A Green Degree

This blog intends to bring a new perspective on all things 'green' and sustainable, covering (mostly) energy, politics, the economy & more, what I feel as the most pressing concerns we face. In short, sustainability needs to progress & become the social everyday. That's my passion, and our solution. Screw business as usual people!













    Join our Mailing List

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9642199/Hitachis-700m-Horizon-nuclear-deal-to-create-up-to-12000-British-jobs.html

Call me optimistic, and trust me, that’s not what I’m often called, but to me it’s starting to look like nuclear may finally be back on the radar for the UK, at least in the form of tentative steps towards kickstarting once-ailing projects and renewing ageing others. There may even be some hope lingering in the recently announced Energy Bill, of which there are unfortunately many negative aspects covering some surprisingly positive ones for the industry and it’s future in terms of project certainty and subsidies.

The acquisition of the infamous Horizon nuclear site has undoubtedly proved as the catalyst for this, and has been the butt of many coalition-directed jokes for some time now, after E.ON and RWE put the project up for sale in March following that fateful nuclear-backlash from Fukushima (brief thoughts on that coming later). Many thought it signalled the gradual and undignified death of the industry at the hands of public outcry and atrocious safety hazards, and I included believed it highly unlikely to be seeing any new reactors planned for some decades to come, if at all. Fortunately, it seems our overseas Asian friends think otherwise.

Hitachi recently completed the sale of Horizon at £700million and plans to begin construction of two to three plants at each of the two sites, and more importantly is planning on implementing cutting-edge technology in an attempt to reduce costs and build times, as well as to placate those who feel nuclear is dirty, dangerous and likely to kill us all one day. These AWBRs, or Advanced Water Boiling Reactors are apparently the ‘only advanced nuclear reactors licensed and in production around the world, and have been built on time and within cost’, unlike pretty much any other European reactor currently being constructed. 

They intend the plants to produce 1.3GW of electricity each, and to create over 12,000 jobs in the process, yet again boosting one of the only sectors to truly be growing in this current climate, the green and low-carbon economy. With this much extra juice and investment flowing into our ‘green and pleasant lands’ without the added worry of carbon emissions during use, a rather large hole which would have inevitably formed as old plants were shut down can hopefully be plugged. 

Read More

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: nuclear, hinkley, horizon, somerset, project, energy, climate, fossil fuels, oil, gas, death, explosion, fukushima, 3-mile island, chernobyl, energy bill, EDF,.

Here’s something I don’t get; offshore oil. As a whole, I simply don’t understand what our global obsession with this wonder-drug fuel source is. It’s dirty, it’s expensive, it requires massive amounts of resources to build, is highly damaging to the environment and so painfully, obviously dangerous in light of recent events (or in fact its entire history) that it astounds me we still continue to advocate new leases and permissions for these things. I mean, who thinks it’s a good idea to slap one of these beasts in the pristine Arctic Ocean? Come on guys, really?

This sheer confusion of mine has been ratcheted up another level as the infamous BP finally gets the bill for it’s excessive throwing up of oil all over the Gulf of Mexico in the now almost myth-like Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010. The sum - a tasty $4.5 billion, and criminal sentences of manslaughter for two supervisors who were deemed responsible for making sure such drilling platforms didn’t spontaneously explode, but failed to do so. The crux of the legal ruling? ‘Gross negligence’, which I think sums it up pretty nicely. 

So that’s a mighty fine slap on the wrists for BP then. Company-reputation is no doubt tarnished for life, although it didn’t take a court ruling to make that point obvious, and the damages they’ve been paying out since the event reach into the tens of billions. The world over now sees offshore drilling for what it really can be; a horribly dangerous and potentially catastrophic process of extraction which surely does not warrant the time, effort and money spent on it.

And to take this even further, in what seems like a brutally ironic twist of fate, just a day after this ruling was complete, another oil rig based in the Mexican Gulf went up in flames too, with at least four missing and two possibly dead. I’m not one to call into play an ‘Act of God’, but that kinda stinks of something trying to be said right? 

So you’d think with all this negative attention and bad karma within the offshore oil industry that we might be seeing the beginnings of the end for the whole enterprise, or at least of this form of reckless and risky drilling. Unfortunately, I don’t think that happy eventuality will be coming along anytime soon. 

The fines BP are being charged, that $4.5 billion, that is barely change for a company as large and wealthy as they are, and is completely trumped by litigation charges and settlements BP will be handling outside of court on the ground of Water Protection Acts and private nuisance. However, this is to be paid out over several years, not in one big wallop, and indeed, BP is not short of cash. The US Department of Defense for one has contracts worth $2.2 billion a year purely to be provided with fuel from the multinational corporation, so in effect, the DoD would have paid off these fines in just over 2 years. More irony?

Read More

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: energy, offshore, oil, driling, BP, deepwater horizon, legal, ruling, fine, criminal, billions, oil rig, gulf of mexico, fossil fuels, death, news, politics, nuclear, risk, obama, cameron,.

It would seem a decision on the fate of nuclear power in Japan has potentially been decided this week, with the announcement by the prime minister’s leading democratic party that policy will be settled soon which intends to ‘realise a situation where the number of nuclear plants operated be zero in the 2030s’, effectively hammering home the final nail in the industry’s coffin.

It has long been thought by followers of the nuclear market that Japan would eventually cut all ties and close down their operations post-Fukushima, but for a long time the prime minister was caught in two minds; on the one hand, he had an angry Japanese public to answer to for the Fukushima disaster, whilst he and the business sector believed Japan would need to nuclear to progress without blackouts and that the benefits outweighed the possible risks. Now it seems that the public may have won, with this statement no doubt gratifying many concerned citizens, although it may not seem to be coming quick enough for some. 

Since the Tohoku earthquake, all of Japans fifty reactors have been offline, bar two in the same plot restarted earlier this year, for regulation and safety checks, leaving the country with a gaping energy deficit of 30%, the amount fission provided up until the fateful tsunami. With the closure in full effect and possible edgings towards restarting the nuclear fleet being banded around, a country normally peaceful and well conformed to government life was up in arms, with protests in the thousands rattling the streets of Tokyo, demanding an end to nuclear and it’s inherent dangers. This was certainly a Japan not often seen by the global public, not least the media.

Unfortunately, Japan has had to heavily rely on oil imports since the shutdowns across the country, ramping up their consumption of Middle Eastern black gold considerably, whilst at the same time employing strict and tough efficiency rulings and energy-saving requirements back home, just to stop the nation from all out blackouts during the summer months. In effect, this increased oil consumption not only stalled what looked to be a peaking industry, but also contributed greatly to the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere, carbon which otherwise would have been left in the ground had the nuclear plants been left on or restarted.

This is the crucial point of the entire ‘end to nuclear’ debate currently being hotly contested all over the developed world. If we choose to dump nuclear, an industry which provides a large chunk of global energy supply, we must be prepared to replace it with something else, and that doesn’t mean more oil, coal and natural gas from elsewhere in the world. That is clearly backward thinking and progress.

Read More

Posted at 10:05am and tagged with: nuclear, energy, fossil fuels, carbon, emission, coal, oil, shale gas, natural gas, generation, japan, protest, UK, china, US, fracking, lignite, plant, reactor, science, technology, politics, anti, fukushima, middle east, offshore, renewable, wind, solar, biofuel,.

So the other day I posted a blog surrounding this whole mess we’re calling the ‘solar trade war’, of which the US and China are the key players, and of which I finished by saying would benefit nobody and, if anything, seriously hurt the solar industry at a crucial (this can’t be understated) moment in its growth.

At this point in time, solar as a form of energy, a very nice one at that, is rapidly approaching grid parity with fossil fuels, and in many instances is able to compete on par for energy prices to both consumer and producer, with the big coal and oil lobbies. That is one impressive feat considering relatively little government subsidies have been involved (that’s relative to fossil fuels) and massive growth has occurred in just 5-10 years, not decades. 

However, this lack of comparative funding and phenomenal growth clearly doesn’t sit very well with the US and the Department of Commerce, who severely oppose the Chinese solar market and it’s doings, which have undeniably been a key driving force in this event.

Very briefly, the Chinese government has been found ‘illegally’ subsidising their solar industry and key companies, such as SunTech, by selling them for below-market prices, effectively flooding the global solar market with cheap panels. The US has branded this anticompetitive and blamed it for the crash in US-solar sales and Solyndra’s collapse, responding by slapping a small, but nonetheless important 2-4% trade import tariff on Chinese solar. That was then.

Now it seems they’ve upped the ante, with the Department of Commerce raising tariffs to 31% for the major Chinese solar companies, and as high as 250% (!!) on smaller firms, effectively forcing the Chinese to raise their prices to meet ‘market’ levels, i.e. the US’, despite their ability to produce at such cheap and effective prices. I find this to be sheer madness (some may say blatant protectionism) by the Department, who could easily be accused of crippling the solar industry at a time when just one more nudge in the right way could lead to an explosion in sunlight-derived energy. 

It may be true that the Chinese have been unfairly aiding their solar markets, but the fact of the matter is this; the US is doing exactly the same, and as I say in my earlier post, SolarWorld reaps rewards far beyond those of SunTech, and yet we leave them alone entirely. Not only this, but why should cheap solar panels, in abundance around the world, which are no doubt forcing prices down hugely and cleaning up the atmosphere, be subject to these crazy tariffs just because the US feels its own domestic manufacturers are at risk?

Read More

Posted at 12:07pm and tagged with: solar, china, trade war, US, america, energy, technology, tariffs, suntech, solarworld, fossil fuels, solar panels, market, economy, canada, mexico, commerce,.

wheremangosgrow:

The federal government looks pretty responsible for the continuous use of fossil fuels. They are subsidizing fossils fuels which keep oil, coal, and natural gas prices lower than what they would be instead of investing in renewable energy.

Nuclear is the same. Propped up by subsidies which are in dire need of innovation and better regulation.

Fossil fuel subsidies are just wrong. Solar and wind are fighting their corner and winning even without them. They still deserve some funding though.

Posted at 5:16pm and tagged with: energy, wind, solar, subsidies, money, government, fossil fuels, oil, coal, renewable,.

wheremangosgrow:

The federal government looks pretty responsible for the continuous use of fossil fuels. They are subsidizing fossils fuels which keep oil, coal, and natural gas prices lower than what they would be instead of investing in renewable energy.


Nuclear is the same. Propped up by subsidies which are in dire need of innovation and better regulation. Fossil fuel subsidies are just wrong. Solar and wind are fighting their corner and winning even without them. They still deserve some funding though.