Greening the WFTU
There are plenty of global eco-manifestos from greens of various sorts. Here is a recent one- for May Day- from global reds: from the ‘General Principles of the World Federation of Trade Unions for the global environmental problems’:
‘It is common knowledge that over the last fifty years the environment, both in planetary and regional level, is receiving increasing pressure from the way the productive forces develop in the conditions of the imperialist new order. The consequences of these pressure are more and more intense for the working class, the farmers, the poor and middle strata of the city, in other words, the majority of the planet’s inhabitants, whether they belong in the developed or the developing countries. Their root cause is none other than the very nature of the exploitative system. On the one hand, the number of workers who participate in the production of wealth is increasing. On the other hand, the number of exploiters who accumulate in their hands the means of production and appropriate the wealth is decreasing, which as they procure to increase their wealth just for themselves.
The relentless hunt for super profits by transnational monopolies causes enormous disasters to the planet, condemns the one third of the planet to starve and live (if they survive) in miserable conditions. Lack of protection against natural disasters, global warming, reduction of the protective ozone shield, depletion of natural recourses, forest destruction, desertification, genetically modified organisms, nuclear and toxic waste, dangerous nutritional dependence on transnational monopolies, air pollution, destruction of ecosystems and pollution of the natural reserves, lack of access to clear water and also military invasions and civil conflicts incitement, are only a few of the results of the imperialist new order. And it could not be otherwise, since for capital and its political exponents, the environment, the planet (in general the “Mother Earth”, as the native people of Latin America called it), is nothing else than an abstraction, a source for looting of the finite natural resources of the planet [and] the natural space in which they carry on their uncontrollable (as it seems) activities and discard their waste’.
It adds ‘Amidst the sharpening of the capitalist crisis, the catastrophic activity of capital against the environment is increasing as well, and planetary problems sharpen because: the inter-imperialist contrasts become stronger, in search for new markers or redistribution of those already existing [and] the accumulated earnings of capital seek to find exits, new fields to invest in, leading towards further commercialization of a growing range of activities and of more public social goods and resources’. But ‘Imperialism, capital, monopolies and the governments that serve them do not play without an opponent. They have against them the working class, the poor and the middle farmers, the self-employed, the small business owners, the working intelligentsia in the developed and developing countries, the vital interests of which are identical with the need for a harmonious cohabitation between people and nature.’
The WFTU considers ‘the socialist way of production an important tool in our hands,’ enabling us to ‘understand a completely different man–nature relationship, as well as the tools to materialize it.’ They look to a planned economy based on the belief that the ‘long-term combined satisfaction of the people’s needs are the only stable basis for a harmonic man and environment symbiosis, for their common progress and development’. Sharpen you dialectical skills on that!
www.wftucentral.org/wp-content/wftu_congress-documents_for-the-global-environmental-problems_2011_en_esp_fr.pdf
Most on the left will no doubt agree with Kolya Abramsky who, in a recent paper, argued that common or collective ownership and control of relevant productive capacity, including land, raw materials, energy resources and infrastructure, as well as knowledge and technologies is a key issue. However, the issue goes well beyond UK concerns with Clause 4 and the like. He says ‘taking collective control over means of production in core countries is necessary, but not sufficient. The problem is these means of production should not really exist, in the form that they currently do, or in the places that they currently do, in the first place. As generators of wealth within capitalist relations, they are, essentially, the accumulated stolen wealth and labour of generations of workers (waged and unwaged) in the core countries and, especially, workers and communities in the southern countries.
He adds ‘ In order to address this, and to break the uneven technological development, especially in relation to production of means of production, a highly targeted non-commercial technology transfer of renewable energy technologies based on reparations is necessary. However, collective control of production in north is necessary in order to give a serious material basis for the reparations and technology transfer, since this process would require huge transfers of material wealth and it makes no sense to even conceive of this being possible to implement within a market based on private accumulation.’
From 'Beyond Copenhagen: Common Ownership, Reparations, Degrowth and Renewable Energy Technology Transfer', Kolya Abramsky. See his book ‘Sparking a World- wide Energy Revolution’ (AK Press) www.akpress.org
And also www.oekosozialismus.net/The+Crises+of+Capitalism.+Saral+Sarkar.+2011.pdf
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
AT@40: what was said
AT @40 Conference in London in March marked 40 years since the first big ‘Alternative Technology’ (AT) conference at UCL in 1972. That had led to a complaint by one participant that “I came here to talk about windmills not politics.” The AT@40 gathering at the AA was also mostly about politics, but with older and maybe wiser participants.
The oldies certainly laid out the stall again well, with Peter Harper (who invented the term ‘AT’) taking us through the way the idea had emerged in an amazing conceptual tour, effectively a prequel, and Godfrey Boyle (who did much to promote AT over the years) looking at how it then developed and where it was going: it was getting bigger but we ought to stick with the subsiduarity principle. I also got my oar in, but then readers will be familiar with my views! Perhaps more refreshing was the paper by (relative newbie!) Stephen Peake, putting it all in a macro context. Was AT all about hard core decentralism? Is that where we are really headed? If not, is it where we can and should go?
There were some interesting papers circulated at the meeting and talk of producing a book based on it. But as a taster, the paper from Catherine Forrester noted that when the AT idea was looked at by the Lucas Aerospace workers, who were developing a plan for alternative socially useful work, they were unwilling to think about producing what one described as ‘gimmicks for individual architect built houses’ or ‘playthings for the middle class’. And she also notes that were unimpressed by the rhetoric of parts of the AT movement: ‘They just repeat the clichés of condemnation of an advanced technological society. In effect, they give us the choice of going off to the mountains [or] onto the dole queue’.
Maybe a bit aggressive- the AT movement did try to develop community-scaled projects. And as Forrester concludes, ‘both projects were expressions of the same phenomenon of groups presenting a radical socio-technical critique and attempting to create prefigurative spaces in which alternative social forms could exist through an alternative technology. They exhibited a deeply political understanding of current and potential technology, in marked contrast to the purely technical nature of the ‘alternative technology’ we recognize today. The term has shifted from describing a technology that will enable an alternative society, to a technology which provides an alternative means to enable current social structures to be maintained.’
Fast forwarding back to AT@40, David Dickson gave an interesting account of how he came to write the seminal book ‘Alternative Technology’ all those years ago. Its original title was ‘the Politics of technical change’, but ‘AT’ had become a buzz word so the publisher wanted it to be to main title! He had been, and still was, a bit ambivalent about the term ‘AT’. His analysis reflected the then current view on the left that the nature of existing science and technology was shaped by existing and historical power relations, and needed to be challenged. Faith in science had certainly been dented- it seemed to offer increasing threats- but there were still promises. The emerging ‘social constructionist’ view implicitly implied that there could and should be alternative scientific and technological practices, leading to new outcomes. But was AT an (or the) example? It was still too early to say, he thought- that would be up to historians to decide!
AT@40 wasn’t all about (old) ideas, or just an autopsy of AT. It still lives! It was good to have practical engineering inputs from Derek Taylor on how wind energy had emerged and was still was developing, and from Peter Fraenkel who reported on the various AT projects he had pioneered from the 1970s onwards, leading up (in scale) to the hyper successful 1.2MW SeaGen marine current turbine. While oldies like this were still clearly at it, Trystan Lea provided a good input on some new ICT directions now emerging that should ensure that ideas can spread and be used effectively- Open Source Sustainable Technology. See http://openenergymonitor.org
There were many other fascinating inputs and some interesting discussions amongst the 50 or so people attending. How did we deal with the current success of alternative energy ('going straight’ Peter Raine ex-CAT); what was the role of local initiatives and community groups (Adrian Smith, by video, and John LeCorney, www.syec.co.uk) and local councils (Martin Fodor from Bristol); ending up where we started by asking, does it all add up to a challenge to how technology is developed (Matt Paskins from Imperial College - relaying ideas from Catherine Forrester, who sadly couldn’t be there). Micheal Sealey gave an interesting historical account of the multi-faceted activities of one 70's pioneer, Kit Pedler, sadly no longer with us.
However, the survivors and the new adherents to the cause, still look like they have more to offer, so AT@40 definately wasn’t a wake. Even for Renew the AT journal I edit! Although as Tam Dougan, its co-ordinator, noted, it was ending pdf distribution, in its soon to be revamped web guise, it will still try to relay what happens next!
The above is from Renew 197, forthcoming: www.natta-renew.org.
There will be a fuller review in Renew 198
The oldies certainly laid out the stall again well, with Peter Harper (who invented the term ‘AT’) taking us through the way the idea had emerged in an amazing conceptual tour, effectively a prequel, and Godfrey Boyle (who did much to promote AT over the years) looking at how it then developed and where it was going: it was getting bigger but we ought to stick with the subsiduarity principle. I also got my oar in, but then readers will be familiar with my views! Perhaps more refreshing was the paper by (relative newbie!) Stephen Peake, putting it all in a macro context. Was AT all about hard core decentralism? Is that where we are really headed? If not, is it where we can and should go?
There were some interesting papers circulated at the meeting and talk of producing a book based on it. But as a taster, the paper from Catherine Forrester noted that when the AT idea was looked at by the Lucas Aerospace workers, who were developing a plan for alternative socially useful work, they were unwilling to think about producing what one described as ‘gimmicks for individual architect built houses’ or ‘playthings for the middle class’. And she also notes that were unimpressed by the rhetoric of parts of the AT movement: ‘They just repeat the clichés of condemnation of an advanced technological society. In effect, they give us the choice of going off to the mountains [or] onto the dole queue’.
Maybe a bit aggressive- the AT movement did try to develop community-scaled projects. And as Forrester concludes, ‘both projects were expressions of the same phenomenon of groups presenting a radical socio-technical critique and attempting to create prefigurative spaces in which alternative social forms could exist through an alternative technology. They exhibited a deeply political understanding of current and potential technology, in marked contrast to the purely technical nature of the ‘alternative technology’ we recognize today. The term has shifted from describing a technology that will enable an alternative society, to a technology which provides an alternative means to enable current social structures to be maintained.’
Fast forwarding back to AT@40, David Dickson gave an interesting account of how he came to write the seminal book ‘Alternative Technology’ all those years ago. Its original title was ‘the Politics of technical change’, but ‘AT’ had become a buzz word so the publisher wanted it to be to main title! He had been, and still was, a bit ambivalent about the term ‘AT’. His analysis reflected the then current view on the left that the nature of existing science and technology was shaped by existing and historical power relations, and needed to be challenged. Faith in science had certainly been dented- it seemed to offer increasing threats- but there were still promises. The emerging ‘social constructionist’ view implicitly implied that there could and should be alternative scientific and technological practices, leading to new outcomes. But was AT an (or the) example? It was still too early to say, he thought- that would be up to historians to decide!
AT@40 wasn’t all about (old) ideas, or just an autopsy of AT. It still lives! It was good to have practical engineering inputs from Derek Taylor on how wind energy had emerged and was still was developing, and from Peter Fraenkel who reported on the various AT projects he had pioneered from the 1970s onwards, leading up (in scale) to the hyper successful 1.2MW SeaGen marine current turbine. While oldies like this were still clearly at it, Trystan Lea provided a good input on some new ICT directions now emerging that should ensure that ideas can spread and be used effectively- Open Source Sustainable Technology. See http://openenergymonitor.org
There were many other fascinating inputs and some interesting discussions amongst the 50 or so people attending. How did we deal with the current success of alternative energy ('going straight’ Peter Raine ex-CAT); what was the role of local initiatives and community groups (Adrian Smith, by video, and John LeCorney, www.syec.co.uk) and local councils (Martin Fodor from Bristol); ending up where we started by asking, does it all add up to a challenge to how technology is developed (Matt Paskins from Imperial College - relaying ideas from Catherine Forrester, who sadly couldn’t be there). Micheal Sealey gave an interesting historical account of the multi-faceted activities of one 70's pioneer, Kit Pedler, sadly no longer with us.
However, the survivors and the new adherents to the cause, still look like they have more to offer, so AT@40 definately wasn’t a wake. Even for Renew the AT journal I edit! Although as Tam Dougan, its co-ordinator, noted, it was ending pdf distribution, in its soon to be revamped web guise, it will still try to relay what happens next!
The above is from Renew 197, forthcoming: www.natta-renew.org.
There will be a fuller review in Renew 198
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Nuclear Power: UK out on a limb
While Germany has closed eight nuclear plants, the UK is busily trying to get eight new ones built. But it can’t do it alone. Fortuitously perhaps, France is keen to help. Indeed it could be the only way for the French nuclear industry to survive. A Franco-British Summit in Paris in February aimed to strengthened cooperation on civil nuclear energy between the two countries, with deals being announced in relation to EDF Energy's plans to construct two Areva’s European Pressurised-water Reactors (EPRs) at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Politically it was important for Cameron to show that there would be some UK jobs in an otherwise French led programme , and for Sarkozy it was vital, given the upcoming election, to show that new nuclear was still possible, even if only in the UK. The French Court of Auditors recently concluded that a new French reactor building progamme was unlikely to be fundable, so, if France wanted to keep its nuclear capacity at a similar level to that at present, the only option was to extend the life of some of the existing plants.
Meanwhile though, the French Socialist Party, which has been winning in the polls, wants to close 24 reactors, nearly half of France’s nuclear capacity, by 2025. Instead they will push ahead with renewables. If they win, then the UK- Franco alliance will seem rather odd and may not survive. But nonetheless, Areva and Rolls-Royce have it seems agreed on the UK input. Rolls-Royce is to manufacture reactor vessel internals, heat exchangers, accumulators, coolers and tanks, and provide engineering and technical services for the first of two EPR units to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Rolls-Royce said, "Once contracted, the work could be worth a total of £400 million in revenue to Rolls-Royce for the four EPRs currently planned by EDF Energy in the UK." EDF also plan two more at Sizewell.
However the Rolls contract has to be put in perspective. The total EDF/EPR programme will cost maybe €24 billion, given that the present estimated cost for the two much delayed units being built in France and Finland is around €6 billion each. And it far from certain if their UK programme will go ahead- EDF and Areva’s finances are looking decidedly strained.
Given the delays and cost over-run in Finland and France, the EPR is also looking a bit ropey, with press reports that EPR Avera may look to other versions of this basically upgraded PWR design for any future plants, like the version being developed in China. Longer term they may move to completely new technology, like Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration), a fourth generation liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactor. Rolls Royce have been invited to participate in that too.
The Astrid programme foresees a prototype operational by 2020 and ultimately aims for France to have in place all the necessary elements for industrial deployment of fast reactors starting from 2040. But who know what will actually happen. Technically it’s tough. France gave up with its Superphoenix Breeder years ago, so did the UK with its FBR at Dounreay. Japans Monju suffered a sodium fire and was shut. Certainly no-one has yet build a fast breeder that was viable commercially. And politically, it seems very unlikely for France to successfully revive this idea, given the recession and the changing politics- and the huge potential of renewables.
There are also large uncertainties in Japan. At present there are only three nuclear plants running, and they are scheduled to shut down in April for their annual inspections. However it is unclear if they, or any of the others, will be allowed to restart. Local municipal authorities have the final say in Japan, and they, like the population as a whole, are becoming increasingly anti nuclear. That is not surprising since the government has been trying to pass some of the vast clean-up cost for contamination from Fukushima on to them. The end result could be that Japan will become nuclear free by default.
That won’t happen in Germany until 2022, when the last of its nuclear plants closes, by which time three of Belgium’s 5 plants will have shut (the rest close in 2025) and it’s conceivably that some of the French reactors will also have closed, while some of the new UK reactors might have started up. What an odd situation- the UK out on a limb.
A then new report from the Energy Research Partnership/National Nuclear Lab suggests we could move on to have over 40GW of nuclear in place by 2050, including fast breeders! www.energyresearchpartnership.org.uk/nucleartechnologyroadmap
AT@40
If that’s all too gloomy, then come to AT@40, a conference at the Architectural Association in London on March 17th to mark forty years since the first big ‘Alternative Technology’ gathering at UCL in 1972. At that one disgruntled participant famously said ‘I came here to talk about wind mills, not politics’. They would hopefully be just as disappointed by AT@40.
You have to book in advance at:
https://mcs-notes2.open.ac.uk/QuickPay.nsf/Payment.xsp?ID=AT40
Politically it was important for Cameron to show that there would be some UK jobs in an otherwise French led programme , and for Sarkozy it was vital, given the upcoming election, to show that new nuclear was still possible, even if only in the UK. The French Court of Auditors recently concluded that a new French reactor building progamme was unlikely to be fundable, so, if France wanted to keep its nuclear capacity at a similar level to that at present, the only option was to extend the life of some of the existing plants.
Meanwhile though, the French Socialist Party, which has been winning in the polls, wants to close 24 reactors, nearly half of France’s nuclear capacity, by 2025. Instead they will push ahead with renewables. If they win, then the UK- Franco alliance will seem rather odd and may not survive. But nonetheless, Areva and Rolls-Royce have it seems agreed on the UK input. Rolls-Royce is to manufacture reactor vessel internals, heat exchangers, accumulators, coolers and tanks, and provide engineering and technical services for the first of two EPR units to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Rolls-Royce said, "Once contracted, the work could be worth a total of £400 million in revenue to Rolls-Royce for the four EPRs currently planned by EDF Energy in the UK." EDF also plan two more at Sizewell.
However the Rolls contract has to be put in perspective. The total EDF/EPR programme will cost maybe €24 billion, given that the present estimated cost for the two much delayed units being built in France and Finland is around €6 billion each. And it far from certain if their UK programme will go ahead- EDF and Areva’s finances are looking decidedly strained.
Given the delays and cost over-run in Finland and France, the EPR is also looking a bit ropey, with press reports that EPR Avera may look to other versions of this basically upgraded PWR design for any future plants, like the version being developed in China. Longer term they may move to completely new technology, like Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration), a fourth generation liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactor. Rolls Royce have been invited to participate in that too.
The Astrid programme foresees a prototype operational by 2020 and ultimately aims for France to have in place all the necessary elements for industrial deployment of fast reactors starting from 2040. But who know what will actually happen. Technically it’s tough. France gave up with its Superphoenix Breeder years ago, so did the UK with its FBR at Dounreay. Japans Monju suffered a sodium fire and was shut. Certainly no-one has yet build a fast breeder that was viable commercially. And politically, it seems very unlikely for France to successfully revive this idea, given the recession and the changing politics- and the huge potential of renewables.
There are also large uncertainties in Japan. At present there are only three nuclear plants running, and they are scheduled to shut down in April for their annual inspections. However it is unclear if they, or any of the others, will be allowed to restart. Local municipal authorities have the final say in Japan, and they, like the population as a whole, are becoming increasingly anti nuclear. That is not surprising since the government has been trying to pass some of the vast clean-up cost for contamination from Fukushima on to them. The end result could be that Japan will become nuclear free by default.
That won’t happen in Germany until 2022, when the last of its nuclear plants closes, by which time three of Belgium’s 5 plants will have shut (the rest close in 2025) and it’s conceivably that some of the French reactors will also have closed, while some of the new UK reactors might have started up. What an odd situation- the UK out on a limb.
A then new report from the Energy Research Partnership/National Nuclear Lab suggests we could move on to have over 40GW of nuclear in place by 2050, including fast breeders! www.energyresearchpartnership.org.uk/nucleartechnologyroadmap
AT@40
If that’s all too gloomy, then come to AT@40, a conference at the Architectural Association in London on March 17th to mark forty years since the first big ‘Alternative Technology’ gathering at UCL in 1972. At that one disgruntled participant famously said ‘I came here to talk about wind mills, not politics’. They would hopefully be just as disappointed by AT@40.
You have to book in advance at:
https://mcs-notes2.open.ac.uk/QuickPay.nsf/Payment.xsp?ID=AT40
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Fukushima still a mess
At the end of last year the Japanese authorities announced that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex's devastated reactors had been brought to ‘cold shutdown’, nine months or so after the disaster. But that just means that temperatures are now lower, not zero, thanks to continued cooling and reduced melted core activity levels. Much still needs to be done however to make the plants fully safe, and some reports say that, since no one really know exactly what happened inside the cores, it’s not clear how to move to the next set of issues, which include locating and stopping the flow of toxic water and removing the melted nuclear fuel and radioactive debris. Reuters noted that ‘Fukushima Daiichi is hemorrhaging enough radiated water each month to fill four Olympic-size swimming pools’ and quoted Hajimu Yamana, a professor of nuclear engineering at Kyoto University, who heads a government committee studying how to decommission Daiichi: ‘We don't know what we should do. After all, we don't even know what's happening inside the plant.’ But they are doing their best, although its been claimed that it will take thousands of people, and decades to clear it all up: TEPCO’s current plan is for final full decommissioning of the site by 2041-2051.
Possible US Impacts
Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman, writing in the International Journal of Health Services, (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp 47–64, 2012) note ‘an unusual rise in infant deaths in the northwestern United States for the 10-week period following the arrival of the airborne radio-active plume from the meltdowns at the Fukushima plants in northern Japan’. They say that ‘U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35% of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46% from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34% increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80%, compared with a previous 8.37% decrease.’ They add ‘Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected’. They say ‘these preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986.’ They suggest that while impacts in Japan will inevitably be much higher, the impact of exposure to low levels can also be significant elsewhere, especially for infants. See www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
This report was rubbished by the US nuclear lobby as being unreliable and based on dubious use of statistics and it may indeed be a little premature. Similarly the views of Prof. Chris Busby have also attracted a lot of criticism. He is ardent in his belief that low-level internally absorbed radioactive particles are more dangerous than is officially thought, but he has his detractors. Make up your own mind. For an overview see : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Christopher_Busby. And then his web site: www.llrc.org Also see www.greenaudit.org/ and www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnwcb-N1Ls Then, from a hostile but anonymous source: http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/
The most balanced overview of the issue I’ve seen is this:
www.safegrounds.com/radiation_risk.htm
Clearly there are conflicting views. Prof. Gerry Thomas at Imperial College told New Scientist that ‘not an awful lot got out of the plant – it was not Chernobyl.’
This seems wide of the mark. According to recent estimates, 770,000 terabequerels of radiation seeped from the plant in the week after the tsunami, more than double the initial estimate of 370,000 and about 20% of the official estimate for Chernobyl, rather than the 10% initially claimed. The amount of plutonium released is said to be 120 billion Becquerels, plus 7.6 trillion Becquerels of Neptunium-239. As neptunium-239 decays, it becomes plutonium-239.
http://enenews.com/leaked-tepco-report-120-billion-becquerels-of-plutonium
-7-6-trillion-becquerels-of-neptunium-released-in-first-100-hours-media-concealed-
risk-to-public
But even that may be an underestimate. Nature noted that the Norwegian Institute for Air Research found that, in fact, the accident released more total radioactive material than did Chernobyl, though some was in the form of xenon which is less harmful. Even so it claimed that caesium emissions were in total about half that from Chernobyl. www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html
It is perhaps not surprising then that there have been huge demos around the country, with a 60,000 strong gathering in Tokyo last Sept kicking off a whole spate of ‘Occupy Tokyo’ actions. In parallel, rail workers went on strike to resist the re-opening of the track from Hisanohama Station to Hirono Station, which they say is still highly contaminated by radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvxscUDKLXA
Their concern is that rolling stock is contaminated- its been passing through the area reguarly. The Trade Unions have become increasingly active, organising an International Workers rally: www.doro-chiba.org/english/english.htm
They are not the only ones worried about radioactive contamination. Local residents in Tokyo, unconvinced by government reassurances that all was well, have been measuring radiation levels themselves. The Tokyo citizens’ group, the Radiation Defense Project, which grew out of a Facebook discussion page, in consultation with the Yokohama-based Isotope Research Institute, collected soil samples from near their own homes and submitted them for testing. Some of the results were shocking: one sample collected under shrubs near a baseball field measured nearly 138,000 becquerels per sq meter. Of the 132 areas tested, 22 were above 37,000 becquerels per square meter, the level at which zones were considered contaminated at Chernobyl. Hot spots are of course different from full scale contamination as at Chernobyl, but Kiyoshi Toda, a radiation expert at Nagasaki University’s faculty of environmental studies and a medical doctor, told the New York Times ‘Radioactive substances are entering people’s bodies from the air, from the food. It’s everywhere. But the government doesn’t even try to inform the public how much radiation they’re exposed to.’
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/world/asia/radioactive-hot-spot…
Tokyo-point-to-wider-problems.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print
There’s also been strong opposition to radioactive debris being brought to Tokyo by train to be burned and dumped in Tokyo Bay: www.stopspreadingradiation.org
Studies by a US scientist Marco Kaltofen of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) of air filters from car air-conditioning units sent from Japan, evidently show high levels on contamination by hot particles in Tokyo. Studies have also been made of shoe laces gathered from kids in Japan- they pick up dust.
http://vimeo.com/31370998
Some of this may be unduly alarmist, and some may be unreliable, but given that few now trust official pronouncement, it’s understandable that fears mount and pressures for a nuclear phases out increase.
As you may have guessed from the above, I’m writing a book on Fukushima. Stay tuned!
Possible US Impacts
Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman, writing in the International Journal of Health Services, (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp 47–64, 2012) note ‘an unusual rise in infant deaths in the northwestern United States for the 10-week period following the arrival of the airborne radio-active plume from the meltdowns at the Fukushima plants in northern Japan’. They say that ‘U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35% of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46% from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34% increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80%, compared with a previous 8.37% decrease.’ They add ‘Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected’. They say ‘these preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986.’ They suggest that while impacts in Japan will inevitably be much higher, the impact of exposure to low levels can also be significant elsewhere, especially for infants. See www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
This report was rubbished by the US nuclear lobby as being unreliable and based on dubious use of statistics and it may indeed be a little premature. Similarly the views of Prof. Chris Busby have also attracted a lot of criticism. He is ardent in his belief that low-level internally absorbed radioactive particles are more dangerous than is officially thought, but he has his detractors. Make up your own mind. For an overview see : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Christopher_Busby. And then his web site: www.llrc.org Also see www.greenaudit.org/ and www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnwcb-N1Ls Then, from a hostile but anonymous source: http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/
The most balanced overview of the issue I’ve seen is this:
www.safegrounds.com/radiation_risk.htm
Clearly there are conflicting views. Prof. Gerry Thomas at Imperial College told New Scientist that ‘not an awful lot got out of the plant – it was not Chernobyl.’
This seems wide of the mark. According to recent estimates, 770,000 terabequerels of radiation seeped from the plant in the week after the tsunami, more than double the initial estimate of 370,000 and about 20% of the official estimate for Chernobyl, rather than the 10% initially claimed. The amount of plutonium released is said to be 120 billion Becquerels, plus 7.6 trillion Becquerels of Neptunium-239. As neptunium-239 decays, it becomes plutonium-239.
http://enenews.com/leaked-tepco-report-120-billion-becquerels-of-plutonium
-7-6-trillion-becquerels-of-neptunium-released-in-first-100-hours-media-concealed-
risk-to-public
But even that may be an underestimate. Nature noted that the Norwegian Institute for Air Research found that, in fact, the accident released more total radioactive material than did Chernobyl, though some was in the form of xenon which is less harmful. Even so it claimed that caesium emissions were in total about half that from Chernobyl. www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html
It is perhaps not surprising then that there have been huge demos around the country, with a 60,000 strong gathering in Tokyo last Sept kicking off a whole spate of ‘Occupy Tokyo’ actions. In parallel, rail workers went on strike to resist the re-opening of the track from Hisanohama Station to Hirono Station, which they say is still highly contaminated by radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvxscUDKLXA
Their concern is that rolling stock is contaminated- its been passing through the area reguarly. The Trade Unions have become increasingly active, organising an International Workers rally: www.doro-chiba.org/english/english.htm
They are not the only ones worried about radioactive contamination. Local residents in Tokyo, unconvinced by government reassurances that all was well, have been measuring radiation levels themselves. The Tokyo citizens’ group, the Radiation Defense Project, which grew out of a Facebook discussion page, in consultation with the Yokohama-based Isotope Research Institute, collected soil samples from near their own homes and submitted them for testing. Some of the results were shocking: one sample collected under shrubs near a baseball field measured nearly 138,000 becquerels per sq meter. Of the 132 areas tested, 22 were above 37,000 becquerels per square meter, the level at which zones were considered contaminated at Chernobyl. Hot spots are of course different from full scale contamination as at Chernobyl, but Kiyoshi Toda, a radiation expert at Nagasaki University’s faculty of environmental studies and a medical doctor, told the New York Times ‘Radioactive substances are entering people’s bodies from the air, from the food. It’s everywhere. But the government doesn’t even try to inform the public how much radiation they’re exposed to.’
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/world/asia/radioactive-hot-spot…
Tokyo-point-to-wider-problems.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print
There’s also been strong opposition to radioactive debris being brought to Tokyo by train to be burned and dumped in Tokyo Bay: www.stopspreadingradiation.org
Studies by a US scientist Marco Kaltofen of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) of air filters from car air-conditioning units sent from Japan, evidently show high levels on contamination by hot particles in Tokyo. Studies have also been made of shoe laces gathered from kids in Japan- they pick up dust.
http://vimeo.com/31370998
Some of this may be unduly alarmist, and some may be unreliable, but given that few now trust official pronouncement, it’s understandable that fears mount and pressures for a nuclear phases out increase.
As you may have guessed from the above, I’m writing a book on Fukushima. Stay tuned!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Markets rule
I was asked last year to write a commentary piece for the Shell-backed ‘visions’ web site, focusing on ‘how to support innovation’ in the sustainable energy field. I decided to take a wide-ranging approach. See what you think - from this slightly edited version:
"Given the urgency of responding to climate change, the move to low carbon energy seems unstoppable, even by the recession, but how do we best proceed to develop and deploy the appropriate technology?
When it comes to deciding on which technologies to support, and how best to support them, there is basically an ideological split in views.
While those from the left of centre see a key role for government direction and often tend to favour renewables over nuclear, right of centre free-market competition enthusiasts are basically after a system in which targets are removed and markets, perhaps suitably modified by carbon or energy taxes, decide on technologies – which to develop and which to deploy.
The trouble is that, as we have seen with the EU Emission Trading System, unless very tight carbon caps can be imposed (which is politically hard across the complete EU, especially in a recession), trading can be very lucrative (and even corrupted), but not many emissions are saved – it doesn’t drive many carbon saving projects and the ones it does drive are the easy, cheap, short term options. Market oriented support mechanisms, like the UK’s Renewables Obligation, similarly just focus on the ‘near market’ options- it doesn’t support the earlier innovative phase of technological development.
Those adhering to a more left of centre view, argue that you need targets and support mechanisms like Feed In Tariffs, to force the pace. And more support for less developed options for the next phase. That does mean you may incur extra costs, but they argue, that is an investment in the future- helping the technologies to mature and fall in price, so that overall costs then fall, at least in the longer term – especially given that then, less use need be made of increasingly expensive fossil and nuclear technology.
Oddly, given that it has been around for some decades, some free market enthusiast seem sanguine about providing support for developing nuclear technology, but sometimes argue that we should wait until renewables have developed more before supporting their wide diffusion. Failing that, free market enthusiasts may say that shale gas means that there is a new, rival, cheaper and plentiful option, which can be made lower carbon with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
Many governments, under pressure to cut emission and maintain security of supply, but also to cut costs, would clearly like that, but they are also aware the CCS may not work effectively or economically on a large scale, and that CCS, and certainly Shale gas extraction may not be socially accepted or environmentally sound .
So they hedge their bets – backing nuclear, renewables and CCS more or less equally, while recognising that each of them may be problematic, nuclear, especially so, after Fukushima. But the same is true for renewable – progress is seen as slow at least in some countries – even if, arguably, that is mainly to do with the way some governments have approached providing support.
The three pronged approach (renewables, nuclear, CCS) may be portrayed as more diverse and robust than having just one or two, spreading risk. Or you could see it as diluting efforts- you may end up developing none of them successfully. And it could be argued that, for example, renewables are not just one option, but several, so that, if you want diversity, they represent a better deal, at various scales and levels of development.
There are of course also some cross cutting technologies, moving away from just electricity production, like CHP/co-gen linked to district heating and possibly heat stores. That can be, and mostly is, fired using fossil fuels, but once established, heating networks can be supplied using biomass as a fuel and possibly also large solar arrays- there are some large solar -fed DH projects already in existence in N Europe, some linked to interseasonal heat stores. It is sometimes argued, usually by those on the centre left, that this more collective approach to heating and power production is better technically and economically than the market driven ‘microgen’ domestic scale technologies.
That division of opinion shapes priorities for research and innovation. Should we be focussing on new cheap micro generation devices that can be sold on the conventional market, or on infrastructure issues like heat transmission and storage?
It’s the same in the wider area of overall energy supply and use, although here the ideological fault lines can get a little tangled. For example, advocates of large scale HVDC supergrid links often argue that they can open up wider markets to more competition, while some microgen enthusiasts trade on the idea that consumers can, to a degree, become independent of wider markets and corporate control (as long as they buy the kit!). However, they may both agree on the need for smart meters, although they may not share the same perspective on who will benefit most, economically, from them – producers or consumers.
I’m not saying that all the big energy innovation and deployment issues of the day can be framed in simple ideological terms. Some are based on more general technical concerns and issues. For example, should we be focussing on electricity, as an easy to transmit but hard to store energy vector, or gas/hydrogen/heat, as easier to store, with the potential for negative carbon if biomass use is combined with CCS. But even here there are some possible political divergencies, although also some overlaps.
The ‘heat and pipe’ lobby stresses ideas like biogas production, the use of solar for hydrogen production, and on the utilisation side, district heating, and conversions and storage of excess electricity from wind generation as heat. The electricity lobby is backed by nuclear enthusiasts and by some renewable energy supporters, who see electricity as supplying heat and battery electric transport power. Interestingly though, much of the new nuclear R&D in the USA is aimed at developing new reactors for process heating for industry and maybe for hydrogen synfuel production, for vehicle use. And perhaps even for CHP/district heating. So we may be seeing radically different technologies being developed for maybe similar end uses.
How does my perhaps rather laboured attempt at an ideological account stand up when you look at specific countries/regions and their programmes? The USA has adopted a market driven approach, avoiding carbon caps and targets, while the EU has adopted the EU Emission Trading System, which is bureaucratically defined, but market driven. In addition, many EU countries have introduced Feed-In Tariffs (FiTs).
The FiTs have clearly worked to boost renewable – putting countries like Germany ahead of all others, initially, in the deployment of wind – at lower cost per kW and per kWh than market let mechanisms, like the UK’s Renewable Obligation (RO) quota/certificate trading system. Basically FiTs provided a more secure investment climate, making it easier and cheaper to finance projects, including innovative projects. So much so, that the UK has now introduced its own small FiT system and is planning to replace the RO entirely – although, in a backward looking move, possibly by a form of competitive Feed In Tariff system, with tenders/auctions. Whether that would work remains to be seen, but it certainly needs a new approach since, so far, using a market led approach, it has only developed its huge renewable resource very limited extent.
Free market advocates nevertheless point to the US, where renewable energy deployment has now begun to accelerate rapidly under what amounts to a free market ‘technology push’ approach – with the US taking the lead in wind power from Germany as a result.
However China has now taken the lead from them, in wind power especially. How do you characterise their approach? They use Feed-In Tariffs but also auctions, and they have state targets and central directives, but also commercial enterprises.
Back in the EU, the recession and concerns about passing high cost on to consumers, has led governments to throttle back on the FiTs, with caps and tariff cuts for PV solar. It has been argued, usually by free market advocates, that PV was perhaps not well suited to FiT support since it started out with high costs. The counter argument is that, if the FiT system had been left to work, costs would have fallen- cutting back was a failure of nerve, or worse, a reflection of a preference for nuclear.
And so the debate continues. Maybe the IPCC was right to say in its recent report on renewables that ‘There is no one-size-fits-all policy for encouraging renewables’. But equally, there do seem to be some ideological fault lines."
This didn’t seem to attract any comments. Maybe most of their contributors/ readers are on the other side of the fault line?
www.commentvisions.com/
"Given the urgency of responding to climate change, the move to low carbon energy seems unstoppable, even by the recession, but how do we best proceed to develop and deploy the appropriate technology?
When it comes to deciding on which technologies to support, and how best to support them, there is basically an ideological split in views.
While those from the left of centre see a key role for government direction and often tend to favour renewables over nuclear, right of centre free-market competition enthusiasts are basically after a system in which targets are removed and markets, perhaps suitably modified by carbon or energy taxes, decide on technologies – which to develop and which to deploy.
The trouble is that, as we have seen with the EU Emission Trading System, unless very tight carbon caps can be imposed (which is politically hard across the complete EU, especially in a recession), trading can be very lucrative (and even corrupted), but not many emissions are saved – it doesn’t drive many carbon saving projects and the ones it does drive are the easy, cheap, short term options. Market oriented support mechanisms, like the UK’s Renewables Obligation, similarly just focus on the ‘near market’ options- it doesn’t support the earlier innovative phase of technological development.
Those adhering to a more left of centre view, argue that you need targets and support mechanisms like Feed In Tariffs, to force the pace. And more support for less developed options for the next phase. That does mean you may incur extra costs, but they argue, that is an investment in the future- helping the technologies to mature and fall in price, so that overall costs then fall, at least in the longer term – especially given that then, less use need be made of increasingly expensive fossil and nuclear technology.
Oddly, given that it has been around for some decades, some free market enthusiast seem sanguine about providing support for developing nuclear technology, but sometimes argue that we should wait until renewables have developed more before supporting their wide diffusion. Failing that, free market enthusiasts may say that shale gas means that there is a new, rival, cheaper and plentiful option, which can be made lower carbon with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
Many governments, under pressure to cut emission and maintain security of supply, but also to cut costs, would clearly like that, but they are also aware the CCS may not work effectively or economically on a large scale, and that CCS, and certainly Shale gas extraction may not be socially accepted or environmentally sound .
So they hedge their bets – backing nuclear, renewables and CCS more or less equally, while recognising that each of them may be problematic, nuclear, especially so, after Fukushima. But the same is true for renewable – progress is seen as slow at least in some countries – even if, arguably, that is mainly to do with the way some governments have approached providing support.
The three pronged approach (renewables, nuclear, CCS) may be portrayed as more diverse and robust than having just one or two, spreading risk. Or you could see it as diluting efforts- you may end up developing none of them successfully. And it could be argued that, for example, renewables are not just one option, but several, so that, if you want diversity, they represent a better deal, at various scales and levels of development.
There are of course also some cross cutting technologies, moving away from just electricity production, like CHP/co-gen linked to district heating and possibly heat stores. That can be, and mostly is, fired using fossil fuels, but once established, heating networks can be supplied using biomass as a fuel and possibly also large solar arrays- there are some large solar -fed DH projects already in existence in N Europe, some linked to interseasonal heat stores. It is sometimes argued, usually by those on the centre left, that this more collective approach to heating and power production is better technically and economically than the market driven ‘microgen’ domestic scale technologies.
That division of opinion shapes priorities for research and innovation. Should we be focussing on new cheap micro generation devices that can be sold on the conventional market, or on infrastructure issues like heat transmission and storage?
It’s the same in the wider area of overall energy supply and use, although here the ideological fault lines can get a little tangled. For example, advocates of large scale HVDC supergrid links often argue that they can open up wider markets to more competition, while some microgen enthusiasts trade on the idea that consumers can, to a degree, become independent of wider markets and corporate control (as long as they buy the kit!). However, they may both agree on the need for smart meters, although they may not share the same perspective on who will benefit most, economically, from them – producers or consumers.
I’m not saying that all the big energy innovation and deployment issues of the day can be framed in simple ideological terms. Some are based on more general technical concerns and issues. For example, should we be focussing on electricity, as an easy to transmit but hard to store energy vector, or gas/hydrogen/heat, as easier to store, with the potential for negative carbon if biomass use is combined with CCS. But even here there are some possible political divergencies, although also some overlaps.
The ‘heat and pipe’ lobby stresses ideas like biogas production, the use of solar for hydrogen production, and on the utilisation side, district heating, and conversions and storage of excess electricity from wind generation as heat. The electricity lobby is backed by nuclear enthusiasts and by some renewable energy supporters, who see electricity as supplying heat and battery electric transport power. Interestingly though, much of the new nuclear R&D in the USA is aimed at developing new reactors for process heating for industry and maybe for hydrogen synfuel production, for vehicle use. And perhaps even for CHP/district heating. So we may be seeing radically different technologies being developed for maybe similar end uses.
How does my perhaps rather laboured attempt at an ideological account stand up when you look at specific countries/regions and their programmes? The USA has adopted a market driven approach, avoiding carbon caps and targets, while the EU has adopted the EU Emission Trading System, which is bureaucratically defined, but market driven. In addition, many EU countries have introduced Feed-In Tariffs (FiTs).
The FiTs have clearly worked to boost renewable – putting countries like Germany ahead of all others, initially, in the deployment of wind – at lower cost per kW and per kWh than market let mechanisms, like the UK’s Renewable Obligation (RO) quota/certificate trading system. Basically FiTs provided a more secure investment climate, making it easier and cheaper to finance projects, including innovative projects. So much so, that the UK has now introduced its own small FiT system and is planning to replace the RO entirely – although, in a backward looking move, possibly by a form of competitive Feed In Tariff system, with tenders/auctions. Whether that would work remains to be seen, but it certainly needs a new approach since, so far, using a market led approach, it has only developed its huge renewable resource very limited extent.
Free market advocates nevertheless point to the US, where renewable energy deployment has now begun to accelerate rapidly under what amounts to a free market ‘technology push’ approach – with the US taking the lead in wind power from Germany as a result.
However China has now taken the lead from them, in wind power especially. How do you characterise their approach? They use Feed-In Tariffs but also auctions, and they have state targets and central directives, but also commercial enterprises.
Back in the EU, the recession and concerns about passing high cost on to consumers, has led governments to throttle back on the FiTs, with caps and tariff cuts for PV solar. It has been argued, usually by free market advocates, that PV was perhaps not well suited to FiT support since it started out with high costs. The counter argument is that, if the FiT system had been left to work, costs would have fallen- cutting back was a failure of nerve, or worse, a reflection of a preference for nuclear.
And so the debate continues. Maybe the IPCC was right to say in its recent report on renewables that ‘There is no one-size-fits-all policy for encouraging renewables’. But equally, there do seem to be some ideological fault lines."
This didn’t seem to attract any comments. Maybe most of their contributors/ readers are on the other side of the fault line?
www.commentvisions.com/
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Exit from pv?
Although it is confident that Germany can obtain 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2050, the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) has called for a major slow down on solar PV, which it claims is too expensive and could slow the overall programme down. This at a time when Feed In Tariffs (FiTs) for PV are being savaged across the EU- including in Germany.
Germany has been a leader in PV, which has boomed dramatically under the Feed In Tariff system it pioneered. That was copied elsewhere and led to similar booms- initially in Spain, but also in France and Italy. And even finally in the UK. But the boom came at a price- increasing the cost pass-through to electricityconsumers bills. In theory, as PV boomed and the market built, prices should fall, with tariffs being progressively cut via the built in degression mechanism, so the extra cost to consumers should fall. But that process doesn’t seem to have worked well enough or quickly enough. The boom and the module price fall was too fast, leaving the tariffs too high. Given the recession, and sensitivity to consumer prices, governments have panicked and stepped in with extra cuts, or emergency capacity caps.
In the case of Spain, this was arguably done too harshly, resulting in a crash in the PV market. That left lots of PV modules unsold, so their price fell, stimulating faster uptake elsewhere, notably in Germany, until it too slapped on tariff cuts- most recently up to 15%. The UK, a latecomer to the party, has just imposed cuts of up to 72%. So a classic boom and bust scenario played out- further accelerated by the import of cheap Chinese PV modules. The down side reaction was also stimulated by hostility to PV and to FiTs from right wing free-marketeers and their allies in some of the large power utilities. The media dutifully relayed stories about vast extra costs being loaded up on consumers, as if PV and FiTs were the main reason why energy costs were rising, justfying the drastic cuts by the mostly right of centre governments - including the UK. All of this has shaken confidence in PV and the FiTs. It is in this context that we might see why SRU had recommended backing off from PV. Are they right?
SRUs retreat
You might see a strategic withdrawl from PV as being a wise thing in the current political and economic climate, so as to be better able to defend other renewables. But throwing PV out of the mix is an odd idea. Economically it’s almost certain to get very much cheaper, so if the FiT price degression system can be amended to take that on board more effectively, there should be fewer problems. After all the worst is now over- the initial high prices are falling. And SRU’s technical case against PV is not that strong- yes it doesn’t work at night and so you need grid backup/balancing, but PV can make a lot of sense for day time occupancy buildings, for summer air-conditioning and for topping up night time storage heaters during the day. More generally, although load factors are low, we are going to have to get used to balancing variable supplies, as we have more renewables on the grid. SRU may be right that PV will make it harder, but it’s a huge resource well suited to access via roof tops, easy to install and run-with no moving parts to go wrong. It may have been unwise to try to use FiTs to get its initial very high price down rapidly, but that doesn’t means the technology is rubbish. Or that FiTs are no use.
FiTs to go too?
SRU backs FiTs for offshore wind and other renewables, though it’s interesting that they also talk favourably of tendering mechanisms (e.g. for offshore wind farm grid links), and point to the UK Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. That’s very odd. NFFO was very ineffective at building renewable capacity- low bids were put in and accepted, but projects often couldn’t be delivered in practice. Why on earth repeat that? Though of course that’s what the UK government now wants to do- with, instead of a German style fixed price FiT, auctions linked to the proposed ‘Contracts for a Difference’ market-based system.
In part the sub text here is all about supporting nuclear, which is likely to do well under the CfD system, but it’s also being presented as a way to avoid the boom and bust syndrome that is allegedly associated with fixed price FiTs. Thus Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, talks of ‘an automatic mechanism for feed-in tariff strike prices to respond to changes in cost and thus avoid the problems seen recently with the solar PV feed-in tariffs.’
The German government is trying to do something similar with its FiT system, to keep PV on track. SGU says this won’t work, or at least that it won’t be enough, and wants to back off PV dramatically to avoid the problem. That certainly risks playing into the hands of those who are opposed to FiTs, PV and indeed, you could argue, renewable generally. But what’s the alternative? A seriously revised FiT system would also probably slow PV down. In the UK PV is mainly to be supported, not by the CfD, which is seen as being for the larger options (offshore wind, nuclear and CCS), but by the UK’s small FiT, the Clean Energy Cashback system- if that survives. PV may therefore be boxed up.
Wind better?
Standing back from the fray, it does all seem a little odd. The UK FiT cost consumers a massive £1.40 extra on their annual electricity bills, and even though DECC says this could rise to £26 by 2020, that’s still tiny. Their cuts would they say take it down to £3. Does this make sense? Isn’t it worth investing in this new technology? Or are there better uses for £26 per head per annum? Some say it was wrong to try to accelerate PV via the FiT, but that has teased out capital from those who could afford the investment cost. True, they then have been well rewarded by the FiTs, paid for by all the other consumers, and that can be provocative in a recession. Compared to the UK, that’s been less of an issue in Germany, where the uptake of PV has been so much wider across the population.
Even so, the ‘opportunity cost’ issue is still important. Would it be better to spend this money on, say, wind - since it’s cheaper? That begs the question of whether the money would be available- an attraction of PV is that individual consumers can buy it for their homes. Micro turbines apart, that’s not an option for wind. That said, the German FiTs main success has actually been in supporting wind, now at 27GW, compared to 19GW for PV. The German wind boom has been helped by the fact that, as in Denmark, many projects are locally owned, so spreading the benefits. There are also some solar co-ps, but SRU says the focus should now be more on wind. Is that the way to go?
* ‘Pathways towards a 100 % renewable electricity system’, SRU
www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/02_Special_Reports/2011_10_Special_Report_Pathways_renewables.html
Germany has been a leader in PV, which has boomed dramatically under the Feed In Tariff system it pioneered. That was copied elsewhere and led to similar booms- initially in Spain, but also in France and Italy. And even finally in the UK. But the boom came at a price- increasing the cost pass-through to electricityconsumers bills. In theory, as PV boomed and the market built, prices should fall, with tariffs being progressively cut via the built in degression mechanism, so the extra cost to consumers should fall. But that process doesn’t seem to have worked well enough or quickly enough. The boom and the module price fall was too fast, leaving the tariffs too high. Given the recession, and sensitivity to consumer prices, governments have panicked and stepped in with extra cuts, or emergency capacity caps.
In the case of Spain, this was arguably done too harshly, resulting in a crash in the PV market. That left lots of PV modules unsold, so their price fell, stimulating faster uptake elsewhere, notably in Germany, until it too slapped on tariff cuts- most recently up to 15%. The UK, a latecomer to the party, has just imposed cuts of up to 72%. So a classic boom and bust scenario played out- further accelerated by the import of cheap Chinese PV modules. The down side reaction was also stimulated by hostility to PV and to FiTs from right wing free-marketeers and their allies in some of the large power utilities. The media dutifully relayed stories about vast extra costs being loaded up on consumers, as if PV and FiTs were the main reason why energy costs were rising, justfying the drastic cuts by the mostly right of centre governments - including the UK. All of this has shaken confidence in PV and the FiTs. It is in this context that we might see why SRU had recommended backing off from PV. Are they right?
SRUs retreat
You might see a strategic withdrawl from PV as being a wise thing in the current political and economic climate, so as to be better able to defend other renewables. But throwing PV out of the mix is an odd idea. Economically it’s almost certain to get very much cheaper, so if the FiT price degression system can be amended to take that on board more effectively, there should be fewer problems. After all the worst is now over- the initial high prices are falling. And SRU’s technical case against PV is not that strong- yes it doesn’t work at night and so you need grid backup/balancing, but PV can make a lot of sense for day time occupancy buildings, for summer air-conditioning and for topping up night time storage heaters during the day. More generally, although load factors are low, we are going to have to get used to balancing variable supplies, as we have more renewables on the grid. SRU may be right that PV will make it harder, but it’s a huge resource well suited to access via roof tops, easy to install and run-with no moving parts to go wrong. It may have been unwise to try to use FiTs to get its initial very high price down rapidly, but that doesn’t means the technology is rubbish. Or that FiTs are no use.
FiTs to go too?
SRU backs FiTs for offshore wind and other renewables, though it’s interesting that they also talk favourably of tendering mechanisms (e.g. for offshore wind farm grid links), and point to the UK Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. That’s very odd. NFFO was very ineffective at building renewable capacity- low bids were put in and accepted, but projects often couldn’t be delivered in practice. Why on earth repeat that? Though of course that’s what the UK government now wants to do- with, instead of a German style fixed price FiT, auctions linked to the proposed ‘Contracts for a Difference’ market-based system.
In part the sub text here is all about supporting nuclear, which is likely to do well under the CfD system, but it’s also being presented as a way to avoid the boom and bust syndrome that is allegedly associated with fixed price FiTs. Thus Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, talks of ‘an automatic mechanism for feed-in tariff strike prices to respond to changes in cost and thus avoid the problems seen recently with the solar PV feed-in tariffs.’
The German government is trying to do something similar with its FiT system, to keep PV on track. SGU says this won’t work, or at least that it won’t be enough, and wants to back off PV dramatically to avoid the problem. That certainly risks playing into the hands of those who are opposed to FiTs, PV and indeed, you could argue, renewable generally. But what’s the alternative? A seriously revised FiT system would also probably slow PV down. In the UK PV is mainly to be supported, not by the CfD, which is seen as being for the larger options (offshore wind, nuclear and CCS), but by the UK’s small FiT, the Clean Energy Cashback system- if that survives. PV may therefore be boxed up.
Wind better?
Standing back from the fray, it does all seem a little odd. The UK FiT cost consumers a massive £1.40 extra on their annual electricity bills, and even though DECC says this could rise to £26 by 2020, that’s still tiny. Their cuts would they say take it down to £3. Does this make sense? Isn’t it worth investing in this new technology? Or are there better uses for £26 per head per annum? Some say it was wrong to try to accelerate PV via the FiT, but that has teased out capital from those who could afford the investment cost. True, they then have been well rewarded by the FiTs, paid for by all the other consumers, and that can be provocative in a recession. Compared to the UK, that’s been less of an issue in Germany, where the uptake of PV has been so much wider across the population.
Even so, the ‘opportunity cost’ issue is still important. Would it be better to spend this money on, say, wind - since it’s cheaper? That begs the question of whether the money would be available- an attraction of PV is that individual consumers can buy it for their homes. Micro turbines apart, that’s not an option for wind. That said, the German FiTs main success has actually been in supporting wind, now at 27GW, compared to 19GW for PV. The German wind boom has been helped by the fact that, as in Denmark, many projects are locally owned, so spreading the benefits. There are also some solar co-ps, but SRU says the focus should now be more on wind. Is that the way to go?
* ‘Pathways towards a 100 % renewable electricity system’, SRU
www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/02_Special_Reports/2011_10_Special_Report_Pathways_renewables.html
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Free market contradictions
The basic tenet of free market capitalism is that trade should be free, unencumbered with state controls and intervention. In reality there is nowhere that complete market freedom actually exists- even the most rapacious capitalists have come to terms with regulation, taxes and so on to reflect wider longer-term social and environmental concerns. But free market enthusiasts do usually draw the line at the state trying to overstep the mark by intervening to support selected technologies via subsidies. That’s almost as bad a state socialism!
You can hear complaints along these lines emerging from the likes of the increasingly oddly named Renewable Energy Foundation in its new Green Mirage report and also from climate contrarian Lord (Nigel) Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. A bit more surprisingly (although see my previous Blog), a new University of Califonia Berkeley study seems to adopt a similar stance.
The basic argument is that free markets are undermined by subsides and government intervention, leading to less then optimal economic development. But they go further and attack some of the usual economic justifications for intervention - e.g. that countries who get into an area first have a competitive advantages over those who follow. Instead they say, ‘first mover’ advantages are overstated, and it can be better to wait until new technologies are developed by others before buying into them- if they succeed.
This is a form of risk aversion- it says leave the risks of innovation to others. Capitalise instead on less risky market activities e.g. building and controlling markets for exsting products and (especially) services. To some extent this is what the UK has done in recent years. You could see it as a ‘losers’ approach- abandoning involvement with the cutting edge of new developments. That’s sometimes what leftists say we have done- but they tend to link it with claim that the UK has also abandoned industrial production. However it’s more complicated than that. Business school theory argues, with some justification, that the most lucrative parts of the ‘value chain’ are at the front and the back- product innovation /R&D can be cheap but yield huge profits if it works, and there can be huge gains by adding value to products via clever marketing. By contrast production itself is a mugs game, with small profit margins: leave that to others. In the case of the UK we seem to have limited our engagement in R&D and focused most on services and marketing.
For free market enthusiasts that’s presumably fine. It may have come a bit unstuck with the collapse of financial sector confidence, but the remedy is more of the same- not Keynesian reboots of the economy via state programmes and subsidies, green new deals and the like. And so we have REF, GWPF et al sounding off about the horrors of subsidies and specifically saying that we should not privilege renewables, for example, over other low carbon options. Which these days seems to include nuclear, with, for the UK, the technology being bought in from France!
So REF take the ‘One Million Jobs’ report by the Campaign for Climate Change apart- claiming that there will be no significant jobs from subsidised investment in green energy, while GWPF argue that this is partly since it is , and will remain, more expensive than other energy options: ‘there is little evidence that there are large additional economies of scale or learning to be gained, except perhaps for solar thermal equipment. Indeed, US figures suggest that the average cost in real terms of both wind and solar power installations stabilised and/or has been increasing since the middle part of the decade 2000-09. It is unlikely that there is some large reduction in the costs of renewable energy which can be achieved without a major shift in technology’.
So how does this view square with reality?
Solar PV is one new emergent technology - and it’s being progressed rapidly by China, using huge loans from the Chinese Development Bank, which are helping Chinese solar companies push American solar firms out of the market. As Stephen Lacey reported for Grist (part of the Guardian Environment Network) last Sept. ‘In 2010 alone, the bank handed out $30 bn in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country. This has enabled China's solar producers to grow to GW scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar and pushing down prices dramatically’.
Aggressive, but good to see prices falling - and surely fair under free trade rules. But with some spectacular US company failures (including Solyndra and Evergreen), the US solar industry has been pressing the government for protection against ‘dumping’. An alternative, more progressive, approach would be to compete on technological innovation. GTM Research has noted that ‘It will be difficult for the U.S. to compete with China at its own game - namely, high-volume manufacturing of a commoditized product -given the cost advantages available for Chinese manufacturing. However, the U.S. can and should continue to develop and commercialize innovative technologies that offer lower costs than traditional panels. These new technologies are generally proprietary, require a more skilled labor force, and are difficult to duplicate’.
That could be risky - and may need government support. But that can be justified economically- as well as more generally, in terms of protecting jobs and the planet!
However the University of California Berkeley report is unmoved by ‘common arguments for subsidizing renewable power – green jobs, energy security and driving down fossil energy prices’ . But it does admit that ‘the role of intellectual property spillovers is a strong argument for subsidizing basic science research’, although it still insists that it is ‘less persuasive as an enhancement to the value of installing current renewable energy technologies’.
Oh dear. With negative views like this becoming common in the reaction to Obama’s already watered down intervention polices, it looks like the US could end up trying to rely mainly on shale gas...
.
• REF report: www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Mirage-Low-carbon-Economy-Further/dp/1906837309
• GWPF report :www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf reports/hughes-green_jobs.pdf
• University of California Berkeley study http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working_papers/WP221.pdf
You can hear complaints along these lines emerging from the likes of the increasingly oddly named Renewable Energy Foundation in its new Green Mirage report and also from climate contrarian Lord (Nigel) Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. A bit more surprisingly (although see my previous Blog), a new University of Califonia Berkeley study seems to adopt a similar stance.
The basic argument is that free markets are undermined by subsides and government intervention, leading to less then optimal economic development. But they go further and attack some of the usual economic justifications for intervention - e.g. that countries who get into an area first have a competitive advantages over those who follow. Instead they say, ‘first mover’ advantages are overstated, and it can be better to wait until new technologies are developed by others before buying into them- if they succeed.
This is a form of risk aversion- it says leave the risks of innovation to others. Capitalise instead on less risky market activities e.g. building and controlling markets for exsting products and (especially) services. To some extent this is what the UK has done in recent years. You could see it as a ‘losers’ approach- abandoning involvement with the cutting edge of new developments. That’s sometimes what leftists say we have done- but they tend to link it with claim that the UK has also abandoned industrial production. However it’s more complicated than that. Business school theory argues, with some justification, that the most lucrative parts of the ‘value chain’ are at the front and the back- product innovation /R&D can be cheap but yield huge profits if it works, and there can be huge gains by adding value to products via clever marketing. By contrast production itself is a mugs game, with small profit margins: leave that to others. In the case of the UK we seem to have limited our engagement in R&D and focused most on services and marketing.
For free market enthusiasts that’s presumably fine. It may have come a bit unstuck with the collapse of financial sector confidence, but the remedy is more of the same- not Keynesian reboots of the economy via state programmes and subsidies, green new deals and the like. And so we have REF, GWPF et al sounding off about the horrors of subsidies and specifically saying that we should not privilege renewables, for example, over other low carbon options. Which these days seems to include nuclear, with, for the UK, the technology being bought in from France!
So REF take the ‘One Million Jobs’ report by the Campaign for Climate Change apart- claiming that there will be no significant jobs from subsidised investment in green energy, while GWPF argue that this is partly since it is , and will remain, more expensive than other energy options: ‘there is little evidence that there are large additional economies of scale or learning to be gained, except perhaps for solar thermal equipment. Indeed, US figures suggest that the average cost in real terms of both wind and solar power installations stabilised and/or has been increasing since the middle part of the decade 2000-09. It is unlikely that there is some large reduction in the costs of renewable energy which can be achieved without a major shift in technology’.
So how does this view square with reality?
Solar PV is one new emergent technology - and it’s being progressed rapidly by China, using huge loans from the Chinese Development Bank, which are helping Chinese solar companies push American solar firms out of the market. As Stephen Lacey reported for Grist (part of the Guardian Environment Network) last Sept. ‘In 2010 alone, the bank handed out $30 bn in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country. This has enabled China's solar producers to grow to GW scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar and pushing down prices dramatically’.
Aggressive, but good to see prices falling - and surely fair under free trade rules. But with some spectacular US company failures (including Solyndra and Evergreen), the US solar industry has been pressing the government for protection against ‘dumping’. An alternative, more progressive, approach would be to compete on technological innovation. GTM Research has noted that ‘It will be difficult for the U.S. to compete with China at its own game - namely, high-volume manufacturing of a commoditized product -given the cost advantages available for Chinese manufacturing. However, the U.S. can and should continue to develop and commercialize innovative technologies that offer lower costs than traditional panels. These new technologies are generally proprietary, require a more skilled labor force, and are difficult to duplicate’.
That could be risky - and may need government support. But that can be justified economically- as well as more generally, in terms of protecting jobs and the planet!
However the University of California Berkeley report is unmoved by ‘common arguments for subsidizing renewable power – green jobs, energy security and driving down fossil energy prices’ . But it does admit that ‘the role of intellectual property spillovers is a strong argument for subsidizing basic science research’, although it still insists that it is ‘less persuasive as an enhancement to the value of installing current renewable energy technologies’.
Oh dear. With negative views like this becoming common in the reaction to Obama’s already watered down intervention polices, it looks like the US could end up trying to rely mainly on shale gas...
.
• REF report: www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Mirage-Low-carbon-Economy-Further/dp/1906837309
• GWPF report :www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf reports/hughes-green_jobs.pdf
• University of California Berkeley study http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working_papers/WP221.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
