15 September 2016, Energy Post, UK government approves Hinkley Point C. The UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced this morning that the government goes ahead with the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project. This is a very important decision for the nuclear energy sector in Europe, especially EDF, and energy policy in general. Below we give the literal text of the press release put out by the UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, explaining that the government is taking extra precautions to ensure that it is able at all times to control its nuclear industry, after concerns about the Chinese involvement in the project. There is no change in the “strike price” of 92.50 pounds per MWh (inflation-proof, 35 years) that has been agreed with builders EDF, which has been criticized by many as too expensive. “Following a comprehensive review of the Hinkley Point C project, and a revised agreement with EDF, the Government has decided to proceed with the first new nuclear power station for a generation. However, ministers will impose a new legal framework for future foreign investment in Britain’s critical infrastructure, which will include nuclear energy and apply after Hinkley. The agreement in principle with EDF means that: The Government will be able to prevent the sale of EDF’s controlling stake prior to the completion of construction, without the prior notification and agreement of ministers. This agreement will be confirmed in an exchange of letters between the Government and EDF. Existing legal powers, and the new legal framework, will mean that the Government is able to intervene in the sale of EDF’s stake once Hinkley is operational. The new legal framework for future foreign investment in British critical infrastructure will mean that: After Hinkley, the British Government will take a special share in all future nuclear new build projects. This will ensure that significant stakes cannot be sold without the Government’s knowledge or consent. Read More here
Monthly Archives: September 2016
15 September 2016, The Conversation, After Tasmania’s year of disasters, bushfire tops the state’s growing list of natural hazards. Tasmania has had a damaging year, with the island state hit by a series of bushfires and floods. Now a comprehensive new assessment of Tasmania’s exposure to natural disasters shows that bushfire remains the number one hazard to people and property, while also highlighting a range of new threats. These include coastal flooding, pandemic influenza and – despite being Australia’s most southerly state – an increasing likelihood of heatwaves. The 2016 Tasmanian State Natural Disaster Risk Assessment (TSNDRA)aims to provide emergency services with key information to help prepare for and reduce the impact of disasters. It is the first state-level assessment in Australia that adheres to the recently updated National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines. All states and territories are required to produce their own risk assessments by June 2017. Given Tasmania’s unprecedented recent run of natural disasters, it is fitting that it should be the first state to publish a comprehensive roundup of the risks. The assessment of natural disaster risk took place over 12 months from March 2015. It involved a series of workshops and online surveys of experts in each hazard area. For the first time, the process was led not by state government agencies, but by a close collaboration between researchers at the University of Tasmania, RMIT University and the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, together with members of the State Emergency Service and related agencies, and other stakeholders including the Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Red Cross and Engineers Australia. The process aimed to allow a range of different voices to inform the identification of priority risks for Tasmania. Read more here
14 September 2016, Reuters, Climate change ‘significant and direct’ threat to U.S. military: reports. The effects of climate change endanger U.S. military operations and could increase the danger of international conflict, according to three new documents endorsed by retired top U.S. military officers and former national security officials. “There are few easy answers, but one thing is clear: the current trajectory of climatic change presents a strategically-significant risk to U.S. national security, and inaction is not a viable option,” said a statement published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, a Washington-based think tank. It was signed by more than a dozen former senior military and national security officials, including retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the Pacific Command until last year. They called on the next U.S. president to create a cabinet level position to deal with climate change and its impact on national security. A separate report by a panel of retired military officials, also published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, said more frequent extreme weather is a threat to U.S. coastal military installations. “The complex relationship between sea level rise, storm surge and global readiness and responsiveness must be explored down to the operational level, across the Services and Joint forces, and up to a strategic level as well,” the report said. Earlier this year, another report said faster sea level rises in the second half of this century could make tidal flooding a daily occurrence for some installations. Francesco Femia, co-founder and president of the Center for Climate and Security, said the reports show bipartisan national security and military officials think the existing U.S. response to climate change “is not commensurate to the threat”. Read More here
14 September 2016, Renew Economy, Turnbull marks 1st anniversary with act of clean energy vandalism. Today is the anniversary of Malcolm Turnbull’s overthrow of Tony Abbott as leader of the Liberal Party, and his ascension as prime minister of Australia. To punctuate 12 months of false expectations, the occasion has been marked with another act of vandalism against Australia’s climate and clean energy policies. It had been hoped that Turnbull would represent a turnaround in the debate about Australia’s role in the global efforts to control global warming, and whether Australia would be moved to seize its huge opportunity to become a renewable energy powerhouse and a leader in the inevitable clean energy transition. But rather than taking us to the promised land – “I will not lead a party that does not take climate change as seriously as I do” – things have only got worse. Turnbull has persisted with Abbott’s deluded and deceitful Direct Action policy, and has sought to neuter two important institutions – the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency – that had managed to escape the wrath of Abbott’s “climate change is crap” demagoguery. The CCA – which survived Abbott courtesy of a bizarre deal with Clive Palmer and Al Gore that led to the death of the carbon price – has, since Turnbull’s coronation, been stacked with ex-Coalition MPs and sympathisers and the original architects of Direct Action, who now praise a policy that was ridiculed by the once fiercely independent authority, and described as a “con” and a “fig leaf” by Turnbull himself. ARENA, which also managed to dodge Abbott’s toe-cutters, has instead been knee-capped by the Turnbull administration, stripped of $500 million of funding to slow down its ability to provide new competitors to the incumbent fossil fuel industry. Read More here