It is a moot point who are the bigger crackpots - the six Greenpeace hooligans who climbed the 200- metre chimney at Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent and painted “Gordon” on it or the majority on the jury who accepted their defence that they were legally justified in causing damage by preventing greater damage around the world from global warming.
There is no doubt, however, that their stupidity is exceeded by Zac Goldsmith, David Cameron’s green guru and now prospective Tory candidate for Richmond West. He was quoted, in arguing before the court that direct action could be justified, that: “Legalities aside, I suppose if a crime is intended to prevent much larger crimes, I think then a lot of people would consider that as justified.” Given the passivity with which this alarming nonsense was accepted by our puny politicians, press and police – not to mention the judiciary – Goldsmith could be right, even if the nation’s attention was diverted this month by the global financial crisis. That does not mean that he is justified in advancing his dangerous argument. Indeed, we feel it proves he is a menace to the body politic and should be de-selected forthwith if the Tories wish to be taken seriously as a rational party.
Let us be clear: closing Kingsnorth would have minimal, if any, effect on UK carbon emissions, depending on its substitute, and certainly none on global warming. Any saving would be more than offset probably by next week by the expansion of China’s coal-firing. And anyone who thinks Kingsnorth’s shut-down would persuade other nations to opt out of desperately needed coal-fired electricity is knocking on the gates of the funny farm.
The main effect of the acquittal of the six will be to encourage more damaging invasions of fossil- fuelled power stations by Greenpeace, who are addicted to gesture politics for the benefit of TV. If they succeeded in interrupting electricity supply they would do massive economic damage to the British people. They could even increase carbon emissions as the authorities scrambled to generate power with anything to hand, regardless of its “greenness”.
In short, their defence argument does not hold water. It certainly cannot be used to try to disrupt the construction of nuclear power stations since they emit the least carbon per unit of electrical output. Nor, after 50 years’operation, can they argue that British nuclear plants are unsafe, have unresolved waste problems, are uneconomic or are irrelevant since the world is turning to them. Nonetheless, the emboldened wreckers will try. We have been warned.
TALK OF THE DEVIL…
One of the witnesses for the defence of the Greenpeace gang trying to put the lights out with a bit of spectacular wall-painting was Professor James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and global warming alarmist. Like all associated with this case, he made a fool of himself. In the words of the Independent on Sunday, he called for “humanity urgently to embark on a massive programme to power civilisation with wood” [instead of coal], capturing and storing the carbon produced by the biomass.
Let us leave aside why not nuclear and why we need to burn wood instead of coal if (as he seems to think) carbon capture and sequestration is possible. Instead, let us ask one more time how are we going to grow enough wood? Do these dolts ever consider the practicalities of their wheezes?
Apparently not, By 50-2 votes the European Parliament’s Industry Committee has just backed legislation to facilitate massive investment in renewables in pursuit of the 20 per cent of EU energy (not just electricity) from renewables by 2020. The law, if passed, would require interim targets for member states, backed by financial penalties of up to Euros110 per MW (presumably uninstalled MW) for laggards and rewards for the virtuous of Euros 30-40. They would require priority for renewable energy’s access to gas and electricity networks and use of renewable technologies in new and existing buildings.
Earlier Professor Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist, told the BBC he felt Tony Blair and other heads of EU states signing up to the 20/20 target did not know what they were doing. He put it more gently: “I think there was some degree of confusion… This is an issue that needs to be revisited.” Greenpeace predictably hailed the Euro- Parliament’s action as “moving closer to the energy revolution in the fight against climate change”. Remember that phrase when the lights go out.
SANITY GENERALLY REIGNS
In spite of all this – and averting our gaze from the activities of the world’s bankers – the month has been marked by much reassuring sanity. Indeed, it has been the most positive month we can recall for nuclear and energy realities and one of the most vigorous in challenging the economics and utility of wind and solar energy. Overall, events suggest that what we lack are clear and authoritative assessments by independent bodies of practical experts - engineers, accountants, financiers etc – of the following:
* How much unpredictable renewable energy can the National Grid safely take and what is the likely cost to the consumer of
a) its connection to the grid;
b) necessary stand-by generating plant; and
c) the cost per hour to the economy if power supply fails?
* What is practically possible by way of onshore and offshore wind development over what timescale, given the Government’s ambitions, and what is its likely cost?
* Given the huge increase in the price of oil and gas, what is the latest comparative competitive position of different fuels or sources of electrical power?
In this information age, independent authoritative answers to – or educated stabs at - these questions should be readily available to the public. It is an indictment of Government and its apparatus – e.g. Ofgem, NDA, BERR, DEFRA – and the major scientific and engineering institutions that they are not. It perhaps demonstrates the extent to which “spin” and “Green” hysteria have destroyed objectivity.
SONE is pressing for the scientific and engineering institutions to bestir themselves. In the process, we have discovered that the Royal Academy of Engineering is studying with the Energy Research Partnership, set up by Tony Blair, technical grid infrastructure issues beyond 2020. Comfortingly, the inquiry is chaired by Paul Golby (E.ON) and Willie Rickett, a leading BERR off i c i a l . Alarmingly, it looks as if its technical advice comes solely from National Grid engineers who have a commercial interest. The RAE has been advised to get a few really independent advisers on board.
BLOW FOR SANITY N0 1
Professor Ian Fells, Newcastle upon Tyne, struck a powerful blow on September 16 for a rational approach to energy and electricity supply in a report with Candida Whitmill for an industrial group. It is entitled “A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK” and is available on www.fellsassociates.com His report said that
“security of energy supply must now be seen as taking priority over everything else, even climate change… A new energy policy must be scheduled to meet the impending energy gap with an overarching long-term vision that will ensure security of supply, protect the environment and at the same time be deemed feasible by the engineers, financiers and utility managers who will have to implement it”.
It claims that all in all it will be a close run thing to provide electricity to keep the lights on through the next decade. Unrealistic “green” aspirations and wishful thinking about unachievable quantities of offshore wind generation have led to underinvestment in energy baseload to replace the loss of one third of generating capacity over the next decade. It finds
“a staggering lack of understanding of the technical and engineering reality of what can be built within a short time scale... The default position is more gas, with all the political uncertainties on availability and price that implies.”
The authors preface their “Route Map to Energy Survival for the UK” with the following quote: “Electricity is the lifeblood of civilisation, without it we spiral down into anarchy and barbarism”. The route map includes an urgent new nuclear programme; extensions to existing nuclear and possibly coal power station lives; more interconnectors with the Continent; burning municipal waste; a premium for CO2-free generation, including nuclear; underpinning the long-term sale price for electricity to provide stability, especially for nuclear and tidal power; an urgent decision on a Severn barrage; and reform of the current regulatory, tax and subsidy system.
BLOW FOR SANITY NO 2
To safeguard existing electricity generating plant, Professor Michael Laughton, Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering at London University, has written along with others to 30 chief executives of generating companies about the consequences of stresses on conventional plant by regular power supply swings on the system caused by variations in wind. It sets out the conclusions reached by James Oswald, former head of R&D at Rolls- Royce Turbines, on the conditions likely to be imposed on the system if there were 25,000MW of wind capacity.
The conclusions have to be read alongside a draft EU directive requiring transmission system operators to give priority to renewable energy “in so far as the security of the national electricity system permits”.
Professor Laughton says changes of load cause stress to generating plant and shorten the life of even large gas turbines. They impose serious increases in stress on coal and CCGT power stations, designed to operate most efficiently at an optimum output, as well as reducing their efficiency. Thus, he tells the companies, the load cycling imposed by wind on conventional plant will have serious consequences for plant life and maintenance as well as unit costs and the security of power supply will be “seriously jeopardised”.
“This is a matter”, he says, “that can only be effectively put on the record and drawn to the attention of the Government by the generating companies whose investments, expenditures and revenues will be most directly influenced”. In other words, if you did not already know it, you have now been warned. But why are generators not themselves publicly protesting instead of investing in wind power? Because, as Professor Fells points out, the whole system is distorted by the wrong incentives. It is certainly not concerned about value for money - or security of supply.
SONE’S BLOW NO 3
We have urgently revised the dated leaflet The Looming Energy Crisis sent to the Cabinet and all MPs before the 2005 general election in the interests of stimulating greater public awareness of the risks being run with energy and more especially electricity supply. The new briefing explains why a new nuclear power station building programme is needed urgently and the limitations of sources of electricity that are routinely paraded by “Greens” as an alternative to nuclear. We shall endeavour to send a copy to each member with a request that they distribute supplies widely.
MORE GOOD NEWS
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, who is to address SONE’s AGM (see below), was at his most positive about nuclear power at the first meeting on September 18 of the Government’s new Nuclear Development Forum bringing Government and nuclear industry together. He said new nuclear generation was “absolutely indispensable for keeping the UK’s lights on” and he was “determined to press the right buttons to get nuclear built in this country at the earliest opportunity”. As we went to press, EdF at last had a bid of £12.5bn accepted for British Energy, though there was some controversy over allowing the French to take over our nuclear power industry. A new nuclear programme could, the Minister said, create 100,000 jobs and attract £20bn of private investment, but more must be done to create and support a globally competitive UK supply chain. As part of the gearing up for a nuclear renaissance, Westinghouse, pursuing its policy of “buy where we build”, has signed agreements with BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Doosan Babcock and Sheffield Forgemasters for building the AP1000. Forgemasters are also considering investing in a press to make the largest reactor pressure vessels, one of the identified pinch-points in a global nuclear development programme.
Only Areva and Westinghouse now remain in the UK reactor licensing game with GE-Hitachi’s temporary withdrawal following the Canadians’ exit. This should simplify the task of the overstretched Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency has indicated that it is to sell land adjacent to the Bradwell, Oldbury and Wylfa nuclear power station sites for nuclear development and E.ON has given notice it wants a 1,600MWe grid connection in place at Oldbury (Glos.) by 2020.
BOLD PROJECTIONS
The message from the World Nuclear Association’s annual symposium in London this month was blunt: the world cannot afford to wait before embarking on building hundreds of new nuclear reactors to provide a secure and clean energy future. Its projections of the likely global nuclear expansion by 2030 underline Mr Hutton’s vision of the British industrial and business opportunity. On its low scenario global nuclear capacity is predicted to rise from 372,000MW to 473,000MW and on its high scenario to 748,000MW, which is in line with forecast growth in power demand. The IAEA in Vienna is even more bullish with a low of 552,000MW by 2030 and a high of 1,200,000MW. Wherever you look the outlook is positive – in Brazil, the USA, Japan, South Africa, Western Australia where a new government has ended the ban on uranium mining, Italy, Holland and in Germany where 80 per cent of business want the lives of nuclear power stations extended beyond their phase-out dates.
WIND BASHING
In contrast, the assault on renewables – and notably wind and solar – has intensified this month. Amazingly, it was led by the BBC Radio 4’s The Investigation on September 4. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at Oxford, said it was hard to think of a worse designed policy (the renewables obligation) to promote wind – the most complicated and expensive among developed countries and a very bad deal for the taxpayer. So what’s new? People have been saying that for years.
To do it justice, Ofgem has been urging the Government to reform the subsidy. On the programme, its managing director, networks, Steven Smith, agreed that £32bn would be going to wind developers by 2020 through the renewables obligation, based on the delivery of 10 per cent of power from renewables by then. But he forecast it would be “a lot more than that unless we radically reform the subsidy mechanism”.
Separately, E.ON put some flesh on the bones of wind costs. It said it is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines were built to meet EU targets they could be relied upon to produce only seven per cent of peak winter power demand when the weather is cold and still. That would mean 92 per cent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional stations and might require more coal-fired plants. Meeting the EU’s target of 20 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020 could raise the UK’s installed generation base from 76,000MW to more than 100,000MW at a cost of £100bn.
OBITUARY
We regret to record the deaths of two very loyal members, Sir Denis Rooke, former chairman of British Gas, and Ted Pugh, of Ruthin, N Wales.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
A reminder of SONE’s AGM on October 21 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, London SWl from 12 noon to 3pm. Our speakers will be (as indicated above) John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business (2-3pm), and Lord O’Neill, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association (12.30-1.15pm).
This year we regret that attendance is limited by the accommodation to 50 so please book your place now either by writing to the Secretary at 9 Monahan Avenue, Purley, Surrey CR8 3BB, telephoning him on 020-8660-8970 or e-mailing him at
Coffee will be served from 11.30am and there will be a buffet lunch from 1.15-2pm, courtesy British Energy.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
We regret that due to unavoidable circumstances there is no September issue of Nuclear Issues.
