How France is entwinned with Iranian uranium enrichment programme

Among the reasons the Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme have had to be reconvened this week  is France objected to the deal being closed-off with Iran earlier because of Teheran's  contested  plutonium production plant at Arak.

Whatever doubts the French have over Arak, they seem to be sanguine about Iran’s involvement in uranium enrichment, so much so that they are in industrial partnership with the Iranians in this technology, and have been for four decades since the  agreement was initiated  by the Shah in 1975.

Oddly, this deal never gets reported in the context of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Is there any good reason why not?

The origins of the deal are illustrative of the dangers of international nuclear collaboration.  A joint-stock uranium enrichment Eurodif (European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment ) Consortium was formed in 1973, with France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden the original shareholders.

In 1975 Sweden’s 10% share in Eurodif was sold to Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogema (now Areva) and the then Iranian government established the spin-out Sofidif (Société Franco-Iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse ) with 60% and 40% shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25% share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10% share of Eurodif.

The former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, lent $1 billion (and another $180 million  in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory to have the right of buying 10% of the site’s production.

Although Iran's active involvement in Eurodif was halted following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has retained its active involvement in Sofidif, headquartered  in Rue La Fayette in Paris, to the present day. Its current annual report is audited by KPMG. Dr Ali Daee of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was appointed Iran’s new  Permanent Representative to Sofidef as recently as  25 September last year.

The hypocrisy of France, as a nuclear technology supplier to Iran, ganging up on its customer client with the other self-appointed permanent-5 members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

A great Gallic Whine!

 

I submitted this as a comment to The Guardian, who  declined to publish it.

 

Zoe Williams is right to argue we need to think beyond the greed of the Big Six for a sustainable energy future. (“Want an energy revolution? Think beyond the big six,” 13 Nov.)

It is worth comparing and contrasting biggest of the Big Six, the French State-owned EDF's great Gallic whine over paying so-called green taxes and levies, with their success in committing future Governments to at least double the price of electricity to consumers, via the Strike Price deal for the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, the details of which are protected from public gaze by the overwhelming priority of commercial confidentiality.

As usual, commercial interests are put before the public interest.

Your correspondent Andrew Broadbent of CES Ltd Economic and Social research (“Fallout from the Hinkley Point decision,” 23 October,  
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/22/fallout-hinkley-point-decision) cogently argued this deal “begins to look like a ‘nuclear at any price’ Faustian pact, but it is the true measure of the cost of nuclear.”

I can only agree with his sensible conclusion that  the only hope of some economic rationality is that the state-aided distortion of the power market by this preferential deal will be declared illegal by the European Commission’s competition directorate.

French uranium enrichment deal with Iran overlooked‏

I sent this letter to the Financial Times, but as it looks as if they are not going to publish it, I thought the interesting message could still be conveyed via this Blog:

 

 

Both your correspondent Richard Bolchover  (“Netanyahu is right to suspect Rouhani,” letters) and your article (“Iran’s Arak plant reveals depth of distrust, “ November 13) highlight France’s objection to a deal with Iran over its contested  plutonium production plant at Arak.

Whatever doubts the French have over Arak, they seem to be sanguine about Iran’s involvement in uranium enrichment, so much so that they are in industrial partnership with the Iranians in this technology, and have been for four decades since the  agreement was initiated  by the Shah in 1975.

Oddly, this deal never gets reported in the context of the Iran nuclear negotiations.

The origins of the deal are illustrative of the dangers of international nuclear collaboration.  A joint-stock uranium enrichment Eurodif (European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment ) Consortium was formed in 1973, with France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden the original shareholders.

In 1975 Sweden’s 10% share in Eurodif was sold to Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogema (now Areva) and the then Iranian government established the spin-out Sofidif (Société Franco-Iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse ) with 60% and 40% shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25% share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10% share of Eurodif.

The former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, lent $1 billion (and another $180 million  in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory to have the right of buying 10% of the site’s production.

Although Iran's active involvement in Eurodif was halted following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has retained its active involvement in Sofidif, headquartered  in Rue La Fayette in Paris, to the present day. Its current annual report is audited by KPMG. Dr Ali Daee of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was appointed Iran’s new  Permanent Representative to Sofidef as recently as  25 September last year.

The hypocrisy of France, as a nuclear technology supplier to Iran, ganging up on its customer client with the other self-appointed permanent-5 members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

 

Fracking and radon: an update

 
I sent this letter to the Daily Telegraph on the 10th November, As it seems they are not now going to publish it, I have posted it here.

I am not surprised, but am concerned, that the energy minister Michael Fallon is pushing ahead with the fracking of shale gas, (“Fracking 'is safe... and it's coming soon',” 9 Nov.)

In your report you acknowledge the recent publication of a review of health and safety associated with fracking by the Government’s official advisor, Public Health England (PHE), but misleadingly assert it concluded “fracking did not pose a serious medical risk.”

The report is much more nuanced than that. The clue is in the title: ‘Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction.’

PHE’s report points out that exposure to naturally occurring radiation comprises 84% of the annual average dose, and exposure to radon is the most significant source, contributing approximately 50% of the dose.

It specifically stresses: “If the natural gas delivery point were to be close to the extraction point, with a short transit time, radon present in the natural gas would have little time to decay the half-life of radon is 3.8 days.” And ends stating “No data are yet available on radon concentrations of shale gas from  the UK at the wellhead.”

Professor John Newton, Chief Knowledge Officer at PHE, said when the report was launched: "The report makes a number of recommendations, including the need for environmental monitoring to provide a baseline ahead of shale gas extraction, so that any risks from the operation can be appropriately assessed."

In light of these serious uncertainties, how can Mr Fallon give the public a reassurance that fracking will be environmentally safe and he will be “trying to win wider acceptance for fracking”?

 

£1bn benefit from smart metering, say ministers

 

[This article  appears on the Sustainable Building web site on 13 November.
http://www.sustainable-build.com/news/%C2%A31bn-benefit-smart-metering-say-ministers]

Benefits to electricity networks of around £1bn will arise "directly from functionality or information delivered by the smart metering system," ministers claim in response to a report on smart meters by the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.
In a response released on 9 October, prepared by DECC with input from the Central Delivery Body (the organisation set-up and funded by suppliers to undertake consumer engagement), ministers agree with the ECCSC that there needs to be some "flexibility" in the new roll-out timetable, which should be "driven by engineering and infrastructure requirements and the need to avoid artificial deadlines acting to push up programme costs."
Ministers say they recognise that completing the national roll-out will be an "enormous logistical and technical challenge" and they want consumers to have "a good experience of smart metering from day one."  Consumer groups have been clear, ministers acknowledge, that getting it right for consumers is more important than delivering the roll-out quickly.
There is a wide consensus that the amended timetable is deliverable and all parties are committed to working towards commencing mass roll-out in autumn 2015 and completion by the end of 2020, ministers insist. But they note that  "progress will be closely monitored for the duration of the Programme, and DECC will continue to listen to all stakeholders and learn from early installation experiences to "allow the necessary time for testing of smart metering systems before the mass roll-out starts and to ensure successful completion."
DECC repeats it is its "ambition is for all domestic and small business premises to have smart metering,"  and  to support this ambition, there is a licence obligation on the Data and Communications Company (DCC) to strive for 100% Wide Area Network (WAN) coverage. This requires that the DCC must justify on an annual basis what steps it is taking to secure 100% WAN coverage in a manner that is technically practicable and cost proportionate. The procurement of the DCC communications service providers identified some areas where, on the basis of current technology and costs, "it would be very difficult to deliver 100% WAN coverage at an acceptable price by the end of 2020."  Nevertheless, DECC says, all of the appointed communication service providers have "committed to very high WAN coverage levels - 99.25% of premises by 2020."
Individual energy suppliers are responsible for delivering the roll-out of smart meters to their customers, while the Data and Communications Company (DCC) is responsible for providing the WAN that all suppliers will use.
Because they are in competition with each other, DECC argues that "suppliers are motivated to deliver the roll-out in the most efficient way. Subject both to energy regulation and wider competition law, suppliers may however identify opportunities for achieving efficiency savings and operating in the best interests of customers through co-operation with some or all other energy suppliers." Energy suppliers themselves will take a view on the "desirability of co-operation in particular circumstances and its compatibility with the legal framework governing the competitive energy market."
The smart meter programme has been designed to support smart grid capability in two main ways:

• The minimum specification for the metering equipment includes the physical functionality required, e.g. voltage registers, load control capability and time-of-use tariffs, so the technical capability of smart meters is compatible with the anticipated demands of a smart grid. This will improve distribution network companies' understanding of and control over the use of their networks and help them better target investment in network infrastructure.
• Flexible and scalable communications services will provide consumers, energy suppliers and network companies with data to help enable significant demand-side response capability.

The smart meter Impact Assessment (IA) identifies two broad categories of smart grid-related benefits:

• Benefits to networks of around £1 billion, which arise directly from functionality or information delivered by the smart metering system.
• Approximately £900 million of benefits from load shifting, as consumers take up time-of-use tariffs and change their energy consumption patterns.

In addition to these specific benefits, the IA recognises further potential benefits that a smart grid could deliver. But these are not explicitly quantified in the assessment as they are dependent on additional investment in the energy sector or market developments, which are outside of the scope of the smart metering programme.
In relation to this, DECC has worked with Ofgem and industry through the Smart Grid Forum to evaluate the wider costs and benefits of smart developments of the electricity distribution system. Their analysis suggests that smart grid technologies can deliver significant savings over the period to 2050 relative to using conventional approaches only. The overarching conclusion of this work is that savings in grid investment in the order of 25-30% of total investment costs] to 2050 are achievable.
Efficiency
The smart meter roll-out will enable energy suppliers to realise a number of operational efficiency savings but they will also face the costs arising from the installation and operation of smart meters, DECC warns. We expect suppliers to minimise the costs and maximise the efficiency savings from the roll-out and to reflect these costs and savings in their charges to customers.
The Government will be monitoring progress in delivering the roll-out, including in each of the key areas of benefits and costs identified in the Programme's IA. DECC says it will be collecting information directly from energy suppliers throughout roll-out to allow the monitoring of  "expected efficiency savings in back office support functions and meter management, and the costs of delivery." The information collected on costs and benefits will allow the assessment of impacts on consumer bills. In addition, DECC says it is "already conducting surveys about consumer attitudes and experience of smart metering and measuring the initial consumer benefits being achieved as a result of Foundation installations through an early evaluation project, results of which will be published in 2014."
DCS
Following extensive consultation and careful consideration of alternative models, the Government concluded that the most effective approach to deliver the data and communications services efficiently, securely and affordably was to establish a single, central data and communications company. There were a number of reasons for establishing a single body to perform this role and support delivery of the Programme's benefits:

• To protect and promote competition in the retail energy market by:
• Putting in place shared infrastructure that facilitates consumers switching energy supplier without a change of meter or communication equipment
• Streamlining industry processes to enable faster, more accurate switching
• To facilitate new and emerging energy service markets, by ensuring ease of access to data to parties who have permission from consumers;
• To support the development of a smart grid by ensuring communication service providers deliver smart energy network requirements across GB and facilitate access to data for the network operators;
• To deliver efficiency and maximum coverage through economies of scale;
• To provide the most robust security architecture for smart metering on a national scale.

The Government's IA quantifies some of the specific benefits of a centralised approach, where they can be estimated. In particular, it identifies benefits of £1.7 billion over the period to 2030 relating to an enhanced consumer switching process.
The Data and Communications Company (DCC) is the licenced organisation responsible for service development, service management and contract management of the smart meter data and communications system, while the data and communications services themselves will be delivered by companies who have a service contract with the DCC. The estimated value for the DCC itself is £175m over 12 years, which compares with the estimated service contract values of over £2bn. It will be regulated by Ofgem, to ensure compliance with the obligations set out in its licence and provision of an economic and efficient service, DECC says.
Since the Committee's inquiry finished, the licence to operate as the DCC has been awarded to Smart DCC Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capita PLC. The DCC has also signed contracts with three companies for the delivery of the fundamental data communications services. These are CGI IT UK Limited, Arqiva Limited and Telefónica UK Limited.
DCC Communication Service Providers have committed to wide area network coverage targets of 99.25% of GB premises by 2020 (the end of mass rollout) and will provide coverage to at least 80% of premises within each region by the end of 2015 (the start of the DCC's live service), DECC insists.
Meter choice
DECC also said that SMETS1 meters allow for any open communication standard to be used, whereas SMETS2 specifies a particular communication standard, which will facilitate communications with the DCC systems. SMETS 1 compliant meters will be capable of communicating with the DCC, but as they may employ different communication standards, "different arrangements may be required to communicate to the meter," DECC stresses.
SMETS 2 also include some additional requirements including:

• Provision for registers in electricity meters to record the maximum demand over a period - this additional functionality can help inform networks in their grid planning;
• Provision for variant electricity meters which reflect the non-standard arrangements currently used by nearly 5m premises (e.g. those with certain types of storage heating);
• Randomisation offset capabilities, which allow meter switching times between tariffs to be randomised over a short period of time (c.f. switching all at once) to help avoid risks of power surges; and
• A requirement that meters include role-based access control.

As smaller non-domestic sites form a market that is more varied and complex than the household sector, this market ranges from micro-businesses to the smaller sites of large public and private sector organisations. These customers will wish to access different levels of data, and to access it in different ways, DECC asserts.  Micro- and small businesses also can vary significantly from one another: e.g. a small shop, an office or light industrial premises are very different, and are likely to have individual needs in terms of access to, and use of, consumption data. The Central Delivery Body will have an important role in engaging this range of smaller businesses, when it is cost effective for it to do so "through extension of its consumer engagement activities."
DECC argues that although the in-hand device (IHD) is one means of obtaining information held by smart meters, the other main approaches are the use of web-based tools, which are already widely available in the larger non-domestic market, telephone applications, and consumer devices, which the Government expects to appear on the market in tandem with the smart meter roll-out.
DECC reports that "the evidence from early installations of smart-type metering is that large suppliers (who supply the great majority of micro- and small businesses), see competitive advantages in not charging for access to consumption information. "
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenergy/719/71902.htm