Tag Archives: Electricity generation

Batteries boost Californian hopes of cooler future

Californian hopes of cooler future rise as the world’s biggest battery storage system comes on stream.

LONDON, 25 August, 2020 – Recent reports of record-breaking heat in the Golden State may be only part of the story: Californian hopes of cooler future days are strengthening with the entry into service of new technology that should promise a less torrid future for millions of people.

The ability to store large amounts of renewable energy – generated mainly by solar and wind power – is seen as a key component in the battle to combat catastrophic climate change.

The Gateway Energy Storage project, near San Diego in southern California, is capable of storing and redistributing up to 230MW of power from solar installations in the area.

“By charging during solar production on off-peak hours and delivering energy to the grid during times of peak demand for power, our battery storage projects improve electric reliability, reduce costs and help our state meet its climate objectives”, said John King of LS Power, the New York-based power development company operating the project.

“The hots are getting hotter, the drys are getting drier. Climate change is real”

California – the most populous state in the US and one of the wealthiest – has been hit by a series of power blackouts in recent weeks as an extreme heatwave has led to increased air conditioner use and expanding energy demand.

In the Central Valley area of the state, one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, daytime temperatures have soared to more than 40°C.

In mid-August the temperature in Death Valley, a desert area in southern California, reached 54°C – which could be the highest temperature reliably recorded anywhere in the world.

Further north, residents of Sacramento, the state capital, baked as temperatures reached over 40°C on consecutive days – more than 7°C above normal for the time of year.

Though it’s too early to say whether the heatwave is due to increased levels of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, is in little doubt about what is driving the heat extremes.

World’s worst air

“The hots are getting hotter, the drys are getting drier”, Newsom said in a video message to delegates participating in a virtual convention of the Democratic Party. “Climate change is real. If you are in denial about climate change, come to California”, said Newsom.

The extreme heat has led to increased storm activity in many areas of the state and a series of lightning strikes which, in turn, have caused an outbreak of wildfires.

Several people have been killed as the fires have raged out of control over hundreds of thousands of acres. Air quality in some regions has declined to levels not seen before.

At one stage this month the area around San Francisco – one of the globe’s wealthiest cities and home to many of the biggest IT companies – was described as having the worst air quality in the world.

Batteries in demand

A shortage of equipment and firefighters has added to problems. In the past California has used prisoners to help fight fires – a policy condemned by various groups.

Many of the prisoners who might have been used for this purpose are no longer available: they’ve either been placed in quarantine or released in an attempt to control the spread of the Covid virus through California’s overcrowded prison system.

Developing more battery storage to service fast-growing solar and wind industries is seen as vital for the state’s energy needs.

California is facing restrictions on importing power from other states in the western US due to heatwaves in those regions and rising power demand. It has also been shutting down fossil fuel-burning power plants.

Governor Newsom said this month that state utilities must find solutions to the power problem: blackouts, he said, were “unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation’s largest and most innovative state.” – Climate News Network

Californian hopes of cooler future rise as the world’s biggest battery storage system comes on stream.

LONDON, 25 August, 2020 – Recent reports of record-breaking heat in the Golden State may be only part of the story: Californian hopes of cooler future days are strengthening with the entry into service of new technology that should promise a less torrid future for millions of people.

The ability to store large amounts of renewable energy – generated mainly by solar and wind power – is seen as a key component in the battle to combat catastrophic climate change.

The Gateway Energy Storage project, near San Diego in southern California, is capable of storing and redistributing up to 230MW of power from solar installations in the area.

“By charging during solar production on off-peak hours and delivering energy to the grid during times of peak demand for power, our battery storage projects improve electric reliability, reduce costs and help our state meet its climate objectives”, said John King of LS Power, the New York-based power development company operating the project.

“The hots are getting hotter, the drys are getting drier. Climate change is real”

California – the most populous state in the US and one of the wealthiest – has been hit by a series of power blackouts in recent weeks as an extreme heatwave has led to increased air conditioner use and expanding energy demand.

In the Central Valley area of the state, one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, daytime temperatures have soared to more than 40°C.

In mid-August the temperature in Death Valley, a desert area in southern California, reached 54°C – which could be the highest temperature reliably recorded anywhere in the world.

Further north, residents of Sacramento, the state capital, baked as temperatures reached over 40°C on consecutive days – more than 7°C above normal for the time of year.

Though it’s too early to say whether the heatwave is due to increased levels of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, is in little doubt about what is driving the heat extremes.

World’s worst air

“The hots are getting hotter, the drys are getting drier”, Newsom said in a video message to delegates participating in a virtual convention of the Democratic Party. “Climate change is real. If you are in denial about climate change, come to California”, said Newsom.

The extreme heat has led to increased storm activity in many areas of the state and a series of lightning strikes which, in turn, have caused an outbreak of wildfires.

Several people have been killed as the fires have raged out of control over hundreds of thousands of acres. Air quality in some regions has declined to levels not seen before.

At one stage this month the area around San Francisco – one of the globe’s wealthiest cities and home to many of the biggest IT companies – was described as having the worst air quality in the world.

Batteries in demand

A shortage of equipment and firefighters has added to problems. In the past California has used prisoners to help fight fires – a policy condemned by various groups.

Many of the prisoners who might have been used for this purpose are no longer available: they’ve either been placed in quarantine or released in an attempt to control the spread of the Covid virus through California’s overcrowded prison system.

Developing more battery storage to service fast-growing solar and wind industries is seen as vital for the state’s energy needs.

California is facing restrictions on importing power from other states in the western US due to heatwaves in those regions and rising power demand. It has also been shutting down fossil fuel-burning power plants.

Governor Newsom said this month that state utilities must find solutions to the power problem: blackouts, he said, were “unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation’s largest and most innovative state.” – Climate News Network

Calling time on UK’s ageing nuclear power plants

Local authorities demand the closure of all the UK’s ageing nuclear power plants to protect both safety and the economy.

LONDON, 13 August, 2020 – Four of the UK’s ageing nuclear power reactors, currently closed for repairs, should not be allowed to restart, in order to protect public health, says a consortium of 40 local authorities in Britain and Ireland.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), the local government voice on nuclear issues in the United Kingdom, then wants all the rest of the country’s 14 ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) shut down as soon as possible, with the power they produce replaced by renewables and a programme of energy efficiency.

The four reactors they want closed immediately are two at Hunterston in Scotland and two at Hinkley Point B in Somerset in the West of England. Of the other five power stations (each with two reacttors) which the NFLA wants shut down as soon as possible, one is at Torness, also in Scotland.

Three more are in the North of England – one at Hartlepool in County Durham and two at Heysham in Lancashire and one at Dungeness in south-east England.

Faster wind-down

To protect the jobs of those involved, the NFLA calls in its report on the future of the AGRs for a “Just Transition”: retraining for skilled workers, but also an accelerated decommissioning of the plants to use the nuclear skills of the existing workforce.

The report details the dangers that the reactors, some more than 40 years old, pose to the public. Graphite blocks, which are vital for closing down the reactor in an emergency, are disintegrating because of constant radiation, and other plants are so corroded that pipework is judged dangerous.

If the two Hunterston reactors were restarted and the graphite blocks failed, a worst-case accident would mean both Edinburgh and Glasgow would have to be evacuated, the report says.

The reactors are owned by the French nuclear giant EDF, which hopes to keep them going until the power they produce can be replaced by a pair of new reactors the company is building with Chinese support at Hinkley Point C. This plant was due to be completed by 2025, but cost overruns and already acknowledged delays make that unlikely.

“The NFLA urges the UK Government to move its energy policy from new nuclear and focus on delivering renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage solutions”

EDF has already spent £200 million to try to repair the off-line AGR reactors – some now 44 years old – but has so far failed to persuade the UK Government’s safety watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), that it is safe to do so.

The report says it would be simpler and cheaper to replace the reactors’ output with renewable energy rather than to keep repairing them – by coincidence a point also made by the UK Government’s National Infrastructure Commission on the same day.

Apart from detailing the fears of independent engineers and campaigners about the gradual disintegration of the reactors because of constant bombardment by radiation, the NFLA also criticises the ONR for not taking a stronger line on safety.

The ONR has promised to “robustly challenge” EDF Energy, to ensure that it “remains safe”. But NFLA Scotland’s convenor, Councillor Feargal Dalton, is not satisfied. He says councils will press the ONR “to forensically scrutinise what look like significant weaknesses in the EDF safety case.”

Repeat postponements

This criticism is based partly on the EDF habit of setting dates for the restart of reactors, only to postpone them repeatedly. This has happened as many as eight times in the case of Hunterston since it first shut down for a routine inspection in 2018, and six times for Dungeness.

In both cases this has just happened again, Dungeness being delayed from September to December this year.

Professor Stephen Thomas of the the University of Greenwich in London commented on the constantly postponed start-up dates for the reactors. He said: “It is clear, given that shutdowns expected to take two months are now expected to take two years or more, that EDF has found huge unanticipated problems.

“It is hard to understand why, when the scale of the problems became clear, EDF did not cut its losses and close the reactors, but continues to pour money into plants to get a couple more years of operation out of plants highly likely to be loss-makers.

Relying on blandness

“It is depressing that the ONR, which has a duty to keep the public informed on such important issues, chooses to hide behind bland statements such as that it will take as long as it takes, and that it will not comment on EDF’s decisions.”

Councillor David Blackburn, who chairs the NFLA’s steering committee, called for the closure of all EDF’s AGRs as soon as possible. He said: “The NFLA urges the UK Government in particular to move its energy policy from new nuclear and focus on delivering renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage solutions.

“There is ample evidence these can be delivered quickly and in the quantity that is required for future energy policy. It is time to move from nuclear and focus on renewables.”

The problem for the Government and EDF is not that the lights will go out if the nuclear stations are closed.

Covid prompts slump

Three stations are closed down at the moment for repairs, and the newest to open, a pressurised water reactor (PWR) at Sizewell B on the east coast of England (not covered by the current report) is operating at 50% power because demand for electricity has slumped during the Covid pandemic. In fact EDF is being paid to keep it shut by consumers through their bills.

The problem is the economic mess that closing the reactors will create. EDF UK will be technically bankrupt if and when it closes its nuclear stations which will go from being assets on its balance sheet to liabilities.

The French state-owned company is already so heavily in debt and severely stretched in building new plants that it will be unable to help its British subsidiary. Asked to comment on this report, it did not answer the question.

The government of the day also has to face the difficulty of how much it will all cost. There is £9.4 billion in the ring-fenced government Nuclear Liabilities Fund to decommission the UK’s AGR stations and eventually the Sizewell station as well, but it will soon be clear this is nowhere near enough and the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. The estimate for the liabilities is currently around £20.4 billion. – Climate News Network

Local authorities demand the closure of all the UK’s ageing nuclear power plants to protect both safety and the economy.

LONDON, 13 August, 2020 – Four of the UK’s ageing nuclear power reactors, currently closed for repairs, should not be allowed to restart, in order to protect public health, says a consortium of 40 local authorities in Britain and Ireland.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), the local government voice on nuclear issues in the United Kingdom, then wants all the rest of the country’s 14 ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) shut down as soon as possible, with the power they produce replaced by renewables and a programme of energy efficiency.

The four reactors they want closed immediately are two at Hunterston in Scotland and two at Hinkley Point B in Somerset in the West of England. Of the other five power stations (each with two reacttors) which the NFLA wants shut down as soon as possible, one is at Torness, also in Scotland.

Three more are in the North of England – one at Hartlepool in County Durham and two at Heysham in Lancashire and one at Dungeness in south-east England.

Faster wind-down

To protect the jobs of those involved, the NFLA calls in its report on the future of the AGRs for a “Just Transition”: retraining for skilled workers, but also an accelerated decommissioning of the plants to use the nuclear skills of the existing workforce.

The report details the dangers that the reactors, some more than 40 years old, pose to the public. Graphite blocks, which are vital for closing down the reactor in an emergency, are disintegrating because of constant radiation, and other plants are so corroded that pipework is judged dangerous.

If the two Hunterston reactors were restarted and the graphite blocks failed, a worst-case accident would mean both Edinburgh and Glasgow would have to be evacuated, the report says.

The reactors are owned by the French nuclear giant EDF, which hopes to keep them going until the power they produce can be replaced by a pair of new reactors the company is building with Chinese support at Hinkley Point C. This plant was due to be completed by 2025, but cost overruns and already acknowledged delays make that unlikely.

“The NFLA urges the UK Government to move its energy policy from new nuclear and focus on delivering renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage solutions”

EDF has already spent £200 million to try to repair the off-line AGR reactors – some now 44 years old – but has so far failed to persuade the UK Government’s safety watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), that it is safe to do so.

The report says it would be simpler and cheaper to replace the reactors’ output with renewable energy rather than to keep repairing them – by coincidence a point also made by the UK Government’s National Infrastructure Commission on the same day.

Apart from detailing the fears of independent engineers and campaigners about the gradual disintegration of the reactors because of constant bombardment by radiation, the NFLA also criticises the ONR for not taking a stronger line on safety.

The ONR has promised to “robustly challenge” EDF Energy, to ensure that it “remains safe”. But NFLA Scotland’s convenor, Councillor Feargal Dalton, is not satisfied. He says councils will press the ONR “to forensically scrutinise what look like significant weaknesses in the EDF safety case.”

Repeat postponements

This criticism is based partly on the EDF habit of setting dates for the restart of reactors, only to postpone them repeatedly. This has happened as many as eight times in the case of Hunterston since it first shut down for a routine inspection in 2018, and six times for Dungeness.

In both cases this has just happened again, Dungeness being delayed from September to December this year.

Professor Stephen Thomas of the the University of Greenwich in London commented on the constantly postponed start-up dates for the reactors. He said: “It is clear, given that shutdowns expected to take two months are now expected to take two years or more, that EDF has found huge unanticipated problems.

“It is hard to understand why, when the scale of the problems became clear, EDF did not cut its losses and close the reactors, but continues to pour money into plants to get a couple more years of operation out of plants highly likely to be loss-makers.

Relying on blandness

“It is depressing that the ONR, which has a duty to keep the public informed on such important issues, chooses to hide behind bland statements such as that it will take as long as it takes, and that it will not comment on EDF’s decisions.”

Councillor David Blackburn, who chairs the NFLA’s steering committee, called for the closure of all EDF’s AGRs as soon as possible. He said: “The NFLA urges the UK Government in particular to move its energy policy from new nuclear and focus on delivering renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage solutions.

“There is ample evidence these can be delivered quickly and in the quantity that is required for future energy policy. It is time to move from nuclear and focus on renewables.”

The problem for the Government and EDF is not that the lights will go out if the nuclear stations are closed.

Covid prompts slump

Three stations are closed down at the moment for repairs, and the newest to open, a pressurised water reactor (PWR) at Sizewell B on the east coast of England (not covered by the current report) is operating at 50% power because demand for electricity has slumped during the Covid pandemic. In fact EDF is being paid to keep it shut by consumers through their bills.

The problem is the economic mess that closing the reactors will create. EDF UK will be technically bankrupt if and when it closes its nuclear stations which will go from being assets on its balance sheet to liabilities.

The French state-owned company is already so heavily in debt and severely stretched in building new plants that it will be unable to help its British subsidiary. Asked to comment on this report, it did not answer the question.

The government of the day also has to face the difficulty of how much it will all cost. There is £9.4 billion in the ring-fenced government Nuclear Liabilities Fund to decommission the UK’s AGR stations and eventually the Sizewell station as well, but it will soon be clear this is nowhere near enough and the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. The estimate for the liabilities is currently around £20.4 billion. – Climate News Network

Global offshore wind industry takes huge strides

The global offshore wind industry is booming, rapidly growing in size and earning vastly more across the globe.

LONDON, 12 August, 2020 − Despite Covid-19’s grim effects on many industries, the orders for the global offshore wind industry have increased dramatically in the first half of 2020, totalling US$35 billion (£26bn), up 319% on 2019.

Although this already makes it the fastest-growing industry in the world, it seems likely to be only the start of an extraordinary boom in a business that is still improving its technology, and because of that the prices for the electricity it produces are tumbling.

Europe was a pioneer of the industry, since its many square kilometres of shallow sea in the continental shelf meant there were many locations ideal for driving piles into the seabed to anchor the turbines, which happily were close to markets in major coastal cities.

As the technology has improved, so the size of the turbines being installed has increased, now reaching 10 megawatts (MW) and heading soon for 12.

“Offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 18 times global electricity demand today”

And as the turbines have grown bigger, the cost of the electricity they produce has come down, and offshore farms now not only compete with fossil fuels but are far cheaper than nuclear energy. The Far East, China and Taiwan have already become huge markets, and the US is beginning to invest heavily too.

Designs by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory are already available for 15 to 20MW turbines. These will be 150 metres high, with rotor diameters of 240m, longer than two football pitches.

The extraordinary size of these models allows them to take advantage of the higher and more constant wind speeds available further out to sea, which provides a more reliable output.

While the boom in wind farms fixed to the seabed develops, a new surge is also expected in floating farms. These use what are basically identical turbines mounted on rafts anchored by cables to the seabed, allowing them to operate in much deeper water.

Costs head downwards

Floating wind farms have already been in operation and have exceeded output expectations, but like all prototypes they were expensive. As with all successful renewable energy technologies, though, the price of installation and operation will continue to fall as the industry gains experience and confidence.

Only 20 years ago turbines producing 3MW of electricity were considered giants. Today’s engineers are already considering whether models able to generate more than 20MW are feasible.

The International Energy Agency said in 2019 that the European Union (then including the UK), the US, Japan, India and even China had enough offshore wind potential to cover all their electricity needs. That was before the latest designs for even bigger turbines had been unveiled.

Its report said: “Today’s offshore wind market doesn’t even come close to tapping the full potential – with high-quality resources available in most major markets, offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420,000 TWh per year worldwide. This is more than 18 times global electricity demand today.” − Climate News Network

The global offshore wind industry is booming, rapidly growing in size and earning vastly more across the globe.

LONDON, 12 August, 2020 − Despite Covid-19’s grim effects on many industries, the orders for the global offshore wind industry have increased dramatically in the first half of 2020, totalling US$35 billion (£26bn), up 319% on 2019.

Although this already makes it the fastest-growing industry in the world, it seems likely to be only the start of an extraordinary boom in a business that is still improving its technology, and because of that the prices for the electricity it produces are tumbling.

Europe was a pioneer of the industry, since its many square kilometres of shallow sea in the continental shelf meant there were many locations ideal for driving piles into the seabed to anchor the turbines, which happily were close to markets in major coastal cities.

As the technology has improved, so the size of the turbines being installed has increased, now reaching 10 megawatts (MW) and heading soon for 12.

“Offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 18 times global electricity demand today”

And as the turbines have grown bigger, the cost of the electricity they produce has come down, and offshore farms now not only compete with fossil fuels but are far cheaper than nuclear energy. The Far East, China and Taiwan have already become huge markets, and the US is beginning to invest heavily too.

Designs by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory are already available for 15 to 20MW turbines. These will be 150 metres high, with rotor diameters of 240m, longer than two football pitches.

The extraordinary size of these models allows them to take advantage of the higher and more constant wind speeds available further out to sea, which provides a more reliable output.

While the boom in wind farms fixed to the seabed develops, a new surge is also expected in floating farms. These use what are basically identical turbines mounted on rafts anchored by cables to the seabed, allowing them to operate in much deeper water.

Costs head downwards

Floating wind farms have already been in operation and have exceeded output expectations, but like all prototypes they were expensive. As with all successful renewable energy technologies, though, the price of installation and operation will continue to fall as the industry gains experience and confidence.

Only 20 years ago turbines producing 3MW of electricity were considered giants. Today’s engineers are already considering whether models able to generate more than 20MW are feasible.

The International Energy Agency said in 2019 that the European Union (then including the UK), the US, Japan, India and even China had enough offshore wind potential to cover all their electricity needs. That was before the latest designs for even bigger turbines had been unveiled.

Its report said: “Today’s offshore wind market doesn’t even come close to tapping the full potential – with high-quality resources available in most major markets, offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420,000 TWh per year worldwide. This is more than 18 times global electricity demand today.” − Climate News Network

The poor pay for the grim legacy of uranium mining

Uranium mining costs humans dearly. The nuclear industry prefers not to discuss the price paid by miners and their families.

LONDON, 31 July, 2020 – The scars left on barren landscapes by uranium mining are rendered more frightening in many countries – in the former Soviet bloc, for example – by the signs warning would-be visitors of their presence, decorated with little more than a skull-and-crossbones.

The signs use few words to explain that vast areas of land, containing small mountains of mine tailings, will be dangerous to intruders for billions of years, by which time the deadly alpha particles in the dust should have decayed.

But the terrible price paid by the poor miners and indigenous peoples who have had their lands torn apart to get at the uranium ore is now laid bare  in a new publication, The Uranium Atlas, Facts and Data about the Raw Material of the Nuclear Age. It is the work of a band of researchers from around the world, first published in German and now updated in English.

The central message of the Atlas is uncompromising: “The price for keeping the nuclear power stations in South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, the EU and USA online is paid by the people in the mining regions: their health and livelihoods are destroyed.”

The particles inhaled by uranium miners bring lung cancer, and the dust carried back to their homes endangers their families, even unborn children. Although uranium is everywhere, even in seawater, extracting it for use in nuclear power stations is a messy business.

“Any mention of the health risks of uranium mining, the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, and the still unsolved issue of the ‘permanent disposal’ of highly radioactive nuclear waste is studiously avoided”

The Atlas shows how extracting uranium from the ore is carried out in remote locations, often on the lands of indigenous peoples, for example in Canada, Australia and the US. More recently, though, two African states, Namibia and Niger, have joined the list of prime examples.

At the mines large quantities of rock have to be crushed and treated with chemicals to leach out the uranium. For a uranium content of 0.1%, 10,000 tonnes of ore must be mined to yield one tonne of uranium.

The ore is then ground down and the uranium chemically extracted, producing a form of powdered concentrate called yellowcake, totalling 7.11 kgs of usable material left over from the original 10,000 tonnes of ore.

The yellowcake then has to be transported long distances to the countries which use nuclear power so that they can extract the fissile material needed to fuel power stations and make nuclear weapons – uranium-235.

Little European mining

The point the “Atlas” is making is that supposedly civilised and crowded countries that rely on nuclear power to keep the lights on will not allow uranium mining at home because of the destruction it causes and the danger to the health of their citizens.

The authors write: ”At the start of 2020 there were still 124 nuclear power plants in operation in the EU, making it the world’s largest consumer of uranium. The nuclear fuel is imported from outside the EU and there is strong opposition to any new uranium mining in Europe.”

With maps and diagrams the Atlas traces the history and current operations of the uranium mining business, but comments: “The exact pathway of uranium is hard to follow: the mining companies do not disclose where they deliver the uranium and the power plant operators do not reveal where the uranium for their power plants comes from.”

Not surprisingly, the researchers conclude that nuclear power has no place in the modern world, and that renewable technologies are both cheaper and safer than power from uranium.

They say: “One kilogram of uranium-235 contains enough energy to generate 24 million kilowatt hours of heat; one kilogram of coal can generate only eight. As a result the nuclear industry has always promoted nuclear power as a better alternative to fossil fuels, and is now using the climate crisis to justify its continued – and expanded – use.

High subsidies

“Any mention of the health risks of uranium mining, the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, and the still unsolved issue of the ‘permanent disposal’ of highly radioactive nuclear waste is studiously avoided.

“For almost 70 years the nuclear industry has been highly subsidised and has never been able to stand on its own two feet economically.

“From cleaning up the damage caused by uranium mining, to routine operations, to decommissioning and final storage of nuclear waste, the industry has neither calculated the real costs of its activities nor has it adequately disclosed its financial conditions.

“Viewed as an essential component of the construction of nuclear weapons and the maintenance of nuclear submarine fleets, the nuclear power industry has always been a steady recipient of generous state subsidies.” – Climate News Network

Uranium mining costs humans dearly. The nuclear industry prefers not to discuss the price paid by miners and their families.

LONDON, 31 July, 2020 – The scars left on barren landscapes by uranium mining are rendered more frightening in many countries – in the former Soviet bloc, for example – by the signs warning would-be visitors of their presence, decorated with little more than a skull-and-crossbones.

The signs use few words to explain that vast areas of land, containing small mountains of mine tailings, will be dangerous to intruders for billions of years, by which time the deadly alpha particles in the dust should have decayed.

But the terrible price paid by the poor miners and indigenous peoples who have had their lands torn apart to get at the uranium ore is now laid bare  in a new publication, The Uranium Atlas, Facts and Data about the Raw Material of the Nuclear Age. It is the work of a band of researchers from around the world, first published in German and now updated in English.

The central message of the Atlas is uncompromising: “The price for keeping the nuclear power stations in South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, the EU and USA online is paid by the people in the mining regions: their health and livelihoods are destroyed.”

The particles inhaled by uranium miners bring lung cancer, and the dust carried back to their homes endangers their families, even unborn children. Although uranium is everywhere, even in seawater, extracting it for use in nuclear power stations is a messy business.

“Any mention of the health risks of uranium mining, the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, and the still unsolved issue of the ‘permanent disposal’ of highly radioactive nuclear waste is studiously avoided”

The Atlas shows how extracting uranium from the ore is carried out in remote locations, often on the lands of indigenous peoples, for example in Canada, Australia and the US. More recently, though, two African states, Namibia and Niger, have joined the list of prime examples.

At the mines large quantities of rock have to be crushed and treated with chemicals to leach out the uranium. For a uranium content of 0.1%, 10,000 tonnes of ore must be mined to yield one tonne of uranium.

The ore is then ground down and the uranium chemically extracted, producing a form of powdered concentrate called yellowcake, totalling 7.11 kgs of usable material left over from the original 10,000 tonnes of ore.

The yellowcake then has to be transported long distances to the countries which use nuclear power so that they can extract the fissile material needed to fuel power stations and make nuclear weapons – uranium-235.

Little European mining

The point the “Atlas” is making is that supposedly civilised and crowded countries that rely on nuclear power to keep the lights on will not allow uranium mining at home because of the destruction it causes and the danger to the health of their citizens.

The authors write: ”At the start of 2020 there were still 124 nuclear power plants in operation in the EU, making it the world’s largest consumer of uranium. The nuclear fuel is imported from outside the EU and there is strong opposition to any new uranium mining in Europe.”

With maps and diagrams the Atlas traces the history and current operations of the uranium mining business, but comments: “The exact pathway of uranium is hard to follow: the mining companies do not disclose where they deliver the uranium and the power plant operators do not reveal where the uranium for their power plants comes from.”

Not surprisingly, the researchers conclude that nuclear power has no place in the modern world, and that renewable technologies are both cheaper and safer than power from uranium.

They say: “One kilogram of uranium-235 contains enough energy to generate 24 million kilowatt hours of heat; one kilogram of coal can generate only eight. As a result the nuclear industry has always promoted nuclear power as a better alternative to fossil fuels, and is now using the climate crisis to justify its continued – and expanded – use.

High subsidies

“Any mention of the health risks of uranium mining, the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, and the still unsolved issue of the ‘permanent disposal’ of highly radioactive nuclear waste is studiously avoided.

“For almost 70 years the nuclear industry has been highly subsidised and has never been able to stand on its own two feet economically.

“From cleaning up the damage caused by uranium mining, to routine operations, to decommissioning and final storage of nuclear waste, the industry has neither calculated the real costs of its activities nor has it adequately disclosed its financial conditions.

“Viewed as an essential component of the construction of nuclear weapons and the maintenance of nuclear submarine fleets, the nuclear power industry has always been a steady recipient of generous state subsidies.” – Climate News Network

World’s nuclear fusion dream takes a leap forward

The biggest science experiment on Earth could avert climate change. But is there still time for nuclear fusion to work?

LONDON, 29 July, 2020 – Nuclear fusion is the most ambitious project in the world, recreating on Earth the complex heat-producing reactions of the sun in the hope of making unlimited carbon-free electric power.

The world’s first fusion machine, ITER, under construction in Provence in southern France, is extraordinary as well because it is a collaboration between the scientists, engineers and politicians of the planet’s 35 richest and most powerful countries – states that on other matters frequently disagree.

But the potential prize of harnessing the power of the sun on our own planet to make unlimited electricity is enough to make all these nations bury their differences and combine to share their secrets and their engineering skills in the hope that all will benefit from this potential energy bonanza.

28 July was chosen as the day to celebrate the start of the assembly of ITER, a machine that will be the prototype for a generation of much larger successors on the road to possible commercially viable nuclear fusion. They, it is hoped, will signal the end of the use of fossil fuels and save the world from the worst of climate change.

“Enabling the exclusive use of clean energy will be a miracle for our planet”

French President Emmanuel Macron and leaders from the European Union countries and China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States met virtually on 28 July to declare the start of a new energy era. Each of the 35 countries has made some components and helped to pay part of the costs of ITER, the world’s largest science project.

Its total cost is unknown, since countries are paying their share in kind by producing one-of-a-kind engineering feats like giant magnets weighing many tonnes, to tolerances of two millimetres, some of them with the precision of a Swiss watch.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fusion: how it works

  • A few grams of deuterium and tritium (hydrogen) gas are injected into a huge, donut-shaped chamber, called a Tokamak. 
  • The hydrogen is heated until it becomes a cloud-like ionized plasma.
  • The ionized plasma is shaped and controlled by 10,000 tons of superconducting magnets. 
  • Fusion occurs when the plasma reaches 150 million degrees Celsius—ten times hotter than the core of the Sun.
  • In the fusion reaction, a tiny amount of mass is converted to a huge amount of energy (E=mc2). 
  • The ultra-high-energy neutrons from fusion escape the magnetic cage and transmit energy as heat.
  • Water circulating in the walls of the Tokamak absorbs the escaped heat and makes steam. In a commercial plant, a steam turbine will generate electricity.
  • Hundreds of Tokamaks have been built; but ITER will be the first to achieve a “burning” or self-heating plasma.

– By ITER

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To get some idea of its complexity, ITER uses three closely integrated types of magnets to contain, control, shape, and pulse the plasma it holds – at 150°C million.

But if the prototype could be made to work, then the idea would be to build other versions with a slightly increased size of plasma chamber. Each of these machines would then produce a staggering 2,000 megawatts, enough for more than two million homes.

Reliability testing

Bernard Bigot, director-general of ITER, hopes that construction will be finished by December 2025 and the scientists and engineers on site will then launch “First Plasma,” the initial event to demonstrate that the machine actually works and can generate electricity.

The question then will be to step up trials to see whether ITER can be made to work consistently and reliably. Then, if successful, the consortium of nations needs to decide whether it can be scaled up – and how long it will take to build other machines, this time large enough to make a difference to climate change.

It is a difficult and as yet unanswered question. On the plus side, fusion in theory provides clean, reliable energy without carbon emissions. It is said to be safe, with minute amounts of fuel and no physical possibility of a runaway accident through a meltdown.

The fuel for fusion is found in seawater and lithium. It is abundant enough to supply humanity for millions of years. A pineapple-sized amount of this fuel is the equivalent in energy terms of 10,000 tonnes of coal.

Ready by 2045?

On the minus side, though, fusion has been around as a concept since the 1950s. It has taken 14 years of international effort to get to this stage of the project – and it will be another four before it can be powered up. It will probably take at least 20 years or so more, even if it works as hoped, for a full-scale fusion machine to be built and commissioned.

Dr Bigot says: “If fusion power becomes universal in complement to renewable energies, the use of electricity could be expanded greatly, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, buildings and industry.

“Enabling the exclusive use of clean energy will be a miracle for our planet.”

But with the planet already heating at an unprecedented rate and the danger threshold of temperatures of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels already close, there may not be enough time left for the fusion dream to be realised. – Climate News Network

The biggest science experiment on Earth could avert climate change. But is there still time for nuclear fusion to work?

LONDON, 29 July, 2020 – Nuclear fusion is the most ambitious project in the world, recreating on Earth the complex heat-producing reactions of the sun in the hope of making unlimited carbon-free electric power.

The world’s first fusion machine, ITER, under construction in Provence in southern France, is extraordinary as well because it is a collaboration between the scientists, engineers and politicians of the planet’s 35 richest and most powerful countries – states that on other matters frequently disagree.

But the potential prize of harnessing the power of the sun on our own planet to make unlimited electricity is enough to make all these nations bury their differences and combine to share their secrets and their engineering skills in the hope that all will benefit from this potential energy bonanza.

28 July was chosen as the day to celebrate the start of the assembly of ITER, a machine that will be the prototype for a generation of much larger successors on the road to possible commercially viable nuclear fusion. They, it is hoped, will signal the end of the use of fossil fuels and save the world from the worst of climate change.

“Enabling the exclusive use of clean energy will be a miracle for our planet”

French President Emmanuel Macron and leaders from the European Union countries and China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States met virtually on 28 July to declare the start of a new energy era. Each of the 35 countries has made some components and helped to pay part of the costs of ITER, the world’s largest science project.

Its total cost is unknown, since countries are paying their share in kind by producing one-of-a-kind engineering feats like giant magnets weighing many tonnes, to tolerances of two millimetres, some of them with the precision of a Swiss watch.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fusion: how it works

  • A few grams of deuterium and tritium (hydrogen) gas are injected into a huge, donut-shaped chamber, called a Tokamak. 
  • The hydrogen is heated until it becomes a cloud-like ionized plasma.
  • The ionized plasma is shaped and controlled by 10,000 tons of superconducting magnets. 
  • Fusion occurs when the plasma reaches 150 million degrees Celsius—ten times hotter than the core of the Sun.
  • In the fusion reaction, a tiny amount of mass is converted to a huge amount of energy (E=mc2). 
  • The ultra-high-energy neutrons from fusion escape the magnetic cage and transmit energy as heat.
  • Water circulating in the walls of the Tokamak absorbs the escaped heat and makes steam. In a commercial plant, a steam turbine will generate electricity.
  • Hundreds of Tokamaks have been built; but ITER will be the first to achieve a “burning” or self-heating plasma.

– By ITER

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To get some idea of its complexity, ITER uses three closely integrated types of magnets to contain, control, shape, and pulse the plasma it holds – at 150°C million.

But if the prototype could be made to work, then the idea would be to build other versions with a slightly increased size of plasma chamber. Each of these machines would then produce a staggering 2,000 megawatts, enough for more than two million homes.

Reliability testing

Bernard Bigot, director-general of ITER, hopes that construction will be finished by December 2025 and the scientists and engineers on site will then launch “First Plasma,” the initial event to demonstrate that the machine actually works and can generate electricity.

The question then will be to step up trials to see whether ITER can be made to work consistently and reliably. Then, if successful, the consortium of nations needs to decide whether it can be scaled up – and how long it will take to build other machines, this time large enough to make a difference to climate change.

It is a difficult and as yet unanswered question. On the plus side, fusion in theory provides clean, reliable energy without carbon emissions. It is said to be safe, with minute amounts of fuel and no physical possibility of a runaway accident through a meltdown.

The fuel for fusion is found in seawater and lithium. It is abundant enough to supply humanity for millions of years. A pineapple-sized amount of this fuel is the equivalent in energy terms of 10,000 tonnes of coal.

Ready by 2045?

On the minus side, though, fusion has been around as a concept since the 1950s. It has taken 14 years of international effort to get to this stage of the project – and it will be another four before it can be powered up. It will probably take at least 20 years or so more, even if it works as hoped, for a full-scale fusion machine to be built and commissioned.

Dr Bigot says: “If fusion power becomes universal in complement to renewable energies, the use of electricity could be expanded greatly, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, buildings and industry.

“Enabling the exclusive use of clean energy will be a miracle for our planet.”

But with the planet already heating at an unprecedented rate and the danger threshold of temperatures of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels already close, there may not be enough time left for the fusion dream to be realised. – Climate News Network

How stored electricity can make cleaner fuels

EU industry is seeking ways to save surplus power. Now it’s also hunting for methods to use that stored electricity to make green fuels.

LONDON, 21 July, 2020 – With renewable energy now the cheapest way of mass-producing electricity, the race is on to find the best way to conserve the surplus for use at peak times, and also to use the stored electricity to develop new fuels for transport.

And European Union companies are competing to devise lucrative ways to use this cheap power just as more solar and wind energy is being produced than the market demands.

Large batteries are currently the favoured method, because they are already cost-effective when used with pumped storage. This uses cheap electricity to move water uphill into reservoirs, to be released later to drive turbines when extra electricity is needed to meet peak demand.

Both these technologies take advantage of buying power at rock-bottom prices, and make their profits by storing it – until they can sell it back at much higher prices when the peak arrives.

The newer technologies under development seek to use the cheap surplus electricity to create so-called green hydrogen, and now green ammonia – both for use as substitutes for fossil fuels.

“A second method of hydrogen production, which avoids carbon emissions altogether, is attracting worldwide interest”

The hydrogen can be used in cars, trucks, buses, trains, and ultimately, optimists believe, in aircraft. Ammonia, it’s hoped, can power ships. Both ideas aim to cut out fossil fuels entirely.

Most hydrogen for fuel and industrial purposes is currently being produced from natural gas, a fossil fuel, and is called blue (or sometimes brown) hydrogen. Environmentalists do not regard it as much of an advantage in combatting climate change, because it’s derived from methane, even though when it’s burned the hydrogen produces only water.

However, a second method of hydrogen production, which also uses cheap renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, avoids carbon emissions altogether, and is attracting worldwide interest.

Costs come down as the volume of production increases, so if green hydrogen can be supplied on an industrial scale it is hoped it can out-compete both blue hydrogen and fossil fuels for transport.

European experiments

New Energy Update, a renewable energy newsletter published by Reuters, reports that European companies are scrambling to use cheap surplus electricity from wind power to take advantage of a growing market for green hydrogen.

Offshore wind operators are combining with airports, airlines and transport groups to develop a renewable hydrogen electrolyser in Copenhagen by 2027.

The Belgian port of Ostend has another project with different partners, but also using surplus offshore wind power to make cheap green hydrogen.

The oil giant Shell, anxious to diversify away from the failing fossil fuel industry, has also found industrial partners to combine offshore wind production with electrolysis facilities.

On this evidence green hydrogen is close to viable commercial exploitation, whereas the potential for ammonia is still being explored, even though it has some possible advantages as a cleaner shipping fuel.

Ammonia’s promise

This is principally because there is already a global transport system in place for ammonia because of its use in fertilisers – although this ammonia is produced using fossil fuels.

Unlike hydrogen, ammonia does not need to be stored at very low temperatures or in high-pressure tanks. It could be used in liquid form in ships and would provide enough energy for long voyages – in a similar way to fuel oil. It can also be used in normal engines without complex on-board processing, or in fuel cells without hydrogen’s potential high risks.

But as the Environmental Defense Fund points out in a report into the technology, the surplus renewable energy needs to be very cheap to have a chance of making it cost-competitive.

However, with the global shipping industry committed to cutting its global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050, compared with 2008 levels, the report makes it clear that ammonia seems currently the most promising technology to achieve that. – Climate News Network

EU industry is seeking ways to save surplus power. Now it’s also hunting for methods to use that stored electricity to make green fuels.

LONDON, 21 July, 2020 – With renewable energy now the cheapest way of mass-producing electricity, the race is on to find the best way to conserve the surplus for use at peak times, and also to use the stored electricity to develop new fuels for transport.

And European Union companies are competing to devise lucrative ways to use this cheap power just as more solar and wind energy is being produced than the market demands.

Large batteries are currently the favoured method, because they are already cost-effective when used with pumped storage. This uses cheap electricity to move water uphill into reservoirs, to be released later to drive turbines when extra electricity is needed to meet peak demand.

Both these technologies take advantage of buying power at rock-bottom prices, and make their profits by storing it – until they can sell it back at much higher prices when the peak arrives.

The newer technologies under development seek to use the cheap surplus electricity to create so-called green hydrogen, and now green ammonia – both for use as substitutes for fossil fuels.

“A second method of hydrogen production, which avoids carbon emissions altogether, is attracting worldwide interest”

The hydrogen can be used in cars, trucks, buses, trains, and ultimately, optimists believe, in aircraft. Ammonia, it’s hoped, can power ships. Both ideas aim to cut out fossil fuels entirely.

Most hydrogen for fuel and industrial purposes is currently being produced from natural gas, a fossil fuel, and is called blue (or sometimes brown) hydrogen. Environmentalists do not regard it as much of an advantage in combatting climate change, because it’s derived from methane, even though when it’s burned the hydrogen produces only water.

However, a second method of hydrogen production, which also uses cheap renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, avoids carbon emissions altogether, and is attracting worldwide interest.

Costs come down as the volume of production increases, so if green hydrogen can be supplied on an industrial scale it is hoped it can out-compete both blue hydrogen and fossil fuels for transport.

European experiments

New Energy Update, a renewable energy newsletter published by Reuters, reports that European companies are scrambling to use cheap surplus electricity from wind power to take advantage of a growing market for green hydrogen.

Offshore wind operators are combining with airports, airlines and transport groups to develop a renewable hydrogen electrolyser in Copenhagen by 2027.

The Belgian port of Ostend has another project with different partners, but also using surplus offshore wind power to make cheap green hydrogen.

The oil giant Shell, anxious to diversify away from the failing fossil fuel industry, has also found industrial partners to combine offshore wind production with electrolysis facilities.

On this evidence green hydrogen is close to viable commercial exploitation, whereas the potential for ammonia is still being explored, even though it has some possible advantages as a cleaner shipping fuel.

Ammonia’s promise

This is principally because there is already a global transport system in place for ammonia because of its use in fertilisers – although this ammonia is produced using fossil fuels.

Unlike hydrogen, ammonia does not need to be stored at very low temperatures or in high-pressure tanks. It could be used in liquid form in ships and would provide enough energy for long voyages – in a similar way to fuel oil. It can also be used in normal engines without complex on-board processing, or in fuel cells without hydrogen’s potential high risks.

But as the Environmental Defense Fund points out in a report into the technology, the surplus renewable energy needs to be very cheap to have a chance of making it cost-competitive.

However, with the global shipping industry committed to cutting its global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050, compared with 2008 levels, the report makes it clear that ammonia seems currently the most promising technology to achieve that. – Climate News Network

South Korea backtracks on green promise

For South Korea, it seems, climate care is a case of going green at home – and doing the opposite overseas.

LONDON, 17 July, 2020 – After a landslide victory in South Korea’s national elections earlier this year, President Moon Jae-in and his Democratic Party of Korea announced a major plan to tackle climate change.

A package, known as the Green New Deal, aimed to transform what is one of the world’s most dynamic economies: emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases would be sharply reduced over coming years and totally eliminated by 2050.

There were also promises of big public investments in renewable energy and a commitment to phase out state support for overseas coal projects. Coal is by far the most polluting of fossil fuels.

Moon Jae-in’s administration is now backtracking on many of its green promises.

Environmental groups are particularly concerned by an announcement late last month that South Korea’s largest state-owned electricity company – along with state banks – is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a coal-fired power plant in Indonesia.

More to come

The Indonesian project – called Java 9 &10 – is at the giant Suralaya plant at Cilegon, near Jakarta.

Under the terms of an agreement reached between the South Korean and Indonesian state authorities, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) will invest US$51 million (£40m) in adding two power units to the Cilegon plant.

In addition, South Korea’s state banks will make further investments amounting to more than $1billion, while Kepco will offer loan guarantees.

The Cilegon project is highly controversial: the plant is already one of the main sources of pollution in the densely populated area surrounding Jakarta.

Energy analysts and opponents of the project say that the additional power the plant will provide is not needed. They say enlarging the plant not only runs counter to South Korea government policy but also conflicts with the Indonesian government’s policies on tackling climate change: Jakarta recently announced ambitious plans to dramatically increase the use of solar power.

“By not ending public coal financing, Korea’s Green New Deal would not be green at all”

“Kepco’s decision to continue the Java 9 &10 project in the midst of a pandemic has shown the true face of the South Korean government and proves it is concerned with short-term profits rather than humans and the environment”, said Didit Haryo Wicaksono of Greenpeace Indonesia.

Elsewhere in the region, Kepco is involved in discussions on a multi-million dollar expansion of the coal-fired Vung Tau power plant in Vietnam.

Kepco shareholders have voiced concerns about both the Indonesia and Vietnam projects, saying that worries about pollution might lead to the loss of millions invested.

South Korea is not alone in touting green policies at home while seeking to make money from polluting projects overseas.

China is making efforts to clean up its once notorious urban pollution hot spots. It is the world’s biggest producer and also consumer of coal: many coal-fired enterprises have been shut down or converted to other energy sources.

Green deal undermined?

Yet China continues to promote coal-fired projects overseas. It is building and financing several coal-fired power plants in Pakistan and in the Balkans, as well as supporting the expansion of coal projects in various African countries. Japan is another large financier of overseas coal projects.

South Korea is among the world’s top ten emitters of greenhouse gases,  much of the pollution caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants, which generate more than 40% of the country’s electricity.

Under the terms of Seoul’s new green deal it’s planned to phase out the use of coal by 2030. In the aftermath of the Indonesia coal plant deal, there are doubts that South Korea will put a halt to its overseas coal projects.

Jessica Yun of the South Korea climate group Solutions For Our Climate,  quoted in the Eco-Business journal, says that if the government refuses to stop financing coal projects, the whole green deal will be undermined. “By not ending public coal financing, Korea’s Green New Deal would not be green at all”, Yun said.

“That would just push dirty air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions abroad – the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.” – Climate News Network

For South Korea, it seems, climate care is a case of going green at home – and doing the opposite overseas.

LONDON, 17 July, 2020 – After a landslide victory in South Korea’s national elections earlier this year, President Moon Jae-in and his Democratic Party of Korea announced a major plan to tackle climate change.

A package, known as the Green New Deal, aimed to transform what is one of the world’s most dynamic economies: emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases would be sharply reduced over coming years and totally eliminated by 2050.

There were also promises of big public investments in renewable energy and a commitment to phase out state support for overseas coal projects. Coal is by far the most polluting of fossil fuels.

Moon Jae-in’s administration is now backtracking on many of its green promises.

Environmental groups are particularly concerned by an announcement late last month that South Korea’s largest state-owned electricity company – along with state banks – is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a coal-fired power plant in Indonesia.

More to come

The Indonesian project – called Java 9 &10 – is at the giant Suralaya plant at Cilegon, near Jakarta.

Under the terms of an agreement reached between the South Korean and Indonesian state authorities, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) will invest US$51 million (£40m) in adding two power units to the Cilegon plant.

In addition, South Korea’s state banks will make further investments amounting to more than $1billion, while Kepco will offer loan guarantees.

The Cilegon project is highly controversial: the plant is already one of the main sources of pollution in the densely populated area surrounding Jakarta.

Energy analysts and opponents of the project say that the additional power the plant will provide is not needed. They say enlarging the plant not only runs counter to South Korea government policy but also conflicts with the Indonesian government’s policies on tackling climate change: Jakarta recently announced ambitious plans to dramatically increase the use of solar power.

“By not ending public coal financing, Korea’s Green New Deal would not be green at all”

“Kepco’s decision to continue the Java 9 &10 project in the midst of a pandemic has shown the true face of the South Korean government and proves it is concerned with short-term profits rather than humans and the environment”, said Didit Haryo Wicaksono of Greenpeace Indonesia.

Elsewhere in the region, Kepco is involved in discussions on a multi-million dollar expansion of the coal-fired Vung Tau power plant in Vietnam.

Kepco shareholders have voiced concerns about both the Indonesia and Vietnam projects, saying that worries about pollution might lead to the loss of millions invested.

South Korea is not alone in touting green policies at home while seeking to make money from polluting projects overseas.

China is making efforts to clean up its once notorious urban pollution hot spots. It is the world’s biggest producer and also consumer of coal: many coal-fired enterprises have been shut down or converted to other energy sources.

Green deal undermined?

Yet China continues to promote coal-fired projects overseas. It is building and financing several coal-fired power plants in Pakistan and in the Balkans, as well as supporting the expansion of coal projects in various African countries. Japan is another large financier of overseas coal projects.

South Korea is among the world’s top ten emitters of greenhouse gases,  much of the pollution caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants, which generate more than 40% of the country’s electricity.

Under the terms of Seoul’s new green deal it’s planned to phase out the use of coal by 2030. In the aftermath of the Indonesia coal plant deal, there are doubts that South Korea will put a halt to its overseas coal projects.

Jessica Yun of the South Korea climate group Solutions For Our Climate,  quoted in the Eco-Business journal, says that if the government refuses to stop financing coal projects, the whole green deal will be undermined. “By not ending public coal financing, Korea’s Green New Deal would not be green at all”, Yun said.

“That would just push dirty air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions abroad – the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.” – Climate News Network

Powerful backers support a UK nuclear future

Insulating homes and installing renewable energy are the cheapest answers to climate change. Yet powerful backers urge a UK nuclear future.

LONDON, 15 July, 2020 – You may think a UK nuclear future, given the bright prospects for wind and solar power, is a dream that has finally died. Perhaps. But don’t be too sure.

If you watched BBC television in the 1980s, you might well have seen the Blackadder comedy series, one of whose stars was the hapless dogsbody Baldrick. However dire the plight into which the scriptwriters had plunged him and his companions, Baldrick unfailingly reassured them: he would save the day with his latest “cunning plan”, a phrase now hallowed as a guarantee of doom.

Leap forward 30 years to the present day, where one of the most influential figures involved with the UK government of prime minister Boris Johnson is his senior special adviser (an unelected figure), Dominic Cummings. He too has a plan, it’s said. But this is no comedy: the plan is serious, and it’s nuclear.

It envisages a massive expansion of the United Kingdom’s nuclear industry, prompting a reputed joke by civil servants that Cummings’ plan is little different from one of Baldrick’s.

The Cummings plan involves three elements: building several large nuclear reactors in the UK, plus dozens of prefabricated ones, called small modular reactors or SMRs, and investing heavily in research for what are called Generation IV nuclear reactors – technologies planned for deployment around 2030.

Rescue in sight?

Dominic Cummings is not alone in his enthusiasm. Donald Trump, President Putin of Russia and China’s President Xi Jinping all favour this approach.

His plan is also backed by the British company Rolls-Royce. It is suffering badly from its heavy involvement in the aviation industry, and it sees government investment in a new generation of reactors as a lifeline. The company is already building small reactors for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet.

Backing for Cummings has come from a government-funded thinktank, Catapult Energy Systems. In a report, Nuclear For Net Zero, Catapult envisages using SMRs for district heating schemes and advanced reactors for producing hydrogen. This would be used for transport in cars, lorries and trains, or for storing energy for peak electricity production.

Although it is described as independent Catapult is largely funded by Innovate UK, itself funded by the government, and has as its strategy and performance director Guy Newey, previously an adviser to energy ministers in previous Conservative administrations when successive governments were aggressively pushing pro-nuclear policies.

Catapult’s report appears to mirror Dominic Cummings’ desire for imaginative solutions to climate problems. He is said to regard the idea of insulating millions of homes to reduce electricity bills and to improve health as “boring.”

“Only the French and Chinese appear to have the wish or expertise to build the reactors. But both these builders want British consumers to finance the nuclear stations’ construction”

His attitude, in turn, appears to reflect Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm for grandiose projects like a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland – and other projects, now abandoned, such as a new airport in the Thames estuary and a garden bridge across the Thames further upstream in central London, which Johnson championed when he was the capital’s mayor.

The problems that this nuclear agenda faces are both financial and political. The cost of developing such a programme is astronomical. Two reactors currently being built at Hinkley Point in the West of England are costing more than £10 billion (US$12.5bn) each. That price is likely to be exceeded for each of the eight further reactors proposed for the current building programme.

The second problem is that only the French and Chinese appear to have the wish or expertise to build the reactors. But both these builders want British consumers to stump up the cash in the form of a levy or tax on electricity bills to finance the nuclear stations’ construction.

Since the French and Chinese companies are both state-owned it might be politically difficult for the UK government to impose a tax on British consumers to enrich them. There is also a lot of disquiet among UK Members of Parliament about Chinese involvement in vital services like electricity supply and nuclear energy.

As for the SMRs, the idea is to build dozens in factories and then erect them on-site in prefabricated form. Apart from the fact that the technology is unproven and the expense of the electricity unknown (but likely to be high), the problem of where to site them does not seem to have been addressed.

Hydrogen’s appeal

It seems unlikely, given past public opposition to siting nuclear power stations close to centres of population, that they would be welcomed in cities, even if they did provide district heating.

The Generation IV reactors are still on the drawing board. Their development time is always quoted as more than a decade away.

In the meantime, while politicians make their plans, there is increasing business enthusiasm and an economic case for making green hydrogen from surplus wind and solar power, because it is much cheaper. The electricity needed will be surplus to grid requirements and therefore virtually free.

There is also a vast public and business appetite for building very competitive new onshore and offshore wind projects and small and large-scale solar installations. Finance would be no problem, because they are profit-making and quick to build.

Given a helping hand by government, many experts think the United Kingdom could be 100% powered by renewables by 2050, without any need for a Cummings plan. – Climate News Network

Insulating homes and installing renewable energy are the cheapest answers to climate change. Yet powerful backers urge a UK nuclear future.

LONDON, 15 July, 2020 – You may think a UK nuclear future, given the bright prospects for wind and solar power, is a dream that has finally died. Perhaps. But don’t be too sure.

If you watched BBC television in the 1980s, you might well have seen the Blackadder comedy series, one of whose stars was the hapless dogsbody Baldrick. However dire the plight into which the scriptwriters had plunged him and his companions, Baldrick unfailingly reassured them: he would save the day with his latest “cunning plan”, a phrase now hallowed as a guarantee of doom.

Leap forward 30 years to the present day, where one of the most influential figures involved with the UK government of prime minister Boris Johnson is his senior special adviser (an unelected figure), Dominic Cummings. He too has a plan, it’s said. But this is no comedy: the plan is serious, and it’s nuclear.

It envisages a massive expansion of the United Kingdom’s nuclear industry, prompting a reputed joke by civil servants that Cummings’ plan is little different from one of Baldrick’s.

The Cummings plan involves three elements: building several large nuclear reactors in the UK, plus dozens of prefabricated ones, called small modular reactors or SMRs, and investing heavily in research for what are called Generation IV nuclear reactors – technologies planned for deployment around 2030.

Rescue in sight?

Dominic Cummings is not alone in his enthusiasm. Donald Trump, President Putin of Russia and China’s President Xi Jinping all favour this approach.

His plan is also backed by the British company Rolls-Royce. It is suffering badly from its heavy involvement in the aviation industry, and it sees government investment in a new generation of reactors as a lifeline. The company is already building small reactors for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet.

Backing for Cummings has come from a government-funded thinktank, Catapult Energy Systems. In a report, Nuclear For Net Zero, Catapult envisages using SMRs for district heating schemes and advanced reactors for producing hydrogen. This would be used for transport in cars, lorries and trains, or for storing energy for peak electricity production.

Although it is described as independent Catapult is largely funded by Innovate UK, itself funded by the government, and has as its strategy and performance director Guy Newey, previously an adviser to energy ministers in previous Conservative administrations when successive governments were aggressively pushing pro-nuclear policies.

Catapult’s report appears to mirror Dominic Cummings’ desire for imaginative solutions to climate problems. He is said to regard the idea of insulating millions of homes to reduce electricity bills and to improve health as “boring.”

“Only the French and Chinese appear to have the wish or expertise to build the reactors. But both these builders want British consumers to finance the nuclear stations’ construction”

His attitude, in turn, appears to reflect Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm for grandiose projects like a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland – and other projects, now abandoned, such as a new airport in the Thames estuary and a garden bridge across the Thames further upstream in central London, which Johnson championed when he was the capital’s mayor.

The problems that this nuclear agenda faces are both financial and political. The cost of developing such a programme is astronomical. Two reactors currently being built at Hinkley Point in the West of England are costing more than £10 billion (US$12.5bn) each. That price is likely to be exceeded for each of the eight further reactors proposed for the current building programme.

The second problem is that only the French and Chinese appear to have the wish or expertise to build the reactors. But both these builders want British consumers to stump up the cash in the form of a levy or tax on electricity bills to finance the nuclear stations’ construction.

Since the French and Chinese companies are both state-owned it might be politically difficult for the UK government to impose a tax on British consumers to enrich them. There is also a lot of disquiet among UK Members of Parliament about Chinese involvement in vital services like electricity supply and nuclear energy.

As for the SMRs, the idea is to build dozens in factories and then erect them on-site in prefabricated form. Apart from the fact that the technology is unproven and the expense of the electricity unknown (but likely to be high), the problem of where to site them does not seem to have been addressed.

Hydrogen’s appeal

It seems unlikely, given past public opposition to siting nuclear power stations close to centres of population, that they would be welcomed in cities, even if they did provide district heating.

The Generation IV reactors are still on the drawing board. Their development time is always quoted as more than a decade away.

In the meantime, while politicians make their plans, there is increasing business enthusiasm and an economic case for making green hydrogen from surplus wind and solar power, because it is much cheaper. The electricity needed will be surplus to grid requirements and therefore virtually free.

There is also a vast public and business appetite for building very competitive new onshore and offshore wind projects and small and large-scale solar installations. Finance would be no problem, because they are profit-making and quick to build.

Given a helping hand by government, many experts think the United Kingdom could be 100% powered by renewables by 2050, without any need for a Cummings plan. – Climate News Network

Ireland looks forward to a greener future

Often called the Emerald Isle, Ireland prides itself on its green image – but the reality has been rather different.

DUBLIN, 6 July, 2020 – A predominantly rural country with a relatively small population and little heavy industry, Ireland is, per capita, one of the European Union’s biggest emitters of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Now there are signs of change: after an inconclusive general election and months of political negotiations, a new coalition government has been formed in which, for the first time, Ireland’s Green Party has a significant role.

As part of a deal it has done with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – the two parties that have dominated Ireland’s politics for much of the last century – the Green Party wants a halt to any further exploration for fossil fuels in the country’s offshore waters.

It’s also calling for a stop to all imports of shale gas from the US. A new climate action law will set legally binding targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – Ireland aims to reduce net emissions by more than 50% by 2030.

“We do not expect large emissions reductions as seen during the financial crisis of 2008”

Achieving that goal is a gargantuan task. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and an economic slowdown, Ireland’s carbon emissions are set to fall by nearly 10% this year according to a report by the country’s Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

The report warns that due mainly to low international energy prices, the use of fossil fuels is likely to surge after Covid.

“Though the economic impacts of the Covid crisis are severe, due to among others the decreased energy prices, we do not expect large emissions reductions as seen during the financial crisis of 2008”, says the ESRI’s Kelly de Bruin, a co-author of the study.

“Ireland would still need to put in considerable effort to reach its EU emission goals.

Methane abundance

“The results of the study underline the importance of having a well-designed government response policy package, which considers the unique economic and environmental challenges presented by the Covid crisis.”

Emissions have to be tackled mainly in two sectors – transport and agriculture – which together account for more than 50% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

With increased use of electric vehicles, higher diesel taxes and more efficient goods distribution systems, emissions in the transport sector are relatively easy to sort out. But agriculture – one of the mainstays of Ireland’s economy – is a much more difficult proposition.

Ireland has a population of five million – and a cattle herd of nearly seven million. The flatulence of cattle produces considerable amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

Determined Greens

Farming organisations have traditionally wielded considerable political power. In the past politicians have been accused of indulging in plenty of rhetoric but taking little positive action to address the perils of climate change.

Ireland’s Green Party, which has four ministers in the new 16-member coalition cabinet, says it will not hesitate to bring down the government if environmental promises are not kept.

Eamon Ryan, the Green Party leader and Minister for Climate Action, Communication Networks and Transport, says the big challenge is to restore Ireland’s biodiversity and stop what he calls the madness of climate change.

“That’s our job in government. That’s what we’ve been voted in to do”, says Ryan. – Climate News Network

Often called the Emerald Isle, Ireland prides itself on its green image – but the reality has been rather different.

DUBLIN, 6 July, 2020 – A predominantly rural country with a relatively small population and little heavy industry, Ireland is, per capita, one of the European Union’s biggest emitters of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Now there are signs of change: after an inconclusive general election and months of political negotiations, a new coalition government has been formed in which, for the first time, Ireland’s Green Party has a significant role.

As part of a deal it has done with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – the two parties that have dominated Ireland’s politics for much of the last century – the Green Party wants a halt to any further exploration for fossil fuels in the country’s offshore waters.

It’s also calling for a stop to all imports of shale gas from the US. A new climate action law will set legally binding targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – Ireland aims to reduce net emissions by more than 50% by 2030.

“We do not expect large emissions reductions as seen during the financial crisis of 2008”

Achieving that goal is a gargantuan task. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and an economic slowdown, Ireland’s carbon emissions are set to fall by nearly 10% this year according to a report by the country’s Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

The report warns that due mainly to low international energy prices, the use of fossil fuels is likely to surge after Covid.

“Though the economic impacts of the Covid crisis are severe, due to among others the decreased energy prices, we do not expect large emissions reductions as seen during the financial crisis of 2008”, says the ESRI’s Kelly de Bruin, a co-author of the study.

“Ireland would still need to put in considerable effort to reach its EU emission goals.

Methane abundance

“The results of the study underline the importance of having a well-designed government response policy package, which considers the unique economic and environmental challenges presented by the Covid crisis.”

Emissions have to be tackled mainly in two sectors – transport and agriculture – which together account for more than 50% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

With increased use of electric vehicles, higher diesel taxes and more efficient goods distribution systems, emissions in the transport sector are relatively easy to sort out. But agriculture – one of the mainstays of Ireland’s economy – is a much more difficult proposition.

Ireland has a population of five million – and a cattle herd of nearly seven million. The flatulence of cattle produces considerable amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

Determined Greens

Farming organisations have traditionally wielded considerable political power. In the past politicians have been accused of indulging in plenty of rhetoric but taking little positive action to address the perils of climate change.

Ireland’s Green Party, which has four ministers in the new 16-member coalition cabinet, says it will not hesitate to bring down the government if environmental promises are not kept.

Eamon Ryan, the Green Party leader and Minister for Climate Action, Communication Networks and Transport, says the big challenge is to restore Ireland’s biodiversity and stop what he calls the madness of climate change.

“That’s our job in government. That’s what we’ve been voted in to do”, says Ryan. – Climate News Network

Nuclear power uses market fix to stifle wind energy

UK wind energy is forced to shut down to let more expensive nuclear stations go on operating at full power.

LONDON, 18 June, 2020 − The United Kingdom’s nuclear industry is hindering the use of wind energy and pushing up the prices it charges consumers, because its reactors cannot be turned down when electricity production exceeds demand, campaigners say.

A report by a new British group, 100% Renewable UK, says the inflexible nature of nuclear, which means that it normally has to run at full capacity, is no longer suitable for a 21st century electricity supply.

Backed by a large group of local authorities and academic experts, the group says in the report that nuclear power stations, and the notion that they are essential for what is called baseload power, should be consigned to history.

Baseload power, it argues, is no longer needed, and the stations are in fact hindering the development of the flexible grids required in the modern world.

The report particularly studies the wind power compensation payments which the nuclear operators in Scotland had to pay to windfarms in 2017 and 2019.

“This report shows that the goal of 100% renewable energy generation can be realised much earlier than ever thought possible”

The large amounts spent in this way, called “constraint payments”, are triggered when windfarms are asked by the National Grid to shut down production, to stop the electricity network from being overloaded. When supply exceeds demand it threatens the stability of the Grid, which then gives the nuclear stations priority, allowing them to keep running at full power.

Wind farms received compensation for the electricity they would have produced but didn’t: £100 million in 2017 and £130m in 2019.

The report, using data produced by energy consultants Cornwall Insight,  showed that in 2017 94% of the wind power that was “constrained” could have been used had nuclear not been operating, or had it been turned off instead. In 2019 the figure was 77%.

The £230m payment to wind farms for lost production was used by the anti-wind and pro-nuclear lobby to claim that it was excess wind power that was costing consumers money. However, the report argues that it was the inability of the inflexible nuclear plants to turn down their power that should be singled out, saying it would be just as reasonable to blame them for the need for compensation.

What is needed, it says, is a build-up of storage capacity for excess renewable power: large-scale batteries, the use of batteries in electric cars connected to the grid, pump storage and green hydrogen, for example, and the abandonment of nuclear power altogether because it does not suit modern needs.

Wrong culprit

Dr David Toke, from the University of Aberdeen, author of the report, said: “It is wrong for wind power to be blamed by the media for these compensation payments. Inflexible operation of nuclear power plants is switching off wind turbines.

“Essentially, cheaper electricity production from wind farms is being turned off in order to protect production from nuclear power plants, whose output is much more expensive to manage.”

The report also says that the UK government’s support for more nuclear stations will only make things worse, giving priority to much more expensive and inflexible electricity production from new stations, like Hinkley Point C in the West of England, at the expense of much cheaper wind and solar power.

Councillor David Blackburn, chairman of the organisation Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who backs the campaign for 100% renewable energy by 2050, said: “The report confirms to us that the outdated baseload energy model (of nuclear power) is hindering the growth of renewable energy. It is time for a wholesale reform to a decentralised energy model that responds better to public and business needs whilst tackling the climate crisis. “

“This report shows that, with a change of policy direction, the goal of 100% renewable energy generation can be realised much earlier than ever thought possible.” − Climate News Network

UK wind energy is forced to shut down to let more expensive nuclear stations go on operating at full power.

LONDON, 18 June, 2020 − The United Kingdom’s nuclear industry is hindering the use of wind energy and pushing up the prices it charges consumers, because its reactors cannot be turned down when electricity production exceeds demand, campaigners say.

A report by a new British group, 100% Renewable UK, says the inflexible nature of nuclear, which means that it normally has to run at full capacity, is no longer suitable for a 21st century electricity supply.

Backed by a large group of local authorities and academic experts, the group says in the report that nuclear power stations, and the notion that they are essential for what is called baseload power, should be consigned to history.

Baseload power, it argues, is no longer needed, and the stations are in fact hindering the development of the flexible grids required in the modern world.

The report particularly studies the wind power compensation payments which the nuclear operators in Scotland had to pay to windfarms in 2017 and 2019.

“This report shows that the goal of 100% renewable energy generation can be realised much earlier than ever thought possible”

The large amounts spent in this way, called “constraint payments”, are triggered when windfarms are asked by the National Grid to shut down production, to stop the electricity network from being overloaded. When supply exceeds demand it threatens the stability of the Grid, which then gives the nuclear stations priority, allowing them to keep running at full power.

Wind farms received compensation for the electricity they would have produced but didn’t: £100 million in 2017 and £130m in 2019.

The report, using data produced by energy consultants Cornwall Insight,  showed that in 2017 94% of the wind power that was “constrained” could have been used had nuclear not been operating, or had it been turned off instead. In 2019 the figure was 77%.

The £230m payment to wind farms for lost production was used by the anti-wind and pro-nuclear lobby to claim that it was excess wind power that was costing consumers money. However, the report argues that it was the inability of the inflexible nuclear plants to turn down their power that should be singled out, saying it would be just as reasonable to blame them for the need for compensation.

What is needed, it says, is a build-up of storage capacity for excess renewable power: large-scale batteries, the use of batteries in electric cars connected to the grid, pump storage and green hydrogen, for example, and the abandonment of nuclear power altogether because it does not suit modern needs.

Wrong culprit

Dr David Toke, from the University of Aberdeen, author of the report, said: “It is wrong for wind power to be blamed by the media for these compensation payments. Inflexible operation of nuclear power plants is switching off wind turbines.

“Essentially, cheaper electricity production from wind farms is being turned off in order to protect production from nuclear power plants, whose output is much more expensive to manage.”

The report also says that the UK government’s support for more nuclear stations will only make things worse, giving priority to much more expensive and inflexible electricity production from new stations, like Hinkley Point C in the West of England, at the expense of much cheaper wind and solar power.

Councillor David Blackburn, chairman of the organisation Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who backs the campaign for 100% renewable energy by 2050, said: “The report confirms to us that the outdated baseload energy model (of nuclear power) is hindering the growth of renewable energy. It is time for a wholesale reform to a decentralised energy model that responds better to public and business needs whilst tackling the climate crisis. “

“This report shows that, with a change of policy direction, the goal of 100% renewable energy generation can be realised much earlier than ever thought possible.” − Climate News Network