Mont-Saint-Michel, on the Normandy coast of France, is the sight of new conflict.  The most recent battle is not in a medieval setting, but a modern struggle against two good, but opposed environmental causes.  On one side are those who want to reduce carbon emissions by installing windmills.  On the other side stand ecologists who suggest that windmills churning above the tidal flats of Mont-Saint-Michel would distract from the natural beauty of the medieval monument and potentially destroy the landscape in the future.

France is on an ambitious route to expand its use of windmills in renewable energy.  Currently there are 2500 windmills producing 4500 megawatts per year; the goal is to have 8500 windmills producing 25000 megawatts by 2020.  Windmills are becoming increasingly sought after by EU goals to limit greenhouse gases.  Last week, the EU recommended that it invest $ 70 million in clean energy over the coming decade, tripling windmill construction to produce 20 % of Europe’s electricity.

Those against the windmills near Mont-Saint-Michel have nothing against the quest for clean energy but rather argue that windmills above the ridgeline are not the way to achieve this goal.  Allies have formed across France, and an ambitious campaign to prove the windmills would desecrate the vista has begun.

The mayor of Mont-Saint-Michel, Eric Vannier, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, but 600 locals have pooled finances to hire lawyers to sue local government.  They expect a court ruling in Spring 2010.  If the group wins the lawsuit, “they’ll have to put everything back beyond 30 km (~18.5 miles),” said Corinne Gressier, who runs the group “Windmills: Turbulences.”  But she also realizes, “if we lose, it’s over.”

French law bans windmills closer than 1500 feet from historical monuments.  The current court case in will be on trial in Nantes.  It concerns plans to build 300 foot high windmills on farmland in Argouges, on a plateau a bit more than 10 miles southeast of Mont-Saint-Michel.  The monument attracts about 3 million visitors each year to admire the rock-top monastery.  Andre Antolini, president of renewable Energies Syndicate, told reporters last month that, “at the proposed distance, tourists to the monument would only see tiny blades peeking over the horizon.”

But for protesters like Gressier and the national alliance of environmental groups, the three windmills at Argouges would just be the tip of the iceberg if building is permitted.  There are current plans for an additional 80 towers in farming communities across the entire ridgeline above Mont-Saint-Michel.

The complicating issue is that farmers and village counters tend to embrace proposals to install windmills in their fields because of the payments they receive.  They get stipends for use of the land and villages are provided tax revenue on income from electricity, which is sold to the national grid.  “It’s a flourishing business,” said Jean-Louis Butre, president of the Durable Environmental Federation, based in Paris.

At present France gets about 80 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors and an additional 12 percent from hydraulic generators.  That leaves a balance of 8 percent that must be filled by oil, coal, natural gas, solar, or wind.  Butre explains that if government decided to fill that gap with windmills, it would have so many that they would be part of the scenery in more than a third of the country.

In fact last year, Butre challenged president Sarkozy’s strong push for wind energy in the book “Fraud: why windmills are a danger for France.”  The former President Velery Giscard d’Estaing, a supporter for nuclear power, wrote the preface to the book.  He denounced windmills as an “unacceptable use of public funds, a deceptive public discourse, and often questionable business.”

Now the delegation from Argouges, with support from groups around France, waits to see if they will win the court battle and put atop to the windmill construction near Mont-Saint-Michel.  It remains to be seen how this part of Mont-Saint-Michel’s represents 13 centuries of history will play out.

Canada has had a rough time of it in recent weeks, the visit of President Obama, on his first official state visit was marred by domestic protests. The issue, a divisive one for Canadians, was made explicit when the National Geographic ran a on the tar-sands, using double spreads to highlights the destructive cost of tar sand development with some lurid before and after photos.

As if the National Geographic article was not enough, another journal of note, The Economist, wrote this article, providing some substantive criticism of Prime Minister Harper’s green efforts to date and prompting some passionate discussion in the subsequent comments.

Continue reading…

A field of sunflowers in front of the Areva Tricastin nuclear plant in in Bollene, in the south of France. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty images. Source: Guardian.co.uk

The past week saw reports of at least four of the country’s leading green activists accepting that nuclear power may have a significant role to play if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Concerns over safety issues, build-up of radioactive wastes and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were realistically balanced against the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Stephen Tindale, a former director of Greenpace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate, are now all lobbying in favour of nuclear options to support a renewable strategy to decarbonise the electricity system.

Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s electricity, compared with the 35% from coal and 35% from gas. It is being argued that more nuclear capacity will need to be added to replace the existing capacity, which is likely to be obsolete in around 15 years. But nuclear is not the only dwindling supply. Around 8 gigawatts – equivalent to about 6 power stations – of coal-fired generating capacity will be out of action by 2015 as Europe’s Clean Air Directive comes into force and older facilities prove uneconomic to upgrade. Taken together, the UK needs to replace a third of its electricity generating capacity in the next 15 years. Even plans for 7 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity, expected by 2015, and another 5 gigawatts recently given the go-ahead by the Government, will not be enough as estimates put energy demand ballooning by anything up to 20% in the coming decade.

Nuclear power fits neatly with the Government energy policy goals, providing a carbon emission free source of secure energy supply – particularly important in light of recent geo-polictical tensions between Russia and Ukraine last month.

Investments are being planned by EDF (owner of British Energy), E.on and RWE Power, which are expected to create in excess of 15,000 jobs – welcomed with open arms in the current economic climate; but any planned build will only become operational by the mid 2020s at the earliest now.

George Monbiot, who has also changed his position on the nuclear argument, argues that if we want to decarbonise the UK’s energy system quicker and more cheaply, nuclear power must play a significant complementary role, alongside increased renewable energy generation, demand reduction, CHP and energy efficiency. Mark Lynas adds that nuclear power could provide a realistic solution to combating climate change and providing energy security, and as polls suggest that the public are opposing the nuclear option less and less, he calls for the Green movement to reconsider their 30 year dogma on energy generation from nuclear power.

Whilst plans for new reactors are still expected to raise face opposition, the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired alternatives has always been a major factor; but the introduction of an emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Whilst the safety and waste worries still remain, the arguments for and against nuclear power seemed to have changed to serve urgent targets.

Nuclear power…

*In an increasingly power-hungry world, the generation capacity of nuclear is potentially enormous

*Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions

*Except for the purchase of uranium, nuclear power stations offer absolute security of supply 

However:

*Safety records may be far better than they were in the early days, but accidents can always happen

*Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods

*More countries, buying more uranium, means more mining and more chance of nuclear proliferation