Wednesday, 11 June 2014


Just when you thought things could not get much worse for energy policy in Britain, fracking was given another set of green lights with the announcement last week that the government will seek to allow shale gas extractors to drill underneath people’s homes without the need for consent. Public rights seems to mean nothing to this government. Whilst renewable energy is subject to the deepest cynicism and criticism; the dangers and down-sides to fracking – and to the nuclear industry – barely seem to register on the Coalition’s radar.

I cannot help thinking that the political elite and their lobbyist have looked at the Simpsons and George Orwell for inspiration on how to run ‘their’ country.

Simon Jenkins is able to publish ‘Renewable energy won't rid us of the horrors of coal’. 1)

In this article he makes his case as indicated in the headline and states that CO2 emissions from Germany are rising between 5-7% yearly which is wrong. The carbon emission in Germany have risen some 1% year on year between 2011-2013 but still achieving a reduction of 24.7% since 1990. 2) This increase in CO2 is a great shame and be assured if the Green Party would still be in power in Germany this would have not been the case. While Simon published his critical analysis of renewables some extraordinary news hit the headlines in Germany. 

Companies responsible for nuclear power generation in Germany put over the years some 36 billion Euros aside, tax free I must add, to deal with the nuclear heritage. The utility firms proposed to set up a public owed trust were this money would go to and the public would have to stump up anything missing. Asse one of our perfectly save nuclear resting places will need alone some 6 Billon Euro and much more to come. Better still, some of this money has been invested in coal power. 3), 4)

Simon, could this be the reason for the rise of coal?

Bjorn Lomborg writes in an article entitled ‘Putin fears an EU fracking bonanza – but environmentalists don't have to’ 5) in which admits …‘Of course, fracking is not a silver bullet’… Fracking uses huge amount of water, pollutes drinking water and releases methane gas which has a bigger impact on climate change than carbon dioxide. 6) Regarding subsidises, Germany subsidised fossil with 52 and renewables with 10 Billion Euros in 2010, worldwide fossil fuels receive between 400 Billion to 2.6 Trillion Euros yearly! 7), 8), 9) Germany produced in 2013 the equivalent of 40% of Britain’s electricity needs with renewables installed in just over a decade 10), 11) and is not bankrupt and neither is Denmark, producing 33% of its electricity with renewables.12) Spain installed enough electricity generating capacity using wind turbines within 10 years to overtake nuclear power generation which taken decades to build and will take decades to dispose off. 13) France the dreamland of most nuclear fans is not the booming economy it aught to be 70% nuclear and neither was Japan with 50 nuclear plants before Fukushima. Japan has one of the highest debt ratio of developing countries in 2011 nearly 3 times that of Britain, France or Germany. 14) China’s new renewable power capacity surpassed new fossil fuel and nuclear capacity in 2013 for the first time.15), 16)

 We live in an exciting transition period the overwhelming evidence speaks for renewables, but this undermines the authority of the utility firms which use to have a licence to print money, and that why everything is done to discredit and suffocate renewables.

What can we do as individuals ?
Add to your news diet the following: Bloomberg, Deutsche Welle (equivalent to BBC world service), Reuters, Tagesschau (equivalent to BBC news) in German use internet to translate and share relevant stories.

If you not done already change your energy supplier to a smaller renewable one.

Save energy wherever you can, install pv solar if you have a south facing roof, banks are willing to lend, replace your boiler with an pre-pressurised easy install air source heat pump £500.

If you get electricity from renewables get rid of gas, go for induction cooker, instantaneous water heater, or air to water heat pump, heat pumps and so on. The cost of most energy efficient appliances and energy producing devises has fallen sharply. Do check out superhomes and center of alternative energy http://www.superhomes.org.uk/  http://www.cat.org.uk/index.html

 
Sources consulted in order:

















It’s been three years since Fukushima hit the headlines and one should ask if lessons have been learned.

 

Germany is phasing out nuclear and not because the tree-hugger community has taken over the government but it’s the realisation in all political spectra that nuclear does not work and that renewables bring huge benefits. But against the general perception Germany is still producing more electricity with nuclear than Britain and at its height three times as much as Britain now. Germany tried really hard to make the dream work, having endless amounts of energy with no risk building some 36 nuclear power stations, many of them in ground-breaking designs. Germany has also quite a few sites where nuclear waste is stored and Gorleben, Morsleben and Asse jump to mind. The latter two were supposed to be perfectly safe ‘Endlager,’ (deep geological repository) but they turned out to be not so safe consequently the cosily search for a perfect last resting place for the nuclear waste goes on.


 


 

ARD Tagesschau is the equivalent to BBC news


As proven over the last so many decades the nuclear lobby manages again and again to mix wishful thinking with some science and sell that science fiction in glossy brochures to the government.


 

Here we are in 2014 in Britain and if it all goes to plan we will subsidise yet another nuclear folly with billions in exchange for some electricity to be on the grid in 10 years time. How much exactly will we get for our money is anyone’s guess? To put it in perspective, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 Terawatt hours of energy in 2012. That is one-third less of electricity generated in Germany from renewables installed between 2002 and 2012. Let me put this another way, over 10 years enough generating capacity from renewables was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh that’s some 37% of Britain’s electricity needs, leaving the 64TWh the 16 nuclear plants produced well behind.


 


 

 

The Greens, whilst in power in Germany put a political framework into place to encourage electricity generation from renewables. After Fukushima Merkel went back to the nuclear phase out policy the Greens negotiated but different to the Greens still subsidising with vast amounts of fossil fuel and sadly in particular coal.

 

 

The rush to renewables in Germany has also contributed to the relative health of the German economy and different to Britain has had less black outs and is exporting plenty if electricity. Different to any other form of electricity generations the costs of renewables have steadily declined while all others gone up and that will not change. But just when you thought things could not get any worse, the government decided to go full steam ahead with fracking. The catalogue of problems which come with this technique are very well known, proven and still the government is sleepwalking into the next disaster just like with nuclear. Who is profiting?

 

 

 Fracking as well as nuclear makes economically and ecologically no sense, well it makes perfect sense for a few lucky ones but not for the majority of humanity nor the environment. Subsidising fracking in the form of tax breaks, subsidising nukes by milking every electricity costumer is simply insulting. Fracking does create tremors or even earthquakes, does impact on drinking water in particular as it uses huge quantities of water and releases methane as well as other gases and radioactivity. All proven and well documented,  we are not only gambling our own but also our children and their children’s future creating a catalogue of very difficult problems.


 

What makes matters worse that we can choose much better well proven and established technologies. We are fortunate today more than ever before being in the position to harvest affordable, plentiful energy, create substantial employment, economic growth and prosperity for many rather than just a few. But in order to do so we have to desperately upgrade the electric grid. It’s known that in order to utilise renewables to their full potential, in particular solar and wind the electric grid has to be able to distribute the electricity quickly and efficiently. Somewhere the sun will shine or the wind blow and somewhere else somebody is needing that electricity. Unfortunately through the lack of investment, a Wild West style capitalism of the ugliest form and a government run and controlled by lobbyists the national grid was never upgraded to take the electricity generation fluctuations which can come with some established renewables.  In fact it is in the interest of the energy generating and supply lobby to keep the grid ‘as it is’ old and tired incapable to distribute the power quickly and efficient it in order to maintain their monopoly.

 

In times of austerity money has to be spend wisely and only if the grid is upgraded we can use renewables to their huge potential. Therefore, billions of pounds have to made available for the grid not HS2. Poor and in particular short-sighted energy policy and/or bad governance are to blame for fuel or general poverty but not renewables nor the 'green crap'.

 

 Still, despite all the odds energy generation from renewables has increased at a tremendous speed in Britain, hopefully more and more people will see the benefits renewables bring and the press will nourish a more constructive debate on these matters.

 

Thursday, 1 May 2014







Germany’s dirty secret

What secret?


Germanys dirty secret is not a secret at all and very openly discussed in Germany, most 10 year school children in Germany know about it, also know about renewables and nuclear. Whereas in Germany the discussion about energy is factual and balanced, the British public is deprived of an honest factual debate. The press stirs up hysteria and negative news go hand in hand with renewables instead of nourishing a meaningful debate and this the BBC story is such an example.  In press the ‘vast’ subsidise renewables receive are mentioned without mentioning the subsidies fossil and nuclear receive, the terrible impact on wildlife renewables have are mentioned without mentioning the deadly impact other human made construction have, the terrible visual impact of renewables are mentioned without mentioning other manmade obscurities. Bear in mind that Wind turbines as well solar can be taken down whenever there is no need anymore without a trace. Different to nuclear power plant everything can be recycled and nothing used in the production of renewables comes even close to the toxicity and danger nuclear poses.  Whilst thriving for perfection we have to remember that nothing is perfect and every form of energy generation has an ugly side. For these reasons energy saving has to be top priority above anything else, the energy we don't use we don't have to produce in any form! Unfortunately not many people make money this way which it why it never has really taken off! Of course We have to assess the energiewede critically and try to learn but we have to apply the same critical thinking to everything else!

The BBC story line is that lignite underpin the renewables in German and is the flip side of the coin, a necessity to the Energiewende so to say. Well, this is not the case and if the Green party would still be in government this would have not happened. Look at Spain, within 10 years enough renewables were installed to generate 20% of the country electricity needs without any  flip side. Well, that's not true and wildlife has suffered through wind turbines however we have to see that in perspective as mentioned above and in many instances I wonder if that's was not done purposely to discredit that technology.  Many stories appear connecting Spain’s economic crises to the ‘vast’ cost of renewables bear in mind the truly vast subsidise fossil fuel receive. http://www.dw.de/fossil-fuel-subsidies-outstrip-renewables-funding-by-billions/a-17465775

 Therefore and for many other reasons that argument is utterly unfunded and if anything renewables have helped to buffer the economic crises.

Back to the BBC story the graph shown is from 2012 not 2013 and it’s the gross domestic energy production. If you now put an graph for the UK or most industrialised nations next to it you would find that these all look pretty similar. There is no reference that actually the CO2 emission on 1990 level has fallen by some 20%, that the energy consumption has been reduced and so on. There is mention of the fact that between 2002 and 2012 enough capacity from renewables was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh that equals 37% of Britain’s electricity needs in 2012. Better still, if the overall energy production is included, renewables produced some 314TWh in 2012, almost a 200TWh increase since 2002. showing that the energy storage issue is artificially inflated what’s needed is a electricity grid which can distribute the power quickly. Somewhere the wind will blow or the sun shine and somewhere is somebody needing that energy

Putting this in perspective all nuclear reactors in Britain produced in 2012 some 64TWh of electricity, receiving vast amount of subsidies in the past, present and it looks like in the future! http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/746/74603.htm Also these reactors where build over decades not 10 years. So if you want to reduce CO2 and other pollutants quickly, have local independent energy supply create substantial employment renewables are the answer. http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=GB

We can easily rephrase the head line into ‘the nuclear industry dirty secret’ in reference to so many underreported facts. Such as The money wasted on nuclear power plants which never produced any meaningful electricity never mind the accidents and incidences. openly discussed in Germany but hardly if ever in the UK. http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/milliardengrab-atomkraft100.html

Shall we call ‘the banks dirty secret’ in reference to the 66Billion pound the Government has most likely lost during the banking crises or shall we call the ‘Fracking the dirty secret’. Well, if you want to destroy national heritage, ruin peoples livelihood and nature, create an even bigger devide between poor and rich and yes of course generate an income for a few lucky ones, go for fraking, nukes and fossil in general.


and is hopefully the start of more constructive reporting on these matters. Still with a certain element of Schadenfreude the article points to the 100Billion Germany apparently wasted on renewables mainly on solar and that many of  these companies go bust and so On. I don’t think any money was wasted right the opposite. Without this ‘waste of Money’ the world would most likely be quite a different place. This investment initiated by the Green party whilst in office between 1998-2005 kick-started an industry which employs millions worldwide is generating huge amounts of energy harnessing what’s given for free without producing pollutants. There was another interesting angle to all of that in the Guardian  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/10/desmond-tutu-anti-apartheid-style-boycott-fossil-fuel-industry

This is very encouraging but we must keep going, keep repeating challenge people’s opinions not personalities we live in an very exiting transmission period. The world is not flat, we have flying machines, rockets, spacecraft’s the latter thought not to be possible 100 years ago and the longitude problem was not solved by the most prolific scientist at the time but by a cabinetmaker John Harrison.
 

 
 

Friday, 7 March 2014

The good the bad and the ugly

Update on renewable, fossil and nuclear energy/electricity generation



The following article has been written using the most up to date credible information and the relevant bibliography with hyperlinks can be found at the end.


The good News


In 2012 Renewable in Germany generated net 25.8% of Germany’s electricity, that’s the equivalent of 37% of Britain electricity needs. On sunny days photovoltaic solar alone produces some 40% of Germany’s electricity using pv systems which have an efficiency of between 12-15%. Consider the power increase if all existing systems would be upgraded to commercially available 20% or in a few years to 40% efficient pv. Only this September scientists at the Fraunhofer institute announced that a solar cell with an efficiency of 44.7% was produced and something like this to be on the market by 2020.


Energy provision from Renewable sources has grown in the last 10 years at a tremendous speed and between 2002 and 2012 enough capacity was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh. Better still, if the overall energy production is included, renewables produced some 314TWh in 2012, almost a 200TWh increase since 2002 saving enormous amounts of CO2. This is an outstanding achievement because all infrastructures from roads to electric grid connection had to be built from scratch. Demonstrating clearly that the energy storage issue is artificially inflated and what's needed is an electric grid which can distribute the power quickly.


Putting this in perspective all 16 nuclear reactors in Britain produced in 2012 some 64TWh, the all historic height was 90TWh receiving vast amount of subsidies, still do and leaving us with catalogue of problems.


Germany which was very much pro nuclear and hostile towards renewables managed to build  36 reactors over 30 years generating at its peak some 170TWh, still below what renewables achieved in a third of this time.


France the dream land of most nuclear fans built since 1959 some 70 reactors and the 58 operational ones produced net 405Twh in 2012 of electricity/energy. Even if we generous and divide that amount of electricity by only three decades renewables outperform nuclear power in terms of energy generation.


In the nineteen eighties  at the height of the hostility against renewables in Germany an enormous wind turbine was build, key people at the time stated that the sole purpose of GROWIAN was to demonstrate that renewables cannot produce any meaningful energy, are uneconomical and that Germany had to invest into nukes, and so it did. Even today there are many using the same principle and examples can be found everywhere. Councils putting very expensive marine pv solar&wind combination between shady trees is one of them.


Against all the odds the Green party, together with the Social democrats took office between 1998 and 2005 and things changed quickly. The greens negotiated an orderly shutdown of all nukes whilst at the same time providing a framework to encourage energy generation with renewables. When the Conservatives took office the nukes lifeline got extended again and after Fukushima reversed back to the green shutdown policy, but now costing Germany dearly in fines as it broke the contracts signed by the conservatives when these took office.


In 2012 renewables provided in Germany some 350k decent jobs in engineering, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and so on. In 1998 renewables in Germany provided only 5% of electricity. Since Germany has invested heavily into renewables and the economy, public finances, unemployment and the standard of living are no worse than that of Britain or France. Japan had before Fukushima over 50 nukes on the grid and has been for the last 20-25 odd years in an economic slump. Japan has also one of the highest debt ratio of developing countries in 2011 nearly 3 times that of Britain, France or Germany.
 
Renewables offers what nukes can’t, power to the people and true democracy, because responsibility and income can be spread between many with only little risks for humanity now and in the future, something which cannot be said about nuclear power.

For all these reasons it is not surprising that in the recent election neither the conservatives nor any other established parties wanted to reverse the commitment to renewables and the quote below sums it up nicely.


World Finance Magazine July/August issue 2013 pp. 158/9 ‘In January we offered possibly one of the lowest tariff for pv energy recorded in the world at a cost of 12cents per KWh. To offer a basis for comparison: to deliver this quality of electricity at this price using oil as a fuel, one would need to provide 3400 barrels of oil every day for the next 25 years at a price of $40 per barrel; an unimaginable subsidy when compared to the marked oil price of $90 to $110 per barrel…..


                   
The bad News


Germany is producing some 50% of its electricity with fossil fuel worse, most of it is coal (also radioactive) with some of these power station being the dirtiest in Europe. That’s as bad as it gets in particular as it is totally avoidable. While Germany has some of the very dirtiest, Germany has also some of the cleanest, most efficient coal powered plants in the world.


The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a huge long term problem that needs long term global solutions. Even if we find now a magical device producing energy without generating any CO2 and worse problems or stop all human activity we still all have to deal with the consequences such as changing weather patterns and everything which comes with it, inconveniencing some of us and causing devastation for many. Call a worldwide competition to find a solution dealing with our surplus of CO2 and we will get somewhere. Perhaps trees will do the trick, a bit less deforestation? In the meantime we have to use energy more wisely, prepare better and help those worse affected.


Some of the renewable energy sources used in Germany use wood from sustainable forests in Canada which has to be shipped for thousands of miles, this still better than shipping oil or other fossil fuels around the globe with all the consequences we know so well.


Wind turbines are not more ugly or dangerous than train lines, motorways, airports, Pylons or power stations all of them impact visually and kill, not only wild live.


Unfortunately resentment against renewables is stirred on many different levels. People using renewable are made responsible for the fuel price increase, fuel poverty and so on and so on. When the British banking system was close to collapsing the government stepped in guaranteeing hundreds of billions, losing some £66 Billion, when the car industry suffered incentives were handed out towards a new car. How much did the government subsidise the coal mining, the shipbuilding, agriculture, fishery, the nuclear industry and importantly still does! Currently billions of pound sterling is spend per year dealing with the coal and nuclear heritage and unfortunately it looks like more billions will be spend by generations to come.


Poor short sighted energy policy creates fuel and general poverty not renewables.


The ugly news


Well, for a start none of the good news ever makes it into the headlines instead only the bad news. There is no balanced reporting, journalist or other personalities opinions are quoted and often these opinions are based on out of date info. Worse, opposition gets spied upon not only by undercover police and government agencies but by cooperation’s; activists who walk the walk get intimidated and criminalised.


The Deepwater Horizont’ accident in 2010 off the coast of America is costing BP some Billions of pound sterling which so far the company is paying for but the costs of the Fukushima disaster will be carried by the whole Japanese population for generations to come.


The operator of the nuclear plant (also in Britain) has only to pay the first millions not billions in case of an accident. Whenever we had nuclear accidents we get the explanations, justifications afterwards, Chernobyl happened because it was in Russia, Fukushima happened because…. What happened in Japan demonstrated how merciless nature can be but whereas most of the affected population were able to go back to rebuild the people of Fukushima can’t and no insurance or company is paying for this in any proportional way. The last Tsunami in Europe happened in the 17th Century wiping out Lisbon killing thousands of people, reaching the coast of England as a 2m wave. Who is saying that something like this can’t happen again? What about terrorism or again a series of very unfortunate events, no one person or company or nation will be able to live up to its responsibilities.


Even if we leave accidents out of the equation what do we do with all the waste? It was irresponsible to build the first nuclear power plants without knowing what to do with the waste. Committing to any more nuclear power while all we done so far is sinking the radioactive waste into the sea and storing it very improvised is beyond irresponsible. We are not only talking about spent fuel which can be reused (current rate in France 17%) but about pumps, pipes; water etc. not at last the reactor itself all totally deadly radioactive for thousands of years.


How much money has been spend over many generations in so many different countries to make the dream work, having endless amount of energy with no risks.. Why imitate the sun when you have one? The sun is radiating more energy onto earth than humanity will ever be able to consume, surely we could if we were all wasteful enough. This is also true for nuclear, even if we plaster the whole world with them if we are all as wasteful as some of us today we will not have enough energy for all.


My main concern is that Politian who make decisions on our behalf don’t even know half the facts and have been fed glossy brochures full of science mixed with wishful thinking. That’s why I promote this petition as I believe only an enquiry will deliver the facts needed to make future proof decision.


 
Conclusion:


Saying no to nuclear power is neither an emotional nor an ideological response but evidence based please look at the facts.


Going for renewables reduced CO2, betters the trade balance, increases competitiveness and creates a balanced, diverse economy with decent jobs for many.


Above all energy saving combined with sensible research and the responsible use of all available resources is the key for a brighter future.


Sources consulted:


‘International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information System’



‘Nuclear Energy Statistics’, September 2013’ House of Commons Library



‘Public Accounts Committee - Twenty-Fourth Report  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing risk at Sellafield’


 
‘Recent facts about photovoltaic in Germany, September 2013’,



‘The World Nuclear Status Report 2013’,






The World Bank



The Guardian


 
Evening Standard
 

Monday, 24 February 2014

‘For your consideration’

 
Over Christmas I read some astonishing news. A paper which shall remain unnamed did the usual bash on renewables and this time it was wind. According to reliable sources taxpayers who already subsidies electricity generated through wind turbines, paid during the recent storm to have the turbines turned off adding further injury to the insult. A spokesperson for the national grid was quoted saying that the system needed to be balanced and there were no further explanations. What’s going on?
 
Wind turbines produce electricity day in day out and in windy conditions a lot more than usual. The owner/operator of the turbine gets paid for the electricity produced but because the electricity grid cannot take that extra power during storms the turbines have to shut down. This results in a loss of income for the operator and so the loss of income is claimed back, resulting in the electricity consumer paying for none generated electricity. Quite grotesque.
 
This situation could have been easily avoided if the national grid would have been upgraded in the last decade/s.
 
It’s known that in order to utilise renewables to their full potential, in particular solar and wind the electric grid has to be able to distribute the electricity quickly and efficiently. Somewhere the sun will shine or the wind blow and somewhere else somebody is needing that electricity. Unfortunately through the lack of investment, a Wild West style capitalism of the ugliest form and a government run and controlled by lobbyists the national grid was never upgraded to take the electricity generation fluctuations which can come with some established renewables.  In fact it is in the interest of the energy generating and supply lobby to keep the grid ‘as it is’ old and tired rather than upgrading it in order to maintain their monopoly.
 
In a nutshell, the British government has successfully manoeuvred Britain into a position where multinational cooperation’s can dictate the conditions of engagement.
 
The truly incredible and surreal nuclear deal, (just like out of the Simpsons) is such an example and shows either utter incompetence or total corruption but little in between.
 
 How can it be that in times of austerity tens of billions of pounds is made available for HS2 when the money would be better spent on upgrading the national grid. How can it be that while the top tax rate is reduced, benefits for the poorer are cut. Sorry, poverty is not a life choice but a series of very unfortunate events and mostly outside the influence of the victims. Poor and in particular short-sighted energy policy and/or bad governance are to blame for fuel or general poverty but not renewables nor the 'green crap'.
 
 What will happen in Britain from now until 2023 is anyone’s guess. One day this government is the greenest ever, the next it’s subsidising the construction of a nuclear station with clapped-out technology. It’s not the promised future of Thorium or nuclear fusion no it’s a design going back decades with a thermal efficiency of 35%. What’s happens to the remaining 65%? Well its hot air and hot water which cannot be utilised heating the already warming planet further.
 
 As proven over the last so many decades the nuke lobby manages again and again to mix wishful thinking with some science and sell that science fiction in glossy brochures to the government. Here we are in 2014 and if it all goes to plan we will subsidise this nuke folly with billions in exchange for some electricity. How much exactly will we get for our money is anyone’s guess? To put it in perspective, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 Terawatt hours of energy in 2012. That was one-third less of electricity generated in Germany from renewables installed between 2002 and 2012. Let me put this another way, over 10 years enough generating capacity from renewables was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh that’s some 37% of Britain’s electricity needs, leaving the 64TWh the 16 nukes produced well behind. The rush to renewables in Germany has also contributed to the relative health of the German economy and different to Britain has had less black outs and is exporting plenty if electricity. Different to any other form of electricity generations the costs of renewables have steadily declined while all others gone up and that will not change.
 
Against the general perception Germany is still producing more electricity with nukes than Britain and at its height three times as much as Britain now. Germany tried really hard to make the dream work, having endless amounts of energy with no risk building some 36 nuclear power stations, many of them in ground-breaking designs. Germany has also quite a few sites where nuclear waste is stored and Gorleben, Morsleben and Asse jump to mind. The latter two were supposed to be perfectly safe ‘Entlager,’ (end stations) but they turned out to be not so safe consequently the search for a perfect last resting place for the nuclear waste goes on. 
 
The reason why Germany is phasing out nuclear is not because the tree-hugger community has taken over the government but it’s the realisation in all political spectra that nuclear does not work and that renewables bring huge benefits. 
 
The Greens, whilst in power in Germany put a political framework into place to encourage electricity generation from renewables. After Fukushima Merkel went back to the nuclear phase out policy the Greens negotiated but different to the Greens still subsidising with vast amounts of fossil fuel and sadly in particular German coal.
 
Back in Britain just when you thought 2013 had a bad ending in terms of energy and things could not get any worse, the government decided to go full steam ahead with fracking. The catalogue of problems which come with this technique are very well known, proven and still the government is sleepwalking into the next disaster just like with nuclear. Who is profiting?
 
Fracking as well as nuclear makes economically and ecologically no sense, well it makes perfect sense for a few lucky ones but not for the majority of humanity nor the environment. Subsidising fracking in the form of tax breaks, subsidising nukes by milking every electricity costumer is simply insulting. We have been throwing money after banks, getting little in return and now nukes and shale gas, we are not only gambling our own but also our children and their children’s future creating a catalogue of very difficult problems.
 
What makes matters worse that we can choose much better well proven and established technologies. We are fortunate today more than ever before being in the position to harvest affordable, plentiful energy, create substantial employment, economic growth and prosperity for many rather than just a few.
 
Still, despite all the odds energy generation from renewables have increased at a tremendous speed in Britain, hopefully more and more people will see the benefits renewables bring and the press will nourish a more constructive debate on these matters.
 

 

Monday, 4 November 2013

If all goes according to plan we will have a nuclear power plant in 10 years with a capacity of 16GW. Exactly how much electricity will we be getting? Well, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 Twh in 2012.
Putting that in perspective between 2002 and 2012 enough capacity from renewables was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by 92 Twh making a total of 136TWh, that’s about 37% of Britain’s electricity needs. By the way the German economy, public finances, unemployment and the standard of living are no worse than that in Britain or France. So it’s not surprising that in the recent election neither the conservatives nor any other established parties wanted to reverse the commitment to renewables.

Back to Britain, what will happen from now till 2023 is anyone’s guess particularly with our current governments energy policy. The greenest government ever one day, giving vast subsidies for foreign investors for some electricity and the next blaming renewables for the high electricity costs. Never mind the huge profits the big utility companies make year after year after paying directors and management vast salaries, never mind the vast subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear, never mind Fukushima, never mind the nuclear waste we managed so far by dumping it into the sea and storing it in a rather improvised manner.


In a nutshell, the Government has failed in spectacular manner to encourage renewable energy generation and distribution and instead is increasing our dependents on fossil fuel.  
The good the bad and the ugly

an update on renewable, fossil and nuclear energy/electricity generation

The following article has been written using the most up to date credible information and the relevant bibliography with hyperlinks can be found at the end.

The good News

In 2012 Renewable in Germany generated net 25.8% of Germany’s electricity, that’s the equivalent of 37% of Britain electricity needs. On sunny days photovoltaic solar alone produces some 40% of Germany’s electricity using pv systems which have an efficiency of between 12-15%. Consider the power increase if all existing systems would be upgraded to commercially available 20% or in a few years to 40% efficient pv. Only this September scientists at the Fraunhofer institute announced that a solar cell with an efficiency of 44.7% was produced and something like this to be on the market by 2020.

Energy provision from Renewable sources has grown in the last 10 years at a tremendous speed and between 2002 and 2012 enough capacity was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh. Better still, if the overall energy production is included, renewables produced some 314TWh in 2012, almost a 200TWh increase since 2002 saving enormous amounts of CO2. This is an outstanding achievement because all infrastructures from roads to electric grid connection had to be built from scratch. Demonstrating clearly that the energy storage issue is artificially inflated and what's needed is an electric grid which can distribute the power quickly.

Putting this in perspective all 16 nuclear reactors in Britain produced in 2012 some 64TWh, the all historic height was 90TWh receiving vast amount of subsidies, still do and leaving us with catalogue of problems.

Germany which was very much pro nuclear and hostile towards renewables managed to build  36 reactors over 30 years generating at its peak some 170TWh, still below what renewables achieved in a third of this time.

France the dream land of most nuclear fans built since 1959 some 70 reactors and the 58 operational ones produced net 405Twh in 2012 of electricity/energy. Even if we generous and divide that amount of electricity by only three decades renewables outperform nuclear power in terms of energy generation.

In the nineteen eighties  at the height of the hostility against renewables in Germany an enormous wind turbine was build, key people at the time stated that the sole purpose of GROWIAN was to demonstrate that renewables cannot produce any meaningful energy, are uneconomical and that Germany had to invest into nukes, and so it did. Even today there are many using the same principle and examples can be found everywhere. Councils putting very expensive marine pv solar&wind combination between shady trees is one of them.

Against all the odds the Green party, together with the Social democrats took office between 1998 and 2005 and things changed quickly. The greens negotiated an orderly shutdown of all nukes whilst at the same time providing a framework to encourage energy generation with renewables. When the Conservatives took office the nukes lifeline got extended again and after Fukushima reversed back to the green shutdown policy, but now costing Germany dearly in fines as it broke the contracts signed by the conservatives when these took office.

In 2012 renewables provided in Germany some 350k decent jobs in engineering, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and so on. In 1998 renewables in Germany provided only 5% of electricity. Since Germany has invested heavily into renewables and the economy, public finances, unemployment and the standard of living are no worse than that of Britain or France. Japan had before Fukushima over 50 nukes on the grid and has been for the last 20-25 odd years in an economic slump. Japan has also one of the highest debt ratio of developing countries in 2011 nearly 3 times that of Britain, France or Germany.
 
Renewables offers what nukes can’t, power to the people and true democracy, because responsibility and income can be spread between many with only little risks for humanity now and in the future, something which cannot be said about nuclear power.

For all these reasons it is not surprising that in the recent election neither the conservatives nor any other established parties wanted to reverse the commitment to renewables and the quote below sums it up nicely.

World Finance Magazine July/August issue 2013 pp. 158/9 ‘In January we offered possibly one of the lowest tariff for pv energy recorded in the world at a cost of 12cents per KWh. To offer a basis for comparison: to deliver this quality of electricity at this price using oil as a fuel, one would need to provide 3400 barrels of oil every day for the next 25 years at a price of $40 per barrel; an unimaginable subsidy when compared to the marked oil price of $90 to $110 per barrel…..

                   
The bad News

Germany is producing some 50% of its electricity with fossil fuel worse, most of it is coal (also radioactive) with some of these power station being the dirtiest in Europe. That’s as bad as it gets in particular as it is totally avoidable. While Germany has some of the very dirtiest, Germany has also some of the cleanest, most efficient coal powered plants in the world.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a huge long term problem that needs long term global solutions. Even if we find now a magical device producing energy without generating any CO2 and worse problems or stop all human activity we still all have to deal with the consequences such as changing weather patterns and everything which comes with it, inconveniencing some of us and causing devastation for many. Call a worldwide competition to find a solution dealing with our surplus of CO2 and we will get somewhere. Perhaps trees will do the trick, a bit less deforestation? In the meantime we have to use energy more wisely, prepare better and help those worse affected.

Some of the renewable energy sources used in Germany use wood from sustainable forests in Canada which has to be shipped for thousands of miles, this still better than shipping oil or other fossil fuels around the globe with all the consequences we know so well.

Wind turbines are not more ugly or dangerous than train lines, motorways, airports, Pylons or power stations all of them impact visually and kill, not only wild live.

Unfortunately resentment against renewables is stirred on many different levels. People using renewable are made responsible for the fuel price increase, fuel poverty and so on and so on. When the British banking system was close to collapsing the government stepped in guaranteeing hundreds of billions, losing some £66 Billion, when the car industry suffered incentives were handed out towards a new car. How much did the government subsidise the coal mining, the shipbuilding, agriculture, fishery, the nuclear industry and importantly still does! Currently billions of pound sterling is spend per year dealing with the coal and nuclear heritage and unfortunately it looks like more billions will be spend by generations to come.

Poor short sighted energy policy creates fuel and general poverty not renewables.

The ugly news

Well, for a start none of the good news ever makes it into the headlines instead only the bad news. There is no balanced reporting, journalist or other personalities opinions are quoted and often these opinions are based on out of date info. Worse, opposition gets spied upon not only by undercover police and government agencies but by cooperation’s; activists who walk the walk get intimidated and criminalised.

The Deepwater Horizont’ accident in 2010 off the coast of America is costing BP some Billions of pound sterling which so far the company is paying for but the costs of the Fukushima disaster will be carried by the whole Japanese population for generations to come.

The operator of the nuclear plant (also in Britain) has only to pay the first millions not billions in case of an accident. Whenever we had nuclear accidents we get the explanations, justifications afterwards, Chernobyl happened because it was in Russia, Fukushima happened because…. What happened in Japan demonstrated how merciless nature can be but whereas most of the affected population were able to go back to rebuild the people of Fukushima can’t and no insurance or company is paying for this in any proportional way. The last Tsunami in Europe happened in the 17th Century wiping out Lisbon killing thousands of people, reaching the coast of England as a 2m wave. Who is saying that something like this can’t happen again? What about terrorism or again a series of very unfortunate events, no one person or company or nation will be able to live up to its responsibilities.

Even if we leave accidents out of the equation what do we do with all the waste? It was irresponsible to build the first nuclear power plants without knowing what to do with the waste. Committing to any more nuclear power while all we done so far is sinking the radioactive waste into the sea and storing it very improvised is beyond irresponsible. We are not only talking about spent fuel which can be reused (current rate in France 17%) but about pumps, pipes; water etc. not at last the reactor itself all totally deadly radioactive for thousands of years.

How much money has been spend over many generations in so many different countries to make the dream work, having endless amount of energy with no risks.. Why imitate the sun when you have one? The sun is radiating more energy onto earth than humanity will ever be able to consume, surely we could if we were all wasteful enough. This is also true for nuclear, even if we plaster the whole world with them if we are all as wasteful as some of us today we will not have enough energy for all.

My main concern is that Politian who make decisions on our behalf don’t even know half the facts and have been fed glossy brochures full of science mixed with wishful thinking. That’s why I promote this petition as I believe only an enquiry will deliver the facts needed to make future proof decision.

 
Conclusion:

Saying no to nuclear power is neither an emotional nor an ideological response but evidence based please look at the facts.

Going for renewables reduced CO2, betters the trade balance, increases competitiveness and creates a balanced, diverse economy with decent jobs for many.

Above all energy saving combined with sensible research and the responsible use of all available resources is the key for a brighter future.

Sources consulted:

‘International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information System’


‘Nuclear Energy Statistics’, September 2013’ House of Commons Library


‘Public Accounts Committee - Twenty-Fourth Report  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing risk at Sellafield’

 
‘Recent facts about photovoltaic in Germany, September 2013’,


‘The World Nuclear Status Report 2013’,




The World Bank


The Guardian

 
Evening Standard
 
If all goes according to plan Britain will have a nuclear power plant in 10 years. What exactly will we get for our money? To put it in perspective, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 terawatts of energy in 2012. That was one-third less of the amount that Germany produced from renewables in the same year. Germany has forged ahead with the expansion of its renewable energy sector to a point where it could now meet over one-third of Britain’s electricity needs: demonstrating that green energies can be built to meet our energy demands now and in the future.
 
What will happen in Britain from now until 2023 is anyone’s guess. One day this government is the greenest ever, the next it’s over-paying foreign investors for the construction of a nuclear station with clapped-out technology. Never mind the huge profits the big utility companies make year after year, never mind the vast subsidies paid for fossil fuels, never mind Fukushima, never mind the nuclear waste polluting our oceans.