The UK’s energy security prospects are once again making the headlines, as Ed Milliband this week announced the top 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants, describing nuclear power as a “proven, reliable source of low carbon energy”.

The announcement comes amidst heightened concerns surrounding the peak oil debate, with the UK ERC claiming that conventionally extracted global oil production could ‘peak’ and go into terminal decline before 2020.

However, the environmentalists have criticised the decision, warning of the “deadly legacy” of radioactive waste, and argued that investment should be focused on renewables instead. Interestingly, one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled at Kirksanton to make way for the nuclear plant, to the dismay of some locals.

Faced with the prospect of depleting supplies from the North Sea, the UK is now paying the price for its ‘dash for gas’, following the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s. To support the development of this next generation of energy infrastructure, the UK Government has announced a host of measures to reduce the planning constraints that are likely to hamper such large infrastructure projects, and hopes to have the first new nuclear plant operating by 2018.

Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide has welcomed the announcements from the UK government, and encouraged the Australian government to take heed. He highlights that unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas and therefore fluctuations in gas prices lead to price spikes in power prices.

Cheap uranium energy, on the other hand, provides a much more secure proposition to meet both energy security and climate change goals; and he adds that

“…there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years.”

Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating. Along with hydropower from dams, it is the only clean energy technology that has been shown to be scalable.

France is a case in point. It derives nearly 80% of its electricity from 59 nuclear plants and is the world’s biggest electricity exporter. It has the cheapest power rates in Europe, and has the lowest carbon footprint per person.

However, the significance of radioactive wastes and contamination threats should not be underestimated if we really want to promote sustainable development that considers the intergenerational impact and legacy of such technologies. In this vein, it might be argued that the significant funds for these large infrastructure projects would, in fact, be better targeted at scale-up and capacity building for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal and others, which don’t generate such controversial by-products.  For now, the pressure is on in the UK to streamline the planning process to enable the speedy construction required to bridge the expected energy gap.

This month, the European Commission published development roadmaps for seven key low carbon technologies. Thy relate to wind, solar, bioenergy, CCS, nuclear technologies, as well as smart grids and energy efficiency, for the period 2010 and 2020. 

There is a long-standing policy debate over how best to spur innovation in low-carbon technologies. One option is to let markets ‘pull’ technology development along. According to this reasoning, if governments ensure there is a credible price for CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, then companies will start to develop new technologies with lower emissions in response to this market signal. The other possibility is for governments to use a policy ‘push’ and pay directly for early-stage R&D into new and promising technologies.

The roadmaps follow the publication of a EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007. It outlined a vision where the EU enjoyed global leadership in a range of low-carbon technologies. Each roadmap has been developed by the Commission in consultation with the relevant industries, and attempts to describe, step by step, how each technology should develop over the next decade in order to fulfil the vision of the SET Plan. Development in each of the technology areas is backed by an European Industrial Initiative, which is a public-private partnership working in each of the low-carbon technology areas.

In practice, governments usually opt for a combination of the two. The SET Plan was the EU’s policy push for low technologies, accompanying the market pull of the carbon and renewable energy targets included in the Climate and Energy Package it unveiled in the same year.

While the Climate and Energy Package and its 20/20/20 targets have successfully made it into EU law, the SET Plan has arguably been somewhat neglected by comparison. The Commission’s new communication implicitly acknowledges this by speaking of the need for the SET Plan now to be ‘taken forward to implementation’.

But implementation costs money and, critically, the Commission’s new roadmaps don’t come with any new funding plans attached. The Commission calls on Member States to dig deeper into their own pockets to fund energy R&D – a recommendation that is unlikely to receive a warm welcome from treasuries across Europe as they seek to recover their battered public finances – and proposes to use the European Investment Bank’s lending power to fund research in promising areas.

The communication also refers to the role of other countries in developing low-carbon technologies. As with other areas of international climate negotiations, there are large inequalities in the distribution of low-carbon innovation. While the EU can justifiably point to its global climate leadership committing early to substantial emission reductions (at least, compared to other developed countries), the US is leading the pack in terms of its expenditure on developing low-carbon technologies, from biofuels to smart grids. A number of international negotiations are in progress to improve coordination between developed countries and sure that they all pull their weight when it comes to energy R&D; another set of negotiations again are discussing how developing countries can access these new technologies.

As reported by EurActiv, it is not only global cooperation that lies behind the SET Plan: there is something of a technology race occurring between different developed countries, with potentially large future gains available to countries who lead the development of new low-carbon technologies. The IEA this week released its technology road map for CCS that envisages an investment of US$6 trillion by 2050. Companies who are successful in developing CCS technologies now will be able to profit from this economic activity in future. Similar arguments apply to other low-carbon technologies like renewable generation and low-emissions vehicles.

There is no question that low-carbon technologies will be vital during the twnty-first century: without them mitigating climate change will be intolerably expensive. How many of those technologies will be European in origin depends in no small part on whether the Commission succeeds in finding R&D funding at a scale that matches its R&D vision.

Speaking at the recent Conservative party Conference in Manchester, held on 5-8^th October, shadow energy and climate change secretary Greg Clark claimed that the UK needed an ‘emergency plan to rescue our energy policy’ within days of a general election.

The current UK energy policy from a glance appears to contain many strong ‘green’ policies, but in some cases, and a certain level of financial commitment to funding these policies.  But unfortunately the impact of these policies is simply too early to tell.   It may be argued that the Labour Party have made several large strides in leading the way forward to the global talks in Copenhagen, by being the first country to call a UN Security Council meeting on climate change, and by being the first country to introduce a Climate Change Bill with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

Despite the above strides, the Conservative’s argue that UK is in a ‘dire position’ and is in absolute need for a new ‘Green Deal’ which aims to; 

• Provide £6,500 to every household to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home
• Improve the carbon footprint of the least efficient homes and save 9.4 million tonnes of CO2
• Create around 70,000 jobs, including 3,500 apprenticeships
• Open up a market worth £2.5 billion a year
• Authorise five GW of clean coal capacity fitted with carbon capture and storage
• Immediate publication of the planning needed for new nuclear power stations
• Give the right for every community to host wind farms and keep the revenue from business rates generated for 6 years
• Make the national grid extend its network offshore
• Build Marine energy parks
• Lastly, scrap Labour centralised, target led approach to house building

Over the past 12 years the UK government has seen 15 Energy Ministers tackle the climate change agenda.  The most recent drive from government, led by Ed Milliband in concentrated in the delivery if the Low Carbon Transition Plan and more widely known, the UK’s Climate Change Action Plan.

Supported by the establishment of the Department of Climate Change, another Labour initiative, a number of policy commitments are designed to create a low carbon economy, these include;

• Introduction of the Renewables Obligation
• Climate Change Levy (see rates through the HMRC link)
• Carbon Reduction Commitment
• Implementation of long-term legal Frameworks e.g. Committee for Climate Change to measure these changes
• Zero carbon homes target setting by 2016
• Development of a £100m blueprint for renewable energy – to target supply
• Adoption of a Waste Strategy aimed to deliver 9.3 million tonnes of savings of CO2 per year by 2020
• Water and air is recordable cleaner than 1997 levels and waste recycling has quadrupled

So how much of these green pledges are just talk?  The government has pledged big targets to reduce CO2 in the UK, but many of the Party members are aware of the small details on how they will be delivered.  For example, according to a study carried out by ComRes research of 150 MPs, it revealed that 72% were unaware of the government’s target for all new housing to be zero carbon from 2016.  The study further identified that members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group were unaware that a quarter of MPs didn’t know that more than a quarter of UK emissions came from Housing. 

Perhaps the green campaigns from both parties need to target their members, as well as communicating plans to its voters.  There are many successes attributed to the policies employed by the Labour Party to date, however, it is also clear of the recent challenges in delivery, for example, the Part-L planning consultation, the nuclear debate, and the changes to the Carbon Reduction Commitment timescales for its implementation. 

Once a policy is made, does it stand up strongly to meet the realistic outcomes, to time and budget, or simply sound good to the voters in Britain – you can decide, its your vote!

Angela Merkel’s CDU (with their Bavarian sidekicks, the CSU) and the free-market FDP – the main winner of Germany’s federal elections – will form the next governing coalition. This is almost certainly bad news for German climate change policy – both domestically and on the international stage – but the policy setbacks in this area will arguably be more limited than what the FDP would prefer. Looking at international negotiations and energy policy as examples will show why.

1) International negotiations

Within the Grand Coalition that governed Germany for the past 4 years, Germany’s stance at international negotiations was never a hotly contested political terrain, for several reasons. Because Germany started important environmental measures earlier than other countries (and cleverly pushed for CO² emission-reduction targets to be based on 1990, before the heavily eastern German industry was mostly shut down) being progressive in contrast to international negotiating partners was never particularly hard, because it did not necessitate painful domestic policy measures. While this is changing to an extent, Germany, and indeed Europe, are not the crucial barriers to a post-Kyoto. And Angela Merkel, a former environment minister and early believer in the science behind climate change is unlikely to give up control over negotiations to an extent that would endanger a progressive German position.

Nevertheless, another danger is more real. Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), German’s environment minister had four years in which to build relationships with other negotiators and governments, get a feeling for the limits of other countries’ room for political maneouvre and learn the tricks of the trade. Given the lack of high-profile candidates in the area of environmental and climate change policy within the FDP and CDU/CSU, Gabriel successor will almost certainly struggle to make a similar impression. And, in addition, she or he will only have had three weeks at the most to get their head into an issue that is among the most complicated and tricky of any ever attempted to be dealt with by international negotiations.

2) Energy policy

While it is fair to say that climate change policy did not feature in the run-up to the federal elections at all, this is not true for energy policy. A long string of lies about nuclear energy was masterfully publicised by SPD environment minister Sigmar Gabriel. They included cover-ups about leaks in the site of Germany’s proposed site for the long-term storage of nuclear energy, high costs for cleaning up an alternative site borne by the tax-payer, the existance (and subsequent denial of this fact) of a strategy paper commissioned by an energy major and outlining communication strategies to promote nuclear energy in the election campaign (conclusion: keep quiet and point out nuclear energy’s green credentials). In addition to further accidents in a notorious north-German nuclear power plant and the emotive nature of many Germans’ thinking about nuclear energy made the CDU/CSUs and FDPs election pledge of ‘exiting-the-exit’ of nuclear energy (Ausstieg vom Ausstieg) one of the few clear dividing lines in an otherwise uneventful election campaign.

The high percentage of Germans who want to exit nuclear energy doesn’t seem to have helped the SPD very much. Nor is there a clear-cut impact of nuclear policy on climate change. Nuclear energy is clean (with regards to CO² emissions), and not extending the life of nuclear power plants would almost certainly have meant building more coal powered ones, even at the breakneck speed of German renewables growth. While there is a valid argument that being able to keep written-off nuclear plants running will decrease the pressure for large energy companies to invest in renewables, this would have been equally true for investment in coal that is already happening. If the new government sticks to the CDUs election pledges of not building new nuclear and taxing nuclear providers half the extra profits they make from extending their lifetime to invest this money in renewable energy, then this may not actually be bad news for preventing climate change. Yet this is doubtful. The traditional energy companies are not friends of renewables, and their deep pockets and lobbying prowess may mean they will push further, for government-subsidised new nuclear power stations and reductions in funding for renewables. If the market knows best, skepticism may prevail. On Monday morning after the election the shares of EON and RWE jumped, while those of renewable technology producers fell sharply…

On 30 April, the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) announced the final data regarding the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the 2007 fiscal year. According to MoE, the amount of GHG emissions in the 2007 fiscal year was approximately 1.37 billion tons (CO2 equivalent), exceeding the amount of GHG emissions in the 1990 base year by 9.0 percent and exceeding the amount of those in the 2006 fiscal year by 2.4 percent. This was the worst result for Japan in terms of GHG emissions.

It was reported that such a surprisingly high increase in GHG emissions was significantly affected by the suspension of operation of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) in the Niigata prefecture as most of CO2 emissions in Japan are energy-origin CO2 emissions.

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant has seven units, generating a total electrical output of  8,212 MW, making it the largest nuclear plant in the world by net electrical power rating. Though Japan heavily depended on the nuclear plant, it had to stop the operation because of the Niigata Chuetsu earthquake in July 2007  because the Kashiwazaki municipal government ordered TEPCO not to start the operation of the plan until its safety was confirmed and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) gave TEPCO a similarly order. Consequently, thermal power stations, emitting more GHG, had to operate more, resulting in increase in CO2 emissions.

Thus, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and avoid electricity shortage in the summer season, the Japanese Government and TEPCO have strongly wanted to restart the operation of the plant. Then, on 7 May, Hirohiko Izumida, the Governor of the Niigata prefecture, announced that he acknowledged a request from TEPCO to restart its operation. Though TEPCO consequently started the trial operation of Unit 7 of the plant on 9 May, problems were found in its reactor core isolation cooling system in its trial operation. As a result, though it was expected that the plant was going to start its operation in the end of June, it became unclear whether the plant was able to do so.

If the operation is delayed, Japan again would need to heavily depend on thermal power stations in this summer and CO2 emissions would increase compared to the condition in which the nuclear plan could operate. However, it may be apparent that the safety of the nuclear plant has not been confirmed. As well as problems of the plant found in the trial operation, it has been still questionable whether the plant is really earthquake resistant. Indeed, constructing nuclear plants in Japan, where a huge number of earthquakes happen, seems really scary. As Japan seems most unsuitable for constructing nuclear plants considering earthquakes, Japan may be one of the countries that should immediately increase renewable energy production in order to reduce CO2 emissions and simultaneously avoid electricity shortage.

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

Brazilian Minister for the Environment Carlos Minc launched the country’s national strategy to address climate change, signed by President Lola on 1st December 2008. Whilst the developing country previously held a defensive position, the launch of this strategy represents a shift to a more leadership position, with which they hope to influence the G77 and developed countries to also lead. Brazil echo the sentiments in Simon’s previous blog, that COP 14 has become a waiting game, as everyone waits for other’s to make the first move.

Key commitments from the National Climate Change Action Plan include:

•       Reduce deforestation in the Amazon by 70% by 2020 – saving 4.8bn tones of carbon over the 12 years. This is more than the target all countries agreed to reduce at Kyoto combined.
•       Increasing concentrations of ethanol in the fuel mix for cars by 11% each year, reducing a further 500m tones of carbon over 10 years. Additionally, this will be achieved without any impact on land used by indigenous people or for food production.
•       Increase in co-generation from 0.5% to 10% – improving efficiencies and representing a saving of around 100m tones of carbon
•       Increase in hydroelectric energy generation – to replace more of exiting energy supplies from fossil fuels
•       Plans to increase reforestation from 5 – 11 hectares, doubling the current rate of reforestation, including in indigenous areas
•       Planting more trees at a faster rate than those being chopped down – till at least 2015
•       Certification of wood and forest management to fight illegal sales of wood from the Amazon
•       Specific resources made available to fund adaptation and fight desertification – a key issues for north-eastern areas of Brazil, home to 50m people.
•       Amazon Fund created to fight deforestation in the Amazon- supported by 1bn Euros, from Norway, Germany and £100m from the UK

These commitments represent Brazil’s commendable decision to take a more leadership position, and the Minister for Environment called for collaborative action and further efforts from other developed and developing countries, to encourage the EU to adopt its higher target of 30% by 2020 – by meeting the condition of support from other nations.

Brazil has created National Climate Fund, which will be funded by 10% of the revenues from the petroleum industry. In addition, their ambitious programme is expected to be funded by their National Bank for Social and Economic Development, and the Minister of Environment felt this needed no further incentives at the moment.

Whilst Brazil’s leadership is in combating climate change is commendable, following the lead of Mexico’s ambitious intention for 50% reduction by 2050 earlier this week, it is interesting to note that the country has authorized the construction of their third nuclear power plant, using German technology. A further three are expected, but details are to be finalized. Brazil has strongly opposed CCS in CDM throughout the COP process, yet it is interesting to see their commitment and deployment of a similarly controversial technology.