The futility of trying to control climate change through a carbon price

The shale gas story illustrates beautifully the futility of trying to control climate change through a carbon price. Put the price of carbon up with one hand with your climate policy and a whole bunch of very clever and determined people go to work to make money by driving it down again by fracking.  It was ever thus with markets. That is why they are good at what they are good at.

What they are not good at is keeping the climate stable. An unstable climate will destabilise markets and stop them being good at what they are good at. Nick Butler’s recent FT blog believes that the shale gas explosion means that  ‘those who care about the climate need to adjust their strategy.’ He does not say how, perhaps he will in a forthcoming blog.

In the meantime, those of us who care about markets will go on trying to stop the world’s fossil fuel providers from wrecking them.

 

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

NUCLEAR NONSENSE 2

 

 

Actually, this should properly be called more of the same nuclear nonsense.

Writing in the Guardian Michael Hanlon on May 2nd describes in some detail the rate of closure of Britain’s existing nuclear power stations. This is a primary cause of ‘an energy crisis that is anything but silly’. Three nuclear power stations, he explains, closed last year. One more will go next year, then three more by 2019. By 2023 ‘less than a decade away – we will be down to just one’. Scary stuff, right.Well, not really.

We did close three reactors last year and one more will close next year. And, by the way, it is not three reactors that will close, on current plans, by 2019, it is six. Here is what Michael Hanlon glosses over. There are eight more reactors that, on current plans, will not close until 2023. This is when the 7 year life extensions EDF expects to get for its existing reactors run out.

I am emphasising that these dates are all on current plans because if you search around a bit more on the EDF website you find that they are ‘now expected to remain operational until at least 2023. The key words here are ‘at least’. There is every reason to expect that these life extensions will be followed by others and that more than one of EDF’s current fleet of reactors will be generating electricity into 2030 and beyond.

To be more precise, the reason is the recently imposed carbon support price, a carbon tax by another name. This gives EDF’s reactors a competitive edge in the electricity market. The capital cost of its current reactors has long been written off so they are now cash cows. EDF will keep them running for as long as possible to harvest the carbon tax.

So why is Michael Hanlon so keen to warn us that they might all be gone soon after 2020? The clue to that is to be found on his website.  There, as well as proclaiming himself ‘Britain’s sharpest and most well-read newspaper science journalist’, Hanlon lauds ‘his support of nuclear power’.

One of the key arguments advanced by supporters of EDF’s plan to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset is the need keep the lights on in the face of a looming generation gap.It is true that we will lose some 26.8GW of generation capacity by 2015. But there is 30.3GW of mothballed, under construction or already planned generating capacity available to fill any gap that might appear.

Electricity demand growth is anyway being suppressed by the failure of the Government’s economic policy. Gap, what gap? Without the scary stories about a looming generation gap that Michael Hanlon and the Daily Mail – his usual home – have been touting it is much harder for nuclear devotees to justify the £50 billion in subsidy from Britain’s householders and businesses EDF will require over the next 40 years to build one new nuclear power station.

This is far larger than anything that will be offered to buy electricity from renewable sources. Sharp, Michael Hanlon appears to be, but perhaps not quite in the way intended.

 

Tom Burke

May 6th 2013

London

 

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

NUCLEAR NONSENSE 1.

The British media has become so impoverished  that it can no longer be relied on to do a decent job of challenging the nonsense purveyed by politicians, government officials, the nuclear industry and others about nuclear power. As an antidote to this I will be publishing an occasional blog that decodes some of the more egregious nonsense inflicted on us all.

Journalists who should know better are still repeating the non fact that Britain’s existing fleet of nuclear reactors are all about to be closed. This is not true. The latest offender to catch my eye is the Telegraph’s Emily Gosden. Last week she wrote that EDF’s ‘existing fleet of nuclear plants are mostly due to cease generating by early next decade.’ She is clearly not reading EDF’s press releases. They announced ages ago that they expect to get a life extension of their AGR reactors for an average of seven years. Life extension for some of them has already been granted. There is nothing to stop them seeking further life extensions after that. It is already clear that EDF will be generating electricity from some of their ‘existing fleet’ until well after 2030.

April 21st 2013

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

Letter to the Sunday Telegraph – MPs and academics call for National Audit Office to review nuclear negotiations

In an open letter to the Sunday Telegraph, MPs and academics call for the National Audit Office to review nuclear negotiations between the Government an EDF Energy over financial support for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset.

We need to know what kind of nuclear deal the Government is signing up to

The Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Treasury are negotiating with the French nuclear corporation EDF about the financing of possible new nuclear in the UK.

Through these negotiations, the Government is aiming to guarantee a set price for nuclear energy – a ‘strike price’.

This price will be well above the market price for electricity, meaning that UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be paying the difference. This contract will be locked in for very many decades – up to 40 years.

The impact of this contract will be to shift the economic risk of building new nuclear facilities from the nuclear corporation to the consumer.

Because of ‘commercial confidentiality’, there will be very limited Parliamentary or public access to information about important details of these non-reviewable contracts.

Normally contracts of this scale and length would include provision for re-negotiation as and when circumstances change – and we need to know how and when these triggers would initiate.

We are also concerned about a lack of transparency around contingency budget arrangements for cost overruns and indexation.

For negotiations with such important outcomes, we are concerned that these talks lack the necessary democratic accountability, fiscal and regulatory checks and balances.

So, in the context of openness, transparency, fiscal and regulatory accountability, and ‘best value’ for the UK taxpayer and energy consumer, we have joined together in requesting the National Audit Office to – as soon as possible – conduct a detailed review of the form and function of the negotiations between Treasury/DECC and EDF.

Yours Sincerely,

Alan Whitehead MP Member of the Commons Select Committees on Energy and Climate Change and Environmental Audit, Chair of PRASEG (Associate Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group) and Co-Chair of APSRG (Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group).

Simon Hughes MP Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, former Shadow Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Caroline Lucas MP Member of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fuel Poverty, Vice Chair of the Public and Commercial Services, Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas, former Leader of the Green Party.

Zac Goldsmith MP Author of The Constant Economy, served as Deputy Chairman to the Conservative Quality of Life Policy Group.

Joan Walley MP Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons.

Martin Caton MP Member, Environmental Audit Select Committee.

Mike Weir MP SNP Westminster Spokesperson for Trade, Industry, Business, Energy and Climate Change.

Mark Durkan MP Former Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Dr Paul Dorfman UCL Energy Institute, University College London; Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Nuclear Policy Research Fellow.

Prof Tom Burke Founding Director of E3G, Chairman of the Editorial Board of ENDS, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges

Andrew Warren Director Association for the Conservation of Energy, Chair of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, Member of the European Climate Change Programme Working Group

Prof Stephen Thomas Professor of Energy Policy, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), University of Greenwich

Dr David Toke Senior Lecturer in Energy Policy, University of Birmingham

Prof Brian Wynne Associate Director of CESAGen, Professor of Science Studies and Research Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), University of Lancaster

Prof Andy Stirling Director of Science for SPRU, Co-director Centre on Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability, University of Sussex

Prof Peter A Strachan Group Lead Strategy and Policy Unit, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen Business School

Dr Nick Eyre Senior Research Fellow, Programme Leader, Lower Carbon Futures, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

Dr Sarah J Darby Senior Researcher, Lower Carbon Futures, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University

Prof David Elliott Emeritus Professor of Technology Policy, The Open University

Professor Stefan Bouzarovski School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester

Prof Andy Blowers Emeritus Professor, The Open University, Member of Committee on Radioactive Waste Management 1

Craig Bennett Director, Policy and Campaigns, Friends of the Earth (FOE)

Prof Andrew Dobson Professor of Politics, University of Keele

Prof Jonathan Davies Professor of Critical Policy Studies, Faculty of Business and Law, De Montfort University

Jonathon Porritt Founder, Director and Trustee, Forum for the Future, Co-Director of the Prince of Wales’s Business & Sustainability Programme

Prof Gordon Walker Chair of Environment, Risk and Social Justice, Department of Geography, Lancaster University

Prof Ian Miles Professor of Technological Innovation and Social Change, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester

Prof Stuart Weir Director of Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex

Prof Gordon Walker Chair of Environment, Risk and Social Justice, Department of Geography, Lancaster University

Prof Erik Swyngedouw Professor of Geography, School of Environment and Development, Manchester University

Prof Harry Rothman Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester

Dr Mark Lemon Principal Lecturer, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University

Dr Markku Lehtonen Research Fellow Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex

Jeremy Leggett Founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Author of The Carbon War and Half Gone

Prof Jake Chapman Demos Associate, former Professor of Energy Systems, Open University

Prof Roy Butterfield Professor (Emeritus) Civil Engineering, University of Southampton, National Coordinating Committee member, Scientists for Global Responsibility

Dr Ian Welsh Reader in Sociology, University of Cardiff

Prof Keith Barnham Emeritus Professor of Physics, Imperial College London, Co-Founder and CTO QuantaSol Ltd

Dr John Walls School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham

Dr Alan Terry Senior Lecturer in Geography, Geography and Environmental Management, Geography Research Unit, UWE

Dr Jerome Ravetz Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Oxford University

Dr Mark Pelling Reader in Geography, Department of Geography, King’s College London

Dr Stuart Parkinson Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility

Dr Peter North School of Environmental Sciences, Department of Geography, University of Liverpool

Dr Darren McCauley Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, School of Geography & Geosciences, University of St. Andrews

Dr David Lowry Independent research consultant, Specialist in UK and EU nuclear & environment policy

Dr Peter Lee School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Birmingham

Prof Nic Lampkin Executive Director, Organic Research Centre, Visiting Professor, University of Reading School of Agriculture, Policy and Development

Dr Aled Jones FRSA Director Global Sustainability Institute Anglia Ruskin University

Dr Dan der Horst School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Birmingham

Dr Ben Fairweather Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Editor, Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society (JICES)

Dr Richard Cowell Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy and Planning, Cardiff School of City and Regional Planning, University of Cardiff

Dr Matthew Cotton Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds

Dr Steve Connelly Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield

Dr Jason Chilvers Lecturer, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Shaun Burnie Independent Nuclear Consultant

Dr Katherine G Begg Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Environmental Change and Sustainability, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh

Duncan Bayliss, MRTPI Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of the West of England

Dr Abhishek Agarwal Aberdeen Business School, Associate Editor for the Journal of Industrial Ecology

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

ENDS REPORT – What is killing bees?

This column features in the recently published ENDS Report

‘Neonicitinoid’ is more than a difficult word to roll your tongue around. The neonicitinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides that came into widespread use in the late nineties. They are now at the heart of a debate that again pits environmentalists and the chemical industry into a war on the battlefield of science. This time over what is killing bees.

There is no doubt that something is dramatically dislocating the insect world. The recent collapses of bee colonies all over the world has brought this issue into the headlines because of their economic importance as pollinators. But I remember when to drive anywhere in the countryside on a summer evening would require vigorous post-trip cleaning of dead insects from windshields and headlights afterwards. This no longer happens. Why remains a mystery.

Nicotine is a known insecticide. But it is toxic to mammals. This prevented its use an insecticide so scientists went looking for a way to keep its insecticidal properties with less effect on mammals. An important driver of this search for commercially viable nicotine derivatives was the need to find pesticides that were safer for human beings to use. In this respect, the neonicitinoids have considerable advantages over the organophosphates they replaced.

This effort eventually resulted in the production of the first commercial neonicitinoid, imidacloprid, by Bayer. It came into use in the late nineties and is now the world’s most widely used insecticide. It has since been joined by at least six other neonicitinoid products. Initially uncontroversial, over the last decade they have taken on an ever higher profile as research into their impacts on birds, aquatic invertebrates and other wildlife has leaked out of the journals into the debate on public policy.

The controversy reached a new peak this year. In March, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies of neonicitinoids calling for a ban on their use. At the same time, the US EPA was sued by a beekeepers, organic farmers and environmentalists attempting to overturn the pesticides registration. The European Food Safety Authority had already claimed that they were an unacceptably high risk to bees.

It hit the headlines in Britain at the beginning of April. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published the results of its exhaustive study of pollinators and pesticides. Parliament’s Select Committees have become increasingly assertive, and influential, since MPs took control of their membership from the Government. They delivered a stinging condemnation of DEFRA’s failure to support the European Commission’s proposal for a partial moratorium on their use. They were also at pains to point out that neonicitinoids were ‘not fundamental to the economic or agricultural viability of UK farming’.

Not surprisingly, the chemical industry has been equally robust in its response. Syngenta argued that ‘a ban wouldn’t save a single hive’. Bayer ‘strongly disagree with the proposed moratorium’ asserting that ‘There has been a long history of safe use of neonicitinoid insecticides.’ It was not very clear whether they meant safe for humans or safe for bees – they are clearly not safe for a lot of other insects.

DEFRA, in defence of its position, characterised as ‘complacent’ by the EAC, has commissioned its own research into the effect of neonicitinoids on bees. To no-one’s surprise its risk assessment finds that action should await further research. The public can be forgiven for being confused. The chemical industry says they are safe, environmentalists say they are not. Some governments think a moratorium should be adopted now. Others, including our own, say that such action is premature. Everyone cites science in support of their position.

The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that there is a need for more research. Bayer and Syngenta have launched a Bee Action Plan. It calls for a field monitoring programme and investment in research on the main factors determining bee health. FoE also have a Bee Action Plan. This, too, calls for research and monitoring. DEFRA completed its research into the field condition impacts but that has already been dismissed by the EAC as ‘flawed’.

Here’s the rub. None of the parties is willing to accept the findings of research carried out by the other parties. The companies are also unwilling to make public all the findings of their research. The old mantra of commercial confidentiality is wheeled out to defend this position. Perhaps it is a genuine concern but in the wake of the horrors the tobacco industry hid under this umbrella it unlikely to reassure anyone.

This is an all too familiar impasse. It has dogged efforts to arrive at a robust evidence base for public policy on a vast range of issues from lead in petrol to oestrogen mimics. The result is battles that are fought and won (or lost ) in the headlines and courtrooms rather than in laboratories and meeting rooms. Both investment and protection of health and the environment are delayed or diverted. Public confidence in science and politics is undermined. Everyone loses.

It is time we found a better way to engage science more effectively in these public policy debates. We should start on the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith. There is a well known quotation from the bible about the people perishing where there is no vision. It is the same with trust. Without it effective action to protect both crops and insects becomes impossible.

We will only solve the problem of bees and neonicitinoids if there is a high level of trust in the findings of research by all of the parties to the debate. This cannot happen if each party owns its own research effort.   It is now time that the chemical industry, environmentalists and government sat around the same table thrashed out a joint definition of the scope and protocols of the research they all want done. That way, they will all own the outcome and the public can have some confidence that it represents the best available science.

Tom Burke
London
April 5th 2013

Posted in Other | Leave a comment

Prime Minister to make £50 billion bet

PRESS RELEASE 13 March 2013

Prime Minister to make £50 billion bet

Ed Davey will soon sign a long term investment contract to buy electricity for 30-40 years at twice today’s price from an EDF nuclear power station that will not produce any electricity in this decade.

This decision is a £50 billion bet that DECC knows what the wholesale price of electricity will be in 2050. That would be like having asked Tony Benn, Harold Wilson’s Energy Minister, in 1976 if he knew what the wholesale price of electricity would be in 2013.

To raise the £14 billion capital needed for Hinkley C, EDF will require an investment contract that is unbreakable. It is therefore vital that its provisions be thoroughly examined before it is signed.

On March 13th last year, four former Directors of Friends of the Earth wrote to the Prime Minister setting out ten risks that would lead his nuclear power policy to fail. They predicted then that Centrica would not take up its 20% share of Hinkley C.

Nine of those ten risks have subsequently come about.

They have today written again to the Prime Minister calling on him to make public a comprehensive register of the risks to this policy and a detailed plan of how they are to be managed before permitting DECC to sign an investment contract with EDF.

They have also urged him to invite the National Audit Office to review the robustness of this risk analysis and to assess whether the contract represents good value for money.

A recent report from the Energy and Climate Committee* accepted that there would be no significant implications for energy security if this contract were not signed.

The same report noted that electricity from other low carbon technologies would cost significantly less and that nuclear ‘will need to offer advantages compared to these technologies if it is to deliver good value to consumers.’

It went on to criticise DECC for failing to prepare a contingency plan in case its nuclear policy failed and to recommend that it begin to do so. In our March 2012 letter we urged the Prime Minister to ask DECC to prepare such a plan.

 

*‘Building New Nuclear :the challenges ahead’ , Sixth Report of Session 2012-13, House of Commons Energy and Climate
Committee, February 26th 2013.

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

Who saved the whale?

Below is the letter that I wrote to The Independent, which was published online today.

Michael McCarthy consistently writes with knowledge and passion on natural history. Would that his knowledge of history were as consistent. His account (13 June ) of the history of the campaign to save the whales was distorted by his passion for a romantic story.

It was Friends of the Earth, not Greenpeace, that led the campaign for a moratorium on whaling in the early Seventies, well before the foundation of Greenpeace in Britain. It was the 300,000 postcards from children to the Prime Minister, the successful campaign to ban the import of whale products, the two demonstrations in Trafalgar Square and the inflatable whale that sank in the Thames outside a meeting of the International Whaling Commission that persuaded the British Government to lead the call for a moratorium.

The spectacular and courageous efforts of Greenpeace on the high seas certainly played a part in getting the moratorium agreed and perhaps an even bigger part in keeping it in place. But, the main, if less spectacular and easily noticed work was done by researchers and lobbyists from FoE and many others in the drab meeting rooms that journalists find so boring.

Posted in Campaigning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BBC Radio 4′s The World Tonight – Segment on Rio+20

I was on BBC Radio 4′s The World Tonight last night, talking about Rio+20 with Bernice Lee of Chatham House and Andrew Hurrell of the University of Oxford.

Click here to listen to the programme. The Rio+20 segment starts at about 33 minutes in, and our discussion at 35 minutes.

Posted in In the media, International | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hinkley and Sizewell will cost us £155 billion over 30 years under the CfD

The government is pressing ahead, in the face of growing difficulties, with its effort to build new nuclear power stations in Britain. So far, it has failed to come clean about what this will actually cost British businesses and householders. Among the several ways in which it is attempting to subsidise new nuclear power stations is the contract for difference (CfD) mechanism proposed in the Energy Bill.

Steve Thomas, an academic at Greenwich University, has come up with a handy little formula for calculating what it will cost just for this instrument to get EDF to invest in Hinkley and Sizewell.

C (capacity in gigawatts) x 1000 (converts gigawatts to megawatts) x S (difference between wholesale price and strike price in CfD) x 8760 (hours in a year) x 0.8 (plant availability).

For Hinkley and Sizewell, using the necessary strike price calculated by Peter Atherton of Citi (£166/MWh), compared to a current wholesale price of £51/MWh, and assuming the CfD is for 30 years and the plant runs for 80% of the time the formula then gives:

6.4*1000*30*115*8760*0.8 = £155 billion.

To be very clear, the total cost to British businesses and householders of a CfD for 30 years that will be necessary to induce EDF to order Hinkley and Sizewell will be £155 billion. This calculation assumes that the reactors will be built on time and to budget, a feat which has so far eluded Areva, EDF’s reactor supplier. If they are not, it will rise.

That is an addition to electricity prices of at least £5.2 billion/year.

Posted in Blog, Nuclear | Tagged | Leave a comment

Nuclear power would appear to have acquired the power to destroy logic

Some people worry about nuclear power because they fear the risks to human health from radioactivity. Others are concerned about the morality of leaving a legacy of radioactive wastes that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Others again are concerned about the risks of proliferating nuclear weapons since no-one has yet found a way to make atoms work for peace without also making them available for war.

These are all legitimate concerns but what has begun to trouble me more recently is the impact of nuclear power on the ability of some people to reason. Nuclear power seems to have acquired the power to destroy logic. In its presence otherwise intelligent, highly educated, well informed people in responsible positions seem to lose all power to reason logically.

Take David King, for example. He was the Government’s Chief Scientist during the Blair years. He is famous for having gone to Washington and told the Bush Administration, rightly, that climate change was a more serious threat than terrorism. Yesterday he was quoted by Bloomberg as arguing that without nuclear power the lights could be going out within five years.

Chris Huhne was clear earlier this year that there is no risk of the lights going out – in fact we are currently shutting down gas stations because we don’t need to run them. Even so, if you started building new a nuclear power station tomorrow and, in the unlikely event that you built it on time and to budget, it would not be supplying electricity within five years and could not be helping to keep the lights on.

Tim Yeo is a robust and effective Chairman of the Energy and Climate Committee. He has had some real experience in business so does understand how markets actually work. Initially something of a nuclear sceptic he has recently become a vigorous promoter of new nuclear in order to tackle climate change. He now thinks we should pay whatever it costs to subsidise them.

But he is also an opponent of the dominance of Britain’s electricity market by the so-called ‘Big Six’ utilities. He regards them, correctly, as a barrier to competition and as offering their customers a bad deal. He wants to see their dominance broken up and has called for this to be a goal of the Government’s Energy Bill.

Nuclear reactors start at about £7 billion a piece. This has already proved too big a burden for some of the ‘Big Six’ who have withdrawn their nuclear plans. Mr Yeo has yet to explain who could afford to pay for new nuclear power stations if he were to succeed in his ambition of breaking up the monopolistic dominance of the ‘Big Six’.

The ability of nuclear power to destroy logic was also displayed yesterday by the Energy Secretary himself. Throughout the day he repeatedly asserted that nuclear power was the cheapest way to decarbonise the British economy. It has long been acknowledged that off-shore wind is expensive. Its electricity currently costs about £135/MWh. Many commentators have argued that this is much too expensive and should be abandoned. 

As a report from Citi last week showed, assuming nuclear power stations are built on time and to budget, something that has not so far been possible for the type of reactor EDF want to build in Britain, their electricity would cost £166/MWh. I find it difficult to follow the logic that allows someone to argue that something that is £31/MWh more expensive is really cheaper. Maybe Ed Davey should change his name to Alice.

Posted in Blog, Nuclear | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment