Losing the battle? - by Richard... Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Losing the battle? - by Richard... Tuesday, March 23, 2010

France's prime minister Francois Fillon (pictured), has told his parliament that his government should focus on policies that increase the country's economic competitiveness.

For a government, like most western powers, which seems intent on destroying any residual productivity in its economy, this is a remarkable statement by any measure. But it is even more remarkable in accompanying as it did an announcement that the much-touted carbon tax – which was to apply to domestic households as well as industry - was going to be abandoned.

Picked up by England Expects, who reminds us that president Nicholas Sarkozy launched this with much fanfare last September, this policy has been stalled since December when the Constitutional Council declared it unlawful. There were, it ruled, too many exemptions, which would mean that only a minority of consumers would bear the burden.

In classic style – of the sort we come to expect of our modern-day rulers – Sarkozy was not put off the idea and had intended to re-introduce it this July. But that was before the results of the recently held regional elections had been released. The ruling UMP party has taken a drubbing, losing by around 54 to 36 percent in the vote against resurgent Socialists.

Assailed from all sides, with strikers in the streets of Paris – public workers all, complaining about job cuts and pension reforms - it seems Sarkozy needed to make a populist gesture. And the carbon tax was it. Extremely unpopular with French voters, opinion polls have shown two-thirds of respondents opposed to it.

The response, in one respect, is highly refreshing. One cannot imagine British politicians reacting in such a way. Not least, they would be arguing that such a tax would increase our competitiveness by promoting the development of "green" technology which we could then export to the rest of the world.

More typically, they would simply not talk about it, or perhaps argue that the voters hadn't understood their message, especially as the UK has developed its own very special carbon tax, disguised under the title "CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme".

It is interesting to note, however, that the French government sees no fundamental objection to such a tax. Rather it has decided that it would prefer an EU-wide tax so that its competition is equally shackled. And, as we have seen, the EU would be only too anxious to oblige, bringing the rest of the membwr states into line with Sweden, Finland and Denmark, where some form of carbon tax already exists. 

Nevertheless, the Daily Mail suggests that this policy u-turn will be viewed as "a huge disappointment" to the green lobby around the world, with many hoping that if a major western economy like France took the lead with this type of tax, others would follow.

Clearly though – in France at least – this is not sufficient to dissuade Sarkozy from ditching the measure, suggesting that when confronted with harsh political and economic realities, the greenies are losing the battle.

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

Print ready

An addition to the vocabulary - by Richard...

It comes to something when even my newsagent complains about the amount of coverage in the newspapers today about the near-geriatric Samantha Cameron in pod again – a reflection of the values of the trivialised, London-centric media which is concerned only to publish items of interest to itself.

Meanwhile, in a publication which still has the elements of a real newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, we see an authored piece from Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, introducing a term which will be unfamiliar to most non-specialists and certainly the bulk of "Fleet Street" hacks and their editors.

That term is "small modular reactor", singled out by Chu as one of the most promising areas for development, an area in which the US is anxious to lead in order to give it a "key competitive edge".

These are mini nuclear power plants. Typically, they would be less than one-third the size of current plants, their compact designs allowing them to be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. They would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.

That said, the amount on offer from the US government for research is fairly modest, at $39 million, but it is enough to inspire General Atomics to press ahead with a design for what is being called the "Next Generation Nuclear Plant program". As part of this programme, Westinghouse Electric is also planning to design a pebble bed reactor.

Reviewing the international field, what comes over is the extraordinary range of projects under development, including a Russian idea for using their KLT-40S reactor designed for their fleet of icebreakers.

The plan here is for a 150 MW unit producing 35 MW of electricity (gross) and up to 35 MW of heat for desalination or district heating. Two working units can be mounted on a 20,000 ton barge for use at suitable locations, providing immediate supplies without the need for major site preparation works. The first unit is due to be completed next year (pictured – click to enlarge).

A US project under development is the "Hyperion Power Module", a 25 MW unit measuring five feet by seven, easily portable with no moving parts. It can supply electricity for 7-10 years without refuelling, before being replaced. The manufacturers claim they will be able to deliver units from 2013 onwards at a price of $50 million.

Toshiba, in Japan, has two "micro-nuke" projects in progress, one called the Rapid-L, which will deliver 200 kW, and another called 4S – the "Super-Safe, Small & Simple" nuclear battery system. This would be factory-built, transported to site, installed below ground level, and would drive a steam cycle generator. Sizes range from 10-50 MW.

After fears that the programme had stalled, Westinghouse is considering further investments in the South African pebble bed project while, this month Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, reached an agreement with the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Ltd for the development of a 200 MW reactor.

China, on the other hand, has already had an experimental pebble bed unit running since 2003, which has passed all safety tests, including a deliberate coolant shut-down. This led to the reaction progressively diminishing, dying away within three hours well within safe temperature limits.

A larger version, the HTR-PM, was approved in principle in November 2005 and construction is starting this year. It is now planned to have two 250MW reactors coupled to a single 210 MW steam turbine. This is to pave the way for an 18-unit (3x6x210MW) full-scale power plant on the site in Shandong province.

This technology could redefine our perception of nuclear generation as the reactors can easily be throttled up and down between 40-100 percent without loss of thermal efficiency, and with rapid change in power settings. This takes them away from merely providing base load and gives a capability for dealing with peak load requirements as well.

Also developing their own reactor designs are Argentina and South Korea, both with prototypes at an advanced stage. France has developed the NP-300 PWR from submarine power plants, aiming it at export markets for power, heat and desalination. It has passive safety systems and can be built for applications of 100 to 300 MW.

Nowhere in the long list of projects under development, however, will you find the UK mentioned. Our media is besotted with Samantha, while the fantasy of renewable generation dominates the consciousness and our MPs get worked up about the non-problem of nuclear waste - leaving the French to work on waste minimisation. 

In a country where the biggest growth industry is environmental managers, climate change consultants and carbon traders, we drown in a sea of trivia as the world leaves us behind, to wallow in our decline.

COMMENT THREAD