THE EU BEACH BOYS’ SOLUTION; SUN, SAND, BREEZES AND SPAS
Stand by for blasting. The EU is dead set on building a £35bn
Euro-power grid to tap its Western winds, the Sahara’s sun and
Iceland’s geothermals. This is not a new idea. It has been around for
years but has now been taken up by the European Commission’s Institute
for Energy.
Indeed, it has been promoted at this month’s Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona. Arnulf Jaeger-Walden told the conference that the capture of just 0.3 per cent of the light falling on the Sahara and the Middle East could supply all Europe with clean electricity. Put another way, all that is required is a patch of Saharan sand the size of Wales and we are made. The resultant electricity would be transmitted by DC cable to minimise losses in transit Of course, the EU admits it will take years, always assuming the Moroccans, Algerians, Libyans and Egyptians, not to mention the Icelanders, are obliging – as well they might if the price were right. But if all went well renewables, it is said, could be generating at least 100,000MW – a third more than the UK’s peak generating capacity - from solar alone by 2050 at a cost of £450bn .
Nicolas Sakozy and Gordon Brown are said to have backed the idea – as they can since they will not live politically to see it, or its failure. The Guardian, reporting the development, pointed out that it could answer the objection that renewables will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable.
It may well be that with massive interconnection the wind will always be blowing, if not significantly, somewhere over Europe. But the sun won’t always be shining over the Sahara. It tends to sink below the horizon for hours every evening.
You can, however, see where this is leading. Another unproven, uncosted grand idea has come along to capture the enthusiasm of the Guardianista Greens – not to mention the even more fanatical Independent variety - who will use it as another argument against nuclear power.
Yet even if the Saharan Solution, as we will call it, rendered conventional power stations redundant rather than necessary at night, the Greens have one other problem: time.
Ironically, their persistent fight to delay and if possible kill nuclear power as an option has rendered it absolutely essential as soon as we can get more of it, especially as they won’t have any more coal-fired (and presumably oil-fired) power stations. They have no viable plan for supplying us with reliable power – unless it be with Mr Putin’s gas.
The Greens have got themselves into a terrible tangle and the Saharan Solution won’t release them.
HUTTON FOR AGM
We are pleased to announce that John Hutton, the Business Secretary, has accepted an invitation to address SONE’s AGM to be held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers at 1 Birdcage Walk, London SW1 on Tuesday, October 21 (12noon-3pm). There will be coffee from 11.30am and a buffet lunch at 1.15pm. More details will be given later.
WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS
There are those who suggest that the EU’s impractical objective of generating 20 per cent of its energy –ie up to 40% of its electricity - from renewable sources by 2020 is directly linked with the Saharan Solution. Given the unpredictability of wind and the intermittency of tidal and solar power, a huge distribution area is required to have a chance of accommodating the geographical variations in supply.
Those of us who visited the National Grid in June remarked that its officials were remarkably sanguine about a potentially substantial connection of wind power whereas they were noticeably anxious about the level of “embedded” and unmonitored generation. This could be linked with their expectation of more inter-connection with the Continent where, they volunteered, supply was less reliable than in the UK.
To our untutored minds there are three problems. First, what, if any, price will be paid for “British” wind power or will it in times of excess domestic supply have to be dumped on the Euro-market, like Danish wind power, at knock-down prices? The consumer is already committed to paying billions subsidising wind power without having to give it away.
Second, given that other countries have got renewables fever, just what proportion of renewables electricity could the Euro-grid take without for ever blowing gaskets. Does anybody know? Has anybody tried to find out? If not, aren’t we playing with our livelihoods? Finally, what is the cost of maintaining the necessary predictable stand-by generation across Europe over and above the subsidised cost of renewables and the proposed £35bn supergrid? We should be told. If David Cameron is concerned about value for money, let him appoint a commission for the public’s enlightenment.
NOTHING BUT RIDICULE
In the meantime, we remain an island with limited inter-connection with the Continent. We have to face life as it is going to be for the foreseeable future. We do so, notwithstanding grand Euro-ideas, at a time when renewables are suffering a tremendous battering.
Even Terry Wogan got in on the act. During the wind-blown Open Golf tournament he quoted Bob Graham, alias Windfarm Bob, from Moray in Scotland, on BBC Radio 2 as saying: “According to Government figures, during 2007 all the windfarms in the UK reduced global emissions by a theoretical 0.01 per cent and this infinitesimal saving cost electricity consumers approximately 450m quid”.
This caused Wogan to wonder: “Who’s behind this racket?”. He then went on to add, again quoting Mr Graham: “And all the electricity generated was completely surplus to requirements as all the normal power stations had to be kept running because the windpower was too unpredictable”.
“And we’ve still got to put the things up – it’s unbelievable! Aaagh” expostulated Wogan. Quite.
Delusions
Then a contributor to Forbes magazine wrote: “If you’re over 40, you’re going to spend the rest of your life powered by carbon or uranium. Forget about “none of the above” or “less of both”. For the next several decades at least, alternative energy sources aren’t serious choices. They are pork barrels, delusions, demonstration plants and daydreams”.
Corus, the steel firm employing 700 near Sheffield, has told its MP, Angela Smith (Lab. Hillsborough) that it fears the increased use of wind turbines will result in less reliable power supply for heavy industry.
And a group of Welsh “celebrities” from the Archbishop of Wales, Lords Howe and Carlile and the Marquis of Anglesey to Ffion Hague and broadcaster Sian Lloyd, have called on the Welsh Assembly to scrap its extensive wind farm plans.
Against this background, Ruth Lea, former head of the Centre for Policy Studies, not surprisingly said the public mood on renewables is changing. Putting so many eggs in the wind power basket was “the height of irresponsibility”
MORE AND MORE EGGS
Yet more and more eggs are going into the basket. Gordon Brown used Nicolas Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Summit this month to project the North Sea as “the Gulf of the future” based on wind power. In addition to a similar number onshore, he proposes to build 3,000 wind turbines offshore, nominally generating 9,000MW but in practice less than Drax coalfired power station in Yorkshire (3,800MW).
John Hutton has also within the last month tried to clear the logjam caused by wind developers waiting access to the distribution system. The National Grid subsequently said it was “absolutely committed to hitting the renewable targets set by the Government” with plans and investment lined up so that “the people who want it will get access to the grid”.
It is almost as if the Government, with undoubtedly its sustained enthusiasm for nuclear, is incapable of doing something right in this area without also doing something expensively wrong.
Chief Scientist critic We do not apologise for the word “wrong”. The latest critic of the Government’s massive renewables programme is its former chief scientist, Sir David King. who says a high proportion of renewable energy on the grid would give rise to problems.
“I don’t think it is wise to go beyond 20 per cent”, he said, presumably referring to 20 per cent of total supply. “If you oversupply renewable energy you run the risk at high demand periods there may be no wind. If you’re over-dependent on wind you create a problem with security of supply” Yet Tera Allas, chief economist to the Business Department (BERR), told the Commons Select Committee on Economic Affairs on July 15 that the National Grid should be able to operate with wind power penetrations of 30-35 per cent.
WHAT IS THE LIMIT?
But, to repeat, what is the limit? Five, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 35 per cent? Does anybody know? And if they don’t, isn’t it time we held our horses until we did? We ask because a very unsatisfactory interim report from the National Grid into the power cut for 580,000 on May 27 is utterly unenlightening.
It reports that the known amount of embedded generation loss on top of the more or less simultaneous loss of 1,582MW from faults at Sizewell B and Longannet was 250MW, but it thinks there was more. Consequently, it is asking for more information. It considers the data “vital to explaining the full facts of this incident” and in particular the rapid collapse of frequency a minute after the main interruption in supply.
Depending on the findings, this raises the question whether, if problems can be intensified when wind power represents only one per cent of total generation, we are already playing with fire?
PRECEDENTS
It is not as if politicians, propelled by theorists and mad green mullahs, have not made a horlicks of it before. Take biofuels, for example.
According to The Guardian, a confidential World Bank report blames biofuels for forcing up global food prices by 75 per cent. This contradicts the US Government’s assertion that plant-derived fuels have raised prices by only three per cent.
The World Bank claimed that without the increased production of biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate. The price of its basket of food for the study rose by 140 per cent between 2002 and February this year. Higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 per cent of that but biofuels for 75 per cent.
This leads to one of those things you simply could not make up. EU energy ministers have discovered that the EU’s plans to fight global warming do not include an obligation to develop biofuels. They have conveniently discovered, now that biofuels have suddenly acquired pariah status, that they have been misreading their legislation requiring 10 per cent of all vehicle fuel to come from plants by 2020. For “biofuels” they should have read “renewables”.
We confidently expect more misreadings around the globe when targets, now set with gay abandon, prove impossible to hit.
BOVINE FLATULENCE
Nothing has probably caused more vulgar hilarity than the global attempts to save the planet by limiting bovine flatulence which is reported to pour 600m tonnes of methane into the atmosphere every year. Whether this includes the output of wildebeest etc that roam the earth (and which Greens cannot do much about) is not clear.
It may also be beside the point because Dr David Bellamy, the naturalist, has come up with a splendid argument that bovines (cows and sheep), however flatulent, should, like biomass, be regarded as a jolly good thing.
After all, what do they burn? Why cellulose, the same stuff as wood. In return, these natural internal combustion engines produce butter, milk, cheese, cream, curds and whey, yoghurt, dripping, gelatine, hide, horn, lamb, mutton, lard, tallow and wool. They fertilise the soil and can be turned into heat and power at the end of their useful lives.
And all they do is recycle the carbon sequestered in their pasture. As carbon neutral as biomass?
NO LIMIT ON NUCLEAR
After all this we come to the good news. There is a lot of it about as well as a great deal of nonsense.
Recent opinion surveys show the public has become more favourably disposed to nuclear power. In Europe those for have risen from 37 to 44 per cent in three years and are virtually level pegging with those against on 45 per cent. In the UK more than half think we should increase nuclear capacity and those living closest to existing nuclear plants are most enthusiastic. France has committed itself to a second new plant.
The Prime Minister has put no limit on nuclear power in the UK but wants at least eight nuclear power stations built as part of the nuclear “renaissance” necessary to reduce oil dependence and climate change. While the Conservative opposition seldom mentions nuclear, we are reliably informed that Alan Duncan, Shadow Business Secretary, is telling the nuclear industry there would be no change of policy under a Conservative Government An environmental adviser to George Bush has said nations must consider developing nuclear power if they are serious about tackling climate change. He says he uses their nuclear intentions as a seriousness litmus test. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, passes the White House test with flying colours by calling for 45 new reactors in the USA by 2030 – a course, he said, “as difficult as it is necessary”.
His ultimate goal is 100 new nuclear plants.
Enter Rolls-Royce
Rolls-Royce has also entered the nuclear renaissance on the back of its 50-year experience with Royal Naval submarines and involvement elsewhere in the world. Sir John Rose, its chairman, wrote in the Daily Telegraph on July 17 that the company’s wide area of expertise will be central to the expansion of civil nuclear.
He instanced providing technical support for the licensing and safety case process, engineering support for manufacturing and operations, work on the nuclear island and the manufacture of key components, including reactor control and protection systems, on which it has gained extensive experience in France and elsewhere.
SHUT UP
We are strongly of the opinion the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency and the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should hold their tongues until they can get the story right on the cost of decommissioning and waste management. First, the PAC holds out the prospect of bigger bills and the NDA apparently added another £10bn to it estimate even though the total remained at £73.6bn.
No doubt the increase had been announced before and was merely being confirmed in the NDA’s annual report.
No one, least of all this Newsletter, denies that decommissioning and waste management is a costly business or the existence of inflation. But one of the objectives of the NDA is to reduce the cost, not inflate it, through competition and control.
We also suggest that it has some responsibility to the nuclear industry to make clear that existing waste includes defence, medical and industrial waste; that consumers have already contributed billions towards the cost (which the Government, benefiting from privatisation, has no doubt spent or wasted on other things); that the decommissioning it now faces is of old plant and operations not designed with decommissioning in mind; that in no way can the cost estimates now bandied about be visited upon new nuclear power stations; and that it is simply not on to include £10bn worth of uranium and plutonium as potential fuel in its sums.
You might have thought that the inquiring minds of the PAC would have worked some of this out and reflected it in their presentation.
JOAN PYE PROJECT
Joan Pye, a member of SONE and former personal assistant to Sir John Cockcroft, director of Harwell (1952-59), is putting her resources to work in support of nuclear power both through the BNES/InstNucE and her own project, which has very similar aims to SONE.
The Joan Pye Project is now employing a public relations officer and has established a website, and is assembling a panel of experts who can answer queries about various aspects of nuclear power and the energy scene. The website’s address is:
STOP PRESS - By July 21 the chairman's appeal had brought in £5,875. This is a magnificent immediate response. Thank you.
