Energy bill expected to favour nuclear and gas over renewables {uk}

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/22/energy-bill-nuclear-gas-renewables?intcmp=122



The energy bill is likely to favour fossil-fuel sources like gas, for which power stations can be built quickly and cheaply. Photograph: Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images


A dash for gas, a major fillip for nuclear power and blows to renewable energy – these are widely expected to be the contents of the government's much-anticipated draft energy bill, the main contents of which will be outlined by ministers in the afternoon.

The nuclear industry is expected to be one of the big winners, with a set of policies designed to favour low-carbon power – which will, controversially, include atomic energy as well as renewable sources such as wind and solar.

But renewable companies are concerned that they will lose out, because the current system of subsidies will be replaced with a complex new system of support that could favour big companies over their smaller rivals.

This new system – known as contracts for difference – would allow companies to sign long-term contracts to supply electricity. But the prices on such contracts could be higher or lower than the price of electricity in the wholesale market – the attraction to companies is supposed to be that the long-term nature of the contracts gives them the stability and certainty they need to invest.

[ladjf]

1. Of course it does. Who do you think is calling the shorts on this? nt

[FBaggins]

2. It does appear to favor dispatchable power.

From an early reading, existing renewables will have the option of keeping the RO subsidies, but that doesn't help with a decision to construct new renewables plants (at least PV/solar). I think such plants would need to purchase/partner with peaking gas generation (which will be paid for availability if not used) so that they know they can guarantee delivery during a given block of time.

This is closer to the design I would expect after renewables are more substantially built out. It could be premature.

[kristopher]

3. Related: Office for Nuclear Regulation in talks to extend life of aging power stations

Nuclear reactor reprieve puts UK energy plans in doubt
Office for Nuclear Regulation in talks to extend life of aging power stations earmarked for closure
Juliette Jowit, political correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 21 May 2012

Britain's ageing nuclear reactors, which were due to close in the next decade, are set to be kept open under a plan approved by the industry's regulator.

In a move that could have far-reaching implications for the government's energy policy, the Office for Nuclear Regulation has told the Guardian it is working with the country's dominant nuclear operator, the French-owned company EDF, to extend the life of its eight nuclear power stations in the UK, and that it is "content for the plants to continue to operate", as long as they pass regular safety tests.

The two organisations are also discussing other improvements to EDF's plants, including monitoring systems and dealing with the reactors' ageing.

Just a few weeks ago ministers were still referring to the need to "keep the lights on" in Britain when a number of existing nuclear and coal power stations closed over the next few years, by building new nuclear and gas power and subsidising renewable energy technologies and carbon capture and storage.

The plans have emerged as the government prepares to publish its energy white paper ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/nuclear-reactor-reprieve-energy-plans-doubt


The strategy of the nuclear industry seems clear. The economics of new nuclear have crumbled and their hoped for revival is more or less in the dust bin. Industry figures are repeatedly on record as saying this is a condition brought about by plunging natural gas prices and that they expect to last for "at least a decade".

If we assume they mean what they say, then the goal for them as a corporate entity becomes to preserve present market share and obstruct the development of alternatives that will prevent expansion once the turn in economics related to natural gas they foresee takes place.

That makes this a two front war where they are primarily concerned today with natural gas and 10 years from now with advances in renewables and energy efficiency. These policies are not designed primarily to address climate change, they are designed to perpetuate a controllable centralized energy system.

If we use that as an operating hypothesis, the actions of the government make sense.


See also:
Leaping UK carbon emissions deliver two red-hot lessons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112715279

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112715262


And though this is an example of what is happening in the US from the fossil industry, there is no reason to think it does not represent a similar campaign by nuclear in the UK. In other words, this type of corporate behavior is NOT conspiracy theory material.
ALEC Says It Plans To Craft Legislation To Take Down State Renewable Energy Targets
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/24/469934/alec-plans-to-craft-legislation-to-take-down-state-renewable-energy-targets/