You might not guess it from the tone and
substance of recent government policy, but its own research has yet again shown
just how popular renewable energy is in the UK – and conversely how little
support exists for fracking. Every three months the Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) asks the public about their views on different energy
types and how they use energy in their daily lives. The latest has just been
released (summary;
full
breakdown). Its headlines:
81% of the public support renewable energy,
with over a third “strongly” supporting it.
Only 19% support fracking.
Only just over a third (35%) think that
nuclear energy will help tackle climate change.
Over half (56%) say that they’d be happy to
have a renewable energy development near them, and 77% say that they would like
renewable energy sites to provide economic benefits to local
communities.
Clearly something as complex as energy policy
should not be solely governed by public sentiment. But the public mandate for
clean energy versus fossil fuels is staggering. Support for zero-carbon energy has been
unfailingly high each of the 17 times the survey has been run; over
three-quarters of people have backed it each quarter since 2012. Not just popular, but increasingly lucrative:
Danish energy company Dong revealed
this week that growing profits from its offshore wind business – including
in UK waters – have more than made up for its tumbling returns from oil and
gas. All of which of course prompts the question of
who it is the government listens to on energy policy – proudly delivering both
myriad
cuts to support for renewable energy and cutting
tax for oil and gas as part of its drive to drill ‘every drop’, both in the
North Sea and from fracking. In particular it exposes the folly of its war
on onshore
wind farms; the Prime Minister’s claims
that the public are “fed up” with the technology looks simply silly, given
that the DECC survey found that 69% of people support the technology, and only
5% oppose.
Don't miss these:
This
photo-essay on the massive new turbine that’s revolutionising the economics
of onshore wind – featuring British-made blades as big as the wing of an Airbus
A380.
2015 was another record year for renewable
energy investment , say
the United Nations –an impressive $286 billion worldwide, over twice as much
as was spent on coal and gas.
The Paris Agreement is signed – so what
next? The signing of the Agreement by 171 governments
last week prompted a full page advert in the FT, signed
by a huge range of organisations (including NEF), calling for oil companies
to start planning for a low-carbon world. Experts did however warn
that the pledges currently on the table from signatories need “radical”
improvement to keep temperatures to a two degree rise or less. Heard the one about the government paying
Shell to drill our oil? UK taxpayers paid
Shell a net $123 million in 2015 to drill North Sea oil and gas, thanks to a
large tax rebate. That makes the UK the only one of the 24 countries where Shell
reported that it took money from, rather than gave money back to, the
taxpayer. MPs slam government failure on air
pollution A very cross cross-party group of MPsslammed
ministers for not doing enough to stop at least 40,000 people a year dying
early from air pollution. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
(Efra) called for a decent national action plan, a national diesel scrappage
scheme and more powers to local authorities to bring in diesel charging schemes.
Last year the Supreme Court also ordered
the government to draw up an action plan to clean up the UK’s air: what they
came up with, however, would still leave dozens of UK cities in
breach of EU law for years to come. Damning evidence has also emerged
of the systemic failure of car manufacturers to produce diesel vehicles that are
as clean when driven in real life as they are in the laboratory. And finally Picking a fight with Emma Thompson is never
wise – particularly if you’re the fracking industry and you’re trying
to claim you’re a good thing for renewable energy.
The first ever Sid Valley Be Well, Be Healthy, Be Fit Festival
Inaugural community event labelled a ‘great success’
Aaron Clarke and Di Fuller with Stuart Hughes at the first ever healthy living festival. Ref shs 16-17TI 9448. Picture: Terry Ife
The Sid Valley’s inaugural healthy living festival proved a hit with visitors, who enjoyed a free taste of good food, fun and fitness.
Organisers were happy with the ‘great success’ of the event at Stowford Community Centre on Saturday and are already gearing up for next year, with hints that it could expand into the town centre.
Around 200 people flocked to enjoy a piece of the action at the first ever Be Well, Be Healthy, Be Fit Festival, that aimed to get the whole community involved and encourage opportunities to live a healthier lifestyle.
Chairman of the Sid Valley Patient Participation Group, Di Fuller, spearheaded the project from its inception and - beginning with no budget whatsoever - mobilised the support of groups and organisations, who got behind the day.
East Devon District Council supported the festival and Waitrose supplied an array of healthy snacks.
Di said: “It was a lively, yet relaxing event. There were more than 30 contributing organisations that made this a real community event. We were very happy with how the day went, although several people made the comment that we needed more publicity and others that it should have been in town. Who knows, maybe next year.”
Visitors had ample opportunity to seek information on matters ranging from health check-ups, to sports clubs, while others stepped up for a ride on the smoothie-making bicycle and found out how to make their own hummus.
A range of exercise taster sessions took place throughout the day and festival-goers could opt for a relaxing massage, or get their blood pressure checked.
Visitors dubbed the event ‘friendly, informative and professional’, ‘brilliant’ and ‘fun’, with one person commenting how lucky Sidmouth residents are to have something like this.
Apparently, investors don't really like nuclear: Futures Forum: Energiewende: energy transition 30 years after Chernobyl They didn't like it back in the 1970s: COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG? And they don't like it today: Shares in EDF have plunged more than 10% as investors baulk | Western Daily Press Meanwhile, nuclear seems to be on the wane: "For the first time in 45 years, Japan was without nuclear electricity (and no lights went out) and, indeed, without any operating industrial nuclear facility or even research reactor; AREVA, the self-proclaimed “global leader in nuclear energy”, went technically bankrupt; China, the global leader in new-build, launched a construction site after a 15-month break; in the U.K., concerning the French sponsored new-build project, there are “growing suspicions” that the Treasury “would not be disappointed if Hinkley [Point C] never happened”; the French draft Energy Bill passed the second reading at the French National Assembly stipulating the reduction of the nuclear share from three quarters to about half by 2025; and so on." WNISR 2015 - World Nuclear Industry Status Report On the other hand, "Local power plants can deliver several benefits – operational flexibility, lower system losses and a measure of energy security among them. Those based on renewable fuels or with particularly high efficiencies also offer important carbon advantages. They are also rather easier to finance than a new wave of fossil-fuelled, or nuclear, power plants." Not the most expensive object on the planet - Decentralized Energy Is Hinkley 'the most expensive object on Earth'? New petition: Stop Hinkley nuclear plant and spend the money on renewable instead | Greenpeace UK The BBC has looked into the claims:
"Hinkley is set to be the most expensive object on Earth… best guesses say Hinkley could pass £24bn ($35bn)," said the environmental charity Greenpeace last month as it launched a petition against the project.True or false? A new nuclear power station in the south-west of the UK will be the most expensive object on Earth. That's the claim about the proposed plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset - but has anything else ever cost so much to build?
This figure includes an estimate for paying interest on borrowed money, but the financing arrangements for Hinkley C are so opaque that it is impossible to calculate exactly what the final cost will be.
Even if you stick with the expense of construction alone, though, the price is still high - the main contractor, EDF, puts it at £18bn ($26bn).
Image copyrightiStock
For that sum you could build a small forest of Burj Khalifas - the world's tallest building, in Dubai, cost a piffling £1bn ($1.5bn). You could also knock up more than 70 miles of particle accelerator. The 17-mile-long Large Hadron Collider, built under the border between France and Switzerland to unlock the secrets of the universe, cost a mere £4bn ($5.8bn).
The most expensive bridge ever constructed is the eastern replacement span of the Oakland Bay Bridge in San Francisco, designed to withstand the strongest earthquake seismologists would expect within the next 1,500 years. That cost about £4.5bn ($6.5bn).
Image copyrightAlamy
So why is Hinkley C so expensive?
"Nuclear power plants are the most complicated piece of equipment we make," says Steve Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at Greenwich University.
"Cost of nuclear power plants has tended to go up throughout history as accidents happen and we design measures to deal with the risk."
In comparison, the UK's newest nuclear power station, Sizewell B, which was completed in 1995, only cost £2.3bn ($3.4bn), or £4.1bn ($6bn) at today's prices.
No nuclear power plants have been completed in Europe this century - those that have been built in recent years are in countries such as China or India, and Thomas believes figures for these, where they exist, are not reliable.
So what about historic buildings - could the Great Pyramid of Giza put Hinkley C in the shade?
Image copyrightiStock
Working out the cost of something built more than 4,500 years ago presents numerous challenges, but in 2012 the Turner Construction Company estimated it could build the pyramid for between £750m ($1.1bn) and £900m ($1.3bn).
That includes about £500m ($730m) for stone and £40m ($58m) for 12 cranes. However, it projected that a mere 600 staff would be necessary - it took 20,000 people to build the original pyramid at a time when the only cranes in sight were the winged, feathery type.
And the cost to Pharaoh Khufu? For two decades, workers are believed to have laboured on the pyramid for four months a year, during the annual Nile flood when the fields they normally tended were submerged. That amounts to 48.4 million days of labour. A further 4,000 people are thought to have worked year-round, giving a total figure of 77.6 million days' labour. Using the current Egyptian minimum wage of £3.93 ($5.73) a day, that gives a labour cost of £305m ($445m).
Using modern labour rates is not as strange as it might seem. A contemporaneous inscription reveals labourers received 10 loaves of bread and a jug of beer per day. Archaeological evidence suggests the pyramid builders also received meat and fish, and in modern Egypt 10 loaves, a can of Coca-Cola and a portion of beef or fish costs about £4 ($5.80).
Find out more
More or Less is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service
And the Pharaoh didn't have to pay for raw materials.
"The king owned all the stone in the quarries," says Joyce Tyldesley, lecturer in Egyptology at Manchester University. "He couldn't sell this - nobody would have a use for it. His palaces and temples were made of mud brick and so were peoples' houses. Nobody would have the resources to buy it. It's a free resource."
She thinks the labour was effectively free too. Workers were paid with food that the pharaoh had gathered in as taxation.
"If he doesn't spend it on his workforce it won't last, he'll have to redistribute it another way," she says. "I would argue the entire pyramid-building experience was free."
In any case, a £500m stone bill plus £305m in wages are nowhere near Hinkley C.
Image copyrightiStock
The Great Wall of China was an even bigger project than the pyramid. At 5,500 miles long, its mass is almost certainly greater. But it is actually a large number of walls, pieced together over two millennia, stretching the definition of "object".
Back in the modern era, neither Heathrow Terminal 2 (£2.3bn; $3.4bn) nor the new London railway Crossrail (£14.8bn; $21.6bn) can compete with Hinkley.
One current project, at first glance, does appear to be in the same ballpark as the power station. The royal family of Saudi Arabia is refurbishing the Grand Mosque in Mecca at a reported cost of about £16bn ($23bn). But this includes a new road and train line, among other things, so, once again, it stretches the definition of "object"
Image copyrightGetty Images
Another contender is Hong Kong International Airport, built in 1998 on an artificial island at a cost of £13.7bn ($20bn) - equivalent to £20.1bn ($29bn) at today's prices. That just pips EDF's estimate for the cost of Hinkley C (though remember, we are putting to one side the cost of financing the deal).
But these are all exceeded by the $54bn (£37bn) Gorgon liquefied natural gas plant built by Chevron in Australia. Built on Barrow Island off the country's north-west coast to process a huge off-shore gas field, it began production in March.
Even that will probably be overtaken one day, though. "We're just building two reactors at Hinkley. Turkey has a deal for four reactors, South Africa is about to launch a tender for six reactors," says Steve Thomas. "When you get round to a six-reactor order it's going to cost three times as much as Hinkley."
And whatever the most expensive object on Earth is, up in the sky is something that eclipses all of these things.
The International Space Station. Price tag: 100bn euros (£77.6bn, or $110bn).
Image copyrightAlamy
More from the Magazine
Image copyrightGetty Images
The UK's Hinkley Point nuclear power station has major backing from China. But why does the government need their help, asks Camila Ruz.
