The energy production companies have made record profits, but what to do with these profits, which weren't planned or expected?
In the UK, AShell and BP have been granted a licence to print money. For the past three years, Shell and BP have paid no corporation tax on the oil and gas they extract from the North Sea and no production levies either. In other words, they have been given these resources by the government. Over the same period, they have been granted reliefs on the taxes they didn’t pay of almost £400m. This is because they can claim the cost of decommissioning their rigs and platforms against their nonexistent tax bills.
The energy companies themselves are starting to say they need them to invest in renewables, but there is also pressure to pass them on to shareholders. There's no shortage of investors in renewables, so this argument is a bit of a diversion. On the other hand, a windfall tax could pay for the entire country's energy bill for a year.
However, why not use a windfall tax for both reducing our electricity bills - not eliminating them entirely - AND to give to companies already well down the road to generating renewables, providing they have concrete plans that are proven and viable?
Wind and solar are very weather dependent, but the tide comes in and goes out every day, day after day. Tidal power has the potential to generate 20% of our requirement, yet today it's only producing 3%. Being an island, we have a natural advantage.
The UK produces 20% of its power from 6 nuclear fusion plants, with the majority of these being scheduled for closure within the next 3 years. Nuclear fission, which is clean nuclear, has the capacity to generate all our needs, but at the current level of progress, it will be 2030 before the first nuclear fusion plant comes on-stream. This is being developed by Tokamak Energy, a British company, so huge investment here, for parallel development, will solve our needs, help us meet our climate goals and provide British jobs for British power, as well as enabling the sale of the power generated, if not the technology itself, outside our borders.
International investors have consistently backed Tokamak Energy with over £100m of private investment, making it one of only four fusion companies globally – and the only one in the UK – to have received such a high level of funding.
If left to the traditional fossil fuel power companies, they'll be driven by short term gains and start fracking the hell out of the countryside, using the urgent need for gas as the pretext. The fossil fuel lobby, which doesn't give a damn about climate change, will ensure that. They're the turkeys who do vote for Christmas. The Market with a capital M sees an urgent need and doesn't look forward - it's focused on the here and now - and short term profit - so it can't be left to The Market to decide.
8 comments:
Dear Chairman Bill,
you sound like a sensible chap who would not want to see millions of pounds squandered on a boondoggle.
The aim of a fusion reactor is to reproduce what goes on in the sun, right? The sun is a massive generator of heat, right?
But check out the 'energy density' of the sun - (300W per m3). It's a massive generator of heat because it's so - massive.
At the same energy density, a fusion reactor the size of a power station boiler would produce about 300kW - about the same as a lorry engine.
No one has yet explained how they propose to scale up the energy density to a useful level.
A question of investment.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-scientists-set-new-record-for-generating-energy-from-nuclear-fusion-but-commercial-application-still-years-away-12536956
Dear Chairman,
Kind of proves my point: 'The experiment still consumed more energy to create the fusion reaction than the energy released'.
And: 'but commercial application still years away' is the euphemism for 'we haven't actually got a clue as to how we could scale the thing up to get a useful amount of energy out of a practical sized reactor'.
It was thought at one time that fission was only any good for a weapon and could never generate power. Containment is now possible, which is a massive leap forward. Investment is now key.
Dear Chairman,
I don't dispute any of the above. Let's say we wanted a 500MW station, and, using the containment now possible we were able to achieve the energy density of the sun. For simplicity lets say we have 50% efficiency and need 1000MW of heat, then we need a volume of 1000/300 million m3. The reactor would need to be 330m long, 100m wide and 100m high. I think it's unlikely this could be built for a cost that would provide affordable electricity.
https://energydigital.com/renewable-energy/fusion-energy-four-times-cheaper-nuclear
Dear Chairman,
Clearly you are convinced.
For me, a headline using the meaningless phrase 'four times cheaper' flags up warning signals.
That doesn't mean to say those in control of it won't ensure it's more expensive, which 8s why it needs government investment and control, but not Tory government.
Post a Comment