Politics of vanity

A great post at Depleted Cranium concerning environmentalist misconceptions.

I particularly liked this point.

Go after pollution sources with the highest cost/benefit ratio, not those which
are most noticeable

This sums up everything that is wrong with the environmentalists' campaigns. They're just so damn superficial! It's all about be seen to care more than actually doing stuff that is genuinely worthwhile.

Aviation generates 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, half that of shipping, and yet it is their favourite whipping boy. Why? Why is there a climate camp at Heathrow but not one in Southampton? The reason is because aviation is a more high profile target. It's closer to lot more people than shipping. Airports are located across land masses, whereas ports are confined to the coast. Planes are the primary mode of long distance travel, whereas relatively few people take boats these days. Aviation is something that will confront most people directly in the face whereas, despite the real effect it has on all our lives, for most of us, it isn't in full view.

For something as prominent as aviation, environmentalists can suddenly pop their heads in like a zealous salesman, tell us all that is evil about it, and then invite our adulation for their dedication to the fight against this highly visible thing. If they tried the same thing with the shipping, most of the land lubbers of the West Midlands and Greater London would say, "Nothing to do with me."

Attacking aviation is a simple strategy for simple minds. Perfect if all you're concerned about is self-agrandisement.

Today of all days is a reminder as Brussels has just banned patio heaters (can politicians say "law of unintended consequences"?). Though patio heaters are not a particularly effective contributor to carbon dioxide emissions (they'd be even less so if they were nuclear powered), (il)Liberal Democrats delight in banning them because they can be seen to be "doing something".
Environmentalism has been turned from politics of saving the whales (being fair to Greenpeace as much as I loathe it, they having been honouring their original commitments are fair bit lately) into politics for the terminally vain.

BTW, on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot, MPs remind us that he was right all along.

EDF Energy are going to save us

EDF Energy has a new advert out. It's interesting to watch. They play on the global warming angle with a vengeance, scary predictions and all. But it's okay! Because they're are going to save us by reducing the carbon intensity of their electricity generation.

What is particularly fun is that EDF Energy is going to achieve this by building new nuclear reactors in the South of England. Of course they don't tell us that. But why should they? Global warming is the greatest threat the planet has ever faced we're constantly told (even more than that planetoid that hit us 5 billion years ago creating the Moon). If it is the greatest threat we've ever faced, then surely it is greater than the threat from nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, nuclear waste blah blah blah.

So all hail EDF Energy. They're picking the lesser of two evils.

(Not that nuclear power is really evil at all. In fact, it's lovely.)

What to be done about Heathrow?

London Heathrow has consistently been voted the worst airport through which to travel. It's terminals are old, outdated and vastly overused, making them cramped and dingy (ever seen Terminal 1?). Decades of post hoc extensions of gate peers and new lounges have turned them in a labyrinthine dungeons, which snake their way across the property like cancerous lesions creating congestion prone cul-de-sacs and a hodge podge of architectural indecision. The airport looks like it was cobbled together from scraps of other countries disused ones.

Then there's the runway situation. The airport is the third busiest in the world. Yet it must operate with only two runways on a system of alternation where only one can be used for takeoffs and one landings at any one time, limiting movements to 480,000 a year. The runways operate at 98% so any hiccup, such as a bit of fog or a 777 belly landing at the threshold of one of them and the whole system comes crashing down. Then the media recommence their obligatory Heathrow travel misery stories, featuring delayed and angry passengers huddling in tents sleeping rough on benches. It's so familiar that it's become something of British tradition.

The problem for Heathrow is that there is no where to go. The airport is surrounded by housing practically up to the fence, which makes any attempt at expansion an operation in pulling teeth. Being situated to the West of London in the first place means that arriving aircraft must fly over large parts of the conurbation to make their approach, bringing with it a massively enlarged constituency of NIMBYs (all 8 million of them!).

There is some hope on the way though. After years of dirt grinding, the new Terminal 5 will be opening in March. I've seen it (although incomplete) and can say that, while it is hardly the Palace of Heaven that BAA and BA make it out to be, it is a phenomenal improvement over what has gone before. Tourists and foreign business travellers arriving in the UK through this terminal won't be greeted by such a dire first impression of the country. What this new terminal finally does is give a bit of overcapacity to the airport, which means that finally they can close terminal 2, which is half a century old, and rebuild it as Heathrow East, a modern terminal that can replace both terminal 2 and terminal 1 (good riddance to that one too!).

By 2012, with these two new terminals in full operation, the airport will be transformed into something completely unrecognisable. The dark days of the current Central Terminal Area, will be relegated to the status of legend told around the camp fire to scare the children.

However, ultimately what T5 and LHR-E offer is a much nicer place in which to be delayed. While the inefficient designs of the CTA, with its narrow cul-de-sacs causing each aircraft to have to take their turn maneuvering in them, do play a part in some delays, the biggest problem is runway capacity. T5 and LHR-E will have a much more sensible and useable ground layout, but they will do nothing to stem problems of congestion at the holds, both in the air and on the ground. The airport needs more capacity.

BAA and the government wants to be build a third runway to the North of the airport. But this solution is just too messy. Too many houses will have to be demolished. The airport's influence will extend up to the M4 bringing in a brand new generation of NIMBYs. It will also no doubt mean the extension to the North of the London Control Zone, which will consume Denham and Elstree aerodrome. AOPA are not going to like it either. The West of London it just too cramped. There is no room for Heathrow to expand any further.

The only solution left is to make better use of the current runways. That is the introduction of "mixed mode" whereby both runways can be used to take-off and landing at the same time. This would allow theoretically 550,000 movements a year. This is actually very useful for more than just capacity. It also means that taxiing becomes more efficient. Terminal 4 is located to the South of the South runway, which means that whenever the North runway is being used for departures, aircraft operating out of T4 must cross the active South runway to get to their departure runway. This is a source of ground congestion as well as a needlessly expending fuel on taxiing. With mixed mode, aircraft could use the most convenient runway reducing taxi times and with it, delays, noise and fuel consumption.

Ah but what about those NIMBYs? How would mixed mode help relieve congestion if that extra capacity was simply translated into more movements? The answers are of course as feared. The NIMBYs would be in a strop and allowing a rise to 550,000 movements will mean the extra capacity will be absorbed by increased traffic. The runways would remain congested and the terminals put under greater strain.

But the solution to that is already in place. Currently, the airport is already capped at 500,000 movements. Even with the extra capacity mixed mode would bring, Heathrow is not allowed to utilise it to its fullest. This type of approach would reduce runway utilisation factors giving more wiggle room in the system to allow for hiccups. It would also make ground movement more logical eliminating a source of congestion that way. And a limit on movements would keep the NIMBYs from being anymore irate than they already are. Job done. Oh and Gatwick should get a second runway too.

So how does this relate to nuclear power? Er... um... Heathrow is the largest consumer of electricity in Great Britain. This electricity should be generated on site with their own nuclear reactor.

Is Clegg on course for calamity?

Mike Smithson has got the scoop on public opinion to the government's green light to new nuclear reactors. Unsurprisingly, Conservative supporters are largely in favour. Labour supporters are fairly onboard too. But the funny bit is that among LibDem supporters, approval is much higher than disapproval.

Kind of goes to show how far away planet LibDem is from the real world and the people who would vote for them.

NB if you want a laugh, get a load of Tim13 in the comment thread trying to use Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry as an example of reactors polluting their surroundings.

Just when you thought it was safe to like Auntie

Here's how the BBC does analysis of the government's nuclear decision. By dedicating an article to romanticising the ignorant antics of the aging dinosaurs of yesterdecade. All the other articles are pretty hard headed factual accounts of the situation (though you can almost hear the Beeboid journos' teeth grinding as they force themselves to give the pro side its share of lines as well).

The only one to stray into the realm of a more personal account is this article, which focuses purely on the opponents and their views. When are we going to get this kind of star treatment? Maybe we don't qualify because we're not in the habit of committing acts of vandalism, aggravated trespass, intimidation, disturbance of the peace and all those other wonderful things for which the quintagenarians are so honoured.

Edit: As quick as it appeared, it's gone. Replaced by this saucy number. Now this might be the article, which puts me in my place, you could say. But, I still have a gripe. While the beginning does indeed opening with what is essential a view from the perspective of benighted nuclear worker, and would indeed serve as a good counterbalance to the tribute to the opponents, they still can't resist pooring cold water on the proceeding by inviting cynicism. The final line is,

The fact is, it won't be his generation that knows if his decision was the
right one.

As a stand alone article it is fine in terms of trying to capture the inside story while offering some balance; a perspective from the nuke worker, while also raising the doubts. However, the other article is an exercise in Greenpeace propoganda. The BBC (and media in general) line is that pro-shifting articles must balance with a hint of doubt, but anti-shifting articles can go off on one all they like. In the end, it's a media victory for the opponents... as always.

NB This bit amused.

But when our short tour begins, and we cross a thick red line painted on the
ground, new attire becomes compulsory: a bright blue shopkeeper's coat, white
construction helmet, heavy plastic glasses and shoes with steel caps.

Ooh how dangerous and scary nuclear power stations must be. Not really. Sounds like just the kind of thing we wear round the yards of oil field suppliers.

Edit edit: The second article is now on the front page while the first article is still missing. Maybe the Beeb is not too bad after all.

Does radioactivity becomes more hazardous once we've touched it?

Of course not. Radioactivity is radioactivity (of the various varieties there is of course) whether it's just lying in ground for 2 billions, or whether we dig it up and manufacture some fuel rods out of it.

So then what is this neurotic obsession with radioactive material, that was lying in the ground, once it is extracted?

Timmy makes a good observation.

Further, think about what the actual complaint is even if it does leak. There
used to be lots of uranium in the ground here. Now some of it has gone back into
the ground. Scary, eh?

Once we take some uranium out of the ground, what's wrong with allowing it seep back in? It was already there in the first place!

It's like the epic tale of 10ft metal pipe. A nuclear operator orders 10ft of metal pipe. As with all materials, there is some natural radioactivity in this pipe. The technicians get the pipe, but only need to use 9ft of it. The remaining 1ft is scrap. However, because of this natural radioactivity, the pipe must be treated as low level waste. Can't see a coal fired power station being particularly bothered about that.

This highlights more stupidity about waste arguments. Best one is depleted uranium and the outrage that opponents display towards the buildup of this EEvil substance. We take natural uranium out of the ground, which has a specific activity of 12.8 MBq.kg^-1* and return it as depleted uranium, which has a specific activity of 12.3 MBq.kg^-1. In doing so, we've made the ground less radioactive. Surely the radiophobes should like that. But because the radioactivity is something that we've touched, it automatically becomes worse than what was sitting in the ground naturally.

On nuclear waste as a whole. By disposing of vitrified fission products, which will decay to below the activity of uranium ore within 600 years, the legacy we are actually leaving for future generations is a ground, which is less radioactive in the long term than it would be otherwise.

Think about that!

*Figures are in becquerels per kilogram of uranium, ignoring all the other stuff in the ore.

It's on

It's all going down on Iain Dale's Diary. Two anti-nuclear Tories and grumpy highlander.

And the lucky winner will be...

British Energy's reaction to the government statement reveals their main candidate sites for new reactors.

• Sizewell in Suffolk, already home to two Magnox and a PWR)
• Dungeness in Kent, already home to two Magnox (shut down) and two AGR
• Hinkley in Somerset, already home to two Magnox (shut down) and two AGR
• Bradwell in Essex, already home to two Magnox (shut down)

So which one is going to be first?

Somehow I think Hinkley will be last because Somerset is too close to LibDem territory. The fight might be tougher. Dungeness could be good. Robert Waller says people in Kent tend to vote in a more hard headed way and so might be pragmatic about it. Bradwell currently has nothing going which could present problems with dwindling infrastructure. Sizewell already has a large reactor, so starting there might be piling on the PWRs too much.

I'm going to bet on Dungeness.

Crunch time is here

The Cabinet has given the green light.

Now will they have the strength and competence to push it forward?

All the government should provide is a proper and sensible regulatory framework, clarity on back end processes (if the government is to handle final waste disposal, what charge is to paid for that service) and most importantly bamboo sticks to bludgeon any Usual Suspects who approach nuclear facilities.

Because Alex Salmond has control of the planning system is Scotland, he has ruled out any possibility of new reactors being built here. This of course means that Scotland's energy infrastructure will collapse in the next few years, no doubt to be replaced by natural gas and imports from England if what the government say comes to pass. Maybe in a few years time, "It's Scotland's oil!" will be replaced by "It's England's actinides!" as the new nationalist obsession.

NB you'll note in typical BBC style, right at the top of the article is a link to listen to the "Greenpeace view". As if they have anything original to say.

A few opening observations

Courtesy of the Guardian, we get this damning report from the Nuclear Consultation Group. It opens with a criticism of the handling of the energy review by the Government of All the Talentless, but then moves on to making their own case for why new nuclear power stations should not be allowed.

Here are some observations.

Health aspects

The entire Radiation Health Effects sections appeared to be an exercise in FUD. The COMARE reports have repeatedly given nuclear power a clean bill of health, yet they delighted in constantly raising doubts over whether that was enough. There was no sense of perspective added through acknowledging that if there is uncertainty as to the health effects of nuclear power, that puts it way ahead of coal, where there is no uncertainity: it is unhealthy.
The most damaging reference they had was to a Russian study, which they quoted as,

"As Prof Alexey Yablokov, Director of the RussianAcademy of Sciences, Moscow
concludes, ‘each year it has become clearerand clearer that the real
consequences of this catastrophe are much morewidespread and severe than has
been predicted’ (Yablokov, 2006, p. 34)."

This amused because the prediction told of millions dead and we know how valid that is. It also amused because put next to the extracts from UNSCEAR 2000, it looks rather shallow; a line of rhetoric rather than a line of facts.

Economics

I don't know what it is with this lot, but why is it so difficult to accept that new nuclear operators will have to operate in a market economy? The government has said repeatedly (and the opposition have agreed) that this is a private sector matter. The only job of the government is to lay the regulatory foundations for new nuclear build. The operators are meant to pay their way. If this looks unpalatable to investors, they won't come. Simple as that.

The pessimism is overbearing. Olkiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 are currently under construction, but they talk as though this is already a withering wine. Does anyone seriously expect France is not going to build more? Even Fortum in Finland has not be deterred by the delays in Olkiluoto-3 and are studying the possibility of building a second EPR. Besides, while Olkiluoto-3 has run into some trouble, there are a host of recent projects in places like China, South Korea and Argentina that have come in on budget and on schedule.

Their perception of the past is also rather dodgy. Saying that Sizwell B did not have a consultation is totally untrue. The public enquiry took years and is partly responsible for the cost overruns. Their line about previous British efforts resulting in a "handful of unreliable and uneconomic units that supply less than 20 per centof our electricity" is also misleading since at its peak, the nuclear sector provided almost 30% of our electricity. It's only dwindling now because the older reactors are shutting down. On the other hand, it is fairly accurate to describe the Magnox and AGR designs as unreliable and uneconomic. That's why the technology is not being followed up and we are looking at LWRs and CANDUs now.

Safety

A vicious smear is laid upon the name of the AP-1000 by suggesting that it cannot take an aircraft strike or that it lacks safety systems required for Sizewell B, which incidentally was also built by Westinghouse. This is of course rubbish.

Waste

The figure that 60 years of operation of Generation III+ reactors will only add 10% to our current volume of nuclear waste (most of which isn't waste!) is a promising one. However, this lot insist on putting a negative spin on it by converting this into radioactivity, which in this case becomes a five fold increase from 78×10¹⁸ Bq to 360×10¹⁸ Bq (they actually said . Makes it look more scary, doesn't it?

Of course, this abuse of mathematics only proves what we already know; that radioactive material becomes less radioactive with time. Spent fuel straight out of reactors decays to 0.1% of its initial activity within a few decades. Naturally, the legacy wastes have had a lot of time to decay, while the new stuff will still be fresh and bubbly.

This figure work really proves nothing horrible. It's volume that matters. Radioactivity is such a fleeting thing.

Politics

They betray rather too much of their Lovinsite agenda with sporadic references to a decentralised grid and the innuendo about needing demand side reform (energy rationing I assume). It's not their job to put out a political vision. They're supposed to be reviewing the viability of allowing new nuclear build.

They also delight in partaking in the renewables vs nuclear straw man. Why is there not room for both? We do want to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, don't we?

It's a somewhat disappointing document. It looks well referenced, but it seems that in most cases, the writers looked at those references then made up their own conclusions.

While we wait...

... for the inevitable assault from the Usual Suspects tomorrow on the myriad of cracks from the Government of All the Talentless, why not have a read of what we could have had from them if they were more intelligent?

Randal Leavitt of Positive Energy made a submission to the energy consultation that Greenpeace is no doubt about to get voided. He has posted it here.

Crunch time approaches

Thursday is the big day. El Gordo is expected to announce that the nuclear renaissance will at last be coming to these shores directly, (verses indirectly whereby we buy electricity from Flamanville-3 in France).

On the positive side, the BBC article hints that this green light will be entirely at market discretion, with the operators picking up the bill for decommissioning and for waste handling. That is of course as it should be.

On the negative side, it still doesn't stop this Government of All the Talentless from cocking up the second review. This is exactly the kind of ammunition needed to give the Usual Suspects a chance to cause more trouble.