the question of what to do with the carbon that is captured and implications of storing this are still unknown and could only ever be used as a short term solution.

The impact Germany’s decision will have on the developed world and in particular Europe is yet to be seen but as the largest industrial power to have turned its back on nuclear power it would be short-sighted to say that there will be none. While several industrial developed countries, like Switzerland and Italy have seemingly decided against nuclear power, countries like France, Poland and Japan are still ploughing ahead with a nuclear future. Public opinion across Europe is again turning against nuclear power but with energy and carbon reduction targets looming it will be a balancing act of cost over popularity to whether the nuclear renaissance will continue to flourish. Once again the nuclear question is on everyone’s lips.