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

Talking in London last week, Sir David King, the UK’s former chief scientific advisor warned of “resource wars” as climate change fuels a scramble for commodities, in particular scarce resources. Describing the Iraq war was only the first of this century’s “resource wars”, in which powerful countries use force to secure valuable commodities, King predicts that rapid population growth, depleting natural resources, and seas rising due to climate change, the scarcity of vital resources will lead to more conflict.

“Future historians might look back on our particular recent past and see the Iraq war as the first of the conflicts of this kind – the first of the resource wars,” he told an audience of 400 in London as he delivered the British Humanist Association’s Darwin Day lecture.

He rejects the US and British governments’ claim they went to war to remove Saddam Hussein and search for weapons of mass destruction, adding that the US had in reality been very concerned about energy security and supply, due to its increasing reliance on foreign oil from unstable states. “Casting its eye around the world – there was Iraq,” he said.

This strategy could also be used to find and keep supplies of other essentials, such as minerals, water and fertile land as supplies feel the strain of growing populations. Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse” details the collapse of civilisations under similar scarcity and environmental problems. If things do come to the point where the world’s natural resources become the focus of conflict, it will inevitably be the survival of the fittest, richest and most powerful nations at the expense of the developing world.  

“Unless we get to grips with this problem globally, we potentially are going to lead ourselves into a situation where large, powerful nations will secure resources for their own people at the expense of others.”

King, who is now director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University discussed his efforts to persuade the Bush administration to adopt more climate-friendly policies before the war. “I went into the White House in 2001 to persuade them that de-carbonising their economy was the way forward. I didn’t get much shrift at that time. What I can tell you is that, if I had managed to persuade the government of America that investing (instead of going into Iraq) in de-carbonising their economy with roughly a tenth of [the estimated $3 trillion the US spent on the war], they would have managed it.”

The concept of “resource wars” was echoed by Alex Evans, of the Centre for International Co-operation at New York University.

King’s lecture – Can British Science Rise to the Challenges of the 21st Century? – was a clear message to politician not to allow the financial crisis to distract them from tackling climate change.

 ”I would like to see [in] every speech Gordon Brown makes on the fiscal crisis, that he also includes the global warming crisis,” he said, but added: “It’s fine for the prime minister to make a good speech on climate change, but you need all members of the cabinet, because reducing carbon by 80% by 2050 will require every part of government to respond.” King said.

He echoed Stern’s views, backing a Green New Deal earlier last week. Stern’s new report claims that $400bn (£277bn) should be channelled to support low-carbon technologies such as home insulation and renewable energy. Given the urgency of both the economic and climate crises, the team of economists that worked on the report want the green investment made by this summer and to total 20% of the £1.4tn likely to be spent globally as fiscal stimulus.

Lord Stern said: “With billions about to be spent by governments on energy, buildings and transport, it is vital that these public investments do not lock us for many more decades into a costly and unsustainable high-carbon economy.”

The report assesses the likely success of investment in a variety of green policies, pin-pointing energy efficiency measures for homes and public buildlings, boiler replacement programmes, efforts to fit cleaner appliances and lights, and a switch to renewable sources of heat, such as biomass, as key low carbon options. It also recommends further investment into energy R&D and streamlined planning to promote renewable energy projects such as wind farms, and moves to encourage less polluting vehicles by adjusting car tax bands. A green stimulus could provide a boost to the economy, create jobs and build the foundations for strong, sustainable growth in the future, the report says.

A call for bold policies to drive a “Green New Deal” was also made by Lord Chris Smith, the chairman the Environment Agency, in his first major speech last week. Further support for a green new deal is expected tomorrow in a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme.

King summed up by saying that with growing population and dwindling resources, fundamental changes to the global economy and society were necessary. “Consumerism has been a wonderful model for growing up economies in the 20^th century. Is that model fit for purpose in the 21^st century, when resource shortage is our biggest challenge?”

Unfortunately the answer to this question isn’t as simple as it sounds. In a world where politicians are more concerned with economic development, and the power that rewards them with on a global scale, environmental challenges pose a difficult path requiring huge cultural changes in behaviour. The difficult task of how to actually deliver such changes within 41 years is staring the government stark in the face.

The UK’s electricity watchdog, Ofgem, has published new guidelines in an attempt to clear up consumer confusion over the credibility of claims concerning green tariffs offered by energy companies.

Ofgem has published these new guidelines in order to encourage greater uptake of green tariffs from consumers after many questioned the environmental benefits that green tariffs provide. The guidelines will be used to inform an independent accreditation scheme, which will rate the environmental credentials of competing tariffs.

It has been argued that in the past many unscrupulous energy retailers simply repackaged electricity which they were legally obliged to source or produce under the government’s Renewable Obligation. In other words they were charging consumers a premium tariff for electricity, which had already been paid for through increased prices in standard tariff bills. In other cases, suppliers have taken advantage of the market structure to “double count”, or sell the same unit of renewable electricity two to three times due to the certificates awarded for renewable energy generation.

For every MW of renewable electricity produced, the generator is awarded three certificates: a REGO (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin), a ROC (Renewable Obligation Certificate), and a LEC (Levy Exemption Certificate).

However, this allows the more underhand operators to abuse the incentive structure by, for example, selling once to a domestic customer using the REGO as proof of a green tariff; and the same unit again to a business customer using the LEC as proof. Businesses pay a high price for the LECs as this exempts them from the Climate Change Levy. The suppliers come out on trumps as both customers think they are getting a green tariff and suppliers make hefty profits by deceiving the market.

At the foundation of the new scheme will be a stipulation that only those tariffs that go beyond a company’s legal obligations will be allowed to make claims to be environmentally friendly. The REGOs will be the only measure of “green-ness”, and suppliers will be obligated to hold on to their LECs. Changes will be introduced to the ROCs which will mean that selling them on will not allow others to craim green tarriffs. This will return the ROCs to being a financial support mechanism and immediately eliminate the market for double counting.

The big six energy suppliers and Good Energy have signed up to the voluntary guidelines. Ofgem has now asked them to start work immediately on setting up an accreditation scheme that will enable householders and small business customers to easily compare green offerings based on the carbon emissions they reduce. The scheme should be up and running by the summer.

Juliet Davenport of Good Energy explains that from now on green tariffs will need to be transparent to the public in 3 ways:

1. Each supplier signed up to the guidelines must provide customers with a fuel-mix disclosure chart displaying the percentage of each energy source used to give an idea of their environmental credentials. Whilst this information is already available for free online, providing it directly to customers will reduce confusion for customers.

2. Secondly, suppliers will be required to describe the additional measures they are taking beyond their legal obligations. This may include supporting community-based renewable projects or installing energy efficiency measures.

3. Finally, they must carry a quality mark to certifies that the extra environmental activity will abate a minimum level of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

She adds that

“The idea behind this is to provide reassurance to the public and encourage greater uptake of green tariffs in order for improved energy efficiency and greater amounts of renewable energy to be developed. The more there is, the cheaper it will become and the greater the impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”

Good Energy is an independent renewable energy company based in the UK. They support independent developers of renewable energy, providing them with the power purchase agreements so that others can set up their own projects. This is providing income and power for individual energy entrepreneurs across the UK, and changes the nature of the relationship between utility and the customer. As a result, they are required to be far more responsive in their dealings with customers – you’d have to be if a customer is also a supplier and, in Good Energy’s case, a shareholder too.

In the current global situation where we face a triple problem of energy security, climate change and a massive recession, this support of individual project developers can spur on local business activity across the UK. The fact that it is clean renewable development is a double blessing.

Image and quote source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/09/renewableenergy-utilities

What's in the pipeline for the EU's energy policy?

Having seen the Climate and Energy Package through from its inception in 2007 onto the statute books, the European Commission has now turned its attention to another pillar of European energy policy: energy security.

The EU is increasingly reliant on imported fuels: by now more than half its energy comes from non-EU states. Bringing in energy from abroad brings with it considerable economic gains for the Union and for countries that supply it with coal, oil and gas. But it also entails a degree of political and economic risk, as highlighted by January’s Russian-Ukrainian natural gas crisis.

In November 2008, two months before the gas dispute, the Commission initiated a second Strategic Energy Review, entitled ‘Securing Our Energy Future’, designed to take a comprehensive look at Europe’s energy security over the next four decades.

The Review focuses on five approaches to improving energy security:

• Building better infrastructure. In particular, this means more pipelines and terminals for importing natural gas and stronger electricity transmission networks within Europe;
• Strengthening political relationships between the EU and countries from where it imports energy, with Russia being an obvious example but by no means the only one;
• Improving Europe’s strategic reserves of oil and gas so that the continent is less vulnerable to import interruptions;
• Increasing energy efficiency so that Europe in future requires proportionally less energy than it does today; and
• Developing the use of Europe’s indigenous energy resources, including renewable energy.

So how is the EU’s goal of ensuring a secure energy supply likely to interact with its policies on climate change?

Last week, the European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) made its own contribution to the discussion by adopting a report in response to the Strategic Energy Review.

The ITRE report highlights a number of areas where the goals of achieving energy security coincide well with the climate goals. It recommends setting long-term targets for renewable energy generation and energy efficiency as a way of reducing Europe’s dependence on imported energy.

Not everyone is convinced by the idea that energy security and greenhouse gas emissions reduction go neatly hand in hand, however. The word ‘coal’ is conspicuously absent from the press release that accompanied ITRE’s report. But the Greens/European Free Alliance group of MEPs claimed that it is coal, together with nuclear power, that lies at the heart of the publication’s policy recommendations. Both coal and uranium are perceived to come from more politically-stable regions than natural gas, and some member states – particularly those towards the east of Europe – may see coal as an important element of their energy security provision for years to come.

Each of the five policy approaches outlined in the Strategic Energy Review would enhance Europe’s energy security, and they will all probably be implemented to some degree. But it will be a combination of economics and politics (both at the EU and national levels) that determines which gain priority. Until more solid projects and policies emerge, then, it is difficult to assess the effect that Europe’s security of supply concerns will have on its greenhouse gas emissions.

EU leaders may provide a clearer picture of their thinking on this question when they discuss the Strategic Energy Review at the European Council meeting in March.