Tag Archives: british

Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




During the 2000s the ‘fracking boom’ in the USA was fuelled by speculative Wall Street finance. When that bubble burst in 2008, the dodgy finance was cut off and the number of drilling rigs collapsed by over 50% within a few months.

Last December, I wrote in The Ecologist of how the ‘funny money’ from quantitative easing was once more fuelling the number of drilling rigs, supporting the Ponzi-style ‘shale bubble’.

Just over a week ago I wrote of how that junk-debt-fuelled house of cards was being shaken by the fall in oil prices.

Now Baker-Hughes, the US drilling services company which monitors industry trends, has announced the biggest weekly decline in US drilling activity since 1991; and the decline over the last six weeks – the decommissioning of 209 rigs – is the largest since their records began in 1987.

An upcoming production downturn

That interruption in the ‘shale drilling treadmill’ means that the clock has started to tick. Within a year or so, due to the high decline rate of unconventional oil and gas wells, production will begin to tail-off once more.

The gas drilling stall in 2008 led to gas production levelling-off in 2011/12. When quantitative easing cash flooded in to turn the drills back on again, many rigs switched to drilling for shale oil instead. Today it’s not clear whether the US government can or will prevent the ‘shale bubble’ imploding.

In addition to the finance issues, over the last few weeks we’ve also seen health and environmental agencies in New York State and Quebec recommend bans on future development of the industry there.

Whether or not these difficulties will bring an official realisation of the unsustainable nature of unconventional fossil fuels is not clear. That same finance treadmill ensures those involved in the industry make big bucks from this process.

As a result they have the ready cash to pay public relations agencies to obfuscate the debate on unconventional gas and oil.

Crisis? What crisis?

And here in Britain? In the corridors of power, the events of recent weeks appear to have had no recognition whatsoever. The problems of the global oil and gas industry – from the US to Britain, to Australia – has not diverted the political shale gas and oil bandwagon (at least in England and Wales).

Last week I attended the public hearings for the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘. For me, those sessions typify the problems our national politics has in examining contentious public debates.

The Committee did not appear to want any specific detail of what the impacts of fracking would be in Britain – demonstrated by experience elsewhere, or through analysis of the proposals outlined by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

And though the Committee were looking at the ‘environmental impacts’, much of the debate was centred around conventional economics and investment models – not the identification of ecological or health impacts.

At the same time, across Parliament Square, the Government were trying to steamroller through their shale project as part of the Infrastructure Bill – from tax breaks for drillers, to weakened regulation, all designed to facilitate the Government’s unsubstantiated case for a UK ‘shale revolution’.

The myth of a ‘balanced debate’

Politicians might call for a ‘balanced debate on shale’, but arguably it is they who are peddling a manufactured rhetoric. This is because the political process has been hijacked by lobbyists paid by the industry, whose manipulative tendrils reach right inside the Government.

For me, the most eye-opening part of the EAC’s evidence session was when Caroline Spelman asked, “What could be done to address public mistrust over fracking and who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?”

They very fact the question was posed shows how out of touch politicians are on this issue. For example, they could start by asking representatives of public to their inquiry, to ask them directly what their concerns are.

Instead what we often get in the place of public involvement, or the substantiation of the Government’s claims using objective evidence, are stooges – public relations representatives who say what the political consensus wants to hear.

The witness at the EAC’s inquiry I found the most troublesome was Chris Smith: formerly chair of the Environment Agency (who issued Cuadrilla’s fracking permit last week); chair of the Advertising Standards Authority (who recently took umbrage at  an anti-fracking leaflet); and chair of the new ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas.

The problem for the Committee was that the Task Force on Shale Gas hasn’t done any work yet! All Smith could do was apologetically state that they would produce statements on a range of issues at some future date.

Industry ‘astroturf’ has become the benchmark of impartiality

While the Task Force on Shale Gas might laud itself as being independent, and command Parliamentary time in the place of those who might have something substantive to say, the details surrounding the Task Force’s organisation say something rather different.

There is another body called the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. Like a number of other APPGs in Parliament it’s essentially an industry ‘astroturf’ group, set up as a lobbying vehicle to access decision-makers in government.

The secretariat for APPG on Unconventional Gas and Oil is provided by a political lobbying company, Edelman, using funding from companies with direct links to or investment in the shale gas industry – such as IGas, Cuadrilla, The Weir Group, Centrica, Total and GDF Suez.

And what has this to do with Chris Smith’s ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas?:

In fact the Task Force on Shale Gas’s ‘industry front’ credentials go deeper than that:

  • One of the three panel members the Task Force’s panel has an academic post which is part-funded by BG Group – who have investments in shale in the USA;
  • Another panel member is a professor at the University of Manchester – where research funded by Cuadrilla and others is being carried out – who signed an ‘open letter’ with other academics calling for politicians to recognised the “undeniable economic, environmental and national security benefits” of shale gas in Lancashire”;
  • One of the three ‘advisory experts’ has done consultancy work for an oil and gas exploration company, promoting the business case for shale gas development in Poland; and
  • Another advisory expert has spoken in support of shale gas at other Parliamentary committees, and has stated that “UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas.”


Fracking is also polluting British democracy

To return to Caroline Spelman’s question, ” … who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?” – arguably not the Task Force on Shale Gas!

Such ‘objectivity’ is not based within people, or their credentials. Objectivity is defined by how evidence is assessed, and the transparency of the assessment process which digests and ranks that evidence.

When we trace the connections, and examine the substances of the debate to date, much of the media promotion of shale gas presents a partial view, overtly hostile to any contrary view, and often based upon debatable evidence.

Politicians ask for a ‘balanced debate’ from campaign groups, and yet much of the imbalance is fronted by the industry side. Even witnesses at the EAC’s inquiry believed that politicians had over-stated the benefits of shale gas.

When governments pursue policies such as unconventional energy in the absence of balanced evidence, then ultimately it’s the public and the environment who will suffer.

However, that’s not simply because ‘fracking’ is bad for the environment. It’s because the exercise of executive power in Britain today has become toxic for our democratic institutions.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website.

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 




389204

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

British Museum – is BP driving your heavy-handed approach? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




If you visited the British Museum on 15th June this year, you’d have seen quite an unusual sight. At 3.30pm two hundred people, many dressed as Vikings, gathered in the Museum’s huge domed inner court.

They started chanting about how the oil company BP – sponsors of the Museum’s popular Vikings Exhibition – was acting to bring about Ragnarok, the Viking end of the world, thanks to its enormous contribution to climate change.

Seemingly from nowhere, a pop-up longboat (see photo, right) emerged from the crowd, covered in subverted BP logos. The horde of performers then paraded this boat around the Museum, singing mournfully, before “sinking” the ship in order to give BP an unexpectedly moving Viking funeral.

Participants spoke passionately about their disgust that the Museum, through its ongoing sponsorship deal with BP, was allowing itself to be used as a cheap PR tool by such a destructive company.

This Viking-themed ‘flash-horde’ – organised by the performance activist group ‘BP or not BP?‘ – came off successfully and attracted a lot of attention. But despite being a piece of clearly peaceful theatrical protest, it was met with an unprecedented crackdown from British Museum security.

Why did you try to stifle our protest?

Every visitor to the Museum that afternoon was subject to a bag search – creating long queues out into the street – and harmless pieces of costume such as paper helmets and cardboard swords were confiscated.

Several performers (including myself) were recognised from previous performances and refused entry. One man, known as Thor, was even arrested by police after politely asking a security guard why he wasn’t allowed to bring in a cardboard shield adorned with a BP logo. (see photo, above right)

We wrote an open letter to Neil MacGregor, the Director of the British Museum, challenging them on their over-the-top attempts to silence our protests. Published by New Internationalist, our letter demanded some specific answers from the Museum:

“Why did you try to stifle our protest? Was it on direct instruction from BP, or were you acting under your own initiative? Why did you alarm visitors by telling them that the door searches were due to a ‘security threat’ rather than a piece of unsanctioned theatre? And do you condone the behaviour of the police officers who aggressively, and almost certainly unlawfully, arrested a man who had broken no laws?”

Why is this 1% of British Museum funding so essential?

We didn’t really expect a reply. We thought they’d just ignore us. But we were wrong. The British Museum have now replied to us, not just once but twice. The first email from David Bilson, their head of security, can be read in full below.

This email claims that they needed to ramp up their security in order to “protect the public and safeguard the museum”. However this ignores the fact that we have held a number of these performance protests in the past, including another 200-strong flashmob back in 2012. None of these previous protests were met with such an excessive security response.

The Museum’s email also claims that they need BP’s money to run their exhibitions. However, according to oil industry watchdog Platform, BP’s sponsorship makes up less than 1% of the Museum’s annual income.

The Museum seem to acknowledge this by referring specifically to temporary exhibitions like the Vikings, which they claim are only possible “with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.”

Faced with the burning urgency of climate change, it’s absurd to suggest that the British Museum – with all its resources, networks and public profile – cannot fund its exhibitions without involving the fossil fuel industry.

Alternatives abound, for both the short and the longer term; for example, the PCS trade union, which represents 5,000 workers in cultural institutions like the British Museum, has laid out an alternative vision for the sector based on properly-directed public funding, decent pay and fairer management structures, in which corporate sponsorship is not required.

Fake beards and cardboard shields

The Museum’s second email to us is less formal, and invites us to come and take a tour of the Museum and have a chat with the head of security. We replied (see full version below):

“Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither …

“Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge.

“Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

“Your suggestion that there has been ‘a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people’ is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012 (see photo, above right), and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people …

“We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?”

We await their reply with keenest interest.

 

 

Danny Chivers is author of the No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change and a member of the BP or not BP? performance activism group.

Join the group on the People’s Climate March this Sunday September 21st – meet at 12.15pm outside the MacAdam Building, Kings College London, and look out for the pop-up Viking ship!

 

 

 

Correspondence – the first email from the British Museum

Dear BP or Not BP,

Thank you for your comments with regard to the security measures taken to protect the British Museum, the collection, staff and visitors on June 15th.

It is important to us that we are able to present leading exhibitions of objects and new research to our visitors. The British Museum is grateful to BP for their loyal and on-going support which has allowed us to bring world cultures to a global audience through hugely popular exhibitions and their associated public programmes. These have included; Hadrian, Italian Renaissance Drawings, Book of the Dead, Shakespeare: staging the world and Vikings: life and legend, as well as first-class visitor facilities such as the Museum’s dedicated lecture space, the BP Lecture Theatre. Without the support of BP all of this would not have been achieved.

The British Museum believes it is more important than ever to deepen people’s understanding of the world’s many and varied cultures and this is something that can be achieved through the temporary exhibition format. It is only possible to develop and host temporary exhibitions with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.

It is equally important that our visitors can get access to our galleries and exhibitions. You acknowledge that as a group you made no contact with the Museum to make us aware of your intentions or to discuss essential public safety planning. We were obliged to work with uncertain information that we could expect a flashmob crowd and an attempt to bring a longship into the Great Court. Your previous protests have been much smaller and less intrusive for other visitors, especially when there were only about 12 players in the group. There has been a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people. The Museum feels that to conduct such an event without considering public safety issues in a space that is already crowded might be described as irresponsible. We would ask that if you intend to conduct a protest at the Museum in the future, that you notify us in advance to discuss the matter in detail.

The priority for the Museum, in delivering its safety responsibilities in relation to events such as this, is to protect the public and safeguard the Museum and the collection. While we retain the right to ask protesters to leave the Museum, it is our policy to seek to work with organisers of protests who contact us. In this way we can try to facilitate the free expression of views in a safe and pre-planned manner whilst discharging our legal responsibility with regard to safety. When organisers work with us to share their plans, we are more able to find an accommodation that permits entry to the Museum, so that people can make their views known, that also respects the safety of other visitors, who want to enjoy the Great Court.

We understand that you have strongly held views and acknowledge the importance of those views to you. We have no wish to stop you from expressing opinion or to inhibit debate, but we have to balance that against the safety, and wishes, of visitors who want to see the Museum. We hope that you will understand and support our safety and operational requirements in a similar spirit.

With thanks for your comments and interest in the work of the British Museum.

Yours sincerely,

David Bilson

Head of Security and Visitor Services

The second email was very short and informal, and invited members of the BP or not BP? group to come on a tour of the Museum.

 

 

 

Correspondence – our reply in full

We’ve decided to write this as an open letter because we want this to be a public debate; we’d be very interested in thoughts and comments from Ecologist readers!

Dear David Bilson,

Thank you for your reply to our open letter published in the New Internationalist on June 20th. We would like to accept your offer of a tour, so long as the Museum Director Neil MacGregor also joins us. We would like him to share his views on the issues surrounding oil company sponsorship, as until now neither he nor anyone else at the Museum has directly addressed the points we raised in our open letter.

Aside from general questions about the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputation of BP – a company that is actively driving us towards irreversible climate disaster – there are some specific points from our last letter that we are still waiting for you to answer.

Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither. Again, your letter cited health and safety concerns as the reason the museum attempted to prevent our peaceful protest on June 15th, but you know from our past actions that we do not pose any such risks. There has been no harm to any people or exhibits from any of our seven interventions in the Museum, as we are careful to consider public safety when planning our performances. We also aim to be entertaining to the public rather than ‘intrusive’, as you claim in your letter.

Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge. Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

There’s a simple reason why we don’t ask permission to hold our performances: in order to be effective and capture the attention of the public and the media, our interventions need to be lively, free-roaming and surprising, and we suspect that you won’t give us permission for those kinds of events! Your suggestion that there has been “a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people” is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012, and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people. We have not “substantially changed” our tactics since 2012, but you have nonetheless escalated your response.

We can assure you that as lovers of history and culture, we have no intention of putting the exhibits, staff or fellow museum-goers at risk. This seems to be obvious to the majority of your security staff, who have generally not prevented us exercising our right to peaceful protest. We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?

Thanks again for the kind offer of a tour. As we have mentioned, it is precisely our love of public museum space that has led us to protest against the sponsorship of our cultural institutions by oil companies such as BP, and against the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputations of these dirty companies through these alliances. We hope, therefore, that the museum will respond directly to our questions, as well as allowing us a conversation with Mr. MacGregor.

Yours sincerely,

BP or not BP?

 

 




384211