Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
UK Government pushes forward nuclear plans
Peter Walker and agencies, Guardian
The government is to push ahead with proposals to build a new generation of commercially built nuclear power stations, the industry secretary, Alistair Darling, told parliament this afternoon.
“We have reached the preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new nuclear power stations,” Mr Darling told the Commons. Ministers would consult on the “significant role” new nuclear power stations could play in cutting greenhouse emissions and diversifying power supplies, he said, introducing the government’s new energy white paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge.
This document additionally lays out a series of commitments on energy efficiency and other green measures, among them a target of 15% for the amount of electricity produced using renewable sources by 2015.
(23 May 2007)
Related from the Guardian:
“A transparent and inclusive consultation process is vital”
How Britain generates its power
The government’s carbon Greenplan
Financial Times
“The British government is proud to announce the creation of Green-plan. As our energy white paper, published yesterday, makes clear, the only way to tackle climate change is central schemes and targets for everything from light bulbs to biomass. We need a Low Carbon Transport Innovation Strategy. We need a succession of five-year plans. We need Greenplan, modelled on the old Soviet economic planners at Gosplan, to take control.”
Or almost. Yesterday’s white paper contained some sensible – if rather vague – stuff about energy security and a new generation of nuclear power plants. But it also contained plans, some decided by the European Union, to micromanage exactly how and where carbon emissions will be cut.
The problem for target-setting central planners, be they Gosplan or an imaginary Greenplan, is information. The government knows it wants to reduce carbon emissions. But it has no idea whether it will be cheaper to do so by generating renewable energy or making cars more fuel efficient or insulating attics. Whatever it mandates is unlikely to be the cheapest solution.
…There is a better way. The government should set a uniform price per tonne of carbon emitted. By means of taxes or, where necessary, emissions trading schemes it should try to ensure that carbon costs the same whether it comes from a coal-fired power station, an uninsulated roof or out of a car exhaust pipe.
Once that is achieved the market will decide where it is cheapest and easiest to reduce emissions.
(24 May 2007)
Britain ‘will run out of power’ unless it takes nuclear option
Lewis Smith, Times (UK)
The Government set out its vision for the future of energy supply yesterday and insisted that nuclear must remain part of the mix.
The twin threats of power shortages in a decade’s time and climate change mean Britain must embrace the nuclear option, said Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary.
He said the most likely locations for new nuclear plants are on existing sites. A report commissioned by the Government, and released without fanfare yesterday, recommended four sites in southern Britain as the most suitable.
Proposals for a new generation of nuclear reactors were contained within the energy White Paper published yesterday and in a separate consultation document.
(24 May 2007)
Nuclear disempowerment
Tony Juniper, Guardian
By plumping for nuclear power, the government is pre-empting proper public debate on how we answer the need for green energy.
—-
…Expecting that there will be serious public hostility to new nuclear site proposals, the government this week not only published an energy white paper but has begun in earnest a parallel attempt to write public participation out of the official planning process. By passing responsibility to a commission of “experts”, the government can push forward its pro-nuclear ambitions (and new airport expansion and motorway building) through ending the rights of local communities to have a say in decisions that will have profound impacts on them. This is a serious shift toward central planning and will have very serious consequences for both our environment and democracy.
Climate change is the most serious challenge facing humankind, but it will not be successfully addressed through the imposition of technology or through the erosion of democratic participation. We need to promote public debate about the choices we have and to gain as much consensus as we can as to the way forward.
(24 May 2007)
How to stop the lights going out in a dangerous world
Tony Blair, The Times (UK)
The right energy policies will secure our future
—-
…We also face a serious challenge in securing our energy supplies. Britain goes from being 80 per cent self-sufficient to having to import almost all our gas and more than half of our oil by 2020. Increasingly we will be required to look at importing energy from less stable parts of the world, and will be much more exposed to the international energy markets at precisely the same time that emerging economies, such as China and India, are increasing their energy consumption.
As if that were not enough, we are now faced with countries such as Russia, who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy. Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence.
…Our choice is not between growth or non-growth – it is between high carbon growth and low carbon growth. New technology is critical to this.
…We must also secure cleaner energy supplies. Renewable electricity from wind, wave and solar power could supply up to a fifth of our electricity by 2020. We will encourage the design of energy-efficient homes. We will set out how we will use more biofuels and hybrid cars, and encourage people to use them. We will support the development of coal and gas-fired power stations fitted with technology that cuts emissions by up to 90 per cent.
We also need to consider what role nuclear power can play as a low-carbon source of electricity
(23 May 2007)
What’s the meltdown price for uranium?
John Partridge, Globe & Mail
Add another certainty to death and taxes: Barring some sort of nuclear catastrophe or an instant, massive influx of new supply, the price of uranium oxide is going to continue its shocking rise for now.
The question for the fissile metal’s producers, and for investors seeking to cash in on the gains, is how high can it get before its key nuclear power plant consumers defer plans to add reactors, or try to cut consumption at existing plants, as they wait for much delayed new mine supplies to come on stream and bring the price back down?
Since bottoming out at just $7 (U.S.) a pound in December, 2001, the “yellowcake” spot price has climbed almost exponentially, hitting $40 a pound about a year ago and a startling $120 a pound last month. This means it is very close to shattering the record high of $43 it hit back in 1979, which, adjusted for inflation, is the equivalent of $122.42 today. Already, some producers are predicting it could rise to $250 some time next year.
Not that many utilities will have to pay that much for it. The vast majority buy under long-term contracts years in advance at prices well below those of the spot market
(18 May 2007)
