What a mess!
The admission by OFGEM that gas and electricity bills can be expected to rise over the next 10-15 years by “between 14% and 25% by 2020 (from 2009 levels) – with the possibility that wholesale price spikes could lead to an increase in domestic energy bills of up to 60% in the interim” - exposes the failure of Government energy policy to secure an adequate supply of energy at an acceptable price. For this winter at least OFGEMbelieves (hopes?) that gas and electricity supplies are “likely” to be adequate, (hardly a ringing endorsement), but nothing is said about the more critical years around 2015 when up to a quarter of the existing coal-fired capacity is expected to close. OFGEM also identifies the need for investment of up to £200 billion in power plant and other infrastructure over the next ten years to secure both energy supplies and climate change targets, but adds that this investment arises at a time of volatile world energy prices and Britain’s increasing dependence on gas imports. All that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has to offer is to propose that some 25 GWe of offshore wind plant be added to the existing 8 GWe already planned or operating; to increase our dependence on gas; and a small leisurely increase in new nuclear capacity with perhaps two or three new plants in operation after 2020.

It is now becoming clear that neither wind nor gas will provide the necessary degree of energy security, and low carbon energy at an acceptable price. Without a large and urgent expansion of nuclear power this country faces an economic collapse.

Wind power
Every announcement of a new wind farm by the DECC is accompanied by a statement that it will supply electricity for an impressively large number of homes. But it fails to add that these customers will be paying some 5 times as much for this intermittent and unreliable electricity than for an assured supply from a nuclear power plant. Yet these are on the DECC’s own figures which give the cost of offshore wind as £92/MWh compared with £38/MWh for nuclear. But their figure for offshore wind does not include the subsidies under the ROC scheme, which at 1.5 ROC/MWh amount to £81.45. (the 2008/9 value of a ROC is £54.30; made up from £35.76 for the buy-out price plus £18.54 from the recycle payment). To this a further £4.56/MWh is effectively added by exemption for the Climate Change Levy to give a total subsidy of £86/MWh, bringing the full cost of offshore wind generation up to £178/MWh – 4.7 times that of nuclear power. But even this is not all. In its report the Committee on Climate Change points out that estimates of the cost of wind generated electricity should allow for the back-up generation capacity (usually gas based) needed to meet demand when the wind is not blowing. For this it suggests a figure of up to £20/kWh for offshore wind , which would bring the full cost of offshore wind to £198/MWh – five times the cost of nuclear electricity. These subsidies will increase every year under the expanding ROC scheme and for next year, according to the DECC, will amount to £1 billion.

It should also be noted that the cost figures given to Parliament by O’Brien are averages over an unspecified period. But since the load factors for offshore wind can vary from around 40% to about 20%, depending on the seasonal and annual variations in wind, and also on the siting of the wind farms, the costs would vary accordingly.

There are also hidden costs that the consumer has to meet as the amount of wind power increases. The disadvantage of wind power – that because of its intermittency it has to be backed up by an almost equal capacity of fossil fuel generation to cover the times when the wind speed is low – is well known. But the reverse situation brings other problems. At times of high wind speed the amount of wind generation can exceed the requirements of the system.When this occurs, as for instance in Denmark, the excess of wind generation has to be exported to its neighbouring countries, with which it has grid connections, generally at low or very low prices,even below the cost of generation. The losses incurred are borne by the Danish consumer. The CEPOS study (NI Sept) put the cost of these exports between 2001 and 2008 at €916 million. Over the last eight years, on average, between 45% (East Denmark) and 57% (West Denmark) of wind generation has had to be exported.

Sweden has now discovered a similar disadvantage. The study of Swedish energy by the RoyalAcademy of Sciences (IVA) notes that increasing wind generation will not only require an increasing subsidy from the consumer but that there comes a point when surplus wind generation will at times have to be exported.And they point out that the price of a kWh of wind in Germany is twice that obtained for a kWh of Swedish wind exported to Germany.

The UK, until further grid connections can be installed, cannot export its surplus wind but will have to accommodate any excess by adjusting the output of the back-up plants. The Pöyry study (NI July) concluded the counterpart of the variability of wind is that the back-up supply from CCGT and coal stations will also be intermittent and could vary between only a few hours in one year to some hundreds or thousands the next. This will discourage investment in plant that may only be called upon to operate at unpredictable and often very short periods so that the Government may have to subsidise their construction. The costs of such a subsidy should then be added to the already extreme cost of wind.

Instead of boasting that the UK has now overtaken Denmark to become the world leader in offshore wind generating capacity it would seem wiser for the DECC to abandon any further expansion of wind farms and instead build a cable to Denmark so as to be able to accept their surplus wind power at low prices.

Gas
It is accepted that the UK will become increasingly dependent on gas imports possibly rising to 90% by 2030. But it is far from certain that sufficient gas will be available on world markets at an acceptable price as world oil supplies approach a peak. The Government, which hitherto has refused to consider the possibility of peak oil, cannot dismiss the conclusion of the UK Energy Research Centre in its report (8th October), after an 18-month inquiry, that the date of peak production of oil can be estimated to lie between 2009 and 2030, with a “significant risk” that it will come before 2020. The Deutsche Bank in a new report, “The Peak Oil Market.” has come to the same conclusion and forecasts that oil prices will rise to $175 a barrel by 2016, before falling back as oil is replaced by other fuels, notably with the increasing number of electric vehicles. Gas prices would be expected to rise in line with oil.

It should also be noted that burning gas to generate electricity will add to carbon emissions and make it harder to achieve the strict targets we have agreed.

More nuclear
It is now obvious that the only way to meet the carbon reduction targets and at the same time secure an adequate supply of electricity at the lowest cost for the second half of the next decade will be to expand the supply of nuclear power. The Climate Change Committee in its report “Meeting the 2050 target” goes some way to recognising this “Nuclear new build is a cost-effective form of low carbon generation and early entry into the mix will contain the costs of decarbonisation through the 2020s and beyond” and points out that electricity, which now accounts for about 37% of all UK CO2 emissions, should be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030.

But present plans – a first nuclear plant on line by 2018 with a total of three new plants by 2022 , shows an astonishing lack of any urgency or initiatives to accelerate the pace of new build. Generic Design Assent is not expected before mid 2011 – for designs that are accepted in Europe and are being built by EdF on the Channel coast. One and a half years is then to be taken in site development with completion of the first station in 2018. Subsequent plants will only be added at 18 month intervals. This seems a pathetic acceptance of the difficulties that might delay a more rapid rate of construction; the French were able to commission 58 nuclear stations, a total of 63 GW, between 1981 and 2000. The Committee considered some of the risks that might delay nuclear construction – an adequate supply chain and a possible lack of sufficient specialist staff - but these are matters that could be addressed with urgency.

In contrast to the 4.5 GWe of new nuclear plant, which could still be in operation by 2070 or 2080 at high load factors, the present plans foresee the addition of 23 GWe of new wind power capacity by 2020, which may only operate at load factors of 20%-40% , and with an operational life that could be around 20 years.

We seem to have got our priorities wrong. We should be building 23 GWe of nuclear power and only 4.5 GWe of wind.

Recycle, recycle, recycle
As multicoloured wheelie bins start to proliferate in the streets in front of every house one cannot avoid the urging of local governments to segregate and recycle our waste. Generally most of the public are cooperating fairly well. Even if some of us question the payback for recycle of domestic waste, we still accept that it is generally a good idea to spend a few moments separating bottles and paper and other waste in the interests of reducing the amount going to land fill sites.

But what about the government? They claim that nuclear waste is a problem – which it isn’t – but decline to undertake the most obvious and rewarding recycle of plutonium in the ‘waste’. In the UK we have built up a stockpile of nearly 100 tonnes of separated plutonium but instead of completing the recycle process by putting it back in a reactor as mixed uranium/plutonium (MOX) fuel we are doing nothing. They claim that they cannot get the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) working to convert it to MOX fuel. This preposterous explanation means that we have wasted about £470 million building a plant which won’t work. The French have demonstrated quite satisfactorily that they can make MOX fuel and recycle it for a vast payback and a huge reduction in the volume of waste.

We can’t get anybody to tell us precisely why the SMP will not work. Presumably it is something to do with its unique dry binderless process which BNFL were so proud of. Well if so try adding a bit of binder to the mixed oxide powder and remove it again with a pre-heater furnace before sintering. But get the plutonium back inside an operating reactor – either the PWR at Sizewell B or in AGR plants where it has been shown to be technically feasible. It will then be completely safe from any clandestine attempt to make it into bombs.

Our 100 te of plutonium represents billions of pounds worth of fuel and needs only a little technical effort to exploit it in present day reactors. Then if we re-invent the fast reactor we can get at least 60 times as much energy and use up some of the much larger stockpiles of depleted uranium. Come onMr Brown orMr Cameron or somebody in the UK government. Practice what you preach and RECYCLE.

Recycle bill
The US House of Representative has passed an important bill which will allow the Department of Energy to use some of the money raised in the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purposes of recycle of mixed uranium/plutonium (MOX) fuel in commercial reactors. The NuclearWaste Fund is the amount raised by the government with a charge of 1 mill/kWh on the generation of all nuclear power. It was intended to pay for the taking of spent (used) fuel into a government repository. Now that President Obama has effectively stopped long delayed work on the Yucca Mountain repository, which was intended to take spent fuel and high level radioactive waste from US nuclear plants, an alternative is desperately needed. US utilities have accumulated some 60 000 tonnes of spent fuel which is stored at their power plants and has been waiting for many years for somewhere to get rid of it.

The new bill will allow utilities to conclude contracts for diverting some of their spent (used) fuel to recycle. It is claimed that it would reduce the volume of spent fuel by as much as 95%. By using some of the huge Nuclear Waste Fund it would allow the development of a commercial recycling plant and it is claimed that this process would be highly competitive. It would also be easy to arrange safeguards against proliferation of material that could be used to make nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be directed to expedite the licensing of the recycle facilities.

Introducing the bill Representative Fred Upton said that the US must return to the policy of recycle which it had originally developed. He noted that France, Britain and Japan had all enjoyed great success using recycling (he did not mention the UK’s recent failure in this respect). He said that: “With current technology an individual’s lifetime share of spent fuel is about the size of a soda pop can, but with recycling, we’ll reduce that volume to the size of a Kennedy half dollar.” He further added that recycling would create thousands of high paying jobs.

Political endorsement of nuclear
Russian president Medvedev has announced three priorities for the nuclear power industry. The first is to optimise the performance of Russian pressurized water reactors over the next two or three years. The second, over the medium term, is to develop a new technological basis for nuclear energy which would have a closed fuel cycle and use fast reactors. The third objective is to develop nuclear fusion as a future energy source. These may be obvious to nuclear engineers but it is important to have themstated as political objectives.

Medvedev noted the increasing importance of nuclear energy in many countries and contrasted this with the uncertainty and confusion of the 1980’s and 1990’s. He predicts that Russian companies will capture at least 25% of the world market. To achieve the objectives Russia will need to undertake the necessary scientific research and development. To this end he announced that the government has drafted a medium term programme for new generation nuclear energy technology with funding of over 120 billion rubles ($3.8 billion) between 2010 and 2012.

Meanwhile the head of the main nuclear utility, Rosatom, has announced a slight slowdown in Russian reactor construction with only one unit per year instead of two expected for a couple of years. This was due to the financial crisis and declining energy demand but he said that as soon as the economy shows signs of improvement rhe rate will revert to two reactors per year.

Italian-French progress
The Italian state owned utility, ENEL, and Electricite de France (EdF) have formed a joint venture company called Sviluppo Nucleare Italia Srl. The company, announced less than a month after the passing of legislation which will allow construction and operation of nuclear power again in Italy, plans to build up to four European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPR’s) in which ENEL and EdF will each hold a 50 percent interest. The board of directors of the company will also be split fifty-fifty with four from each country. The chief executive officer will be appointed by ENEL and the chairman and vice chairman by EdF.

The establishment of the new company follows on from an agreement signed in February. Initially it will undertake feasibility studies of the construction of the new units and then individual companies will be constituted to build, own and operate each plant.

Although ENEL has been banned from nuclear activities in Italy since a 1969 referendum the utility has kept its interest alive by participating in projects in different countries. It has a 12.5% interest in the EPR being built at Flamanville in France and plans to take a similar interest in a second unit proposed for Penly. It is a majority shareholder in the Czech utility Slovenske Elektrarne which is completing two reactors at Mochovce and it also holds a controlling interest in the Spanish utility, Endesa, which has three nuclear plants.

Polish roadmap
The Polish government has issued a roadmap setting out the proposed schedule for construction of the country’s first nuclear power plant. Construction is scheduled to start in 2016 for completion by the end of 2020. This allows for the setting up of a National Atomic Energy Agency to provide oversight. Between 2011 and 2013 a consortium is to have secured the financing, selected a site for the plant, chosen the technology and a vendor, and concluded a contract. During this period the government will assess the country’s uranium resources which had previously been exploited by the Soviet Union.

The state-owned Polish Energy Group (Polska Grupa Energetczna), which is expected to lead the consortium, had previously announced that it would eventually like to build two 3000 MWe nuclear power stations.

At a site near the town of Zarnowiec in the north of the country, construction actually started in the 1980’s on a station using Russian designed VVER-440 but this project was cancelled in 1990. Poland is also interested in taking a share in a project to build a replacement for the Ignalina plant in Lithuania which it is said will not be affected by the Polish domestic plans.

The delusion of energy efficiency
The international agencies and most government organisations urge the increasing efficiency with which energy is used as an important means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in attempts to combat global warming and climate change. Increasing energy efficiency is always sensible and desirable and will, initially lead to a lead to a reduction in energy usage. But this is only the first step in a chain of economic changes which will eventually lead to a greater energy consumption.

All improvements in energy efficiency in the past have been driven, not by the need or wish to save energy itself but in the expectation that they will save money for the individual, or, with improved industrial processes, increase the profitability of the business and make money. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where an individual or a company will, without some form of compulsion (taxation, pricing, or rationing), deliberately incur any extra expense, in the altruistic belief that this will help “save the planet”. Idealists are rare.

It is true that increasing the thermal insulation of homes will reduce the quantity of energy used in heating or cooling; that replacing old and often energy-inefficient plant by more modern equipment will reduce the energy used in an industrial process; that increasing the efficiency of motor vehicle engines will enable more miles to be driven per gallon. But these are just the initial effects. In the longer term the money saved will be used in different ways: money spent on goods or services must always incur the consumption of energy.

Improving energy efficiency has, throughout history, been a major factor in driving the growth of the economy. Unless the money which will be saved by this means is somehow withdrawn from circulation, to be put under the mattress, hoarded as gold bullion, or taken by penal taxation and then destroyed, it will inevitably be put onto productive use and thus increase economic growth.

The only obvious energy savings from the adoption of more energy efficient measures might be if these were to be deliberately subsidised by governments. Apolicy to reduce the cost of efficient rail transport through direct subsidy could, at a cost to all taxpayers, encourage more people and companies to use rail for passenger journeys and for goods. But even here the money saved by those benefiting from such measures would again circulate back into the economy, and promote economic growth and in the end a greater energy consumption.

All governments strive for and are proud of continuing economic growth. Measures to increase energy efficiency will assist in attempts to climb out of recession, creating new employments and increasing the efficiency of industry. Moves to restrict energy consumption - frugality for its own sake – is the aim of a zero-growth society.While this might ultimately be a desirable goal it is, as yet, seen as an impractical utopia. In the meantime economic growth, hand in hand with an ever-increasing energy usage, will continue. Deliberately promoting the efficiency of energy use will have the opposite effect to what is intended.

Lowly radioactive
Anti nukes, when they write on the web about nuclear waste, often describe it as containing ‘highly’ radioactive plutonium which lives for tens of thousands of years. In fact this is a very inaccurate statement because the main isotope of plutonium with a half-life of 23 000 years is in fact only slightly radioactive.

A radioactive substance only emits radiation at the instant that one of its atoms decides that today is the day that it is going to decay.Agram of substance contains a lot of atoms – about 1024. It is a remarkable scientific fact that half of the atoms in a radioactive substance decide to decay during the half life that is unique to the isotopes concerned.This means that, with a long half-life, at any moment in time only a small number of atoms will be decaying and emitting radiation so it is slightly radioactive.

But you can make long half-life element more radioactive by splitting the atoms in half – or fissioning them. This was first observed, but not explained, in 1934 by the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi and other scientists who were bombarding uranium with neutrons to see if they could produce heavier atoms. They were surprised by a significant increase in radioactvity. Finally in 1939 the German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Srassmann identified that lighter elements were being formed and their co-worker Lise Meitner correctly identified this as being due to the splitting of large uranium atoms in half. The fission products generally have much shorter half lives and so they are highly radioactive.

But some heavier atoms are still formed when you bombard uranium with neutrons. Plutonium is one such product. When spent (used) fuel is taken out of a reactor after several years it contains some plutonium. Although some of it also undergoes fission in situ and accounts for about a third of the reactor’s energy output, there is still a few percent of the weight of the fuel which is left over plutonium. It is low radioactivity – about eight times as radioactive as the uranium left in the fuel. But this can be reduced by putting it back in the reactor – recycling it in MOX fuel. This will reduce the amount of spent fuel also by a factor of about eight times. So it will have about the same level of radioactivity as uranium.

There are still, of course, fission products but these are generally much shorter lived and will decay to insignificant levels in a hundred or so years. There is one other product. Americium, formed by the decay of a short lived plutonium isotope, has a half life of hundreds of years and can be a bit of a problem. It is however something we can live with.We have done for year with sources in domestic smoke alarms. But it can be removed from spent (used) fuel either by chemical scrubbing or by recycling it back into a reactor where it will undergo fission leaving just the short lived fission products.

100 Watts
more Have you turned up the thermostat on your heating system yet? You will need to do this by a degree or two to compensate for the 100 watts of heat that you are not now allowed to get from an old fashioned electric light bulb.