New PV FiTs - Good News?

My short answer is "No". In November I posted results from running the then proposed numbers though my simple model, showing that commentators were right to call "Foul". I think I should point out here that my model fits very well the results I am seeing from my own installation, so I have some confidence that, simple though it is, it does pretty well represent expectations. I have rerun the model on exactly the same example project except that I've used DECC's revised generation tariff of 4.39 p/kWh and their capital cost estimate of £1630/kW. Oh dear! I calculate the NPV at year 20 to be -£1129. Even if I assume that there's no need for an inverter replacement part-way through the project the NPV is still negative at -£516 (tho' the project does break even in year 25). To achieve my previous target of a 10% IRR the capital cost would need to drop to £837/kW, almost down to 50% of DECC's assumption. A more modest 5% IRR would require installation for £1247/kW. I would like to be proved wrong but I fear that there is going to be a nasty down-turn in solar PV installations.

The FiTs Tragedy

I have railed against HMG's handling of solar FiTs an number of times in this blog. Now Edie has provided a neat timeline of the inept handling of this policy. I won't repeat it here, just point you to the original. Please have a quick look.

How Will HMG Square The Climate Change Circle?

It is already being accused of blatant hypocrisy so how will HMG match its trumpeting of the "triumph" of the Paris deal with its own energy policy? I'd suggest, on current evidence, only with great difficulty and a rapid U-turn. In recent months the government has scrapped subsidies for on-shore wind-farms, suggested slashing solar FiTs, shelved the CCS demonstration fund, dumped the Green Deal (actually, no great loss that - it was never going to work - but the message still isn't a good one), killed the proposed electric car incentive scheme and may even sell off the Green Investment Bank. OK, so Amber Rudd has announced eventual closure of the country's coal fired power plant - but she has also stated that she wishes to see much of that fleet replaced by gas fired generators. Now that may lower the UK's CO2 emissions but by nowhere near enough to fulfill our Paris commitments. And it certainly fits rather poorly with Rudd's blather about managing security of supply. Really? With, perhaps 80% of the required gas having to be imported - and increasingly so from some of the less stable parts of the globe? Sorry, I don't see much squaring of that circle just yet.

UK Electricity Market Blamed For Liquidity Pooling

I don't wish to regurgitate the contents of this post from ICIS but I suggest that you give it a quick read. It just strikes me that the need for silly interventions like this (even if they do, apparently, work) just highlights the whole mess that has been made of the electricity market in the UK.

CCS Fund Ditched

I suppose it was a good day to bury bad news. Quietly announced in the wake of the Chancellor's Autumn statement was a decision from DECC to withdraw the £1bn fund ring-fenced for commercialising CCS. Now, our team was pretty miffed not to get through to the final two in the early stages of the competition. I bet the Peterhead and White Rose players are spitting blood. While CCS is never going to be cheap it has the advantage of being applicable to fossil fuel combustion on a 24-hour basis, alleviating the problems of intermittency inherent in many renewable technologies. So as part of a decarbonisation package for the nation it should have had a major role to play. Possibly, it still could but this has to be seen as a giant leap backwards for the UK.

Britwind H15

The Britwind H15 is claimed to be set to a game changer as far as small wind generators are concerned (I hate the fact that they are called wind mills - they are not milling anything, at least not directly). I hope it is, but I've seen too many "game changers" that were withdrawn at half time so I'm not holding my breath.

Amber's Reset Speech

'Twas something of a curate's egg wasn't it? Yes, phasing out coal-fired generation is a good move. But replacing it with gas, still strongly CO2 producing and mainly imported, does smack of mixed objectives and but minimal commitment to climate change targets. Also heavily subsidising nuclear while kicking renewables in the proverbial teeth doesn't seem particularly coherent.

It's good that finally HMG appears to be waking up to the fact that UK energy policy is a mess. The worry is that we're in a frying pan to fire scenario.

Energy Isn't The Problem, Pollution Is

The title of this post is a direct crib from an article on the rebound effect by Peter O'Connor which has been reposted by Rod Janssen. I wish I had coined that statement - it drives right to the heart of the "energy saving" movement. "Energy saving" is used as a proxy for pollution reduction. Really what it's driving at is a reduction in energy conversion and thus the consequential side effects. Conversion of the chemical energy tied up in fossil fuels to mechanical energy in a rotating turbine to electrical energy from a generator results in emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx etc. from the initial combustion process. Provided that energy saving policy is clearly geared to pollution reduction that's fine. It's when objectives come to be distorted that problems arise.

Coming back to Peter's article - it's worth a quick read.

Batteries - Some Demand Side Movement

Rod Janssen has recently re-posted an article by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post on recent developments in the US large battery market. The main thrust is an increase in demand side pull, mainly for peak lopping but also for back-up, coupled with a willingness on the supply side to provide such facilities. Tesla's power packs are to the fore. Such activity is good news, not really for the direct impact it will have, but because it adds to the innovation stimulus to seek more efficient and robust batteries and/or fuel cells.

Empty Promises: G20 Subsidies to Oil, Gas and Coal Production

No chuntering on from me this time - just read this - shameful!!!

That Letter: Rudd Thrashing Around To Find A Solution

That letter from Amber Rudd leaked to the Ecologist recently speaks volumes. "The absence of a credible plan to meet the target carries the risk of successful judicial review, and failing to meet the overall target in 2020 could lead to on-going fines imposed by the EU Court of Justice (which could take into account avoided costs) until the UK reaches the target level." Quite! And what does Amber propose to do about it? For one, boost renewable heat. Oh, come on, Amber - even you acknowledge that delivery would be "subject to significant uncertainty as the market for renewable heat is at an early stage".  OK then, how about purchasing from abroad via the new Norwegian interconnector? This sounds like a good way of transferring business and jobs out of the UK to me. And in any case the interconnector is not expected to be operational until late 2021. Funnily enough there is no mention of wind and solar - the two technologies that Rudd seems determined to kick in the groin. It's time she climbed down off her ideological horse!

UK Fracking - The Elephants in the Room

While HMG appears desperate to get UK fracking up and running, ostensibly to bridge the upcoming energy gap (coal plant closures from next year and nuclear closures by 2023, North Sea depletion) there are many siren voices warning of all sorts of problems.

Let's consider the "direct" issues:

1) Air pollution - leakage of CH4 from fracking schemes is poorly understood but probably manageable;

2) Waste water - a contentious issue in the US but there regulation is lax. Again, in the UK it should be manageable;

3) Casing leaks - just make them more robust and monitor them;

4) Earthquakes - may happen but likely to be very minor;

5) Underground migration - could be an issue but good prior geological surveys should tell one where not to drill.

And now the elephants. There are two:

1) Time - it will take ten years or so for any meaningful production. That's too late to cover the issues raised at the top of this piece;

2) Combustion emissions - CO2 targets go out of the window if fracking does take off - even if all it does is displace coal. Displacing renewables would be a disaster.

Political inertia and incompetence by parties of all colours have brought us to this sorry pass and now HMG finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Increasing efficiency of use and demand reduction have to be the order of the day. And that will be no easy task.

Simple Modelling of PV FiTs

I've chuntered on, recently, about the stupidity of HMG's flip-flop management of renewables' FiTs. When I had my own solar PV array installed I analysed all the offers with a simple discounted cash-flow model. I still have that model (available to anyone who wants it on a no-liability basis) so I thought I'd run a couple of tests to see just how reasonable, or otherwise, HMG's proposals are.

I ran these tests on the orientation parameters for my own scheme (orientation 220 deg, pitch 40 deg) which are not perfect but adequate enough to produce a reasonable return based on the capital cost and FiTs pertaining at the time. I'm on course for an undiscounted payback in year 9 and an IRR over 25 years of 10.9%.

Plugging in the FiT rates for the first quarter of 2016, assuming long-run inflation to be 3% (with electricity prices inflating at the same rate), applying a discount rate of 4% and assuming that a 4 kWp scheme could be installed for £6750 gives a simple payback in year 10 and a discounted payback in year 15 (which includes the cost of a new inverter at year 12). The IRR for this scheme is 9.2% with an NPV at year 25 of £4470. That seems to me to be quite reasonable given the risks associated with such a project.

Now if I just plug in the proposed FiT of 1.63 p/kWh and keep everything else the same, undiscounted payback occurs in year 22 and on a discounted basis the project is still under water at year 25. Who would want to invest in a scheme like that? It's no wonder that some PV providers are already putting up the shutters.

Dropping the capital cost to £5000 would advance undiscounted payback to year 18 but the project is still just under water on a discounted basis at year 25.

If HMG is serious about hitting its renewables target they really do need to rethink the numbers here.

Addendum: I've just run a quick goal seek calculation. To achieve an IRR of 10% under the proposed FiT would require the installation cost of my example project to be £2785. Is there any installer out there prepared to offer at that level?

Kids Company And All That

If the news reports are to be believed I find the issues surrounding Kids Company somewhat disturbing - especially the apparent lack of decent scrutiny.

A few years ago I was employed by an organisation that operated largely on grant funding from government and for a time I was responsible for day-to-day liaison with the funding department. Every year I was charged with compiling a comprehensive plan of proposed future work programmes, including budgets, planned outcomes, milestones and key performance indicators. This plan was strongly critiqued by my opposite number in the department and also presented to the great and the good from all interested departments - an event which included a no-holds-barred question and answer session.

Then, during the year I had to regularly report on progress, in particular addressing any departure from the planned budget or milestones, accounting for any adverse outcomes and highlighting particular successes.

It would appear, if one believes the news reports, that Kids Company managed to avoid much of this scrutiny. If this really is the case then both sides of the deal have behaved very shabbily. This is public money we're talking about (i.e. your and my taxes) and to play fast an loose with it - either by cutting corners to acquire it or by being too lax in how it was granted - is just not on.

Do We Need Nuclear?

Having come up through the ranks of the good old CEGB, I have not been as averse to nuclear power as many. However, a couple of things are really bothering me. One is the ridiculous guaranteed price being offered for Chinese/French built stations at Hinkley and (I expect) Sizewell and Bradwell, All this is being posited at a time when the renewables industry is having the rug pulled from under its feet.

The other is fuel storage and disposal, and site clean up. I have been reading about the mess at Sellafield and wonder whether for current and future reactors things are going to be much better. Sellafield was a rush job to provide weapons-grade material with the gloss of civil power plonked on top. This, not surprisingly, has resulted in a less than ideal situation. Consider, for instance:

> Pile no 1 where the infamous fire occurred in 1957. That's just sealed and is being left alone. Does anyone know what's going on inside?

> Pile fuel storage pond. A deteriorating concrete structure full of radioactive sludge. Sludge removal is underway - hopefully safely.

> Pile fuel cladding silo. Jammed with aluminium cladding from weapons reactors. Sealed since the mid-1960s but many worry about the potential for H2 build-up because of corrosion.

> Magnox spent fuel storage pond. Considered the most dangerous industrial building in Europe. It's open-air - and cracks have resulted in seepage into the surrounding soil. No-one knows exactly what's in there.

> Magnox swarf storage silo. The second most dangerous industrial building in Europe. Again seepage has occurred. And again there is an H2 build-up risk from corrosion.

OK - so for modern reactors we're not talking about aluminium or magnesium-based cladding. And disposal planning has to be better. But how much will you bet on it being adequate?

(I mentioned the CEGB at the start of this piece. Last year Dieter Helm published a nice little article suggesting that there is a phoenix rising from the ashes. It's worth a quick read).

And More....................

On Monday Edie pointed to a Grauniad article further outlining the stresses currently placed upon the solar industry. The newspaper states that 4 companies have already announced in the last fortnight that they will be going out of business and another 25 have talked of redundancies or worse.

Now some of these businesses were probably rocky anyway - to close so quickly even before the legislation is in place suggests that they were already skating on thin ice - but that doesn't exonerate Government from the mess they've created. The solar industry should very soon be able to stand on its own two feet, as Amber Rudd stated at the Tory conference, but when you're teaching kids to walk don't you lightly hold their hands until they are confident? Plonking the child upright and walking away is going to cause a lot of bloody noses as they subsequently hit the floor.

A stable and predictable legislative environment is all the industry wants. A glide path to a zero subsidy world would work; stalling the aircraft in mid-flight results in disaster.

Another Rudd Victim

Another solar company has called it a day - this time Southern Solar. The founder of the company, Howard Johns, has written a very measured piece on his company's demise in the Grauniad. And, guess what? The problem is once again Government's stop-start, knee-jerk, inept support management. Perhaps if our MPs, and ministers in particular, had lived in the real world for a few years before picking up the reins of power we would have some sensible policy making. As it is now, we are watching the solar industry being kicked in the teeth while we prepare to pay way over the odds for Hinkley, Sizewell and Bradwell. It's nuts.

New Waste Facility In Clyde; But Surrey Going Backwards

Two contrasting items here:

A proposed new recycling facility in the Clyde Valley will have the potential to help 5 local councils recycle up to 90% of their waste. And much of what cannot be recycled will be converted to RDF. Looks as tho' someone is managing some straight thinking.

Meanwhile, Surrey CC has been consulting on what to do with its community recycling centres, offering just two propositions:- pay for deposition of "non-household DIY waste" and/or reduce the opening hours of the facilities. No upside proposal then!! Both options sound like recipes for increased fly-tipping to me. There's an e-petition seeking to have the council retain current practice. It may be found here. If you have any connection with Surrey, please read and sign.

Amber Rudd, Renewables Costs, & the Mark Group

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd claims that renewable energy "can stand on its own two feet" and that therefore the removal of subsidies is justified. Well, maybe Amber but chop and change management of those subsidies does nothing for the industry's confidence and certainly nothing for investment planning. Look at what happened to the Mark Group. They were so badly burned by the sudden virtual disappearance of insulation schemes that they had to go to the market and find a fairy godmother. Now that fairy godmother has called in the receivers because Mark's hoped-for new business, solar power, is no longer viable. Now I suspect that there is, or has been, underlying poor management at Mark but perhaps Amber might like to go around the 1000 or so Mark employees who have been made redundant and explain to them the cost competitiveness of green energy.

What La Rudd appears not to appreciate is that there is an urgent need to switch away from CO2 producing energy sources. Possibly the best way of engineering that would be the imposition of realistic carbon taxes. However, in the absence of anything meaningful in that direction, renewable energy subsidies had a similar effect.

One could accuse Rudd of loosing the plot but I suspect she never had it in the first place!

Plastic Confusion?

So, the plastic bag charge starts in England today. But why not make it universal as has been done in the rest of the UK? Somehow the civil servants in Defra (I presume this is where it was drafted) manage to over-complicate everything. The message should be a very simple one - bring your own bag - no matter where you shop. Perhaps with time common sense will prevail. This is, after all, about changing behaviour and the more straight-forward the message the better. Sending confusing signals is just not helpful. However, it's a start.

The New VW?

I guess we can look forward to a spate of reports like this. Yesterday Edie reported that some Samsung televisions appear to be less efficient in "real life" mode than in tests. Are they set up to "game" the tests? Samsung have provided a fairly robust response arguing that their "motion lighting" feature (which dims the screen in response to various forms of real-world content) is an "out of the box" setting, not something that specifically detects test conditions, and that the lower test readings are just an artifact of the test conditions. The implication is that the test conditions are a poor substitute for real-life. Various industry sources, however, are suggesting that some TVs really do have "defeat" devices installed that recognise the standard test film. The report notes that TVs typically account for 10% of household electricity consumption. This one could run and run (but not necessarily on diesel).

Carney Warns of Risks from Climate Change

Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, has issue a strong warning that climate change could lead to financial crises and falling living standards. This was in a speech to Lloyd's of London warning insurers that they are heavily exposed to climate change effects. Carney terms it "the tragedy of the horizon" suggesting that for monetary policy that horizon is only two or three years out, and even for financial stability it is perhaps just a decade or so. In other words, by the time climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability it may already be too late.

In order that exposure to climate change threats be more clearly defined Carney advocates the development of consistent, comparable, reliable and clear disclosure around the carbon intensity of different assets. It is good to see such warnings coming from so eminent a source but will it have the required effect? Owners of carbon intensive assets have hardly embraced the climate change story so far - I have my doubts that this intervention will change that situation.

Electricity vs Fire

I have just finished reading "Electricity vs Fire", the latest offering from Walt Patterson. I have met and talked with Walt on a number of occasions on the conference circuit and have always found him deeply thoughtful, engaging and in possession of an inner humanity. All these qualities come across in this book which outlines very clearly why we must stop burning fossil fuels and transform our society to operate with "fireless" electricity.

Such is Walt's facility  words that this is an ideal book for the lay-person. Indeed, on occasion I was wanting Walt to "get on with it" but on reflection this was just because I've been in the business and know the arguments. The steady and logical route that Walt takes through the subject should cause few people difficulty in understanding. In fact, I think it should be required reading for all.

EV Batteries Slowly Getting There

A recent announcement from Bosch shows that EV battery technology is moving to a place where EVs really will be a possibly choice for many people. Bosch say that they expect to have a solid state battery market ready by 2020 that will double the mileage range of EVs but will half the current cost. This should really open up the market, especially for hybrids. Now all we need is clean electricity!

Drax Exits

Capture Power partners are putting a brave face on the exit of Drax from the White Rose scheme, saying that they are continuing with the FEED study, but the project must be somewhat more rocky now. The reasons put forward by Dorothy Thompson for the withdrawal just go to emphasise the shambolic nature of the government's energy and environment policies. Sadly there's likely to be more of the same.

Sainsbury's New Food Waste Project

My friends at Edie have recently posted this. We certainly need to tackle the obscenity of food waste but I must admit that my first thought when reading this report was "Where's the message about simply purchasing less?". Of course, BOGOFs and the like make money for the supermarkets so the cynic in me is not surprised at the omission.

I was recently unfortunate enough to catch an episode of "Eat Well For Less" on BBC TV - the sort of "reality" programme that I find really grating (and it is headed up by shouty-shouty Gregg Wallace - one of the more irritating presenters on the box). However, I was staggered at the shere stupidity of the purchasing regime of the poor subjects of the programme. If Mr Wallace and Co. can have a positive effect through this programme then all power to their collective elbows. Not that I'll be watching again - of course.

New CC Innovation

Readers of this blog will know that I have a passing interest in CC technologies. Consequently I feel that I should flag up this report from Edie about a relatively new GE process. I think this is in the "don't-hold-your-breath" department - but interesting none-the-less.

85% of Energy from Renewables by 2030?

Yup, you read the headline correctly. That is the possibility proposed by a new Greenpeace-sponsored report. Sounds ambitious doesn't it? And actually it is:-
> 47% increase in on-shore wind capacity;
> 270% increase in off-shore wind capacity;
> 1.5GW solar PV installations per year;
> grid balancing by:
>   pumped storage;
>   utility scale batteries;
>   domestic batteries;
>   interconnectors;
> development of
>   smart meters that actually have an effect;
>   smart appliances:
>   mass-market electric vehicles;
> 47.5% (yup, that precise!) reduction in domestic energy demand so presumably lots of insulation.

Wow!

The Greenpeace report doesn't come up with a figure for the cost but Edie reports that the CCC has posited a figure of up to £227bn will be required. All this may be technically feasible but do you see any government having the balls to push something like this through? No, nor do I.

And the report misses a big trick - the development of decentralisation technologies and micro-grids.

It's all very interesting, and all very necessary, but all very unlikely.

Call to Ban Microbeads

I have to admit that until now the very existence of microbeads had somewhat passed me by, let alone their potential toxic effects. This post from Edie therefore provided a very necessary wake-up call. I must check to see whether House Management uses these things and get her to change her practices if so.

Costa Litter Pick

Good to see this from Edie. I organise a bi-annual litter pick in our village and Costa vies for first place (with Red Bull) as the most frequently seen name on the trash we gather. Below is the haul from under 90 minutes last spring.

Fossil Extractors to Pay (a Bit) for CCS?

Edie had a post recently about a newly proposed amendment to the Energy Bill suggesting that "The Government shall undertake a consultation on measures requiring extractors and importers of petroleum to contribute to the development of Carbon Capture and Storage".

Hmm! Difficult one this. Clearly there need to be incentives to reduce CO2 emissions but hitting extractors and importers risks damaging more benign uses of the black stuff (where will plastics come from otherwise?). What's important is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

On the other hand, extractors and importers form an easy target rather than having to identify and tax every emitter.

I guess it's a case of "watch this space". And, in any case, who knows if the amendment will fly at all.

Incidentally, I note the final paragraph in the Edie piece indicating no decision on Drax and Peterhead CCS schemes until 2016. Talk about heal dragging!

Get Someone Else To Do It

I've just come across a report of a survey purporting to show that 30% of interviewees want schools to educate kids about recycling, energy efficiency and waste prevention. Come on! Is this really something to palm off onto schools? Everyone (including that 30%) should be doing the job themselves. I'm fed up with the general expectation that it's always someone else's job. It isn't. It's yours.

Thank You Dorset History Centre

Sometimes a little reminder is all you need.

I have Dorset ancestors and have been making very good use of the Dorset parish records, provided by the Dorset History Centre to Ancestry. One of the key activities in compiling any family tree is to make sure that you "kill off" your forebears (i.e. find death and/or burial records). I was having great difficulty in doing this with families from Dorchester as the parochial burial records petered out from about 1856. What, I wondered, was the problem? Lost material? Poor storage? Failed microfilming?

Stupid me! A query to DHC elicited a very rapid response from Ed, an assistant at the Centre, who pointed out that the local municipal cemetery opened in 1856. Not only did he do that, but he reminded me of the existence of Dorset Online Parish Clerk, and pointed me to their page of transcribed records from the cemetery! Now, that's service. So, many thanks to DHC, and to Ed in particular. I've "killed off" several relatives and found one (who lasted only 1 year) of whom I knew nothing.

UK Norway Interconnecttor - A Step Closer

It seems to have been talked about for ages but the UK-Norway interconnector is a step closer to existence with the letting of contracts to 3 infrastructure contractors.

The link is promoted as a means for Norway to spill excess renewable generation to the UK while providing increased security of supply to Norway. This has to be the right way to look at this project. I have heard some suggest that there is a major boost for UK security of supply as well, but you only have to think about the likely conditions at both ends at times when there is a squeeze on UK supply to realise that this is just wishful thinking.

Another Low Carbon Commitment Down the Pan

Why does the Government seem to believe that there's a trade-off between low carbon construction and total number of houses built? The allowable solutions scheme and the proposed 2016 domestic building energy efficiency targets are both being scrapped. As the spokesman from Willmott Dixon said - "This announcement seriously undermines industry's confidence in government policy and will diminish future investment". And owners of new homes will be foisted with less efficient dwellings than they would otherwise have had.

The Scourge of the Selfie

I have just returned from an extremely enjoyable short break in Prague. As with any holiday there were a few minor blips of which possibly the most irritating was the huge number of tourists taking selfies (with or without sticks). There's plenty to see in Prague and it's quite reasonable that people will wish to photograph these sites as a reminder of their holiday. However, is it really necessary that they stick their own mugs if front of everyone else simply because they adhere to the cult of self? And when they get home what will they have? Here's a picture of me obliterating the view of the Charles Bridge. And in this one you can just make out the Hrad behind my grimace. Oh, and look here's the Spanish Syangogue peaking over my left shoulder. Really!

So, selfie takers, please remember that there are other people in this world who might wish to take photographs of historic sites without your ugly features gurning away in front of them. It is the site that is of interest - not you!!

Who are M and Jason?

Really disappointing response so far. Go on. Repost and let's find them.

WHO ARE M AND JASON? Close members of the family will know that I act as "buying agent" to satisfy the Old Man's penchant for second hand books. I recent acquired a copy of "Georgiana" for him. This was the book he was reading at the time Mum died and he wished to replace the copy recycled when we cleared the house. This replacement copy, despite being second hand, appears never to have been read. On the fly leaf there is a dedication "to M 199 from Jason XXX". This begs a whole lot of questions. Who is/was M and why did he/she not read the book. Had Jason completely misunderstood him/her. Was M insulted by the implication that he/she had reached the grand old age of 199? Or did he/she see no future in a life with someone who couldn't manage to inscribe a gift with the full date? So, WHO ARE M AND JASON? The search starts here! Repost!

Why the silence on electricity?

The value chain for any modern economy has as one of its earliest elements energy. Often that energy is delivered in the form of electricity. So you'd think, wouldn't you, that a political party interested in the well-being of the UK economy would be interested in electricty delivery. So why the silence on this in the run up to the election?

Electricity generators are on the horns of a trilemma. Allowing the lights to go out is very bad news. We expect the flick of a switch to work every time. But that means having sufficient capacity - including back-up for those pesky peaks in demand. Problem - this capacity costs money that has to come from the consumer's pocket. And consumers want cheap electricity. Trouble is - there's a third factor to take into account - lowering emissions. Fine - so let's have lots more green energy - except that it costs more and the cheapest forms are intermittent (wind, solar). Oh - we need more back-up!

It's a bit like rock-paper-scissors - there appears to be no win-win. All the main political parties appear to think that a free market solution can deliver (a rigged- and interferred-with-free market that is). Will the much vaunted capacity mechanism work? Don't hold your breath.

Perhaps the only way out of the trilemma is to consume less. That will require intervention on the demand side from parties that only intervene on the supply side when thay are dragged kicking and screaming to the decision point.

Silence may normally be golden but on this subject it is plain worrying.

Banning the Words "Climate Change"

Who are these nutcases?

Bangladesh 275; England 260

Well, that was a pretty sorry end (almost) to a hopeless, woeful campaign.

English OD cricket seems to be falling behind the rest of the world.

I wasn't impressed with Moores first time around - why bring him back?

Why keep Cook on as captain so long when OD clearly isn't his forte?

Why replace him with an obviously out-of-sorts Morgan?

Why chop around with the selection so late?

A few decisions makers in the game need to look themselves carefully in the mirror - and then do the right thing!

Threat to Science - II

If the Tories are in power following the election they are committed to an in/out EU referendum. And if that results in an "out" vote British science will be a major loser. The EU may be a lumbering giant but it is good for British science. EU policy is to "encourage the highest quality research in Europe through competitive funding....on the basis of scientific excellence". Now scientists in the UK publish 16% of the world's most cited papers. And the EU funding rewarding this excellence amounts to receipts by UK scientists of £1.40 for every £1 that the country puts into the pot. That's not to be sniffed at!

Not only would we lose access to this cash, we would lose influence, too. And UK scientists would no doubt lose collaborators as well (just look at what has happened to the Swiss recently).

So an "out" vote most definitely is not a vote for science.

Threat to Science - I

As a lapsed scientist I still like to keep a weather-eye on how my old profession is faring. Now that some of the furore over Ed Miliband's commitment to lowering tuition fees has died down there is one sobering consequence to consider. Lower fees mean lower direct income to universities. Potentially this could be made whole by HMG - but I doubt it will happen - and in any case, uncertainty about the longevity of such funding will rise. So the likely consequence of Miliband's proposal is the cutting back or closure of university courses and teaching. And the likely first to go will be expensive science and engineering ones. Well done Ed!

8M Tonnes of Plastic Waste

The National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, earlier this month, reported on a study looking at plastic waste inputs from land into ocean. This concluded that something betwen 4.8M and 12.7M tonnes of 'mismanaged plastic' enters the ocean annually (hence my median figure of 8Mt in the title).

Needless to say the biggest culprit is China - responsible for some 28% of the material.

The toxic impact of marine plastic is well documented and with the annual input increasing year-on-year (extrapolation to 2025 suggests a burden by then of about 16Mt) there is an urgent need for better management practices.

So an AGR can have a 45 year life

EDF has recently announced that both reactors at Dungeness B will continue operating until 2028, a life extension of 10 years. The reactors were commissioned in 1983 and 1985 - something I remember well as it came as a great relief to the CEGB after years of delay. This extension has been enabled by a £150M investment programme and means that there should be operational overlap with Hinkley Point C which is expected to be commissioned in 2023.

Although we're talking different technologies it does seem to me to make Germany's decision to shut its nuclear stations down as part of the Energiewende process appear ever more bizarre.

Sustainable Growth?

I know that we've visited Limits to Growth a number of times, all apparently prematurely, but surely at some point the fact that we live on a finite planet IS going to matter.

That makes me cast a rather jaundiced eye  and ear upon the expert panel discussion at Davos - very brief summary here.

And Paul Polman's "I can have my cake and eat it too" is frighteningly trite.

Three Minutes to Midnight

For the first time in three years the hands on the Doomsday Clock have shifted. They have been moved closer to midnight - just three minutes away. This was recently announced on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website.

"In 2015, unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe". Some indictment!

The last time the clock was set this close to midnight was in 1983 when US-Soviet relations were glacial. What I find really worrying is the quantum of the movement decided upon by the Science and Securities Board - two full minutes. That suggests a view of the situational deterioration accelerating. The last change was a one minute move from six to five before midnight in 2012.

Walt Patterson - What Governments Must Do

I've always had a soft spot for Walt Patterson - he can produce the most thought provoking of articles and think-pieces. One such is his recent post to RenewEconomy. I won't summarise it - just ask to to click on the link and read it.

It's Not Price, It's Capacity

Let me remind you of this. In their dash for populist headlines about the poor British consumer being robbed by wicked utility companies our dear leaders seem to have forgotten that there is a need for investment - in new generation capacity, in distribution and transmission hardware, in control systems. Companies will only do this if they see that they will be able to make a decent return on that investment. Kicking them because they don't follow spot market prices down (notice that there's never an exhortation to follow them up!) won't help that situation. (And those self same politicians seem to overlook the fact that energy tends to be bought forward on long term contracts - a good way of reducing volatility - but, of course, not immediately reflective of spot prices).

It's capacity that matters - not the consumer's bill.

(Oh, and perhaps someone could look up the meaning of "crisis" before chuntering on about "the cost of living crisis").

Another Reason for not Voting UKIP

EDIE last week reported that UKIP want to scrap the Climate Change Act. Apparently the party's energy spokesman, one Roger Helmer, thinks that climate change is still "open to question" claiming that there "hasn't been any global warming for the last 18 years". Perhaps a quick glance at a New Statesman profile of him would be worth while. I am staggered that people actually vote for him.