Nuclear subsidies won't be permitted‏

The Daily Telegraph has declined to publish this comment.

 

David

 

 

In his article on the new infrastructure report prepared by Sir John Armitt, the former Olympics construction boss, Alistair Osborne quotes Sir John as saying “Even if fracking is a great success, it’s a long way out. You are still going to need nuclear.” (Olympics model ‘can end nuclear plant delay’ D. Tel. business, 6 Sept.).

Sir John did a great job in delivering the Olympics- which I attended and thoroughly enjoyed –but he neither an expert on energy policy or nuclear.

On this nuclear claim, his judgment is flawed. I think fracking’s potential is over-estimated, not least because its proponents ignore the radon risk in the gas piped into the nation’s kitchens, and the radioactively contaminated waste created by the drilling.

But nuclear can never be a gap-filler, because of its cost. One issue avoided by its supporters is the construction financial guarantees – up to £10 billion - offered to the  potential plant  builders such as the French state-owned Electricity de France (EDF) will be subject to scrutiny by the Competition Directorate  of the European Commission under State Aids rules.

Proposed fixing high future prices for nuclear-generated electricity through the so-called contracts-for-difference and ‘strike prices’ are similarly obvious taxpayer –funded or  bill-payer subsidies, and will fail the State Aids test.

 Sir John overlooks this in his enthusiasm for such taxpayer support for  private sector nuclear.

Word from Brussels is there is no chance of this being agreed, as it is so manifestly a selective subsidy for one technology over its competitors, such as renewables and gas. So either French Socialist President Hollande agrees to using French taxpayers money  to underwrite the £7bn  per reactor construction risk, or new reactors won’t be built.

 

 

G20 Summit agrees on cooperation on sustainability*

by Dr David Lowry

 

While the latest G20 leaders' summit in St Petersburg last week primarily concentrated on Syria and tax reform, some important, but little noticed, conclusions were released on sustainability issues.
The G20 agreed that its member states would "continue in cooperation with international organisations sharing national experiences and case studies regarding sustainable development, clean energy, and energy efficiency as well as development, deployment and broader application of related technologies."
Co-chair the ‘Civil 20' Environmental Sustainability and Energy Working Group, Vladimir Chuprov said on 4 September: "Our recommendations are based on the idea that the entire planet and human race are facing a challenge caused by global climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists attribute it to the current economic and energy models, which we need to move away from."
The group's recommendations involve infrastructure projects including the green energy industry, the green economy, ending subsidies for fossil fuel, as well as ecological protection with the formation of a network of protected basins in the world's oceans. "We hope the G20 Leaders' Summit in St. Petersburg and subsequent summits will speed up our movement to the point where we won't be ashamed to hand over our planet to our grandchildren," Chuprov said.
The St Petersburg Summit, held over 5-6 September 2013, said in its conclusions: "We share a common interest in developing cleaner, more efficient and reliable energy supplies, as well as more transparent physical and financial commodity markets. We commit to enhance energy cooperation, to make energy market data more accurate and available and to take steps to support the development of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies to enhance the efficiency of markets and shift towards a more sustainable energy future. We underscore our commitment to work together to address climate change and environment protection, which is a global problem that requires a global solution."
 
Sustainable Energy Policy
The conclusions said that the G20 nations "welcome the Report on energy-related issues including on G20 work to facilitate better functioning of physical and financial commodity markets," adding they also "welcome efforts aimed at promoting sustainable development, energy efficiency, inclusive green growth and clean energy technologies and energy security for the long term prosperity and well-being of current and future generations in our countries."
The G20 noted the new World Bank report Toward a Sustainable Energy Future for All - which aims to promote access to reliable and affordable energy in developing countries - and recognised the importance of the sustainable and responsible production and use of modern bioenergy and the role played by the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP).
The conclusions also reaffirmed the G20 commitment to rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
 
Infrastructure importance
Sizable investment, including from private sources, will be needed in the G20 and other economies in energy infrastructure in the years ahead to support global growth and development, the conclusions note, stressing "It is our common interest to assess existing obstacles and identify opportunities to facilitate more investment into more smart and low-carbon energy infrastructure, particularly in clean and sustainable electricity infrastructure."
Russian President Vladimir Putin told a news conference following the G20 Summit on 6 September that a number of important principles in the energy sphere. Were covered, pointing out: "First, it is necessary to ensure the transparency and predictability of the energy and raw materials markets. Second, it is essential to encourage the green growth and support the world community's efforts to prevent climate change. Third, it is important to support the exchange of best practices in energy regulation."
Prime minister David Cameron in his report to Parliament of the G20 summit, on 9 September told the Labour chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Joan Walley, who asked on the G20 Summit why was there no mention of the three E -: environment, clean energy and energy efficiency - that: "Those issues are addressed in the summit communiqué, which points to some progress on important areas such as climate change. Also, the high-level panel that I chaired has at its heart the idea of sustainable development being the way that we increase the world's resources."
Outline of G20 energy agenda
The Mexican G20 Presidency highlighted the importance of inclusive green growth, sustainable development and energy efficiency as further critical elements of the policy equation. According to estimates of the International Energy Agency, "improvements in energy efficiency alone could result in reductions in greenhouse gases of as much as 60% by 2030, and "enhanced energy efficiency could also increase productivity and competitiveness of economies while minimizing their environmental impact at the same time."
To use time more efficiently and to promote an understanding of the cohesive character of the proceedings, Russia announced it "will seek to run all the energy-related discussions within a single working group on energy sustainability," hereafter referred to as the Energy Sustainability Working Group (ESWG). The ESWG will be structured into the four work-streams, three of which are outlined below. The fourth is on ensuring global protection of the marine environment.
1. Making energy and commodity markets more transparent and, potentially, more predictable
2. Promoting energy efficiency, sustainable development and inclusive green growth
Rational use of available energy resources is another clear policy imperative. The Los Cabos Summit made an explicit commitment to seek further ways and means to incorporate sustainable development and inclusive green growth into the structural policies and energy agenda of G20 countries.
The Russian Presidency aims to ensure continuity, addressing the commitment through a number of discussions in this and the following work-stream.
Russia suggests a comprehensive approach to inclusive green growth, including the topics of clean energy and energy efficiency, while placing more emphasis on potential policy options, with respect for each country's specific circumstances and their own rationale for clean energy and sustainability (be it driven by economic, climate change or energy security reasons). It is "our strong belief that clean, green and sustainable development policies can win public support for their environmental benefits, and also generate economic and social benefits and promote development and growth"
3. Sound regulation for energy infrastructure
In the coming years many trillions of dollars will be needed to upgrade and upscale our energy infrastructure. The Russian Presidency believes that it would be beneficial to share good regulatory practices and non-regulatory options, which can promote sustainable development and attract financing to the energy infrastructure.
Potential deliverables:
■   Expert perspective on energy regulation as a means to stimulate infrastructure investments and integrate green growth and sustainable development priorities into structural policies.
■   Resource of available policy options and management practices in the field of energy efficiency and climate-friendly energies being implemented or proposed in G20 countries.
■   Findings of a number of expert workshops and seminars on selected energy agenda issues as a means of analytical support to the discussions of the working group, linked where appropriate to the face-to-face working group meetings.
 
G20 Energy Sustainability documentation
In 2013 the G20 energy agenda is being discussed in the format of the Energy Sustainability Working Group (ESWG) that integrates a number of earlier G20's energy related activities, including the Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency working group's activities and Global Marine Environment Protection (GMEP) initiative. The group engages experts from all the G20 members, as well as representatives of a number of relevant international organizations, such as the International Energy Forum (IEF) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), as well as the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD.
 
Meanwhile, SB has obtained a draft of a European Commission Paper of the Commission Services containing draft Guidelines on environmental and energy aid for 2014-2020, which contains the following proposals:
"Under certain conditions in case of eco-innovation which can address a double market failure linked to the higher risks of innovation, coupled with the environmental aspect of the project. It is only in cases where aid is granted in a genuinely Operating aid for energy saving shall be granted only if the following conditions are met:
(a) The aid is limited to compensating for net extra production costs resulting from the investment, taking account of benefits resulting from energy saving. In determining the amount of operating aid, any investment aid granted to the undertaking in question in respect of the new plant must be deducted from production costs.
(b) The aid is subject to a limited duration of five years."


This article first appeared in Sustainable Building e-bulletin, 12 Sept. 2013

http://www.sustainable-build.com/features/g20-summit-agrees-cooperation-sustainability

Make the Syria Plan Regional

Make the Syria Plan Regional

Moscow Times, 15 September 2013 | Issue 5213

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/make-the-syria-plan-regional/486097.html

 

By David Lowry and Gordon Thompson

On Sept. 9, international dialogue about Syrian chemical weapons took a dizzying turn. Seizing upon a remark by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the Russian government proposed that these weapons be placed under international control. The Syrian government immediately accepted this proposal and has now begun the process of acceding to the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC.

In response, U.S. President Barack Obama suspended his call for airstrikes on Syria. The governments of Russia, the U.S. and other countries are trying to reach an agreement whereby Syria's chemical weapons can be identified, secured and eventually destroyed.

The framework for destroying chemical weapons in Syria could pave the way for better control of these weapons across the entire Middle East.

The problems to be addressed in a workable agreement are daunting. One contentious subject is the establishment of mechanisms to ensure compliance by the Syrian government. Related concerns include the coherence of command authority within that government and the extent of its control of chemical weapons. Other problems include the mechanics of identifying and securing chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war. Compounding the challenge is the potential for false-flag operations.

Nestling within this daunting challenge is one great opportunity: progress on the control of weapons of mass destruction across the Middle East and globally. Notably, establishing global control of Syria's chemical weapons could improve the climate for confirmation of Iran's non-nuclear status and for progress toward the goal of a Middle East free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The ingredients required to pursue these opportunities would enhance the workability of any Syria-focused chemical weapons agreement hammered out by Russia, the U.S. and other countries now involved. There would be two major ingredients. First, additional countries would be engaged with the problem. Iran is an especially important case, but other countries, including Israel and Egypt, could play important roles. Second, the objectives of diplomacy would be broadened to encompass global principles, exemplified in this instance by the CWC.

A first step could be to convene a special session of states party to the CWC. Any party could call for this step. The session's purpose would be to seek rapid accession to the CWC by holdout countries, with special attention to Syria. At present, Syria, South Sudan, North Korea, Egypt and Angola have not signed the CWC. Israel and Myanmar have signed but have not ratified it.

Accession to the CWC by Syria, Egypt and Israel would be symbolically and practically important. It would commit every Middle East country to the elimination of chemical weapons and, with appropriate concessions by Israel, could promote progress toward the goal of a nuclear-free region. Pursuit of these goals could provide a setting for productive engagement by Iran.

Iran is a firm ally of the Syrian government. Yet Iran's people have learned from bitter experience to abhor chemical weapons. Reflecting that sentiment, Iran made a statement to the April 2013 CWC review conference, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement countries and China, that expressed concern that chemical weapons may have been used in Syria in violation of international norms.

In a suitable diplomatic environment, Iran could be closely engaged in international control of Syria's chemical weapons. Iran and Russia, allies of the Syrian government, could each exert pressure that ensures its compliance. Iran could also provide intelligence that helps the international community to identify and secure Syria's chemical weapons.

 

Accession to the CWC by Syria and Egypt would require these countries to abandon their long-standing refusal to take this action until Israel dismantles its nuclear arsenal. Similarly, in assisting Syrian and Egyptian accession to the CWC, Iran would have to overcome its long-standing resentment of Israel's regional nuclear monopoly. Although a Middle East free of chemical weapons would be safer for all parties, this outcome would be a bitter pill for Syria, Egypt and Iran to swallow if Israel's nuclear status were unaltered.

Israel's elimination of its nuclear weapons is unlikely at present, but it could abandon its longstanding position of nuclear "opacity."  Another concession could be a moratorium on Israel's production of fissile material.

David Lowry is former director of the European Proliferation Information Centre in London. Gordon Thompson directs the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Nuclear risks are real

 
I sent this letter to the  Daily Mail a week ago. It seems certain they have chosen  not to publish it.

-David


I was surprised you chose to highlight a minor accident at a wind turbine near Thurso on Scotland’s northern coast.(“Gone with the wind,” Mail, 5 September).

 

You point out wind turbines can fail. Of course they can. But when they do, the external impact is tiny. Unlike when a nuclear plant fails, as the horror tales coming from Japan this week of massive radioactive pollution of the land and water supplies around the devastated Fukushima nuclear plant  have horribly demonstrated, as highlighted by Paul Dainton in his letter (“Tell us the nuclear truth,” Letter, 4 September) .

 

Just along the Caithness coast from the damaged wind turbine is the Dounreay nuclear power research establishment, which has hosted nuclear activities for nearly 60 years. It has suffered many accidents, including a huge chemical explosion that blew dangerous quantities of radioactive waste into the atmosphere in 1977. Nearly 500 radioactive “hot” particles have also been discovered on the local beaches which have leaked from an uncontrolled disposal shaft over the past 30 odd years.

 

It is not only the general public who are at risk. The plant workers are too.  Just a few weeks ago, the local newspaper, the John O’Groat Journal, reported that the number of personal injuries at Dounreay increased significantly in the year following the takeover of the new management at the nuclear site.

 

That was the finding of a survey which was carried out by consultants One Point Three Ltd after concerns were raised about safety performance at the plant. The study found there was a “significant” rise in the number of “unusual occurrence reporting” (UNORs).

 

And this week news emerged that  Dounreay is shortly to embark on shipping so-called “exotic” radioactive waste 6000 miles to a disposal site in the Uniited States. Yet there  has been no formal public scrutiny of these dangerous  plans in Britain.

 

There are real dangers in providing secure energy for our country. But the media should concentrate on real risks from radioactivity from the nuclear programme, not trivial problems with wind turbines.

Make use of chemical conventions

Make use of chemical conventions

Japan Times, Sep 15, 2013

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/09/14/reader-mail/make-use-of-chemical-conventions/#.UiqCdXDn-M8

Regarding the Sept. 12 article “Obama gives Syria diplomatic option to avoid U.S. strike“: In a plan jointly developed just over a week ago with Dr. Gordon Thompson, who directs the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts (before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s door-opening comment in London on Sept. 9) we set out a bold strategy that would tie in the key Middle Eastern powers into a binding deal

In abridged form, we argue one, as yet untried, diplomatic option would be to work under the auspices of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to rapidly remove chemical weapons from Syria. Negotiation and implementation of this action would bring the Syrian government into close engagement with the world community, and would involve the presence of U.N. inspection teams.

The first step would be to urgently convene a special session of state parties to the CWC. Any party could call for this step. The Japanese government may be an especially appropriate candidate for this role, following the nation’s experience of the horrific use of sarin poison gas by the Aum sect on the Tokyo subway system in 1995.

The session’s purpose would be to seek rapid accession to the CWC by states that are not yet parties, with special attention to Syria.

The major motive, however, would be pressure from the Syrian government’s allies. Russia is central; but another key actor would be Iran. While Iran is a firm ally of the Syrian government, Iran’s people have learned from bitter experience to abhor chemical weapons. Iran made a statement to the April 2013 CWC review conference, on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries and China, including the passage:

“The NAM CWC States Parties and China express their deep concern that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian Arab Republic. We underline that the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community.”

Translation of this sentiment into an adequate level of pressure on the Syrian government could involve a bargain directly affecting four countries — Iran, Syria, Egypt and Israel. Other key participants would include the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the United States, U.K., Russia, France and China. The bargain would require each country to re-think entrenched positions and abandon some long-standing linkages among negotiating issues.

In return, Israel would make concessions about its nuclear arsenal.

Why might Israel participate in this bold venture? In fact, Israel’s government is already committed to negotiations of this type. At the generally overlooked 2008 Paris Summit for the Mediterranean, co-chaired by France and Egypt, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to a joint declaration. One provision was a commitment to pursue a Middle East zone free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The bargain outlined here is a daunting target for negotiators. However, it offers a potential outcome that is substantially more attractive than the status quo.

david lowry

stoneleigh, england

The Nuclear F-word

I submitted this as a letter to the UK  Daily Telegraph, but they  have chosen not to  use it:

 

 

In his article on the new infrastructure report prepared by Sir John Armitt, the former Olympics construction boss, Alistair Osborne quotes Sir John as saying “Even if fracking is a great success, it’s a long way out. You are still going to need nuclear.” (Olympics model ‘can end nuclear plant delay’ D. Tel. business, 6 Sept.).

Sir John did a great job in delivering the Olympics- which I attended and thoroughly enjoyed –but he neither an expert on energy policy or nuclear.

On this nuclear claim, his judgment is flawed. I think fracking’s potential is over-estimated, not least because its proponents ignore the radon risk in the gas piped into the nation’s kitchens, and the radioactively contaminated waste created by the drilling.

But nuclear can never be a gap-filler, because of its cost. One issue avoided by its supporters is the construction financial guarantees – up to £10 billion - offered to the  potential plant  builders such as the French state-owned Electricity de France (EDF) will be subject to scrutiny by the Competition Directorate  of the European Commission under State Aids rules.

Proposed fixing high future prices for nuclear-generated electricity through the so-called contracts-for-difference and ‘strike prices’ are similarly obvious taxpayer –funded or  bill-payer subsidies, and will fail the State Aids test.

 Sir John overlooks this in his enthusiasm for such taxpayer support for  private sector nuclear.

Word from Brussels is there is no chance of this being agreed, as it is so manifestly a selective subsidy for one technology over its competitors, such as renewables and gas. So either French Socialist President Hollande agrees to using French taxpayers money  to underwrite the £7bn  per reactor construction risk, or new reactors won’t be built.

This week  sees the annual  symposium of the London- based World Nuclear Association in London. I wonder whether the F-word (Fukushima) and its massive costs will even be  mentioned?

Removing Chemical Weapons from Syria through Diplomacy

 

 

Use of chemical weapons in Syria poses a severe challenge to the world community.  The Obama administration proposes to meet this challenge through air strikes on Syrian government assets.  There is grave risk that such action by the US and its allies would be counterproductive, leading to increased human suffering and potential blowback.  Thus, governments around the world have a responsibility to pursue all available diplomatic options to resolve the Syrian crisis. 

 

One, as yet untried, diplomatic option would be to work under the auspices of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to rapidly remove chemical weapons from Syria.  Negotiation and implementation of this action would bring the Syrian government into close engagement with the world community, and would involve the presence of UN inspection teams.  When this process is under way, any use of chemical weapons in Syria could be unequivocally attributed, allowing appropriate international response. 

 

The first step would be to urgently convene a special session of State parties to the CWC.  Any party could call for this step.  The UK government may be an especially appropriate candidate for this role.  On September 4^th, Prime Minister David Cameron told the British Parliament: “Britain should use all its diplomatic muscle in discussions with those countries that have backed the [Syrian] regime”. 

 

The session’s purpose would be to seek rapid accession to the CWC by States that are not yet parties, with special attention to Syria.  At present, Syria, South Sudan, North Korea, Egypt, and Angola have not signed the CWC.  Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratified, and are therefore not bound by the CWC. 

 

If the session were successful, Syria would rapidly sign and ratify the CWC, accept the rapid removal of chemical weapons from its territory, and accept stringent inspections to verify its compliance.  Why might the Syrian government agree to these actions?  To some extent, Syria could be motivated by related actions by other countries, discussed below.  The major motive, however, would be pressure from the Syrian government’s allies. 

 

Russia could be important in this respect, but the primary actor would be Iran.  While Iran is a firm ally of the Syrian government, Iran’s people have learned from bitter experience to abhor chemical weapons.  Iran made a statement to the April 2013 CWC review conference, on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries and China, including the passage:

 

“The NAM CWC States Parties and China express their deep concern that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian Arab Republic.  We underline that the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community.” 

 

Translation of this sentiment into an adequate level of pressure on the Syrian government could involve a bargain directly affecting four countries – Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Israel.  Indirect participants would include the permanent members of the UN Security Council – US, UK, Russia, France, and China.  The bargain would require each country to re-think entrenched positions and abandon some longstanding linkages among negotiating issues. 

 

One part of the bargain would be that Syria, Egypt, and Israel rapidly become full parties to the CWC.  In Syria’s case, there would be a special arrangement for rapid removal of chemical weapons from its territory.  Implementation of the CWC in Egypt and Israel could follow a normal schedule.  To allow this agreement, Syria and Egypt would have to abandon their longstanding refusal to accede to the CWC until Israel accedes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and dismantles its nuclear arsenal. 

 

In return, Israel would make concessions about its nuclear arsenal, such as those sketched below.  Also, Israel would have to overcome its reluctance, over the past two decades, to ratify the CWC. 

 

Another part of the bargain would be concessions by Israel regarding its nuclear arsenal, which is cited by Syria as a key justification for its own stock of chemical weapons.  Israel’s elimination of its nuclear weapons is unlikely at present.  However, there are less-stringent concessions that could make a CWC-focused bargain, as outlined here, tolerable to Iran, Egypt, and Syria. 

 

One concession could be for Israel to abandon its longstanding position of nuclear ‘opacity’, acknowledging its possession of nuclear weapons and stating their purpose.  Another concession could be a moratorium on Israel’s production of fissile material.  These concessions would enhance Israel’s security, and could significantly improve the climate for an agreement that confirms Iran’s status as a non-nuclear party to the NPT. 

 

Why might Israel participate in this bold venture?  In fact, Israel’s government is already committed to negotiations of this type.  At the generally overlooked 2008 Paris Summit for the Mediterranean, co-chaired by France and Egypt, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to a joint declaration.  One provision was a commitment to pursue a Middle East zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. 

 

The bargain outlined here is a daunting target for negotiators.  However, it offers a potential outcome that is substantially more attractive than the status quo or some of the potential outcomes of unilateral air strikes by the US. 

 

*************

This article has  been co-authored  with Dr Gordon Thompson, who directs the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.