If you've been following this blog on an RSS feed you can now transfer to the WNA Buzz feed at http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/blogs/blogrss.aspx?blog=3402

So please head over to WNA Buzz, we hope you like it.

Of course this doesn't make sense as soon as one considers the 441 reactors currently in operation that are already avoiding the emissions of two and a half billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, compared to coal.

But are people right to say that to get any additional savings from nuclear would take a long time because plans for any new reactors would have to start from scratch? Again the plain answer is no. There are around 60 new nuclear power plants already under construction and due to come into operation over the next few years. When operational, these plants will help avoid the emissions of another 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. To save the same emissions from wind power you would need around 75,000 2MWe turbines.

Even more immediate emissions savings can be made through operating those reactors already in operation for longer. For some this is through lifetime extensions, and already many nuclear power plants have started or plant to operate beyond their initial expect lifetimes.

For other nuclear plants additional generation, and therefore emissions savings, come from changes in political policy. One recent example of this is the reversal of the short-lived nuclear phase-out plans in Germany, as reported recently by WNN.

The new policy in Germany will see nuclear power plants operating for between 8 and 14 years longer. The additional greenhouse gas emissions savings from these extended operations will save a total of 1,800 million tonnes of CO₂, compared to coal fired generation. 

(Taken from WNA's Nuclear Power in Germany Profile)

For more information on how nuclear energy can help combat climate change please check out our Nuclear Energy and Climate Change page.

The Cancun Conference therefore faces the urgent need to deal with the Kyoto Protocol's 2012 deadline, while at the same time there is a need to take stock and deal with the issue that the original plan and timetable for developing a new agreement has failed. The next twelve days of negotiations should give us a better idea of whether UNFCCC progress can recover from Copenhagen's disappointment.

Find out more how nuclear energy can help contribute to a low-carbon future with our Nuclear Energy and Climate Change section.
 

We will also be adding links to related web pages, including WNN articles, WNA Info Papers and external websites.

More improvements are planned, please let us know if you have any ideas on how we can improve the database further.

Today the UK government has announced that it is scrapping plans to support a £30 billion ($47.7 billion, €34.4 billion) tidal barrage because "Government believes that other options, such as the expansion of wind energy, carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, represent a better deal for taxpayers and consumers at this time." WNN reports on the full story here.

Writ large in the announcement is a section proclaiming No subsidy for new nuclear power, in which it is stated:

"...the Government’s policy (is) that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear power.

To be clear, this means that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation.

New nuclear power will, for example, benefit from any general measures that are in place or may be introduced as part of wider reform of the electricity market to encourage investment in low-carbon generation."

While this may seem downbeat, the statement that nuclear power will be treated similarly to other low-carbon generation should any general measures be put in place would be in sharp contrast to nuclear power's treatment under past so-called carbon measures.

A leading example of peculiar past treatment is the Climate Change Levy. The levy was introduced in 2001 and designed to be "part of a range of measures that are designed to help the UK meet its legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

The levy was to be applied to business use of energy, whether electricity, coal, coke or gas. Unsurprisingly for a tax called a climate change levy designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions exemptions were put in place for low-carbon energy sources, in particular low carbon electricity generation. Businesses could gain exemptions by buying electricity from low-carbon renewables. There was even special treatment for power from 'good-quality' CHP. However, missing from this list of exemptions was low-carbon nuclear electricity. No provision was made for either current nuclear power or new build.

The European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is another example of less-than-level treatment of nuclear. Under the scheme industrial carbon polluters, including fossil fuel generators, have their greenhouse gas emissions capped at a level that reduced year on year. Under the ETS participants are allowed to use credits from the Clean Development Mechanism, a scheme set up under the Kyoto Protocol, as a way of offsetting their own emissions. But yet again the Clean Development Mechanism arbitrary excludes nuclear projects, not supporting (for example) any project that would attempt to substitute nuclear generation in place of one of the the hundreds of coal power plants being built in China.

Of course, while today's announcement states that there is and will be no specific subsidy for nuclear the same is not the case for other low carbon sources. The Renewables Obligation, introduced in 2002, requires electricity suppliers to source a growing proportion of their electricity from renewables or face the obligation of paying a penalty for any shortfall. At present the penalty is a substantial £37 per MWh.

So in contrast to this history of anything but equal treatment for nuclear today's announcement is welcome.

While some may think how a nuclear power plant looks is not one of the highest priority issues, Dr Marcus draws the interesting comparison to the challenges faced by proposals for new wind turbines. Planning applications for large numbers of wind turbines frequently face objections on grounds of visual impact.

If you are interested in entering the competition the deadline for submissions is 1 December.

by Ted Rockwell

In 1897, House Bill 246 proposed that the Indiana Legislature change the value of Pi to 3.0:
"A bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever  on the same…And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend."  Luckily, the bill failed in the Senate, and never became law.  A science/legal quagmire was avoided.

Yucca Mountain, the purported “solution to the nuclear waste problem” has been subjected to similar actions to define nature arbitrarily, but has not succeeded in repelling them.  It now faces laws requiring answers to unanswerable questions with little connection to reality.  Let me explain.

The term “nuclear waste” is a misnomer.  The material in question has several components:  fissile nuclear fuel awaiting recycle; fertile uranium that can be converted to fuel in “breeder reactors”; billions of dollars worth of fission products, including “rare earths,” that will probably be recoverable; and a small amount of residual material with no further use.  The residual waste will remain within the ceramic fuel structure or be melted into a glass.  It cannot be harmful unless it’s removed from its sealed container.  The residual waste can be safely stored in an appropriate warehouse structure.  Maybe we should put up some OSHA warning posters: DO NOT EAT THE GLASS!

Let’s look at the “nuclear waste problem” – not as defined by lawyers or computer modelers, but by its effects on people and the environment.  What's the problem?  Anti-nuclear activist, Sheldon Novick (“The Electric War”), wrote that nuclear waste is no more dangerous than many other industrial wastes we handle routinely – and that’s if we let it loose, which we don’t.

Over the past half century, has “nuclear waste” ever had any deleterious effects on people or the environment?  The answer is simply NO.  When removed from the reactor, the used fuel is placed for several years in large open pools until 99+% of the radioactivity is decayed away.  Then it is stored in robust stainless containers on the plant sites, and many utilities invite visitors to touch the containers, measure the radiation, and satisfy themselves that they are harmless.  And they are of no interest to terrorists.
 
The scientific issue is simple and straightforward.  But implementing it has become a nightmare.  To make the problem go away, decades ago, plant owners calculated that the ultimate safety solution, the Yucca Mountain concept, could be paid for through a minimal surtax on the sale of electricity, and they “solved the waste problem” that way. 

But it didn’t end there.  Contradictory court rulings, state laws, and declarations by U.S. Presidents and by the National Academy of Sciences became entangled.  “Defining the requirements for Yucca Mountain” became a lucrative game and attracted lots of players.  But in fact, after a few hundred years, the radioactivity becomes comparable to some harmless, natural materials.  “But let’s be conservative.  Call it 1000 years…make it 10,000”  And somewhere between the Academies and the courts, it got to be a million years.  Will the cure for cancer still be a problem a million years from now?  Will the human race even exist then?  Will the YM site be under water?  Or in an active volcano field?  Where will the leakage paths to the water-table be?  No mortal can answer such questions.

We have a choice.  Lawyers and politicians could take years, trying to restore YM to its former place.  But if they succeed, we will have converted a non-problem into an unworkable situation.  We must not go that way.  People made this situation; people can unmake it.  Any law or rule can be amended.  President Obama correctly stated that used fuel can stay where it is for decades more, without posing any significant hazard.  Whatever his motive for doing so, Obama’s action presents us with a logical occasion to re-define the issue in light of current realities, and proceed to solve it sensibly.

If we are willing to accept mercury into our homes in fragile glass fluorescent light-bulbs, and use various metal poisons in solar panels, both of which maintain full toxicity forever, why should radioactive materials that get less and less toxic each day be fearful for a million years?

There is no call to reduce nuclear safety.  The law and commonsense both require that all realistic safety questions associated with radioactive material be fully explored and dealt with.  But the current Yucca Mountain specifications do not facilitate that process.

Dr. Rockwell is a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society and recipient of its first Lifetime Contribution Award, now known as the Rockwell Award. He has Distinguished Service Medals from both the Navy and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He was Technical Director of Admiral Hyman Rickover’s program to build the nuclear Navy and the first commercial atomic power station. He has several patents, including one listed in “a selection of [27] landmark US atomic energy patents from all the patents issued to date.” His works have been published in German, Dutch, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean. He is the first Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer sponsored by the National Academy of Engineering.

He has written numerous books and technical papers, including the widely-used text, Reactor Shielding Design Manual; The Rickover Effect: How One Man Made a Difference; and Creating the New World: Stories & Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age. He co-authored The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, and Arms Control Agreements: Designs for Verification. 

by Ted Rockwell 

I’ve found it’s generally more productive to discuss a person’s factual assumptions than to argue about conclusions or proposed actions based on those assumptions. To that end, I’d like to suggest a few cases where common assumptions used to support anti-nuclear positions are demonstrably false or illogical. Documentation is available on request. I invite you to carry the discussion further. I’ll state the claim below in boldface, followed by a brief rebuttal. 

1. Nuclear technology is unfamiliar and untested. We should proceed slowly until we get more experience.  

Full-scale nuclear power plants have been operating with unprecedented safety and reliability since 1953 – a typical human lifespan, two generations – without a single resulting radiological death to the public in the western world. And this includes operation in active-duty naval vessels and in commercial installations in a wide variety of national and societal situations. No other low-carbon energy source has come near this performance, despite decades of subsidized effort. 

2. Nuclear technology is not renewable.  

There is enough uranium to run for thousands of years in once-through mode. Less that 1% of uranium is fissile. But in the process of generating electricity, some of the non-fissile uranium absorbs a neutron and converts to fuel. Moreover, there are reactors designed to “breed” more fuel than they burn. In addition, the oceans contain enough uranium to outlast the estimated needs of humanity. This is qualitatively different from non-nuclear fuels that require millions of times greater quantities of fuel for the same energy output . 

3. A nuclear reactor can cause an accident that overwhelms the resources of all the world’s insurance companies. Why should humanity take such a risk?  

That potentiality is stated as a premise – not a fact – in the U.S. Price-Anderson liability act. But an international, decades-long investigation to determine the worst physically achievable event involving American commercial nuclear power plants, or their equivalent elsewhere, concluded that few if any deaths off-site would be expected. These studies placed no limitations on personnel or equipment malperformance. They assumed fuel melting occurred, and that containment integrity was severely compromised. The results were published in the peer-reviewed, mainstream journal Science, and have not been seriously challenged. 

4. What about Three Mile Island?  

The partial meltdown at TMI was a case in point. No significant radioactive release occurred. Measurements inside the containment showed that the steam/water/air cyclone during the incident had reduced the important fission-product level by several orders of magnitude. The extensive TMI data are incorporated in the Science paper conclusions.  

5. What about Chernobyl?  

Talking just from the American perspective, no one is suggesting that more Chernobyl reactors be built. It was a flawed design, originally for weapons production, built and operated without adequate safety considerations. The Chernobyl design uses graphite as a moderator, to slow down the neutrons so they have a greater chance of causing fission. It is actually over-moderated. So the cooling water, which has more parasitic neutron absorption than graphite, tends to poison, or shut down the reactor. Therefore, if the water heats up, and becomes less dense, there is less poison, and the water heats up further, which tends to run away and has to be controlled by pushing in control rods. But the control rods displace water, and have to overcome that effect. Reactors without graphite, that use the cooling water for moderation, are designed to be under-moderated, and thus water temperature becomes a stabilizing effect, rather than destabilizing.

Moreover, the Chernobyl safety circuits had been deliberately disabled by operators for an impromptu “test.” And there was inadequate supervision of operator training and decision-making. The commercial water-cooled reactors we’ve built and planned could not under undergo the type of casualty that occurred at Chernobyl. I do not claim that all kinds of reactors are safe. Chernobyl was not. And I do not claim there will be no mishaps or malfunctions. But the American safety criteria do provide that the kinds of events physically possible will have limited and tolerable consequences.

The Chernobyl reactor was a dumb and dangerous design. Many Russian scientists understood this and expressed concern. But the designer was a pet of the Kremlin, and got his way.

6. “Nuclear Waste” poses an unprecedented hazard, because it stays toxic for thousands of years. 

This perverts the fact that radioactivity’s unusual characteristic is that it gets less toxic every day, unlike mercury, lead, arsenic, etc., that maintain full toxic strength forever. “Nuclear waste” will be recycled to produce more electricity. The residual waste is no more hazardous than other industrial wastes we handle in billions of times greater quantity.

7. But we’re fouling our nest – building up more and more radioactivity. 

The fact is, we don’t create enough new radioactivity to offset the natural decay of the earth’s background radioactivity. The earth’s total radioactivity is relentlessly decreasing, day by day.

8. Radiation and radioactivity are particularly harmful and require stricter protection. 

There is no factual basis for this belief. Radiation is just one of many hazards our bodies face. It’s not mysterious; it’s been studied more than most potential hazards. All of us are continually exposed to radiation, so there is plenty of data. 

9. Human-made radiation is more dangerous than “natural.” 

Since neither instruments nor organisms can tell the difference, this notion has no factual basis. (Nevertheless, radiation protection rules require minimizing this trivial fraction of our normal daily radiation dose.)

10. There is no safe dose of radiation. One gamma ray can kill you. 

There is no scientific basis for this belief. In fact, some amount of radiation is necessary to support life. This model was adapted for administrative simplicity, and eventually took on a life of its own. (I never understood the claim of simplicity; virtually all other hazards operate on a simple “permissible level” basis.)

If you want to argue about any of this, I’ll welcome your feedback. But let’s not argue about the conclusions or the rationale; let’s talk about the facts.

To contact me please visist my own Learning About Energy website
 

But that conclusion is based on only achieving a 50% GHG cut by 2050. According to their own report (page xiii) "A more stringent CO2 reduction of, for example, 80%, would probably require the complete de-carbonization of the power sector."

A 50% cut in emissions by 2050 is a lot less than is being talked about as necessary to effectively tackle climate change. And a switch from coal to gas is a one-off saving. Gas power plants emit about half the emissions that coal plants do. So switching from coal to gas gives you a 50% reduction. But you are still left using a very substantially emitting greenhouse gas polluter. To make the further emission reductions necessary you would need to switch again from gas to truly low carbon sources.

In recent years one reason given for opposing electricity generation from nuclear power is to say that "nuclear can't contribute to a low carbon economy because if you decide to build nuclear reactors today it will be too late and too little to make a difference. We need to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions this decade and new nuclear power stations won't come on line until the 2020s." 

This argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.  

For a start, to suggest that any contribution from nuclear energy to combating global warming will come too late ignores the plain fact of its significant contribution today. Already around 15% of the world's electricity is supplied by nuclear power, avoiding the emission of more than two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. New renewables (wind, solar, biomass, as opposed to large hydro) generate only around a quarter of that amount of electricity, although certainly that is no reason to suggest we shouldn't be expanding the use of these low carbon electricity sources too.

It is true to say that if a government makes a policy decision today to support new nuclear build then it may take a decade to turn that commitment into a practical response of operational nuclear power plants.  

It is also true that to effectively tackle climate change and meet our needs for secure supplies of low carbon electricity we need to be bringing in new generation capacity this decade. But it is wrong to think investment in new nuclear capacity is beginning today from a standing start. There are currently over fifty nuclear reactors with a capacity of just under 50,000 MWe under construction. These reactors will collectively avoid the emission of an additional 350 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. These reactors are coming online throughout this decade, some will start this year. (See our Reactor Database for where these are being built). Still more are already in the planning stage with construction due to start soon. In China alone there are plans to increase nuclear generation capacity sixfold to 60,000 MWe by 2020. 

So nuclear energy is already making a major global contribution to providing secure and affordable electricity supplies of electricity today and many new nuclear power plants will add to that contribtion over the next few years.  

But even if we were to put aside this immediate contribution from nuclear power is it right to say that the time taken to build new nuclear power plants mean they are irrelevant to the purpose of fighting climate change, just because greenhouse gas emission growth needs to be halted in the next few years?

Again the answer is a clear 'no'. We live in a world starved of electricity. Only a small, fortunate minority of the global population benefits from a reliable supply of electricity. The fast-growing economies of major developing countries such as India and China are driving an increasing global demand for electricity. The world's population is expected to grow from just under 7 billion at present to 9 billion by 2050.

Even if developed countries can stabilise or reduce their electricity demand through increased energy efficiency the growing need of  the rest of the world driven by economic growth and increased population will mean conventional electricity demand is likely to rise to three or four times the current level over the next 40 years.

Shifting from today's world of electricity poverty to one where we meet the needs of all will take decades.Yes, it can take time to bring new nuclear power plants online and that means that we need to now make a commitment to nuclear energy as part of a clean energy future.. But it is ridiculous to say that nuclear power isn't part of the long term solution to climate change because new plants can't come on stream until 2020. The majority of electricity generation capacity required in 2050 won't be needed in 2020.  Nuclear energy is part of the solution today, new nuclear power plants already under construction will be starting up throughout this decade and nuclear energy can be a major component in meeting our long-term global electricity needs.

The Guardian article gives another example when it identifies Finland as the country in Europe with the shortest time taken to approve new wind turbine projects, taking just eight months, compared to 24 months in the  UK  and 50 months in  Spain. Finland  has also just announced plans for new nuclear build.

The Guardian article says that 1GWe of offshore wind capacity will produce enough electricity to supply 700,000 homes. Exactly what that means isn't clear, but based on average UK electricity consumption per household it suggests 1GWe of offshore wind turbines will generate about 2.5 TWh of electricity. In comparison 1GWe of nuclear generation would generate three times that amount, the difference coming from the more intermittant and variable nature of wind power.

There may be an element of doubt about these reports, but for some space-based facts have a read of our paper on Nuclear Reactors for Space.

The WNA is now on Facebook. If you want to join us please go to our fan page  World Nuclear Association

Read more from WNA's Steve Kidd in this article from Nuclearstreet.com

http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/03/11/wna-director-nuclear-reborn-03112.aspx

A new information paper has just been published,  Uranium in Mongolia, detailing Russian, Canadian and Chinese interest in the urnanium reserves in that country. In total WNA now has around 40 Country Profile pages.

WNA has also launched a page with listing weekly the latest updates  to its information papers. From this page you can also access an archive of previous industry developments. 

Bill Gates talks at the TED conference on the need to reduce to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Gates identifies population, energy services, efficiency and the carbon intensity of energy generation as the factors determining future carbon dioxide. Population growth and increasing demand for energy services will drive up GHG emissions. Energy efficiency will help reduce emissions, but Gates identifies the need to switch to zero-emission energy generation as the key need.

Gates identifies five technologies as the best prospects to be "Energy Miracles" to achieve this aim - carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, wind turbines, solar voltaic and solar thermal. Gates identifies challenges for each technology, and points out areas where he thinks innovation can help address those challenges. For more information on some of the issues that Gates raises please see WNA's Information Papers on  Economics of Nuclear Power,  Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors,  Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities,  Renewable Energy and Electricity and  'Clean Coal' Technologies. 

Morocco 's inclusion of plans to build two nuclear power plants as part of its Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action submission  to the COP 15 Copenhagen Accord is an indication of how international climate change policy has developed over the last decade from one where nuclear energy was treated negatively to one where nuclear enegy is now being recognized as a key element of global efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to  Morocco 's plans, China's declaration that it will seek to reduce the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020, is dependent on a significant contribution from nuclear power.  China 's plans for its fast-expanding nuclear generation capacity to increase to around 60GWe by 2020.  South Korea 's declaration that it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from business as usual projections is similarly dependent on its ambitious programme of nuclear build.

WNA's Jeremy Gordon points out that the impact comes in lost opportunity, because overly strict regulations can be a barrier to entry in using nuclear power. A drive for ever lower dose constraints goes beyond the point that any benefits can be measured. Beyond even the point that any benefit exists. If this continues it could represent a barrier to entry so high that some countries without nuclear power may never begin to use it. This would close off one of the significant technologies that can generate low-carbon power with low environmental impact. A failure to develop new nuclear generation will lead to real health effects arising from the predominantlyfossil fuel electricity generation  likely to be deployed in its place - from increased air pollution, fuel poverty and climate change.

However, what was hoped for was a strong political declaration that would set a path to a legally binding document that would be agreed over 2010. In the end, the rushed Accord developed by a small number of heads of state set some admirable objectives, but appeared almost separately from the two weeks of negotiations and the two years of preparation that had led up to COP 15.

One sign of optimism was the almost complete agreement from governments, from richest to poorest, that climate change poses a serious threat and urgent and substantial action is  needed to address it. It can only be hoped that future intergovernmental meetings can agree on what action to take.

On Monday 10,000 people, the ones who have arrived to attend this week’s second part of the conference, have been waiting to be registered. Some delegates have been queuing since 8am and are now being told, six hours later, that registration has been closed for today and has been sent back to their hotels.

Today and Wednesday less than a third of the NGO delegates will be let in, on Thursday this will be reduced to 1000, just 4% of those wanting to get in. By Friday, maybe only 90 NGOs will be allowed in at all. The 15,000 limit of the Bella Centre will almost entirely be taken up by Government delegations and the Press.

These restrictions are likely to serious disrupt the civil society activities being held this week. Those with exhibition stands in the second week of the conference face having to take them down again on Wednesday barely halfway into their allotted time. Those with 'sidebar' presentation events will struggle to get their speakers into the conference centre and find there is no audience for them.

These reductions in NGO numbers will likely not be noticed too much by government delegates at the meeting. The conference centre will remain full and negotiations are ongoing. It has to be wondered how so many government delegates can be actively involved in the negotiation process.

With some irony, the first heads of state delegates arriving today are being greeted by heavy snowfalls.

A new draft text released by one of the UN groups in Copenhagen this afternoon sets out the options that delegates will negotiate next week to reach a deal to combat climate change.

The Ad Hoc Working Group for Long Term Action under the Convention is discussing steps necessary to reach the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that does not harm the environment.

The options on offer include:

• Limiting global average temperature rises, compared to pre industrial levels, to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celcius.
• Reducing global emissions, compared to 1990, by 50%, 85% or 95 %  by 2050.
• Developed country emissions to fall by 75-85%, 80-95% or more than 95% by 2050.

The document also lays out targets for 2020:

• Developed country emissions to fall by 25-40%, 30%, 40% or 45% by 2020 in comparison to 1990 levels.
• Developing countries shall undertake plans, supported by developed countries, to substaintially deviate emissions from business as usual, possibly by 15-30% 

All these options are up for discussion, and there is no commitment to even the lowest levels of reductions at this stage.

The Copenhagen COP 15 climate change conference has got underway with more than 35,000 people registered to attend a meeting where the conference centre can only accept 15,000 people. The Bella conference centre is already very busy and may not be able to cope with the additional delegates expected to arrive next, when Heads of State are due to attend.

Plans are already in place to issue a much smaller number of "super passes" and to close at least parts of the Conference Centre to most delegates during the high level segment next week.

The leaking of a "Danish Text" has provoked much outrage, but the document had been discussed informally for some time and other groups had developed their own proposals for a final "Copenhagen Agreement". Some of those outraged are probably angry that the Danish government's text got leaked first, giving it a greater prominence.

The WNA has exhibition stand at the COP, one of two hundred booths. We've had a lot of interest and good questions, from both NGO and government delegates. More information is available on the WNA climate change  portal or on WNA's Twitter stream.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) have covered the issue of the electricity and gas industry at Copenhagen. You can watch the report below or see their webpage.

The Commonwealth meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago has released a consensus declaration on climate change, barely a week before the UNFCCC COP 15 in Copenhagen.

The Commonwealth of Nations, with over fifty member countries in six continents representing nearly a third of the world's population  including Canada,  Australia , South Africa , India,  much of southern and eastern Africa and a broad range of small island states, has a diversity of membership that approaches that of the full UN. As such the Port of Spain climate change consensus gives an insight into what kind of agreement may emerge from the Copenhagen conference.

The voice of the smaller developing countries is strongly represented, the declaration noting, "The needs of the most vulnerable must be addressed. Their voice must be heard and capacity to engage strengthened. Many of us from small island states, low-lying coastal states and least developed countries face the greatest challenges, yet have contributed least to the problem of climate change."

The declaration supports a international legally binding agreement on climate change, something that is now not expected to emerge from the COP 15 conference. Notably the declaration makes no reference to emissions reduction targets, but instead stresses the need to take 'urgent and substantial' action to limit average global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Although no emissions targets are stated, the consensus does recognize the need for an early peaking year for emissions, with developed countries taking the lead on emissions reductions, but with developing countries taking action to achieve a substantial deviation from business as usual  emissions.

The Port of Spain declaration also talks of the need for financing, support for adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, approaches and incentives for reducing emissions for developing countries.

In the UK Parliament recently the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband outlined what was needed to achieve 80% greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050.

"It is worth asking, "What do 80 per cent. cuts by 2050 mean?" because that is very much the context of this debate. They mean huge ambition-near zero-carbon homes, substantial cuts in transport, and near zero-carbon energy. That shows the scale of the challenge. At the same time, because of electric cars and the electrification of rail and heating, it will in all likelihood-in a sense, this is the biggest challenge-mean more use of electricity, which must be low carbon. That is what makes the decarbonisation of our energy supply the most important and urgent task that we face"

This vision of a future is shared by WNA's Nuclear Century Outlook (NCO). In our scenario we show achieving a near-zero carbon energy system needs a broad range of technologies, renewables are projected to grow to a capacity by 2100 that is more than double the total of today’s world electricity output and carbon capture and storage (CCS) makes a substantial contribution as a bridge technology. The NCO goes on to show that substantial growth in the use of nuclear energy can help meet the demand for clean energy, not only for electricity generation, but also desalination, process heat and hydrogen production.

The NCO is not a prediction. At present the world is still too committed to a fossil-fuelled energy system with unrestrained carbon dioxide emissions. The success of the forthcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen should be measured not only by the progress made in agreeing emissions reductions but also in how it encourages the technologies needed to achieve those reductions.

Friends of the Earth have released a report "A Dangerous Obsession" that is highly critical of emissions trading. This follows on from the WWF International report "Climate Solutions 2: Low-Carbon Re-Industrialisation" that is similarly critical of plans to promote lower carbon technologies solely through carbon price signals.

The FoE report draws on a US study by the Breakthrough Institute that states that "...all of the historic examples of big energy switches by national economies have involved the combination of big public investment with direct deployment of new technologies as set out above. Examples include France – the economy which has decarbonised the most rapidly over the last 30 years – where the government has designed, built and operates nuclear power stations; Sweden, where there has been a big government-driven expansion of publicly-funded nuclear and hydro-electric power; and Japan, Iceland and Denmark where there has been significant government support for nuclear and solar, geothermal and hydro-electric, and offshore wind power respectively."

The role of carbon pricing in any mitigation strategy is complex. Putting a price on carbon is an important principle, but a badly designed scheme may well favour smaller short term gains, rather than investment in longer term projects with greater emissions reduction potential. Nevertheless it is interesting to see France's historic nuclear programme highlighted as an effective way to deploy low carbon technologies, and a recognition that this nuclear deployment has led to the most rapid decarbonization in any one economy.

The FoE reort questions whether nuclear energy is truly a low carbon option, but this is an issue on which the WWF is more positive, stating that "nuclear energy is unquestionably low-carbon".

The WWF report's modelling of energy production only includes existing nuclear plants and plants currently under construction rather than the possibility of additional nuclear build. Despite this nuclear energy is a significant contributor to emissions abatement in some of the scenarios presented.

Some of the assumptions used by the WWF study for nuclear are pessimistic. For example the study assumes nuclear capacity factors of 70% for its central case and 80% in its high case. In fact, in the US over the last ten years the average capacity factor for all the 100+ operating nuclear reactors has been close to 90%.

Vesta sought the views of the WNA, which you can read here, as well as representatives from StatOil, the European Wind Energy Association, Dong Energy and Vesta themselves.

StatOil's Ola Morten Aanestad argued for carboning pricing, saying "we think our competitiveness will improve if the world agrees on a price for CO2 emissions." He noted that over 1.5 billion people still do not have access to electricity and that with a growing global population energy demand would rise substantially over the next decades, a point also made in WNA's  Nuclear Century Outlook .

Dong Energy's Louise Münter would like to see fossil fuels phased out as quickly as possible, but recognized they would be with us for some time.

EWEA's Chistian Kjærn said that "I do not believe that the future lies in a low carbon future, if low carbon means renewables, coal CCS and nuclear."

In contrast, Vesta's own Peter C. Brun noted the ability for wind turbines to be deployed quickly, but also recognized a broader range of low carbon technologies would be needed, saying  "Many technologies will be needed – there is no silver bullet – but the energy of the future must be low-carbon. There is no other choice if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change."

The Copenhagen meeting will be a barometer, showing whether the international community is prepared to make an effective commitment to tackling the greatest environmental threat to the planet. Nuclear generation is already making a major contribution to tackling climate change, and can make a much bigger contribution in the future.

Global nuclear generation helps avoid over 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Without nuclear power greenhouse gas emissions from the power generation sector would rise by over 20%. To put this into context, global nuclear generation today avoids four times more greenhouse gas emissions reductions than will be achieved if developed countries abide by their Kyoto Protocol emissions targets.

Nuclear power is increasingly being seen as vital to any long term plan to bring greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level whilst still bringing reliable electricity supplies still so desperately needed by many billions of people in the world today and the billions more that will be born this century. The WNA's Nuclear Century Outlook provides one vision of how these essential twin needs could be met.

The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook foresees a "much faster roll-out of renewables and nuclear - and urgent investment in carbon capture and storage" as part of its projection of what is needed to achieve a stabilisation at 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere, a level some feel is still too high to avoid unacceptable levels of climate change. Nuclear generation would increase from the current 370 GWe capacity to around 700 GWe by 2030.

China and India  are embarking on ambitious nuclear energy programmes, showing a commitment to keep their greenhouse gas emissions low even as their economies expand.  China plans  to build between 120-160 GWe of nuclear generation capacity by 2030. The Indian Prime Minister has recently set a target  of 470 GWe of nuclear generation capacity by 2050. South Korea will add 15 GWe of new capacity over the next 12 years.

Across the north of Africa, through the Middle East through to the tiger economies of Asia nuclear energy is being planned to supply both electricity and clean water. New nuclear build is a key element of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide energy security in North America.

In Europe nuclear generation currently provides around 28% of electricity, only recently did it lose its role of having the largest share of generation to coal. But Europe's concerns over climate change and over-dependance on gas could see that reversed. Belgium and Germany are in the process of reversing their nuclear phase-out policies. Sweden has scrapped its phase-out policy and now plans new nuclear build, as does Italy. The UK is in the early stages of a major new nuclear build programme for the next two decades.

If the world is going to be successful in tackling climate change clean low carbon energy will be needed not only for conventional electricity generation but also for  industrial heat, hydrogen production, powering cars and providing clean water. Meeting that demand with nuclear energy, with renewables and potentially fossil fuel power plants with CCS will be incredibly challenging. But it is a challenge we must rise to and achieve.

The New York Times also published a gallery of related photos that are worth a look.

The organizers estimate that 14 million people read a blog entry on last year's subject of poverty. If you'd like to know more and if you have your own blog and would like to join the effort then there's more information in the video below.

In the report are scenarios for nuclear generation capacity in 2030, with the reference case projecting 600 GWe of installed capacity, up from the current 371 MWe. The Upper case considers an installed capacity of 818 GWe.

In the same week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its own projections for the future of nuclear energy.

The low IAEA projection predicts an installed global nuclear power capacity of about 510 GWe in 2030, a 40% increase over the current installed capacity in 2009. The high projection predicts a an installed capacity of 810 GWe, well more than a doubling. These 2009 projections for 2030 are 8% higher than last year´s projections.

Both the WNA and IAEA high cases predict installed capacities well below the high figure for 2030 contained in the WNA Nuclear Century Outlook, showing there is still potential for further upratings of these high cases in future years.

The menu bar provides links to almost every page on the site, from any page on the site.

Our 'How Nuclear Power Works', 'Why We Need Nuclear Power', 'Education' and 'Information Papers' sections have been drawn together as the WNA Public Information Service. If you would like to see a list of all the available pages please click on the "Full List of Pages" option.

Our WNA at a Glance section provides a guide to all the different activities carried out by the WNA. We also highlight the different courses being run by the World Nuclear University.

At the bottom of the page we have three boxes. In the middle are links to the latest stories from WNN. On the left is a 'feature' box where we will hightlight different parts of the world-nuclear.org website. On the right is a Hot Topics box  where we will highlight upcoming events and key issues.

We hope you like the new design and would welcome your comments.

In this episode Llewellyn talks to Dharmuid O'Connell, Vice President of Tesla Motors about their electric-powered Tesla sports car. O'Connell mentions how a future shift to an increased use of zero-emissions electricity generation would mean the overall greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles such as Tesla's reducing over their lifetime. The increased demand for electricity generation to supply power to road vehicles, and the consequental environmenal need for more nuclear and renewable electricity generaiton, is one of the issues discussed in WNA's  Nuclear Century Outlook .

Click here to view.

What the Real Time Carbon organisers hope is that in the future the information could be fed directly to appliances over the web so they can be triggered to start up automatically when the carbon emissions per kWh are at their lowest. It will need careful management, if ten million dishwashers suddenly are triggered into life by a low carbon signal the surge in demand could cause some peaking demand supplied from some very dirty generation.

WNA's  Electricity and Cars  paper discusses a similar idea where additional demand for electricity generation at night to recharge electric vehicles could lead to a smoothing of electricity demand over 24 hours, increasing the effective proportion of baseload electricity.

A balanced approach to climate change mitigation is important, but the issue isn't so much that the currently policy is too wind-focussed, but that the UK generation mix is too fossil-focussed.

Their article reports that including nuclear in the CDM and JI would make nuclear projects eligible for funding from these scheme, though of course nuclear projects would only get the same benefit per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions avoided as any other CDM or JI project.

The New Scientist gets the facts about the CDM and JI a bit wrong. The article talks about the two schemes helping poorer countries, but JI projects are those that take place in developed countries with emissions targets. The CDM does apply to the poorest of countries, but it also applies to major economies such as  China  and  India , where large increases in nuclear generation are already planned.

At the Bonn meeting negotiators are getting their first chance to discuss negotiating texts intended to form the basis of a new agreement to be reached in Copenhagen in December. Those discussions will include the future role of nuclear energy in Kyoto Mechanisms.

Remember, WNN is tweeting on http://twitter.com/W_Nuclear_News.

"If we are to meet our ambitious targets for a carbon neutral economy, or for a much lower dependence on carbon, we will need more scientists, engineers and technicians. Otherwise, it will be impossible to realise those aims. If we do not have the people to construct the wind farms, service the dynamos or expand nuclear energy, although my party does not support that, we will not be able to meet our 2020 climate change targets."

More information on nuclear power in the United Kingdom is available in WNA's country profile.

Other nuclear tweets you might like to follow are http://twitter.com/iaeaorg, and http://twitter.com/CERN

The name Kerena has some appropriate meanings. In Hebrew it means 'glorious diginity', and may also mean 'ray of light'. Less prosaically, kerena may also mean 'ram's horn' and 'fund'.

Kerena is also a place, being a village in Mali.

In contrast, the website of the United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen reports that energy giant Shell is withdrawing from investment in wind, solar, hydropower and some other renewables as the technologies are not economic, while at the same time putting some more money into researching biofuels.

WNA has projected a strong role for renewables (as well as nuclear) in combatting climate change, but Shell's decision highlights the challenges faced for the deployment of some zero carbon technologies.

Around the world tens of millions of nuclear medicine procedures take place each year, many of which can be life-saving procedures, but if someone really does want to cut down their annual radiation dose one of the best things to do would be to make sure they brushed their teeth twice a day to avoid any dentist's x-rays!

Only three years ago Mr Tindale described new build proposals for nuclear as "too little, too late ." Today he relates how nuclear being anti-nuclear was seen as part and parcel of being an environmentalist, but increasingly he is finding that other environmentalists may not think that nuclear power is ideal, but it is better than the consequences of climate change. For more information see the WNN story .

Today the Conservative oppostition party's leader, David Cameron, announced their latest policy green paper, "The Low Carbon Economy. Security, Stability and Green Growth" in which the Conservatives announce that if elected they would clear the way for new nuclear power stations through the establishment of a National Nuclear Waste Site and type approvals for nuclear stations.

In addition to this policy on nuclear energy, the document also stated that the Conservatives would;

• enable biogas to replace up to 50% of the UK's residential gas heating;
• incorporate carbon capture and storage equipment into at least 5,000 MW of new coal fired power plants;
• support all forms of low carbon heat generation; and
• provide backing, through fast-track planning, for a network of large scale Marine Energy Parks.

This latest energy policy document recognises that new nuclear stations, based on existing designs, have a part to play in a low carbon economy if they are economically viable. A further crucial element, accourding to today's publication, is 'the identification of a safe waste site and a guaranteed regime for handling nuclear waste, which ensures that the costs of decontamination and storage are fully met by the nuclear stations themselves – in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.'

Such disruptions are particularly unwanted when they happen to climate-friendly generation sources such as nuclear energy or renewables. However, wind turbine generators may be facing an unexpected form of disruption that has put at least one turbine out of action. The BBC reports that a UFO is being suggested as one possible cause of damage to a wind turbine at Cornisholme, Lincolnshire in England. One blade was badly bent and another was completely sheared from the turbine. A local councillor reported a strange round white light, with a slight red edge hovering over the turbines.

The founder of Ecotricity, the owners of the site, said "Until we have some idea, some plausible explanation that it was not a UFO, I don't think we should rule it out".

There is no record of any nuclear power plant being subject to alien attack.

The latest report sets interim carbon budgets for 2020. Two budgets are set, an Interim budget that requires an emissions reduction of 34% in 2020 relative to 1990 (21% relative to 2005). This translates to required emissions reductions of 110 MtCO₂e in 2020. The second Intended budget would require an emissions reduction of 42% in 2020 relative to 1990 (31% relative to 2005), an emissions reductions of 175 MtCO₂e. By way of comparison, one modern nuclear power plant would save 7-8 MtCO₂ of emissions if it replaced coal-fired generation.  The Intended budget would come into effect if a new global climate change agreement was achieved.

One of the most striking conclusions of the committee's report was that the electricity generation supply mix would have to be almost totally decarbonized by 2030 if the overall 80% target for 2050 was to be reached. Such a decarbonization would see a much greater role for nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. Overall, the generation mix would have a greater component of baseload generation. The committee foresees that this could lead to an excess of generation capacity during summer nights. However, this 'excess' capacity would be used for new uses, such as recharging batteries on electric vehicles. The WNA Information Paper on Electricity and Cars gives some details on how this could be achieved.

Such a diversification in the use of electricity into sectors such as transport is one of the drivers for increased clean energy demand set out in the WNA's Nuclear Century Outlook. 

With the energy sector responsible for such a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions the emergence of this new ministry offers great potential for 'joined-up government'. But the ministry's scope should extend to other sectors with significant climate change impacts, such as transport and agriculture. Similarly, on energy the ministry should also address affordability and security of supply.

Of key interest will be the role the new ministry plays in climate change negotiations, including the annual COP/MOP meetings under the UNFCCC, which this year will take place in Poland. Previously the UK's delegation has been led by the environment ministry (DEFRA), in collaboration with the industry ministry (BERR). From the announcements made by DEFRA and BERR it appears that the new department will now take the lead.

Meanwhile, Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated yesterday that "nuclear energy is the best option to curb carbon emissions".

The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2008-2012, included the CDM and JI mechanisms, which were designed to allow developed countries to get credit for carrying out emissions-reduction projects in developing and other developed countries. At the end of fractious negotiations, the delegates decided to place heavy restrictions on the use of credits arising from nuclear projects, effectively excluding nuclear energy projects from the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Delegates are now negotiating what regime should follow for the second commitment period, starting in 2013. The reintroduction of nuclear projects is under discussion, alongside projects involving carbon capture and storage (CCS) and emissions save through changes in land use and forestry.

In previous negotiations some of the key concerns raised have been due to the potentially large contribution that nuclear energy could make to emissions reductions. The amount of emissions saved from nuclear energy projects by 2030 is estimated to be larger than the entire annual supply of credits expected to be generated annually over the next five years, leading to a lowering of the price of CDM credits. In addition, there are concerns that nuclear CDMs could be so successful in reducing emissions in developing countries that the sponsoring developed countries would need to put a lot less effort into reducing their own emissions.

Such concerns seem perverse. If the inclusion of nuclear energy projects can reduce the cost of emissions reductions isn't that a good thing? With many countries looking like they will struggle to meet their modest targets for 2008-12 it hardly seems likely that long-term over-achievement is a serious proposition. If the inclusion of nuclear projects will make it so easy to reduce emissions then that will allow the international community the opportunity to set more challenging emissions targets, which are likely to be needed if we are to successfully combat climate change.

Nuclear desalination is taking an increasing role in meeting  the world's growing demand for fresh, clean water. A plant in Yuhuan County in Zhejiang province in China can produce 374,400 gallons of water every hour.

However, the official communication statements  were couched in the usual politic-speak on nuclear, where the support for nuclear was qualified as being only from those countries that supported the use of nuclear energy. Indeed, the statement from the G8 made no reference to nuclear energy at all.

Such qualified support is typical of G8 statements, where a minority opposition to nuclear energy has to be dealt with. Press speculation unsurprisingly pointed to Germany as the source of the opposition to outright support for nuclear energy. To be fair, the G8 statements have improved somewhat, at least now they recognise the value of nuclear energy, where in the past they have often chosen to ignore it altogether.

However, only a few days after the meeting the German chancellor Angela Merkel signalled her Christian Democratic Union party would oppose the nuclear phase-out policy of the previous government, pointing to how nuclear energy helps contribute to affordable energy prices.

So it appears that the G8 meeting texts pandered to a nuclear phase-out policy that isn't even supported by the leader of that country.

In the Netherlands, Stockhouse.com reported that economics minister Maria van der Hoeven not envisage a nuclear-free future if the government was to meet its CO₂ targets. Meanwhile, the Hugarian environmental minister Imre Szabo, expressed support for expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant.

However, in a statement released today the NIA says that UK industry could provide 70-80% of a sustained new build programme, that would draw on less than 5% of the current UK construction capability. That 5% would still represent valuable jobs for UK construction workers.

However, New Zealand is currently facing severe drought and some of the lowest levels of the lakes supplying the hydro plants that supply much of the electricity in New Zealand. Water levels have fallen below a measure called the 'Minzone.' When this occurs the generating system undergoes careful management to conserve water to the maximum possible extent. One measure taken is to ensure that all thermal plants are run as much as possible. As all thermal plants in New Zealand are fossil fuel plants this measure will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, so the solution to reduced hydro production may well contribute to climate change, making future droughts more likely.

In a second article reported by the BBC, the World Meteorological Organization has announced that temperatures in 2008 are likely to be lower than in previous years and the run of record highs for global temperatures over the last decade has come to an end. The report goes on to identify the cold La Nina current in the Pacific as the cause of the dip in temperatures. Both the La Nina and the warming El Nino currents have a significant influence over global temperatures. And this year has seen biting cold weather in both the US and China, as well as rare heavy snow falls in mid-April in the UK. However, the influences of both El Nino  and La Nina are thought to be in addition to the underlying long-term global warming trend, meaning that the WMO expects warmer temperatures to return in a few years.

Why should the journey to Paris by train be so much more carbon efficient by train? The shorter distance and consequential higher proportion of the flight spent taking off and landing will have some effect. But a major contributor will be the electricity generation mix used to power the electric trains. Once through the Channel Tunnel the Eurostar is powered by the French generation mix, with nearly 80% of the electricity being generated from nuclear power. In comparison the nuclear component of the generation mix in the UK has fallen from a peak of around 30% in the late 1990s to around 18% today.

Eurostar journey's may be even more environmentally sound. An arrangement between Eurostar and British Energy means that the journey through the UK can be considered to make use of British Energy's very low carbon generation mix.

Apparently, the braking mechanism on the turbine had failed, making it impossible to keep the turbine operating safely as the wind speed increased. As the turbine collapsed massive pieces of debris fell to the ground, just compare the size of those to the van parked at the base of the turbine.

This is not an isolated case, in Novembern 2007 two turbines collapsed in the UK. Thankfully none of these incidents caused any injuries, though the potential danger is obvious. Tragically in August 2007 in Oregon, USA a worker was killed and another injured when the turbine they were working on collapsed.

These incidents show the need for the highest safety standards in all forms of generation, something already clearly understood in the nuclear industry.

While details are still sketchy, the plan appears promising for treating all low-carbon electricity equally. Other schemes exist designed to encourage greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but too often these schemes cherry-pick individual options, such as renewables obligations or energy efficiency certificates. The Japanese scheme appears to to avoid this pitfall.

Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants can operate with similarly regular base load output, as opposed to the more unpredictable output of many renewables. The production of hydrogen from fossil fuels, with sequestration of the carbon wastes, could offer such plants a role in the hydrogen economy of the future.

It must therefore be somewhat worrying for CCS advocates that the FutureGen programme has been radically revised, with US government funding for a proposed plant in Mattoon, Illinois withdrawn, amid concerns of rising costs. The revised FutureGen scope now no longer includes hydrogen production.

Last year plans for a similar plant in Peterhead, Scotland, were cancelled as the UK government revised its strategy for supporting power plants using CCS technology.

Some people have argued that CCS technologies could make new nuclear build unnecessary. Given the faltering progress of CCS, that argument seems weak. If CCS can be shown to work, if the storage of carbon dioxide can be shown to be secure and if the technology can be shown to be affordable, fossil fuel power generation with CCS could be a valued part of the energy mix. But against the proven track record of decades of nuclear generation, a lot of uncertainty remains.

There are two new sections on the homepage. The new "Other Top Stories" section lists the headlines of some of the most recent stories, helping you find recent news articles you may have missed. The "Don't Miss" section highlights stories of particular interest that have been published over the last few weeks - or an older story that has a new relevance.

On the category pages, such as Energy and Environment, the "Top Stories" box lists the top ten most recent stories and the "Don't Miss" section appears again, meaning you can click quickly through to all the top news, regardless of which category you are in.

On the article pages themselves WNN has revised the "Further Information" that used to appear at the bottom of each article. Links to related WNN stories are now located on the right near the top of the page. Below that is the "Related Links" section, providing links to companies and organizations mentioned in the stories, as well as relevant WNA Information Papers, which provide a deeper level of background information.

The WNN staff hope you like the new design, please let them know what you think. Emails can be sent to editor@world-nuclear-news.org .

In the first commitment period of the EU ETS allowances were allocated primarily through a free allocation based on grandfathering. Owners of installations covered by the EU ETS presented records of emissions in recent years and governments handed out allowances based on these historic emissions for free. Overall the number of allowances allocated was close to that predicted to be needed by companies. This was thought to lessen the financial impact of the early stages of the EU ETS. In fact, the number of allowances proved to be more than enough and after a period where allowances climbed to around €30/tCO₂ the price collapsed as few trades took place.

In the second commitment period, 2008-12, it is expected that governments will be less generous with their allowance hand-out, allowances for this period have been trading recently in the low €20's. However, this may still leave fossil fuel electricity generators earning what critics have called a windfall. This supposed windfall arises from the passing on of the opportunity cost of generation. The opportunity cost in the case of the EU ETS comes from the idea that, although fossil fuel generation operators have been given the allowances for free, they 'use up' an allowance when their plants emit CO₂ which they otherwise could have sold. The generators are thought to have passed on this opportunity cost to customers.

Auctioning allowances means that participants in the trading scheme will go through a round of bidding to secure a share of the emissions allowances distributed by governments. Once this auctioned allocation has taken place the allowances would be traded amongst participants, as currently occurs in the emissions allowance market. Generators will still be expected to pass on the cost of allowances to customers, but they will have had to pay for the allowances in the first place.

So will this provide an incentive for lower carbon generation? If generators have already been passing on the opportunity cost of allowances the cost of carbon will have already been incorporated into the generation cost. What matters more is that the number of allowances is reduced at a rate consistent with achieve the overall aim of avoiding climate change. This would encourage the true cost of carbon emissions to be reflected in the EU ETS allowance trading price. Investors also need to have greater confidence that the carbon price will continue to be reflected in generation costs, which means providing greater certainty over the long-term future of the trading scheme.

This week, popular author and presenter Jeremy Clarkson has expressed his support for nuclear energy in The Times newspaper.

This long-awaited decision comes after years of debate. It is clear that the UK, whose share of nuclear generation in the electricity mix has fallen from a peak of 29% down to the present 18%, has much to gain from new nuclear build. After sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the 1990s, due in part to increased nuclear output, the UK has seen emissions stagnate in the subsequent decade. Each gigawatt of nuclear build can displace over two and a half million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year if it is used in place of gas-fired generation. 

An increasing reliance on gas-fired generation is causing concerns for the security of the UK's electricity supply. With imports expected to provide up to 80% of the UK's gas supply in the future any disruption to this supply could have serious human and economic consequences. Nuclear energy, produced from uranium found in some of the most politically stable countries in the world, clearly can help reduce these risks. 

Meanwhile, the Conservative opposition party seems to have got over its blip of scepticism towards nuclear power and indicated today that investors in new nuclear plants can have confidence that their investments will not be jeopardised by any changes policy if the Conservatives should come to power. 

With this decision made the long process towards actually bringing new nuclear generation in the UK starts. It is what you might call a 2020 vision.