Posted on

What Will It Take to Make New Nuclear Happen?

Electricity price risk is not the whole story

It is not clear whether there will be new nuclear build in the UK without some form of government support. Although nuclear power station can provide electricity to society at a reasonable cost 24/7, it is not a generation type suited to varying the amount electricity produced. So nuclear can be a risky investment if the price of electricity is very volatile and falls below the level need to make interest payments.

Prof David Newbery has recently written an article “Be Creative, Reduce the risk of nuclear investment” http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/eprg/pubs/misc/Newbery_NuclearInvestmentRisk_FT_080109.pdf

In it, he suggests that the risk of a volatile electricity price, faced by new investors in nuclear can be mitigated by generators selling bonds which pay according to the electricity price.

On Wednesday afternoon I had a meeting with a city financier, about the idea. His thoughts were that the financial risks associated with new nuclear are more fundamental than just the risk of a volatile electricity price.

The main problem with financing nuclear are the long-term liabilities and the fundamental absence of trust in the nuclear industry.

Continue reading What Will It Take to Make New Nuclear Happen?

Posted on

Corporations for Climate Stability

On Wednesday, I went to a meeting organized by ‘resurgence’ magazine entitled “Corporations for Climate Stability”. On the panel were:

· Jonathan Porritt – director, Forum for the Future, Commission for Sustainable Development (Sophisticated, Realistic and historical view of the world; emphasized the internalization of pollution costs)

· Alan Knight – Corporate Social Responsibility – has worked for 9 months at Virgin group. He emphasized the importance of scaling up good ideas.

· Tessa Tennant UK Social Investment Forum;- Spoke about socially responsible investment forum several trillion. What will be the big names in the future

· Nick Robins Hendersons International Investors: spoke about financial innovation

· Tony Jupiter (Chair), Executive Director of Friends of The Earth: Companies are Powerful Actors; How companies can make a difference; Education& Long termism.

Overall it was an interesting meeting; I was impressed by Porritt’s erudition and preparation: less so the other speakers, although there were good moments. I asked the speakers about using carbon taxes to offset other taxes and received a positive comment – this had been done in British Columbia. As soon as I had made my comment about carbon taxes, Jupiter, and Porritt made a number of points against nuclear. Nobody made any countervailing comments. So it was interesting meeting but I still felt the discussion was not covering the complete story.

Continue reading Corporations for Climate Stability

Posted on

Confused by carbonates

Somebody please help!

I’m having great difficulty reconciling two things that I’ve read:

1. There is a carbonate “saturation horizon” at a specific depth in the oceans. Below this depth carbonates dissolve because of the high pressure. (The “saturation horizon” depth is also less where it is colder).

What’s going on is that there is a chemical equilibrium:

Ca2+ + HCO3 <–> CaCO3 + H+

Adding CO2 to the oceans – a result of adding it to the atmosphere – makes the problem worse. It acidifies the water, driving this equilibrium to the left, in effect dissolving carbonates, such as the shells of marine organisms. (The big danger is that this process will raise the carbonate saturate horizon to the surface in the polar oceans, leading to a sudden increase in acidity in the absence of the carbonate buffer, which will reduce the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, as well as prevent organisms from making carbonate exoskeletons).

2. There is a plan afoot to dump carbon dioxide underground, in gas and oil fields and in saline aquifers (”carbon capture and sequestration” or CCS). There was an interesting article on this by Fred Pearce in last week’s New Scientist (subscriber’s only, I’m afraid). Now, said Fred, “… the chemical reactions might gradually convert the CO2 into carbonate rock…”. But Fred also mentions the Frio project when the CO2 “…acidified the brine allowing it to dissolve metal-oxide minerals in the rock…” which “…might eventually create tunnels in the cap rock through which CO2 might escape”.

My question is, why wouldn’t the CO2 in general form an acid (I assume there’s plenty of water about) and dissolve the rock? In particular, how could it form carbonate rock, when, as we see in the oceans, CO2 in solution forms an acid which dissolves carbonate rock – more effectively at pressure? Surely this could only happen once all the CO2 had been converted to some intermediate form? – since otherwise any remaining CO2 would form acid and dissolve the carbonate. Can we therefore always rely on the sequestered CO2 staying where it’s put?

Of course, I’ve consulted “Sustainable Fossil Fuels” by Mark Jaccard who notes that: “… the CO2 may eventually either dissolve into the aquifer water (hydrodynamic trapping) or precipitate as a solid carbonate mineral by reacting with the surrounding rock (mineral trapping).” OK…

When I look at the IPCC Special Report on CCS, I see they go into all this in more detail, of course. I guess I’m happy with the chemistry – on its own – and I’m happy with the mechanics – permeability, cap-rocks etc. – on its own. It’s the interaction between the chemistry and the physics of the rock formations that bothers me. The IPCC notes that:

“Reaction of the dissolved CO2 with minerals can be rapid (days) in the case of some carbonate minerals…” (section 5.2.2.3, p.209).

and that:

“Reaction of the CO2 with formation water and rocks may result in reaction products that affect the porosity of the rock and the flow of solution through the pores. This possibility has not, however, been observed experimentally and its possible effects cannot be quantified.” (section 5.2.2, p.210).

Perhaps we’d better quantify it before we get our hopes for CCS up too high. What was the Frio project if it wasn’t an experiment? Puzzlingly, the IPCC report only mentions the Frio project as 1600tCO2 “pilot” (Table 5.1, p.201) and one of several that:

“…demonstrate that subsurface injection of CO2 is not for the distant future, but is being implemented now for environmental and/or commercial reasons.” (section 5.1.2, p.204).

What is this? A scientific evaluation or a sales brochure?

In general, is the approach being adopted to evaluating CCS one of identifying all the problems so that we can avoid them when we roll-out the technology, or one of trying to show that there are no problems, so that we can carry on planning to burn fossil-fuels (and building coal-fired power-stations) with as few qualms as possible?

One other annoying fact: liquid CO2 is less dense than water, so if there is enough pressure and the reservoir is not sealed, it’s the CO2 that will leak out, not the H2O.

Any comments that might help allay my fears are more than welcome.

Posted on

Sir David King on Climate Change

On Friday, I saw Sir David King talk about his new book on climate change: ‘The Hot Topic‘. He came across as you’d expect: warm, authoritative, knowledgeable – the antithesis of ignorance.

One way to measure the advances made in the twentieth century is to look at the life expectancy, which has gone up from around 45 at the start of the 20th century to around 80 at the end. Women’s fertility has dropped as well – In the last 10 years the fecundity has gone down in Latin America from 5.5 to 2. But the population growth is still a given. at over 9 billion by the middle of the century.

It is this population growth that is causing our problems. The challenges of the 21st century: food, water, energy, security, disease etc. are strongly linked together – and climate change is a common factor.

One of the key policy tools for solving the problem is *forward looking regulation*. For example, telling car manufacturers that cars must be of a certain standard. Johnson Matthey – a local company – in fact even now makes very efficient catalytic converters. The air comes out cleaner than it goes in!!

After all this regulation of local pollutants you are simply left with CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. Safe of course. But of course it has serious effects.

Look at the relation between CO2 and temperature. We know the temperature was at the Palaeocene-Eocene maximum about 8-10 warmer than it is now.

This has huge impacts, not least on biodiversity. The mountain gorillas of central Africa need 40 or so plants to survive, and lives in a specialised bamboo forest. The gorillas move with the – isotherms up the mountain but eventually they reach the top of the mountain and there is nowhere to run to. We’re not capable of recreating their natural habitat.

One difficulty is negotiating with so many countries that are in different current and historical states. e.g. US & Canada pollute twice as fast as Europe.

However we must involve the developing world too – as a graph of projected future BAU emissions shows. To reduce carbon emissions to safe levels, emissions need to peak at about 9GtC in next 10 years for 450ppmCO2only and about 12GtC per an in next 20 years for 550ppmCO2only. This is a huge task. But we’d better start now!


In short then, climate change is ‘The Hot Topic‘!

Posted on

Sweeping not tweaking

Tax reform is essential is we are to stop or slow many of the most persistent threats to our environment. Here Dr Adrian Wrigley lays out his ideas for a radical Carbon Tax and explains how replacing the Council Tax with a Land Value Tax could solve the current housing crisis

The Conservatives are considering an array of tax tweaks this week based on studies by the Centre for Social Justice. Their latest recommendations include tax rewards for married couples and welfare measures aimed at “ending the costs of social breakdown”. But although they deserve full marks for identifying the symptoms and establishing that the culprit is the structure of the tax and benefit system, their “solutions” show an astonishing failure to grasp the magnitude of the social, economic and environmental crises that we face.

Founded on the philosophically appealing but flawed concepts of “taxation based on ability to pay” and welfare assistance to “those most in need of support”, the tax and benefit system has become a terrible bureaucratic monster. Tax treatment of marriage is the tip of the iceberg since the impact of this tax monster runs deep – promoting environmental outrages such shelling British prawns in Thailand for sale back in the UK. The flights each way are exempt from tax and enable cuts in highly taxed British jobs. The poverty trap this creates causes unemployment and degrades the environment

The necessary reforms are simple but radical. We need to re-examine the tax, benefits, subsidies and laws that affect the core economic and environmental foundations of society, and embark on a 20-year programme to abolish those found to be unnecessary, complex or harmful. The few taxes remaining will be developed as the basis for a freer, fairer and sustainable society. Prosperity will rise as wastage falls.

A new Carbon Tax would allow the phased abolition of VAT across Europe. This would be a welcome step for business owners and customers alike, boosting the service sector and cutting red tape. The new tax would be levied on the extraction and importation of fossil fuels, and the release of global warming gases such as methane. The UK carbon tax rate needed to replace VAT today is £140/tonne CO2 – about 40p on a litre of petrol. A carbon tax would drive investment in the low-carbon sectors, particularly into power generation, transport and home energy efficiency. It would lead to the abandonment of calls for new airport runways and terminals as the aviation sector decreased in size, and green subsidies, biofuel mandates and pollution permit trading systems would become unnecessary.

Another high priority is addressing the root cause of the housing crisis. Almost any productive activity undertaken in the UK is subject to hefty taxes. Investment, saving, working and innovation all pay more than their fair share to The Exchequer. The only refuge from high taxes is the housing market, a situation that causes booms, busts and inequity.

Evidence of a real housing “shortage” is absent. A real shortage would show up as overcrowding nationwide. People would be walking the streets in the hope of finding a room. Room prices would be high, and there would be no empty houses.

We have a crisis of affordability and allocation. People are borrowing eight times their income to get on the housing ladder yet there are 700,000 derelict houses, 500,000 second homes, and hundreds of thousands of pensioners’ homes with at least three bedrooms spare. The overheated Spanish housing market shows that rapid building programmes do not cure price bubbles.

Turning the Council Tax into a monthly land value tax (LVT) paid by all landowners based on the full rental value of the underlying land is key to a just and rational tax system. This would allow the elimination of Inheritance and Capital Gains Tax, and Business Rates. Equivalent to 0.25% of current house prices, the LVT would also fund major welfare reform and a simple flat rate income tax.

The LVT would help bring derelict city land into productive use. Single people in large houses would tend to move to smaller ones. Under LVT, outsize homes cannot be an alternative to a pension so elderly people in large properties would either “roll up” their pension payments via a charge against their house, or would move to smaller premises.

The impact on housing supply and demand would be startling: plans for new towns would become redundant; the need for new roads and other infrastructure would evaporate and, together with the Carbon Tax, the LVT will protect the countryside and prevent suburban sprawl.

Green Party supporters will recognise the ideas here but also see substantial differences. Two things are certain: tweaking taxes will not do – sweeping reform must become mainstream, and the debate on ecological taxation is just beginning.

Originally published in the Ecologist magazine. Published here with permission from the author.

Posted on

Implications of ‘peak oil’ – Tim’s Translation Service

No sooner had I digested the Target Atmospheric CO2 paper than another one (pdf) arrived, courtesy of James Hansen’s mailing list.

The paper “Implications of ‘peak oil’ for atmospheric CO2 and climate”, Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen (pdf) makes a similar argument to that in “Target Atmospheric CO2″, though there are some differences.

I’ll try to keep the translation brief this time.

Summary

The paper seeks to show that we can keep CO2 below 450ppm [Hansen argued for less in “Target Atmospheric CO2″] by avoiding burning coal to the atmosphere, and using a high price of CO2 to deter the use of unconventional (e.g. tar sand) and other expensive sources of oil. Various Peak Oil scenarios imply that we can keep below 450ppm CO2, based on the Bern carbon cycle model, with both a static pulse response function (PRF) and a dynamic PRF. That is, even if some carbon cycle feedbacks are allowed for, CO2 can be kept below 450ppm if we burn all the existing conventional oil and natural gas reserves.

Continue reading Implications of ‘peak oil’ – Tim’s Translation Service

Posted on

Target Atmospheric CO2 – Tim’s Translation Service

The venerable James Hansen has drafted a paper (pdf) taking a broad step-back look at global warming (GW) science. This is important, because I don’t believe all the bad news is yet in the market. Unfortunately the paper is written in the Scienglish dialect, so I will try to translate.

Summary

Estimates of the temperature rise due to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) only take account of “fast feedbacks”. The expected temperature rise should therefore be doubled (it turns out) if we take long-term “slow feedbacks”, such as changes in the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) due to the melting of ice-sheets. Therefore, to keep the temperature below dangerous levels, we need to keep atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm. We can do this by not burning coal to the atmosphere – carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would be OK – and by ensuring agriculture and forestry practices capture and retain carbon.

Continue reading Target Atmospheric CO2 – Tim’s Translation Service