Andrew Wade Senior reporter
They say a week is a long time in politics. But some weeks are different to others. Such has been the upheaval over the past five days, the political landscape has been entirely redrawn. Monday saw Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom drop out of the race, essentially handing the keys of Number 10 to Theresa May. By Wednesday night Cameron had said his goodbyes and the country had a new PM.
The former Home Secretary didn’t waste any time reshaping the cabinet, culling Osborne, Gove, Morgan, and BBC favourite John Whittingdale. Quelle dommage. Other than BoJo getting the nod as Foreign Secretary – a Machiavellian appointment if ever there was one – the biggest surprise was Leadsom being kept in the fold as Environment Secretary, where part of her remit will be to assure UK farmers there is life after EU subsidies. One wonders if Theresa might just have a dash of Sicilian blood coursing through those icy veins of hers.
We also saw the creation of a new government department, with Greg Clark appointed Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The ministry is essentially an amalgamation of DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) and Business, Innovation & Skills, with former heads Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid moving on to the Home Office and Communities respectively. Aligning business, industry and energy has the potential to bring more joined-up thinking and policy, and it’s a move that’s won approval from manufacturers’ organisation EEF.
“This is a welcome move and demonstrates a new, serious purpose to this government reflective of the times,” said Terry Scuoler, CEO of EEF.
“Now that energy and business policy are merged, we have the makings of an industrial strategy that will focus on UK competitiveness and will provide support to our sector as it seeks to overcome the challenges and seize opportunities from the decision to leave the EU. In light of the challenges ahead, this move is all to the good and should prove to be a powerful tool in driving growth and delivering a more balanced economy.”
Some have expressed concern that abolishing DECC and omitting ‘Climate Change’ from the title of the new portfolio could mean the issue slipping as a priority. However, Clark was the shadow secretary for energy and climate change when the Tories were in opposition between 2008 and 2010, during which time he spoke strongly and knowledgably about the strategies required to avert climate disaster. He even visited Bangladesh in 2009 to see the effects of climate change first hand.
Sophie Yeo and the clever people at Carbon Brief have drawn together a selection of statements from Clark during his tenure as DECC shadow secretary, and they make for encouraging reading.
“If we want to beat a problem as big as climate change, then we need innovation on a massive scale – not only in technology, but also in the everyday engineering, logistics, finance and marketing required to turn inventions into world-changing enterprises,” he said in 2010.
This one from a year earlier: “‘Green’ policies do a lot more than protect our environment; they create immediate new jobs in construction, manufacturing and services, they reduce energy bills through greater efficiency and they will help reduce our balance of payments deficit in the longer term by reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels.”
And another one from 2009: “When faced with a black swan risk the only way to protect yourself is to reduce your exposure in the first place. In the case of climate change, that means ending our grand experiment with the planet’s atmosphere. The net costs of decarbonising the economy should therefore be regarded as an insurance policy – much as any sensible householder would pay to insure themselves against the remote, but real, risk of fire and flood.”
It’s worth noting that these comments were made in the wake of the financial crisis, when the UK and global economies were struggling. In a post-Brexit Britain that is likely to face similar financial challenges, one hopes Clark’s enthusiasm holds true, and is supported by both the PM and the Treasury. He’s previously stated his backing for CCS, offshore wind, wave and tidal energy, as well as making noises around carbon pricing. A ministry where climate, energy, business and industry are coordinated under the same roof could well be the key to meeting carbon targets while fuelling economic growth and driving innovation. It’s essentially what Clark himself was arguing for when in opposition. But we all know it’s easy to talk big from the cheap seats, and it’s another thing entirely to make it happen when you’re in the hot seat.
And do not forget prior to DECC being created Energy Policy was in the then BERR and prior to that DTI; I was the CSA at the time with the energy brief, prior to Sir David Mckay taking over in DECC; this is putting energy back where it was, with I assume both climate change adaptation and mitigation together in DEFRA; but we still need joined up low carbon policies across departments, so lets hope that is on the agenda too….!!
Does this mean the Swansea barrage will be back in business?
I’d certainly imagine it will be looked at again through fresh eyes Richard. The size of the capital outlay and potential strike price seemed to scare off the previous government, understandably to some degree. But it needs to be viewed in the context of the other, more economical TLP projects that will follow if Swansea is a success. Swansea would be a proof-of-concept gamble, but one I would love to see the government take. Big infrastructure projects like this are all too uncommon outside the M25.
When I first read this, I thought it was a TLA (+1) joke. Do civil servants actually converse like this? [TLA – three letter acronym.] Perhaps there is a place for a new one: a MAY [measured average yield?] Still no Engineer in the cabinet (NEITC), and only a few scientifically trained[FST] t if the Tories stick to form in industrial and technical matters they will CIU quite quickly (C**K it up)
Really it should never have been the department for “Climate Change”, rather the lack of it. Hopefully leaving out from the new title means that there won’t be so much of it. However with all the wrong signals (cutting FITs and promoting fracking) being sent out lately, I’m not so sure. We need to take control of energy policy and speed towards our renewable future.
A few days ago, I watched a debate about the Rule of law from the House of Lords.
What became immediately clear was that those speaking -politicians and lawyers all- had, have and will soon have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER of the advances in technology and the application of science and Engineering that will, I predict within ten years literally blow (or wash or radiate!) them and all they purport to contribute to life-upon-earth, away. The reality surely is that soon ‘we’ are going to have to take charge/control and tell the clerks what must happen: and implement it too!
“any sensible householder would pay to insure themselves against the remote, but real, risk of fire and flood.” (and theft?) If one looks at Insurance for what it actually is – a bet on a horse that you hope loses the race- ie you do NOT have to make a claim, perhaps it places other forms of Insurance into context. Even that of spending £300 billion (I will repeat that number £300,000,000,000) as a deterrent/bet to some loon letting-off something his/her population cannot afford either! Has the entire world gone cuckoo , or is it just me?
Yes it’s true: old Nuclear technology should be put on the scrap heap as it does not make a good case for itself in perpetuating a process that’s a legacy of world war & cold war where a single purpose formed it’s implementation & regulation – weapons grade plutonium and the inherent risk for proliferation.
But here’s where a revolutionary Nuclear technology, based on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors, is head and shoulders above the rest to help make the difference with climate change. If you want a more effective, energy dense way to produce reliable base-load energy and put the brakes on climate change the Nuclear Industry needs to become truly civil minded and tear itself away from its steam driven past. It is this lock-in to the past that perpetuates the flawed solid fuel based Nuclear fuel technologies … with their inherent limiting efficiency (near as dammit 0% of fuel used – and why so many see this as unreasonable due to the obvious wastes). Physiological inertia and business culture entrench the status-quo. What engineer would continue with such a contrived process to ensure safety for such a low yield burnup efficiency as a return on all the efforts?
By investing in the development of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology that uses the more abundant Thorium the very clear advantages a MSR can bring – such as reducing the Plutonium waste -will become apparent (see Molten Salt Reactor in wiki). This also mentions Britain’s exploration of the technology by AERE around the same time as ORNL in the states – both running out of funds at about the same time in the early 70’s … coincidence!
At a time where climate change is very much on the agenda it’s almost as if simplifying the current ‘steam driven’ Nuclear Technology with its flawed solid fuel system and safety critical high pressure water systems should be higher up on the agenda. One of the main issues with solid fuel is when Xenon gas is produced as a fission by-product … this plays havoc with solid fuel – ‘poisoning’ the reaction process (this was overlooked and led to the disaster at Chernobyl). The Xenon out gassing compromises the cooling efficiency to become the main reason for limiting the fuel life from stress fractures and potential effect on the Zirconium clad fuel rods. These so called ‘spent’ fuel rods then have to be replaced – otherwise it may affect the fuel rod – being the first level of containment. Another major flaw is the tendency for Zirconium to draw oxygen away from surroundings when things get too hot … resulting in Hydrogen gas. Having to vent this (never a good idea with radioactive isotopes around) is required to reduce the containment vessel pressure – but this led to an explosive atmosphere build up in the reactor halls with eventual explosions at each affected reactor in Fukushima.
This should be where the comparison to the slicker Molten Salt Reactor that allows almost 100% burnup while working at safer atmospheric pressure, as well as more thermally efficient operation (Brayton compatible), cannot melt down … it’s already in a fluid state … in a scram condition it can only become cool and end up as solid. This should be understood as the obvious next step in the Nuclear technology strategy. Using an MSR based on a Thorium fuel (LFTR – Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) in a thermal spectrum reactor seems to have many advantages and should be the ideal option to pursue. The guys at ORNL would shut down on Friday for their weekend break and restart on Monday without any hitches. What engineer would not jump at the chance to improve the burnup yield efficiency to such an extent while using such an inherently safe process?
While entrenched in the past technology there appears a conundrum where the appeal of far-fetched future technologies sits more comfortably than those within easier reach. It would seem the moon-shot for Fusion Reactors and the sun-shot for solar grabs the headlines (and the funding) where a blind spot exists for the more practical step of a ‘walk-away’ safe, more efficient, proliferation resistant, waste reducing, MSR Thorium based Fission Reactor … that requires no huge input power to initiate & control it … just real commitment to invest as this is far too important an issue to depend only on the good intentions of charitable organisations, such as the Alvin Weinberg Foundation, to progress!
The time for a down-to-earth-shot is long overdue.
The demise of cuckoos is due in part to climate change resulting in the destruction of their food supply at their Spanish stop over en route to Africa. Heard on the BBC R4 yesterday.
By all means develop more efficient nuclear reactors but why not also focus our efforts on exploiting our world class tidal energy resources and also support the development of massive concentrated solar thermal power stations in the MENA desert regions.
When we eventually stop burning fossil fuels these regions will need something to substitute for their loss of income and employment from exporting oil and gas to avoid economic collapse and social upheaval so exporting electricity generated from solar power would seem to fit the bill. It is only a very short hop from North Africa to Europe across the Straits of Gibralter and HVDC cables have only a 3% loss per 1000 kms.
The late Professor Sir David Mackay, who died at 48 years of age in April this year and is mentioned at the start of this thread, author of “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” ( free to download at http://www.withouthotair.com) was a great supporter of renewable energy and his wise contribution is sadly missed.
Neil Mackinnon’s comment regarding the ineffiency of solid fuelled nuclear reactors is well made.
In the late 70’s I was involved in the start-up of a uranium plant in Namibia. The output of the open pit was some 150,000 tonnes per day of rock of which 50,000 tonnes per day went through crushing, grinding, leaching with sulphuric acid, thickening, continuous ion exchange, solvent extraction, precipitation, filtration, roasting of the yellow cake and finally packing of the approx 10 tonnes per day of final uranium oxide calcine product in shiny black drums which were sent elsewhere for further concentration and processing into fuel rods.
The 100,000 tonnes per day of overburden from the mine was transported to nearby waste dumps and the 50,000 or so tonnes per day of leach residue solids and other process plant waste were neutralised and pumped to tailings dams and remain at the mine site to this day. Although these daily tonnages are unlikely to have been maintained throughout the 37 years since mine start-up it certainly amounts to many hundreds of millions of tonnes of low level mine waste.
It was only many years later after a visit to Sizewell B that I came to realise that only an astonishingly small percentage of the energy contained in the hard fought-for calcine in those shiny black drums was ever recovered as electric power. Much of the contained energy ended up as so called radioactive waste and is still awaiting final storage or reprocessing.
It is from this experience that, although I am not against more efficient nuclear power, I do favour concentrated solar thermal power stations in the world deserts using heliostat mirrors to harvest the fusion power of the sun to heat and store molten salt or heat transfer pellets and raise steam and generate electricity 24 hrs a day. No exotic materials to be mined to make solar panels. No fuel to mine, process, prepare and transport. No mine waste. No power plant emissions or waste to be disposed of to land, air or water. No costly decommissioning problems.. Inherently safer. No proliferation concerns, in fact the more proliferation of this technology across the globe the better. Only 3% transmission loss per 1000km using HVDC cables.