Hinkley C – the shock of faith in the wrong technology

The British Government's decision to back Hinkley C nuclear power station is another success for the snake oil salesmen of a defunct technology that sends completely the wrong message.

I once wrote a novella about nuclear power that satirised the ease with which politicians fell for its sales pitch, seduced by that strong subtext of sexual potency, the Promethean glamour of seeming to commission the ultimate power source.

Except the reality was and remains a lengthy catalogue of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes – of which Chernobyl is the most famous.

A recent scientific study shows that "accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years".

The same study highlights the "'flawed and woefully incomplete' public data from the nuclear industry" that is "leading to an over-confident attitude to risk".

Once nuclear power was sold to us as electricity supply that would be "too cheap to meter". Now, even though the British Tory government knows it's amongst the most expensive power sources on the planet...

... they're still keen to sell Hinkley C to a British public that doesn't want it [original data here].

They know, too, that the specific technology to be deployed at Hinkley C already has "a lengthy catalogue of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes" at the previous attempts to deploy it – Flammanville, Taishan and Olkiluoto – but they still want to commission another one like it.

They know that the nuclear industry was forced to become so secretive that its secrets – usually cover-ups of the lengthy catalogues of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes – were kept from governments and the public for years (and who knows what has yet to come to light) – and yet the fact that the Chinese government might have access to the secrets of the British nuclear industry and national grid is only offered as a bogus concern, not a serious obstacle to the much more important aim – remaining in the Chinese and French governments' good books.

If I didn't think that it was unlikely that members of the Tory government have read my novella, I'd think it was a case of life imitating or parodying art. (Although I wouldn't put it past the potential of civil servants to be consciously doing so – twisted, devious creatures capable of not just double-think, but triple-, quadruple-, and even octople-think that they are.)

I have observed the British government's grotesque and contorted dance of death with EDF and Hinkley C since it was begun by Tony Blair, with a mixture of fascination, horror and contempt, of the sort I normally reserve for watching the calculated relapse of an ex-alcoholic drawing themselves into a terminal vortex, the culmination of which is starkly obvious to all powerless onlookers.

When Theresa May hit the pause button on approving the Hinkley C decision when everyone expected her to rubber stamp it, she was like the pantomime villain horsing around with the expectations of the audience, just so that when they finally commit the Terrible Deed, they can reap even more opprobrium from the audience than they would have received had they dealt the blow straight away.

There has been so much coverage in the press that everyone can see what a terrible decision this is. The tail has wagged the dog, but it's the taxpayer who will foot the bill if the thing ever does get built. Here's 5 reasons why it shouldn't be built.

There is still a chance it might not. There is still a chance that May could be playing a double bluff: in her wish not to offend the Chinese she has greenlighted the project even though she knows it is an awful bet (she can't be so blinkered that she doesn't know this, can she?) hoping that some other factor – technical, financial, legal – there are a few in the pipeline – will prevent it ever being built, thereby exonerating her from possible future blame by the Chinese.

There's a chance, but it's a slim one. I wouldn't bet on it if I were a gambler.

The whole thing is a farce, but it's more than that, it's a parody of a farce that is still a farce. A post-post-modern farce. Grotesque, and embittered with the self-hypnotised reflection of irony in love with itself.

Meanwhile, if you have a spare hour, watch the video below which shows how, by the time Hinkley C is built, technological disruptions in the fields of energy storage, electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, solar power and computing will mean there will be absolutely no market for its over-expensive electricity.

It will be old. Out of date. Unnecessary. But still producing nuclear waste we cannot yet render safe.


David Thorpe is the author of:

• Best Practices and Case Studies for Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement (with Oung, K. and Fawkes, S. UNEP, 2016)
• A London Conversation: Business Briefing on Green Bonds (The Fifth Estate, 2015)
• The One Planet Life (Introduction: Jane Davidson. Routledge, 2015)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Buildings (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Industry (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Technology (Earthscan, 2011)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Sustainable Home Refurbishment (Earthscan, 2010)

Not much on the Horizon for UK's nuclear programme

Horizon's Wylfa site, Anglesey, with its mothballed old reactor.

Just two bidders have emerged for Horizon, the nuclear company seeking to build two new reactors in Britain, following the expiry of a deadline last Friday for expressions of interest in purchasing the option, which saw expected partners dropping out.

In both cases it is unsure where the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment will come from, that could eventually see a new nuclear power station built on either of the company's sites, in Oldbury, Gloucestershire and Wylfa, Anglesey.

Last week, three consortiums were expected to throw their hats into the ring: France's Areva, partnered with China's Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, both state-owned; one led by Japan's Hitachi; and Japan's Westinghouse Electric Co., partnered with China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corp and Exelon, the US power generator.

Areva failed to submit a bid. Hitachi did, and Westinghouse did, but without its Chinese partner, who would have provided substantial experience of delivering nuclear power stations on time and within budget.

Areva's European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design is further ahead than Westinghouse's in the UK's generic design assessment approval process. Westinghouse' put their process on hold last December.

Its AP1000 nuclear reactor design is, in turn, further on than Hitachi's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, which has yet to be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), although it is licensed in the US, Japan and Taiwan.

Four ABWRs are already operating in Japan, with a fifth 94% completed.

No AP1000 reactor has yet been completed, although four are under construction in China, and two proposals have been given approval in the US.

Two builds of Areva's EPR design, in France and Finland, have experienced massive hold-ups and budgetary excesses.

EDF has yet to decide whether to proceed with construction of an EPR plant at Hinkley Point.

The process of approval of the EPR design issues by the Health and Safety Executive can be followed online here, where it can be seen that the majority of issues have yet to be resolved.

The only other contender for new nuclear power station building in the UK is NuGen, which is owned by GDF SUEZ and IBERDROLA. Their plans to implement 3.6GW of electricity generation at the Moorside site adjacent to Sellafield are also on hold.

Any potential backers for building new nuclear power stations, which would undoubtedly include Chinese money, are waiting for clarity on the level of government support that will be available following the passing of the Energy Bill, currently winding its way through Parliament.

Areva/EDF's nuclear ambitions are in disarray

Areva's European Pressurised Reactor Olkiluoto 3 is now over five years behind schedule. Its design faces 28 unanswered questions from the UK regulator.

EDF and Areva are facing delays, high costs, and problems satisfying the regulator, over trying to get their flagship European Pressurised Reactor nuclear plant design approved for building in the UK, even as EDF seeks a £165/MWh price guarantee from the Government.

The two companies have resolved just three of the 31 problems blocking their proposed nuclear reactor from receiving environmental and safety approval from the Environment Agency and the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

They are greatly behind schedule and will not receive final approval this year, as they had hoped.

Their design for a new generation European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) has to pass through the generic design assessment (GDA) process before any reactors can be built.

EDF is hoping to use two of the reactors in a 3.2 gigawatt plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset.

Meanwhile, it is seeking a subsidy in the form of a guaranteed price of £165 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity from the plant from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Treasury, according to the Times newspaper.

This expensive figure is more than the £150/MWh strike price estimated by Dr. David Toke, Senior Lecturer in Energy Policy at the University of Birmingham, and about the same as a £166/MWh estimate by Citi bank analyst, Peter Atherton.

The EPR design was given interim approval by the ONR and the Environment Agency last December but EDF has to come up with answers to 31 separate questions.

They cover issues such as security, reliability, strength of the inner containment wall, test results, and independent assessment of predictive calculations.

Significantly, the report says: “some of the deliverables have been late or did not provide the required quality of arguments or evidence".

It adds: "a number of the metrics are amber or red, indicating that, if no action is taken to improve matters, it is unlikely that the GDA [Generic Design Approval] Issues will be closed-out on the timescales indicated in the current resolution plans", in other words that the design will receive approval by November. EDF and Areva are reviewing their timescales and a new date will be announced shortly.

ONR takes a while to make its progress reports publicly available. Although published on July 5, the latest quarterly report actually covers the three months up to March 31. The reports are not easy to find on the website, especially because a link leading to them is broken.

The EPR is now the only reactor design being assessed following Westinghouse's withdrawal from the market with its AP1000 reactor design.

More EPR delays

To add to the two French companies' woes, the reactor being built by Areva in Finland, the 1,600 megawatt Olkiluoto 3, will now “not be ready for a normal level of electricity production in 2014" according to a statement issued on Monday by Areva's partner, the Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO). TVO adds, dryly: “we are not pleased with the situation".

It was supposed to have been ready in 2009, and last year TVO said it would start in 2014. It is more than €2 billion over budget. TVO is locked in a bitter legal wrangle with Areva.

There are similar delays and cost overruns at Areva's EPR project in Flamanville, France.

The nuclear subsidy dilemma

Under the draft Energy Bill, the Government will introduce ‘contracts for difference’, a tariff system intended to subsidise renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. But it will not be in place until 2014, two years after EDF says it needs to make an investment decision on the Hinkley Point plant.

The EPR clearly is much more expensive than EDF had originally said publicly. The Government has repeatedly said it is committed to nuclear power.

Offshore wind power is currently subsidised at a price of £130 per MWh under the Renewables Obligation Commitment. The Secretary of State, Ed Davey told the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change yesterday that details of changes to the Renewables Obligation Commitment subsidy levels, which had been expected to include a reduction in this subsidy and were anticipated this week, have been delayed due to pressure of time impacting on his department’s discussions with the Treasury and other departments.

He said “there are over 4,000 responses to the consultation, and it is very complicated”. Pressed by MPs, he said an announcement will be made by the end of September. He also denied that there was any outside interference in the decision-making process.

Regarding the issue of a subsidy for nuclear power, Ed Davey, is on record as saying: “There will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation.

"I want to make clear … that this means that nuclear will not receive a higher price than comparable generation technologies whether they be renewables or indeed gas generation, once its emissions have been abated by carbon capture and storage.”

Government told: use social media to allay public's nuclear fears

It's not just nuclear: Greenpeace and others have effectively campaigned against carbon capture and storage in Germany using new media, and MPs want the Government to take them on using Facebook and Twitter. Can you see this happening?

The Government is being advised to use independent regulators and social media to provide public information on the risks associated with nuclear power and other energy technologies.

A group of MPs is recommending that officials and regulators use the same communication strategies as employed by campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to allay public fears on nuclear power, fracking and carbon capture and storage.

Would you ‘like’ a Facebook message from the Treasury telling you that it's okay for the taxpayer to subsidise nuclear power?

Because the public knows that the Government backs nuclear power, it regards official messages on the subject as biased, says the Science and Technology Committee, which has been looking into the public perception of risk.

Therefore, technically competent public bodies that are independent of Government are in a much better position to engender public trust and influence risk perceptions, the MPs say, citing the Health & Safety Executive and Office for Nuclear Regulation as examples.

"The public must be able to trust the information it receives on the risks of nuclear power and other energy technologies – such as fracking or carbon capture and storage," said Andrew Miller MP.

"Developing the public profile of independent regulators as trusted and authoritative sources may be one way of increasing public trust and understanding of such risks."

The MPs say in the report that "the evidence shows that around half of the population support [nuclear power], even though it may be a reluctant support for the least worst option. The Government's position as an advocate for nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as an impartial source of information."

Carbon capture and storage

Although most of the inquiry looked at nuclear power, the MPs also considered other technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). As one witness who gave evidence, Professor Nick Pidgeon, Director of the Understanding Risk Programme at Cardiff University, said: "[energy] policy in the EU and UK depends very heavily upon CCS technology working".

The MPs visited a site of a pilot CCS project in Germany, where there has been almost as much opposition to the technology as there has been to nuclear power. They found the underlying reasons for this were “distrust of industry and concerns that CCS would provide a means for fossil fuel dependency to continue".

They highlighted a comment by one of the enquiry's witnesses that campaign groups like Friends of the Earth were very good at getting their message across. They "will pick a very narrow issue, go for that very strongly and throw lots of resources at it. They have embraced the internet and the new media very well," said Dr Andrew Bloodworth, Head of Science, Minerals and Waste, British Geological Survey (BGS).

"If the Government intends to rely on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of emissions reduction strategies, it should examine the difficulties experienced in Germany due to public concerns," concluded the MPs.

Community engagement

While in Germany, they were also impressed by the model of citizen partnership that has been developed there for wind farms. They suggest that “enabling communities to feel more ownership of local energy infrastructure by offering shares in projects could be conducive to building acceptance".

Regarding nuclear new build proposals in particular, the MPs advocate "the further use of current community engagement processes led by energy companies, working with local government and the public, for building trust".

In this regard EDF Energy has recently been sponsoring a series of editorial features in women's magazines. It seeks to portray the human side of working with nuclear power by, for example, interviewing female workers and photographing them in the same style as fashion models.

For example, the last issue of Marie Claire features an attractive photograph and an interview with Sabrina Greenberg, whose age is patronisingly noted as 25, a member of EDF Energy's Nuclear New Build team and personal assistant to the 'client construction and commercial director'.

Before taking on this job she worked, the advertorial says, at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, her LinkedIn profile makes no mention of this, instead saying that she worked at the Department of Justice.

The interview questions include: how much she knew about nuclear energy before starting work, what is involved in her typical day, what her family and friends think about her working for an energy company, what she likes about working at EDF Energy and what she sees as her future there.

Propaganda versus information

EDF has clearly noted the recent market research which shows that women are far more likely to oppose the new nuclear build than men, and this is their cynical response: to use senior members of their own staff as examples of how safe nuclear power is.  How stupid do they think women are?

It illustrates that the distinction between propaganda and objective information can be easily blurred.

This blurring may also explain why NGOs are trusted by the public more than energy companies and the Government. The public sees that when it comes to international efforts to save the planet such as the Rio+20 Earth Summit and UN climate change summits, it is NGOs who are pushing most strongly for the required measures, and governments that are lagging behind.

The MPs' report accepts that the public does not always understand the true nature of relative risk, even when attempts are made to explain it scientifically. It is a difficult issue to get across. This was seen most dramatically in recent times with the controversy over the MMR vaccine.

This does not mean that the public is necessarily anti-scientific, it says. While their level of scientific understanding may not be the same as a scientist, they may be influenced by “other affective (that is, feeling or emotion-based) factors" that are not accessible to rational argument.

This must make women wrong. Shame on them, for responding with their feelings.

In response, the MPs advocate the setting up of a new Risk Communication Strategy team led by a senior individual in Government.

That's all right then: I'm sure they will be completely trustworthy.

Nuclear power can't happen without subsidy. So it shouldn't happen.

Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey/Ynys Mon.

“A new generation of nuclear power stations will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market.”

Guess who said that? Well, it was our very own Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey, when he was the Liberal Democrat's Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, on 17th July 2006.

And, on 6th February this year he followed this up with: “new nuclear can go ahead so long as it’s without subsidy".

Put these two statements together, and what do you get?

Quite. Mr. Davey was right in 2006, and he is even more right in 2012: nuclear power can't happen without subsidy.

The decision by Horizon, the consortium run by German energy firms EON and RWE npower to pull out of developing new nuclear power projects in the UK supports this thesis and has brought dismay to the governments in Westminster and Cardiff.

The Welsh Assembly Government feels particularly let down because it had only just published its Energy Wales policy document which, for the first time, had committed Wales to support nuclear power and had placed Horizon's anticipated new power station on Anglesey as a key plank of its policy to ‘create a sustainable, low carbon economy for Wales’.

What will it now do to make sure it meets its policy targets? A spokesperson for the Welsh government would add no more to the official line that "there is live and significant interest in the site", and "we are seeking the full support of the UK Government as we work with Horizon to deliver this investment and secure jobs for workers at Wylfa in the future".

Perhaps it hadn't really sunk in that Horizon is no longer interested. And what did he mean by support from the UK Government? It couldn't be the S-word, could it?

Volker Beckers, CEO of RWE npower, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the decision has been made purely on strategic grounds, both adding that the recession was a factor.

Westminster is putting a brave face on this major setback to its masterplan. There is interest from other companies, but the undeniable truth is that the capital intensity of constructing and underwriting the costs of nuclear power makes it impossible for any player to enter the market without state support.

This was in effect admitted on Friday morning by Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow at the Energy, Environment and Development programme at Chatham House, when he said that "electricity is too important to be left to the free market and therefore the government has a central role to play".

Existing nuclear subsidies

Of course, subsidies already exist. Here are six of them:

1. Charles Hendry, Minister of State for Energy, has just made nuclear power even more expensive for operators (although this move was widely expected), by announcing on Friday that the operator's liability in the event of a nuclear accident will be raised from £140 million to €1.2bn, or just over £1 billion.

This removes some of what is an effective subsidy from the taxpayer to nuclear operators. However, in the event of a really serious accident, there is no doubt that the cost of reparation would be much higher than £1 billion: £800 billion is the current level of the cleanup bill at Fukushima. And this will be borne by the taxpayer.

2. Under the proposed Electricity Market Reform, the Contracts for Difference Feed in Tariffs will provide a subsidy of between £63 billion and £75 billion to EDF, the only nuclear player left in town, over the next 35 years. That is nearly £2.0 billion a year.

3. Waste disposal costs will also be subsidised since the Government has proposed capping the nuclear industry’s liabilities. Currently, DECC spends £6.93 billion a year, 86% of its budget, on managing nuclear waste and other liabilities from Britain’s current nuclear power programme: over eight times more than it spends on securing our future energy and climate security.

4. The four campaigners calculate that it is likely that new nuclear build in Britain will require the creation of special purpose financing mechanisms to protect the balance sheets of the proposers, even a well-apitalised company like EDF in the form of loan guarantees.

5. Dozens of agencies, offices, quangos and departments support the nuclear industry, costing billions of pounds per year. Similar levels of support do not exist for other low carbon technologies.

6. Finally, it is impossible to have nuclear power without huge security and counter-terrorism costs. Most of this is paid for by the taxpayer, but official secrecy prevents us from knowing how much.

These and other ways in which the taxpayer supports nuclear power and will support new nuclear power stations, are summarised in a briefing prepared for the government this week by antinuclear ex-directors of Friends of the Earth, Tom Burke, Tony Juniper, Jonathon Porritt and Charles Secrett.

It's not just the UK

The same S-word dilemma is occurring everywhere and getting worse. And it's not just woolly eco-freaks saying so.

At a symposium this week on the Future of Nuclear Power hosted by the Dick Thornburgh Forum for Law and Public Policy of the University of Pittsburgh, this extremely authoritative and august body, speaking from the birthplace of nuclear power, admitted the following in a comprehensive report on Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Economics, written by Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, at the Institute for Energy and the Environment:

"The subsidy problem in nuclear reactor construction has actually become much more severe," he writes.

Besides increased liabilities resulting from heightened safety awareness following the Fukushima accident, "The utilities proposing new nuclear reactors have demanded many more and larger direct subsidies".

He continues: "Since construction of nuclear reactors cannot be financed in normal capital markets, federal loan guarantees and partnership with public power that has independent bonding authority appear to be necessary ingredients to move projects forward."

We shouldn't have to point out the ludicrous irony of the Tory part of the coalition, which is the half that actively supports nuclear power, relying on a socialist French government, which supports a nationalised industry, to bring about with British subsidies the nuclear power it wants in the UK.

Why not just abandon nuclear power?

All of this makes absurd the claim that nuclear power is the cheapest form of new generation that is continually made by the Government, most recently in its 2011 update of the costs of new generation capacity.

If even just one of EDF's proposed new nuclear power stations goes ahead (and they still haven't submitted a timetable for construction) there is absolutely no doubt that the country will regret it in the future.

And to those who say we need nuclear newbuild to combat climate change, I say with the billions saved from scrapping all the currents subsidies listed above we could build the equivalent amount of new renewable generation plant and install more energy saving products far quicker and with far better value for money and far more British jobs.

Wylfa nuclear newbuild favoured by Welsh Government; EDF abandons Heysham

Cardiff has announced that it expects to power Wales' future with a diverse range of low carbon technologies, including nuclear power, just as news emerges that EDF has cancelled plans for a new nuclear power station at Heysham, Lancashire.

The French company has annulled an agreement with the National Grid to set up any new connection to the grid from Heysham; all its plans for new stations are now focused on their sites at Sizewell and Hinkley Point.

Meanwhile, Wales expects to deploy new nuclear power at Wylfa on Anglesey as part of its transition to a low carbon economy, according to its new energy strategy, Energy Wales published yesterday.

This key policy document sees gas as the key transitional fuel because greenhouse gas emissions from it are "less than that of coal subject to the method of extraction". In the long term, it foresees the addition of carbon capture and storage to gas plants.

The document focuses almost exclusively on electricity, and to a lesser extent waste, almost neglecting the areas of heat and transport. It does share the UK Government's opinion that more electricity will be used in the future for transport and heating.

Its most controversial aspect is its support for nuclear power, the first time that the Welsh Government has been so unequivocal on this point.

Nuclear Wales

Energy Wales says the Cardiff Government supports the development of a new nuclear power station on Anglesey, which is being taken forward by Horizon Nuclear Power, a joint venture between E.ON UK and RWE npower.

The document uncritically repeats Horizon's claims that building a new nuclear power station at Wylfa B would "create around 800 permanent jobs and up to 5,000 during construction".

However, Horizon has not yet appointed the contractor to build a reactor on the site.

Both Areva and Westinghouse are in the running for this job. Westinghouse has warned that if Areva wins the contract it may call for an investigation under competition law because it would mean that Areva would secure the market monopoly, being already selected to build reactors for EDF Energy.

In addition, Westinghouse, owned by Toshiba of Japan, claims this would have a detrimental effect on jobs in Wales.

"It will have a permanent and significantly negative impact on the UK nuclear industry, jobs, manufacturing skills, supply chains and SMEs. Westinghouse have pledged to 'buy where they build' and source 70% UK content, Areva have existing supply chains in France and their UK commitment would be significantly less," says a legal document prepared on its behalf.

“There are undoubtedly risks associated with nuclear power but the risks posed by climate change are now so serious that we cannot dispense with a key proven low-carbon technology,” says the Energy Wales report.

This commitment was immediately criticised by Friends of the Earth Cymru, which said that it was the first time the Welsh Government had supported nuclear power in full.

"To believe that nuclear power can help build a prosperous Wales is misguided – renewable energy provides far more jobs than nuclear power per unit of energy generated,” said Gareth Clubb, its director.

Anglesey was the site over the weekend of a protest to mark the first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster in Japan by a group called People Against Wylfa B (Pawb).

But the energy document and support for nuclear power has won support from Plaid Cymru leadership contender Dafydd Ellis-Thomas and William Powell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for Environment and Sustainable Development, who said the party accepted that non-renewables would continue to play an important role in Wales’ energy mix.

The international engineering and project management company AMEC has today been appointed by the Isle of Anglesey County Council as chief consultant for the Energy Island Programme, in a four-year contract with an unspecified value.

It will provide the Council with capacity and expertise in areas such as planning policy and development management, environmental impact assessment, consultation, Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) process and procedure as well as socio-economic regeneration aspects. The appointment recognises AMEC’s environmental, planning and engineering strengths in renewables and in the nuclear sector.

It is anticipated the programme could contribute nearly ￡2.5 billion to Anglesey and the North Wales economy over the next 15 years.

Renewables and energy efficiency

Energy Wales also sees a role for every other kind of renewable energy including the introduction of renewable bio-methane into the gas supply from anaerobic digestion, as well as for greater end use and conversion efficiency in space and water heating to reduce overall demand.

But little mention is made of Wales' vast resources of forestry timber for biomass generation of heat in the context of community heat and power generation.

The policy document vows to "relentlessly pursue energy efficiency so that we do more with less", but also exploit the principality's huge resources for marine and offshore wind power.

The Welsh Government is developing a Wales Infrastructure Investment Plan in which it will set out the strategic priorities for investment of what it sees as around ￡50 billion-worth of necessary low carbon electricity projects by 2025.

It expresses frustration that whereas some aspects of its legislature are devolved, such as planning, responsibility for large-scale energy development (above 50MW onshore and 1MW offshore) as well as the electricity transmission network that connects them, lies not with Wales but the UK Government.

It has commissioned Hyder to review current energy consenting systems, and its report is expected in the summer. Any necessary legislative changes will be fed into the Planning White Paper and subsequent Planning Bill. In the meantime it will continue to press for greater devolution of energy consenting powers.

Gerry Jewson, the chief executive of onshore wind energy firm West Coast Energy, said that the report showed that the Government "has listened to the representations of all stakeholders in Wales’ renewable future and has a real understanding of the issues" and called on "Cardiff to deliver action, not just aspiration".

He said that "specific and unambiguous commitments to targets for renewable technologies will be essential to focus the minds of planners and developers alike and catalyse the industry otherwise this good intent could be lost."

Other assets

Wales holds several major assets which are essential to the entire UK economy, such as the two LNG terminals at Milford Haven which are linked by a controversial pipeline to England.

It also holds deep sea ports which are potentially useful for establishing offshore energy infrastructure.

Although Energy Wales says that we "believe the development of the grid in Wales can and should be carried out in a way that is sensitive to its impact on our natural environment," no direct reference is made to the prospect of burying grid connection cables from onshore wind farms, a highly sensitive subject in Wales.

While the administration is opening its doors to developers to take advantage of a skilled workforce already with a tradition of the steel and coal industry, it expects developers to return the benefits of the investment to communities in Wales in the form of jobs, training and a share of the returns.

It sees a particular advantage in the fact that it can draw match funding from Brussels, such as through the European Regional Development Fund.

It points to its 'arbed' program and support the Anglesey Energy Island programme as examples of successful pilot projects, and sees that nuclear power on Anglesey as well as marine, solar, biomass, hydro and others can all play a part.

Launching ‘Energy Wales: A Low Carbon Transition’, the First Minister Carwyn Jones, said “Last year the renewable and low carbon sectors supported 29,000 jobs in Wales.

"I want to see these figures increase and see Wales securing the highest possible number of the 250,000 additional jobs predicted for the energy sector in the UK in the coming years."

Although renewable energy supplies only a little over 5% of Wales' electricity, 62% of this comes from wind and solar with a further 25% coming from thermal renewable generation and 13% from hydro generation.

Existing windfarms have a capacity of 562 MW, which will more than double next year when Gwynt y Môr offshore windfarm comes onstream to join a further 263MW from onshore developments.

On energy efficiency, Wales already has a comprehensive supply-chain, from manufacturing to installation, within its boundaries.

Insulation measures and micro-generation technologies are made in Wales by businesses including Rockwool, Knauf, Kingspan, and Sharp.

British consumers will pay dearly for French nuclear power, say environmental leaders

Flamanville-C in France, being built by EDF and Areva: over budget and overdue.

Today, four of the UK’s leading environmentalists have warned that the Government is about to hand over control of Britain’s future energy and climate security to the French government, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Their claims are made in a letter and note sent to David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, Edward Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary and Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

The letter is signed by:

• Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the Sustainable Development Commission and founder director of Forum for the Future
• Tony Juniper, environmental advisor, campaigner and writer
• Charles Secrett, co-founder of The Robertsbridge Group
• Tom Burke, founder director of E3G.

Mr Cameron recently made an agreement with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to boost nuclear co-operation.

However, "our analysis shows that building new nukes will be a massive rip-off for the the British taxpayer," said Mr Secrett.

The letter-writers say the French will only build new nuclear reactors in the UK if the financial risks involved are transferred from France to British households and businesses – leaving UK taxpayers to pick up the bill to protect the French nuclear industry.

This is because without a strong price for carbon, which is not on the horizon unless the Treasury sets a high carbon price floor, and which British consumers will end up subsidising, new nuclear power's figures don't stack up.

Should the French subsequently decide not to proceed, the UK would be faced with a humiliating policy melt-down.

″This is an invitation to EDF to bargain very aggressively for an agreement that transfers the lion’s share of the financial risk of new nuclear to British taxpayers and consumers. EDF will have us over a barrel,″ they say.

They also claim that the nuclear plans proposed by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and EDF, and approved by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, are based on a type of reactor that France has been advised to abandon.

EDF intends to construct four European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) at Hinkley and Sizewell, yet the French National Audit Office has recommended abandonment of the EPR as too complex and expensive.

On his blog, Tom Burke writes: "The French National Audit Office recently recommended dropping the EPR as too expensive. This repeated a recommendation made to Sarkozy two years ago by the former head of EDF, Francois Roussely, who saw no future for it.

"In any case, the decision to extend the life of EDF’s existing fleet of reactors in France will put huge pressure on its capital budget over the next decade."

The construction of two EPRs in Finland and France under construction by Areva (designers of the European Pressurised Reactor) has been beset by problems: both are already four years late and costs are running twice as high as originally projected.

The four previous reactors they built took an average of 17.5 years from the start of construction to the delivery of the first electricity.

There is also a growing risk that Centrica (a British energy company with an option to take 20% of the new build at Hinkley and Sizewell) will not take up its 20% option leaving two French companies, Areva and EDF, as the primary beneficiaries of large subsidies from Britain’s householders and businesses.

Tom Burke said, “It is shocking that the government is willing to turn over control of our energy and climate security to France in pursuit of a nuclear mirage.

"British householders and businesses will be compelled to pay for a French nuclear loser. To do so we will turn an admired liberal electricity market back into the centrally planned nightmare that Mrs Thatcher rescued us from.”

Electricity Market Reform

Commenting on the letter, Jonathon Porritt said, “The fixation of the current political establishment with nuclear power beggars belief. The entire energy system in the UK is about to be rigged in order to support nuclear power, through the Electricity Market Reform, at great cost to UK consumers, UK businesses and the long-term interests of the entire nation.

"Given its historical opposition to nuclear power, the LibDems should be feeling particularly uncomfortable at the analysis surfaced in our note to the Prime Minister – and the Coalition Government’s continuing pledge that any new nuclear programme will not get any additional public subsidy is now palpably dishonest.”

Continuing with the present policy will seriously distort our electricity market for decades to come, reduce the competitiveness of British businesses, add to fuel poverty, and suppress innovation and investment in industries where Britain has real competitive advantage, they say.

Tony Juniper added, “Ministers have been well and truly led up the garden path by the nuclear lobby. Our analysis of nuclear energy provides a timely reminder as to the danger posed by campaigns against sustainable energy sources, such as wind power.

"If the not-in-my-backyard anti-anything-anywhere brigade prevail, and nuclear becomes the default option, then that could cost us a great deal of money. The Prime Minister needs to step in and make sure that energy policy is truly working in the public interest, rather than to the agenda of a massive vested interest.”

Charles Secrett concluded, "How on earth can the Prime Minister justify paying billions of pounds of subsidy to French power companies when the Chancellor is slashing welfare budgets for poor people in Britain and there are a million young people unemployed?"

EDF is 85% owned by the French state. It has been the most committed supporter of new nuclear build in Britain. Preparatory site clearance will begin shortly at its Hinkley Point C site. However, until EDF orders the major reactor components there is no guarantee that they will actually proceed to construction.

Environmentalists who support nuclear power argue that it is necessary to combat climate change. The letter writers plan to counter these arguments with a series of briefings to the Prime Minister over the next six weeks, covering:

1. Market reform
2. Investor issues
3. Energy industry issues
4. Wider economic issues
5. Sustainability issues
6. Political issues.

They argue that viable options are available to meet our energy and climate security needs at much lower economic and political risk and will create predominantly British jobs and growth.

The letter is fully supported by Friends of the Earth, whose executive director Andy Atkins said: "This report is spot on – Britain must meet its energy needs while keeping to its legally-binding climate targets, but gambling on a massive nuclear building programme to achieve it is far too risky.

"Investing in clean British energy by developing the UK’s huge wind, wave and solar potential and slashing energy waste will keep the lights on and create thousands of new jobs."

Protestors mark Fukushima anniversary by blockade of EDF nuclear site

Jonathan Porritt addressing the crowd at this weekend's Stop Hinkley anti-nuclear rally slammed the LibDems for their U-turn on nuclear newbuild.

The one year anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami on Japan's north east coast was marked in the UK over the weekend by the first 24-hour blockade of a nuclear site in over 30 years.

Following a demonstration by over 1000 people at Hinkley Point C on the Severn estuary in Somerset, which veteran campaigner Martyn Lowe described as the largest anti-nuclear action in this country since protests against the Torness power station in 1979, 100 people blocked the main entrance to the site, stopping all traffic from entering or leaving for over 24 hours.

The peaceful demonstration and blockade were organised by Stop New Nuclear, a coalition of anti-nuclear groups which includes the Somerset-based Stop Hinkley. Its spokesperson, Camilla Berens, called this a “double record" for nuclear protest in this country.

The blockade formally ended at 2pm on Sunday when Japanese Buddhist monks performed a prayer for the victims of the tsunami that precipitated the Fukushima disaster and urged the UK government to take a more enlightened view on energy provision.

Martyn Lowe added, “It is clear that the tide is turning against the government’s push for a ‘nuclear renaissance’. The British public is waking up to the fact that ‘new nuclear’ is dangerous, expensive and completely unnecessary.”

Among those who addressed the crowd were Green MP Caroline Lucas, environmental campaigner Jonathon Porritt, and Makoto and Akiko Ishiyama, a Japanese couple who were evacuated from the area around Fukushima, Japan.

“The government says it is now safe and they want local people to come back, but it’s a total lie,” Makoto Ishiyama told the crowd. “There is still a risk, it’s not safe and the accident isn’t over.”

Jonathon Porritt, who is launching a new book which provides a 'warts and all' overview of nuclear giant EDF Energy’s influence on Whitehall and Westminster, told the assembly that new nuclear power stations like Hinkley C could never operate without massive public subsidies towards their costs, including insurance and radioactive waste management.

Such potential subsidies are currently the subject of a legal complaint to the European Commission.

Jonathon Porritt said he found it “unbelievable" that nuclear energy was being put forward as a solution to climate change due to the expense and the timescale, as well as EDF's recent record in constructing plants which have been over budget and over schedule, and he called on the government reconsider its energy strategy.

He added: “It is clear we can do everything we need to do without nuclear power. The whole thing is being fixed to suit the nuclear industry. In Germany, they are working towards a nuclear-free future that affordable and realistic. Why is it we don’t think Germany is a really good model to follow?”

Porritt slammed the Liberal Democrats as they gathered for their annual conference. Referring to the U-turn on their previous anti-nuclear policy, he said: “It seems there is no betrayal to which they will not stoop to keep in power.”

Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, echoed Porritt’s call for an end to nuclear power in the UK. She added, “The ￡60 billion the government wants invested in new nuclear is ￡60billion that should be channelled into developing renewable energy sources and making them fit for purpose in the 21st century”.

Stop Hinkley spokesman Crispin Aubrey said: “This has been one of the biggest protests ever held at Hinkley Point and shows the strength of feeling against EDF’s plans. The new reactors would be a constant drain on public funds and we don’t need nuclear power to keep the lights on.”

Plans for new nuclear

Currently, EDF has permission to carry out “preparatory works” on the 400 acre Hinkley C site but does not yet have safety approval for their new nuclear plant or planning consent to build the twin reactors.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation, which overlooks the safety aspects of nuclear power in this country, has granted an interim Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and interim Statement of Design Acceptability (SoDA) to two designs for new reactors in the UK: Westinghouse's AP100 and EDF / AREVA’s EPR (European Pressurised Reactor). All the reports supporting this are here.

However, Westinghouse has not found a customer in this country, leaving EDF / AREVA's design as the only one being progressed at the moment; the first instance of this design is intended to be Hinkley Point C.

These companies are this year to provide the ONR with further information in an attempt to achieve final Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and a Statement of Design Acceptability (SoDA).

The ONR are says that EDF has missed deadlines due to "their resources being deployed on assessment of the impact of the Fukushima event".

The Environment Agency last month granted an environmental permit to EDF Energy's and Centrica's joint venture company, NNB Generation Company Limited (NNB GenCo), which will be constructing the power station, relating to discharges of waste water generated from site preparation and construction activities at the Hinkley site.

Clean-up costs

Luckily, no one has yet died of radiation poisoning after the Fukushima accident, but the Japan Centre for Economic Research has estimated the entire cost of compensation and decommissioning of the six Fukushima reactors at between ￡330bn and ￡415bn.

The Japanese government has already agreed to provide nuclear operator TEPCO ￡9bn and the company has asked for an additional ￡7bn. This does not include government funds used to underwrite the cost of compensating the victims of the disaster.

This puts in perspective the public liability of just ￡1 billion accepted by EDF for any accident at one of their new nuclear power stations. The UK Government has agreed that it would foot the bill for any amount over this, were the worst to happen.

Back at Hinkley, Crispin Aubrey said that the weekend's action followed an occupation by protesters at the end of February of a barn in the middle of the building site for Hinkley C.

This barn was occupied by the group for two weeks. Aubrey said that EDF obtained an injunction to remove the protesters but tried to extend the ban to any action by Stop New Nuclear.

"This was opposed successfully in the High Court by the organisation and by Stop Hinkley, on the basis of the right to free speech," he said.

He added that EDF still lacked the finance to proceed and there were strong doubts that the power station would ever be completed.

CBI calls on Chancellor's Budget to support nuclear power

CBI director, John Cridland speaking at a recent conference sponsored by French nuclear company EDF, which stands most to benefit from the tax breaks

Ahead of next month's budget, business representatives are calling on the Chancellor to reduce taxes on carbon-emitting industries, support nuclear power and to merge the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) and Climate Change Levy (CCL).

The CBI's director, John Cridland, has written to Number 11 with a shopping list of items he would like to see George Osborne announce in his Budget on March 21.

Support for nuclear power

Near the top is a request for capital allowances to be applicable to investment in infrastructure for which is currently not eligible; foremost among the list of examples is the building of nuclear power structures, as well as waste treatment structures and airport terminals.

It says that giving tax relief to the building of new nuclear power stations would reduce their cost by up to ￡30 million.

Prior to April 2008, nuclear power qualified for 4% annual capital allowances tax relief; this was abolished as part of a range of measures to protect public finances.

The CBI says the lack of any tax relief at all makes it around 20% more expensive to invest in a structure or building that does not qualify for capital allowances, compared to a plant that does receive standard capital allowances.

This means that there is not a level playing field internationally, and that the UK is therefore discouraging investments in some types of energy compared to similar projects overseas.

It says its proposals would cost the taxpayer an average of up to ￡200m per year if assets are depreciated over 25 years.

Its letter gives the example of a new nuclear power station costing ￡2 billion, which includes 30% of spending that is non-qualifying under the current capital allowances regime.

Applying the CBI's proposals would reduce the cost of the previously non-qualifying part of the project by 10%, or 7%, depending on the depreciation rate (4% or 2.5%).

This would in turn reduce the overall cost of the project by 3% or 2% respectively (￡30 million or ￡20 million), which, it says, either makes new nuclear power stations more likely to be built, or reduces costs to the end user, or both.

The letter says this approach would “complement the extra funding for infrastructure provided in the Autumn Statement" and private sector infrastructure investment.

It also wants to see more regulatory roadblocks removed and reform of Private Finance Initiative agreements to make them more attractive.

Were the Chancellor to consider changing the rules to support nuclear power, this would raise accusations from his Liberal Democrat Coalition partners that he was providing government support for the industry, to which they are staunchly opposed.

It would be French company EDF which would be most likely to benefit from such tax relief, since it is the one most advanced in its plans, to build a new nuclear opwer station at Hinckley Point, Somerset.

CBI also wants a change carbon reporting laws

The CBI is also calling for reform of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) and the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC).

It says that that while it supports the original objective behind the CRC to secure emissions reductions and promote energy efficiency, since the Chancellor chose to convert it to a straightforward carbon tax instead of recycling the revenue back to energy efficient companies, it is no longer an “effective and proportionate mix of the financial, reputational and reporting drivers required" to promote energy efficiency.

Instead, it proposes reforming the Climate Change Levy (CCL) as well as Mandatory Carbon Reporting (on which Defra consulted last year) to differentiate the rates of the CCL, which would allow the Treasury to protect this CRC revenue stream by removing unnecessary administration burdens on business.

At the same time, it urges protection for energy-intensive businesses so they are not unfairly penalised.

It says that introducing MCR would ensure that reducing emissions gets board level attention and would allow the companies which succeed most in reducing emissions to gain the most reputational advantage in the public eye.

It believes that business has dismissed the current CRC performance league table as part of a mere tax and the issue is not being considered at board level.

However, carbon reporting does retain credibility amongst companies, investors and NGOs. Emissions reporting under an MCR framework would therefore stand a better chance of getting results.

...And opposes carbon taxes

The CBI wouldn't be the CBI if it wasn't against taxes. So, in the same letter, it is calling for several policies on taxation which will ensure that carbon emissions do not fall.

It wants to see Air Passenger Duty (APD) to continue to be pegged to the rate of inflation for the foreseeable future, calling for the government to balance “the value of air travel's contribution to the Exchequer with the potential impact of further immediate rises on the UK as a place to trade and invest".

The duty would therefore rise in line with inflation by 5% this April. Currently it is slated to rise by 8%. This reduction would cost the taxpayer ￡145 million a year.

The CBI also reiterates its "robust opposition" to a Europe-wide carbon tax as proposed in the draft reforms to the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD), on the basis that tax is a national competency and imposing it would go against the principle of subsidiarity.

It points out that individual member states of the European Union are already working towards binding targets in 2020, and several existing European directives support this work.

Imposing the ETD would “reduce the ability of member states to choose the measures most appropriate to their circumstances to reach 2020 targets".

The current proposals for the directive are to split the minimum tax rate into two parts: one would be based on CO2 emissions of the energy product and be fixed at €20 per tonne of CO2.

The other would be based on the actual energy that a product generates and the minimum tax rate would be fixed at €9.6/GJ for motor fuels, and €0.15/GJ for heating fuels and be applied to all fuels used for transport and heating.

Consistent with this attitude, the CBI also calls for no further opportunistic tax raids on Britain's oil and gas industry.

It says this is important because the sector represents 7% of all business investment in the country, equivalent to around ￡8 billion last year.

It also calls for greater certainty over tax relief available for decommissioning old fields.

Green Deal

Finally, the CBI welcomes the ￡200 million allocated by the Treasury in the Autumn Statement to attract early adopters to the Green Deal.

It calls for an incentive scheme similar to the boiler “scrappage" scheme in 2010, where a voucher worth ￡400 was given to those who replaced their old boiler with something more efficient.

This succeeded because it was consumer friendly and simple. Another proposed option is a discount for early adopters such as “sign up now and get the 1st 6 months free".

The country will have to wait until 21 March to see how closely George Osborne listens to the voice of business.

Cameron & Sarkozy expose their nuclear hypocrisy

In a blaze of publicity, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy have signed a ￡400m deal on new nuclear reactors between Rolls Royce and Areva at the same time as agreeing a joint control and command centre for military operations and celebrating their "tough stance" against Iran's nuclear programme.

Cameron said: "One year on from the Libya uprising, we are working together to stand up to the murderous Syrian regime and to stop a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran [sic]."

The two leaders agreed also to build a new generation of a controversial unmanned 'fighter drone' aircraft, which will allow targeted strikes, intended no doubt for use in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Anyone observing this from a Middle Eastern perspective might detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy here.

The ￡400m, which is as yet potential, would go to Rolls Royce to manufacture turbines for four possible reactors at a new factory in Rotherham, the first of which is the EPR reactor at Hinckley Point, Somerset.

Who gets the benefit?

DECC is claiming that the deal would support 1,200 new jobs across the nuclear supply chain in Britain.

However, as it covers four reactors, with each reactor costing ￡5bn upwards, the British contribution and benefit to the project would be less than 2%, (￡100m per reactor).

This puts into perspective David Cameron's fine-sounding statement that "I want the vast majority of the content of our new nuclear plants to be constructed, manufactured and engineered by British companies".

He can want it as much as he likes, but it is not going to happen.

The actual size of the deal led Dr Tim Fox, Head of Energy at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, to comment that “Although it is welcome news that the UK is pressing ahead with the development of new nuclear reactors, to secure affordable low-carbon electricity generation, this is not necessarily the best deal for securing UK jobs and skills".

Quite, but there is little that is affordable about it either.

Nuclear costs

Nuclear costs have a habit of ballooning well over predictions, as has happened at recent new builds in France and Finland.

Areva's Olkiluoto reactor in Finland is five years behind schedule and costs have increased from €3-billion to €5.3-billion, causing the Finnish utility TVO to fight Areva in court.

It is still uncertain where utilities will get the funding for new nuclear power, making Cameron's vision of ￡60 billion for the nuclear industry and 30,000 jobs in the UK presently no more than a hope.

Dr Doug Parr from Greenpeace commented: "No amount of talking up of the French nuclear industry by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy will cover up the fact that the economics of new nuclear reactors don't stack up.

"The track record of EDF in building new nuclear power stations on time and to budget is appalling."

Recently, the independent risk agency Standard and Poor downgraded EDF’s creditworthiness on account of it being, like Areva, state-owned.

"All this came just a few months after a French judge sentenced a number of EDF senior executives to prison for unscrupulous acts of spying. French nuclear power is no longer popular even in France," said Dr. Parr.

Greenpeace accuses Cameron of using UK taxpayers' money to prop up failing French industries, and urges him instead to "follow the lead of Germany and concentrate on securing vast numbers of jobs and economic growth in the rapidly expanding clean energy industries such as wind and solar power".

Solar, wind power and other renewables can be up and running inside 18 months of permission being granted, whereas nuclear newbuild takes over a decade.

″A corruption of governance"

The source of Government enthusiasm for a new fleet of nuclear power stations can be traced to ministers having misled parliament over the need for them by distorting evidence and presenting to MPs a false summary of the analysis they had commissioned.

This is alleged by a group of MPs and experts in a a report published earlier this month by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and pressure group Unlock Democracy.

It shows that, on the basis of the Government’s own evidence, we do not need any more new nuclear power stations in order to ‘keep the lights on’ and reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.

And it shows that, again on the basis of the Government’s own evidence, electricity generated by nuclear power is the not the least expensive of all low-carbon technologies.

In everyday terms, the building of new nuclear power stations to provide electricity is likely to mean higher fuel bills.

If MPs had been presented with an accurate picture of the evidence for and against new reactors, they say, the government's plans might have been challenged.

Both the previous Labour government and the current coalition overstated the evidence that new nuclear power was needed.

The two bodies label this "nothing less than a corruption of governance" which can "only be rectified if Parliament re-opens this debate, and MPs vote on this issue having seen the correct information".

Areva's need

Behind the scenes, Areva is desperate to find new markets for the uranium it owns, following the purchase in 2007 of Canadian company UraMin's three African mines for $2.5 billion. The mines are Trekkopje in Namibia, Bakouma in the Central African Republic and Ryst Kuil in South Africa.

But the UraMin mines have yet to prove their money's worth at today's price of $52 a pound.

This has brought financial and political chaos to the company, and in December it wrote down almost the entire value of the mines.

This prompted speculation that the deal had been a scam and a report commissioned by Areva's security service even speculated that Chief Executive Anne Lauvergeon's husband had "illegally benefited" from the takeover.

No proof has been found, but an internal report two days ago has urged "reforms in governance" of the company and the French industry ministry and parliament are each investigating the UraMin acquisition.

SSE's exit

If new nuclear power is so attractive, then why is SSE pulling out? The utility company announced its intention to pull out of the nuclear sector in September last year in order to focus its efforts on renewable energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.

This week, it sold its stake in a nuclear joint venture NuGeneration (NuGen), for a cash consideration that could rise to ￡7m.

It has now completed the sale of its 25% stake in NuGen, which it jointly owned with partners GDF Suez and Iberdrola, parent company of ScottishPower.

Where the cash goes

The solar industry's reaction to the Cameron announcement, exemplified by Solar Century Jeremy Leggett's Twitter comment, is predictable: ″Cameron says nuclear deal with Sarkozy will create fully 1,500 jobs: And how many is he killing in solar?″

Although the mechanism is different, the broader truth is there: the cash for both nuclear and solar will come from increases in consumers' bills.

But who receives the income from the sale of that electricity? On the solar hand it is householders in the UK lucky enough to be able to afford the panels; on the nuclear hand it is a French utility, one of the Big Six we all love to hate.

Thank you Mr. Cameron, for supporting the export of British people's earnings to France.

UK gives big business millions in climate aid meant for world's poorest

£385 million of UK funding intended to help poor people get access to electricity instead is going to EDF and Walmart.

The UK is today announcing proudly that it has allocated more than two thirds of its Fast Start Finance, to help the world's poorest people combat climate change and adapt to the effects of global warming, and that it is well on track to meet its £1.5bn commitment by the end of 2012.

However, some of the projects financed under the initiative have come under severe criticism for not actually helping the people for whom they are intended.

The World Development Movement also says that far from being new funding, as claimed, one third of this money was already allocated before 2008, all of it comes out of the existing Official Development Assistance budget, and at least 86% is in the form of loans to countries that can least afford to repay them instead of grants.

Fast Start Finance amounts globally to $30 billion, that was pledged between 2010-12, by developed countries to vulnerable developing ones, at the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009.

The UK, contributing £1.5bn, is, alongside Germany, the third largest contributor after the USA and Japan.

The UK’s money is channelled through the government’s £2.9bn International Climate Fund (ICF), a programme jointly managed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for International Development (DfID).

The Government announced today that £1,056 million has been approved or spent so far, on specific multilateral and bilateral programmes (£569 million in 2010 and £487 million in 2011).

The World Development Movement (WDM) has produced several reports analysing the way these projects are funded; amongst them is Climate Loan Sharks.

A WDM spokesperson said the WDM “is not criticising the projects per se, but the way in which the funding is channelled".

She continued, “many of the projects being funded do not generate a return on investment in the capital sales, such as flood defence barriers. Therefore, how can these poor countries be expected to repay the loans?"

WDM has found that, for instance, a windfarm in Mexico for which the UK government provided £385 million channelled through the Clean Technology Fund, will produce electricity not for homes but for Walmart, the world's largest company and owner of Asda in the UK.

This is achieved through a loophole in Mexican law allowing the company to claim it has produced the power itself, whereas in fact it just owns a nominal stake.

In fact, the 65MW windfarm is owned by EDF, the French company which is the world's largest electricity utility.

Local activists are demanding and deserve cheap electricity, but were not consulted at all over the development of the windfarm which, says activist Bettina Cruz Velazquez, form part of an attempt “to grab indigenous lands and convert them into resources for the market.”

A WDM spokesperson told me, “indigenous people there have been forced to sell their land have suffered human rights abuses, and sign contracts in languages which they did not understand".

The project financing is managed by the World Bank, which, according to WDM, hopes will encourage up to 2,000MW of further private sector wind projects in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, where the wind park is located, but which are resisted by local people.

The involvement of the World Bank in channelling these funds has been criticised by many, including the House of Commons Environmental Audit Commission, which advised in a report published this summer that the DFID should encourage the World Bank to develop a "new strategy [to] prioritise low-carbon strategies, affordable energy access for the poor and improve energy efficiency".

It said "DFID should use its position as a major shareholder to ensure that the World Bank’s portfolio is ‘climate smart’".

A windfarm is undoubtably in this category, but the World Development Movement is now arguing that its projects lack social and other environmental safeguards such as access to affordable energy and the protection of ecosystems.

UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne meetings did his best to talk up the advantages of the projects, saying: “Africa is one of the areas which will feel the impacts of climate change first which is why we’re helping its people adapt to a warmer world and not become reliant on dirty fossil fuels.

“We have a moral responsibility to help the poorest countries. This not only benefits the most vulnerable but also helps all of us move towards a safer and cleaner future.”

Chris Huhne was announcing several new allocations under the fund this morning:

• £150m to fund the Clean Technology Fund, which will make it possible to support projects such as low carbon public transport systems and promote energy efficiency in Nigeria and save 47 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
• £38m to unlock $300m to help 250,000 farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa adapt farming methods to get 10% more farmed land and produce 20% more food
• £27.6m to bring electricity to 7,200 rural households in Eastern and Southern Africa
• £15m to help Ethiopia respond to climate change
• £6.7m to stimulate further investment in climate adaptation programmes in Kenya
• £10m for the UN Adaptation Fund
• £30m for the Least Developed Countries Fund
• £85m for the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR)

DECC has made available a video showing some examples of UK climate funding.

Stop Hinckley C nuclear power station campaign gets underway

As RWE threatens to follow SSE in pulling out of plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK, up to 400 protestors formed a blockade this week to oppose the construction of EDF's Hinkley C plant in Somerset.

Locals and other supporters held a minute's silence on Monday for the victims of the Fukishima fallout, and then released 206 helium balloons, one for each day since the disaster.

Earlier in the previous week a Stop Hinkley camp had been set up four miles away from the blockade site with workshops and speakers, and on Saturday (1st) protestors marched from EDF's offices in Bridgwater around the town.

According to the website, supporters include former LibDem leader Paddy Ashdown, cartoonist Raymond Briggs, actor Julie Christie, Monty Python's Terry Jones, Green MP Caroline Lucas, former Labour Environment Secretary Michael Meacher, and composer John Williams.

Stop New Nuclear spokesperson, Andreas Speck, said the blockade has put the government and EDF on the back foot. "Following the interest this blockade has attracted, both regionally and nationally, the government and EDF can no longer claim that the we need nuclear energy to keep the lights on."

He continued: "Germany has committed to a nuclear-free future without buying nuclear power from France or building new coal-fired power stations. The German government is looking at a decentralised energy model with a mix of renewables and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) to bridge the gap left by withdrawal from nuclear. If Germany can do it, why can’t we?"

Angie Zelter, who in 1996 attacked a Hawk jet being sold in the UK to suppress pro-democracy protests in East Timor (and was cleared of criminal damage), lampooned EDF’s claims that Hinkley Point is sustainable. "Radioactive waste from the proposed new ERP reactors will be so toxic that it will have to be stored on the site for over 100 years. With the growth in extreme weather conditions there is no guarantee that this waste can be stored safely," she said.

The reactor planned for Hinkley C is based on an untested design, a European Pressurized Reactor. It would be the fourth of its type; two others in Finland and France are way over budget, behind schedule and not yet operational.

The one at Flamanville, France, is four years behind and currently estimated to cost twice as much as the original price tag. Two people have died on its construction site and the plant is not expected to go onstream before 2016 at the very earliest.

EDF, the most experienced constructor in the world, has admitted it has not mastered the engineering techniques demanded by the hugely complex and complicated design of the 1,650 MWe reactor.

The Olkiluoto plant in Finland too has seen massive cost overruns and delays, with the Finnish government and Areva now locked in an expensive legal battle.

EDF (Electricité de France) says the preparatory work at Hinckley includes commitments for more than £25 million worth of measures to mitigate the impact of the new build project.

EDF's planning application included the clearing of 420 acres of land, drilling boreholes and concreting the site, but this work will precede any decision by the Infrastructure Planning Committee on whether the full construction can proceed. An application to the IPC is to be submitted later this year.

With its partner Centrica, it has submitted applications for a Nuclear Site Licence.

If it were to go ahead, ot would be the first nuclear power station to be built in the country for over 20 years.

A legal challenge to EDF's nuclear plans is underway, expected to cost up to £15,000. This is a lot for a small group to raise, so please consider donating here.

There is an Environment Agency consultation on radioactive discharges from Hinkley C, open until 15 December. Please send an objection. Click here for a suggested letter of objection.

Government cheats to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets

What is believed to be the UK’s largest ever electricity supply contract by annual volume has been awarded by the Government Procurement Service to EDF Energy (Electricité de France).

This French-owned company will supply an annual electricity consumption of about 7.6TWh over four-years to a "a vast range" of public buildings across England and Wales, from inner city academies to museums like the British Museum and the National Gallery, from central Government departments to major hospitals.

Why did EDF get this lucrative contract?

Well, the service agreement does not just include the supply of power but helping the Government meet its self-imposed target of a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 from a September 2010 baseline.

Given that EDF manages eight existing nuclear power stations at sites across the country, by switching to a high proportion of nuclear electricity supply, greenhouse gas emissions from these public buildings will automatically be reduced without the need for other remedial action.

Bingo! The Government can claim it has reduced its emissions - without it making any difference to those of the country as a whole!

Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF Energy, said "As the UK’s largest supplier of electricity to businesses and the leading generator of low carbon electricity, we have the expertise to support the Government in its sustainability agenda, improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.”

No wonder!

See the previous post about EDF's new nuclear plans.

EDF supremely confident Hinckley Point C nuclear plant will get full planning approval

Last Friday French power company EDF received permission from West Somerset district council to carry out new preparatory groundwork for Hinckley Point C power station which would, if it were to go ahead, be the first nuclear power station to be built in the country for over 20 years.

EDF already manages eight existing nuclear power stations at sites across the country and has published plans to build four new nuclear plants.

The decision follows the publication of the White Paper on Electricity Market Reform on July 12 and ratification of the National Policy Statement for Nuclear by Parliament on July 18.

EDF, with its partner Centrica, has also submitted applications for a Nuclear Site Licence and for environmental permits from the Environment Agency necessary to operate a nuclear power station, and begun the procurement of some major components from the French state-owned nuclear power company Areva.

The planning application includes the clearing of 420 acres of land, drilling boreholes and concreting the site, but this work will precede any decision by the Infrastructure Planning Committee on whether the full construction can proceed. An application to the IPC will be submitted later this year.

Crispin Aubrey, of the Stop Hinkley campaign and a veteran of the anti-nuclear movement, told EAEM that "It is unacceptable to do all this work before the Infrastructure Planning Committee have given permission to build the station itself".

He said that "even the council officers presenting the report said that if permission is not given it would be impossible for the land to be returned to its former state, as the company promises it would do in its application".

He said that EDF's given reason for starting the work now is that it will save a year of construction time. However he himself believes that the true motive is to influence the IPC decision by giving them less reason to oppose the construction on grounds of preserving the natural environment of the site.

Gordon Bell, a spokesperson for EDF's press office, would give no further comment than that they were "looking at the conditions given by the council before commencing work," and were "keen to proceed".

He refused to be drawn on EDF's degree of confidence that the IPC will approve their plans. But they must be suprenely confident otherwise they would not be spending so much now, ahead of the decision.

Where doies there confidence coe from? What do they know that we, the public, do not?

Nor would Bell be drawn on whether they will be in a strong position to finance the construction of the complete plant given their experience of building the one at Flamanville, France, which is four years behind schedule, has had two fatalities and is currently estimated to cost twice as much as the original price tag.

All he could do was parrot what is in their press release: "The experience at Flamanville is invaluable as we progress in the UK. Each time EDF builds the EPR, our expertise increases.″

Translation: we have made a lot of cock-ups. Hopefully, this means it won't be worse next time. Or, we'll make different cock-ups.

"We have already said publicly that we will publish an adjusted timetable in the autumn. We have also said that this adjusted timetable will take account of the final report from Chief Nuclear Inspector Dr Mike Weightman and the lessons we are learning from experiences and challenges at our new build projects in China and in France," EDF adds.

EDF says the preparatory work includes commitments for more than £25 million worth of measures to mitigate the impact of the new build project. This sounds like a lot of cash, especially to put up if you "don't know" you're going to get planning permission, but when you're dealing with the potential impact of a core meltdown...

Anti-nuclear, anti-EDF protest near Buckingham Palace

Last week activists blockaded the road outside EDF HQ to brand energy giant’s nuclear power bid a ‘right royal rip-off’. A nice video.

French nuclear cock-ups: not coming soon to a reactor near you

The collapse of the EdF takeover of British Energy is the right decision for the wrong reasons.

The private shareholders in British Energy, Invesco and M&G Investments who own 22%, greedily holding out for a higher share price, have shocked the pro-nuclear, pro-business BERR with their decision to reject EdF's £12 billion offer. The French state-owned EdF wasn't too pleased either. That sort of thing wouldn't happen in France.

The government sold all but 35% of its stake in British Energy last year. They probably rue the day now because they would love to have the £4bn in the Treasury coffers and the nuclear newbuild to go ahead. Conservative MP Peter Luff said the collapse was not necessarily a bad thing - if it had gone through, EdF would have "owned over a quarter of all electricity generation in the UK and the competition effect would've been very serious." I quite agree.

Business Secretary John Hutton has put a brave face on it: "We thought it was a good deal and were ready to accept." Like a pathetic salesman he tried to tout the land still available for anybody who wants to build a new nuclear power station: "Our commitment to nuclear power is clear.... BE still has potential sites and sites are available from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority."

Meanwhile, British Energy is not exactly performing well. It announced in July that its Heysham and Hartlepool reactors, currently off-line due to faults, will now cost at least twice as much to repair - over £100m. Its chairman confessed that "output from our nuclear stations last year was disappointing." No kidding. And they say windfarms don't deliver.

French nuclear headaches to be exported to Britain

For those who think that new nuclear power is not a solution to either high energy prices, energy security or climate change, the EdF/BE news was positive, especially in view of the scandal rocking the French nuclear industry at the moment.

On July 7, Areva accidentally poured at least 18 cubic meters of liquid containing at least 75 kilograms of uranium onto the ground and into the river at the Tricastin nuclear site, prompting local authorities to launch an official enquiry and local people to be banned from drinking their own water. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants.

President Sarkozy is keen to export French nuclear know-how around the world. Since his election, he has signed cooperation agreements on civilian nuclear energy with Algeria, America, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others.

France has 59 reactors supplying 80% of its electricity. The Tricastin site is a major part of the French nuclear industry, with over 5,000 employees and many sub-contracting companies. It includes the military research facility of Pierrelatte, the EDF power plant, a factory for converting natural uranium (Comurhex), and a uranium enrichment factory (Eurodiff). The latter two are subsidiaries of Areva, which wants to build new nuclear power stations in Britain.

In June a consortium led by Areva won a 17 year contract to clean up Sellafield, worth at least £50m a year. Malcolm Wicks said in a parliamentary answer just before the summer recess that the contract specified no limit on the risk to the taxpayer in the event of an accident like that at Tricastin.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has given Areva indemnity if there were to be an incident, provided that it is insured against the first £140m of the damage costs.

NDA slammed for management failure as clean-up costs rise

We could have funded two London Olympics just from the rises in the estimated costs of cleaning up our nuclear waste over the past two years. The estimate is now around £73bn, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

An audit of the NDA, published also in July, says there are "inherent risks" in the way the body operates, pointing out that half of its income is dependent on unreliable sources such as fuel reprocessing at Sellafield's Thorp plant (closed since a leak was discovered in 2005). It also highlights management and accounting failures; simple things like not taking notes at minutes has led to budgetary confusion.

The audit is by the government's Select Committee on Business and Enterprise. The NDA is funded by Government funding and from commercial income. The commercial slice is "volatile and over time will decline as sites progressively close and move into the decommissioning phase," says the report. "The grant-in-aid portion of the NDA's income already represents a very sizeable proportion of BERR's annual budget - 42% of the original total Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the 2007-08 financial year."

The nuclear dilemma

It is said that your position on nuclear power comes down in part to your response to this dilemma: which is worse, the local damage caused by nuclear leaks and processed fuel lying around for 4.5 billion years (which Is the half life of depleted uranium), or the global catastrophes caused by runaway climate change?

However Britain doesn’t need to build major new power stations to keep the lights on and maintain security, according to a report just released by independent consultants Pöyry.

It says that if the UK government can meet its EU renewable energy targets and its own action plan to reduce demand through energy efficiency, then major new power stations (either coal, nuclear or gas) would not be needed to meet the country's electricity requirements up to at least 2020.