Friday, 21 July 2017

Dramatic increase in Nevada solar output as big companies abandon utility in favour of cheap renewables

Solar pv output in the US state of Nevada is heading for a 60 per cent year-on-year increase in electricity output in 2017 compared to 2016 as Nevada increases its lead as the top US state for installed solar pv per person. Nevada, which is heading for getting 10 per cent of its total electricity from solar pv in 2017 could be setting a trend whereby business and residential consumers switch to solar simply because it is the cheapest source of electricity.

Sunny Nevada's solar burst is seeing some of its biggest companies quitting the main electricity generators in order to get cheaper electricity from solar and wind power. Big casino complexes and other companies are not only putting as much solar power on their premises but are looking to buy increasing amounts of renewable energy from other generators out of state.  That's simply because they see this as being much cheaper than than continuing to buy power produced by centralised power plant supplied by the Nevada Energy company, which is a monopoly supplier. Indeed companies such as the MGM Resorts complex have paid large 'exit' fees to Nevada Energy so that they can buy power from outside, including large amounts of renewable energy.

Of course it is very sunny in Nevada - indeed a given solar panel will generate around twice as much electricity per year in Nevada compared to Northern Europe. But really what's happening in Nevada is just an advanced guard for other places. That's because the costs of solar power continue to crash and so what is happening in Nevada will happen in lots of other places very soon.

This expansion is still resting on state incentives whereby some 30 per cent of the cost of the solar pv is redeemed through the Federally mandated 'investment tax credit (ITC). However, the rate of cost reduction in solar pv is such that even this incentive seems likely to be overtaken by further cost reductions in the near future.

Wind power generation is also increasing rapidly around the USA, and is still well ahead of solar pv in total generation. Analysts also say wind is still significantly cheaper than solar pv when it comes to prices given in power purchase agreements necessary to make large scale projects make money. Texas has the largest volume of wind power installed, but Iowa has the largest percentage of electricity coming from wind - 37 per cent in 2017.

However, the difference with solar pv is that energy consumers, both small and big, can install the solar pv directly on their premises. While this will invariably be more expensive in accounting terms than installing a large (so-called 'utility scale') solar farm, there is a very big incentive for consumers to install solar pv because there are big potential savings compared to the price for electricity that they will be charged by suppliers. In technical terms, whereas large solar and wind farms have to compete with wholesale power prices, on-site solar pv installations just have to deliver lower costs power compared to supply prices - supply prices being much higher than wholesale ones.

This gives the solar pv market a distinctly different metabolism compared to wind power in that it can grow, and is growing, very rapidly in the process of capturing considerable DIRECT cost savings for consumers who install their own solar pv. Clearly though the two renewable energy sources complement each other in providing energy at different times according to different drivers.

US monopoly electricity utilities are trying to fight back by charging fee structures to consumers that reduce the benefits of installing solar pv. But as much as they do that, the prospect of what are increasingly cheaper battery systems to balance their load is making consumers more and more independent from the conventional electricity generation and supply system. Bill Ellard. a consultant for the US Solar Energy Society describes this as a 'death spiral' for the US utilities. The more they fight solar, the more expensive they become for consumers in general and the more people are induced to go solar. Ellard favours developing more microgrid systems so that energy requirements can be balanced more and more on a local level.

You can see and hear a talk he gave at Solar Wars 2017 & The Trump Effect - Bill Ellard at

See also:

plus data from the US EIA

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

Could latest delays in Hinkley C presage bankruptcy of EDF and more British bailouts?

The latest announcement from EDF that Hinkley C will be further delayed and that EDF will be hit with even more cost overruns risks making true the prediction of EDF former Finance Officer that the project will bankrupt the company. This may well lead to increasing pressures on the UK Government to put billions of UK taxpayers money into the project.

Hinkley C, which former EDF boss Vincent de Rivaz said (in 2007) would be generating by the end of  this year (2017) will now, according to EDF, not be generating electricity until 2027. Ten years on and the project is still ten years away! But meanwhile the company has spent massive sums getting not very far towards building the plant. It is now in danger of wasting even the money the French state has pumped into EDF to save the company and build the project in Somerset.
Sixteen months ago EDF Finance Director Thomas Piquemal resigned, after EDF decided to make a 'final investment decision' over Hinkley C, fearing it could put the whole company at risk.

EDF is already facing financial disaster because of the costs of failing reactor designs at Flamanville in France, Okiluoto in Finland and the costs of renovating ageing reactors in France - not to mention falling incomes from its own power plant. If EDF closes plant then it will have to pay steep decommissioning costs. Last year the French Government agreed to put in an extra 3 billion euros to shore up the Hinkley C project. This is part of an equity share offer, a thinly disguised Government subsidy given that 85 per cent of shares are owned by EDF. EDF shares fell further as a result and are now at around half the value that they were in 2012.

Indeed, there has been a lot of comment on these issues in recent months, but what has been rather less discussed are the knock-on implications for British taxpayers if EDF did indeed go bankrupt. UK politicians have been smugly asserting that it doesn't matter how much loss EDF chalks up in funding Hinkley C since EDF is contractually obliged only to receive income from electricity generation. But this is yet another one of the paper pieces of self-delusion that has always accompanied nuclear investments.

But in the event that EDF was declared bankrupt by the French Government the contract that the UK Government signed with EDF would be worthless. The French Government would then turn to the UK and say that if the power plant, no doubt by then half built, was to be completed, then further funds would have to be supplied by the British Government. Indeed, this sort of scenario has happened before when Sizewell B was being constructed. The CEGB, who was building it, ceased to exist when it was privatised in 1990, and the half-built plant had to be supplied with further funds paid for British electricity consumers to ensure that the plant was constructed.

We would, in the case of the 'half'' completion of EDF, be met with the usual chorus of voices about how it was now 'economic' to complete the plant. No doubt it would be stated that half the price of Hinkley C would be competitive with offshore wind (whose costs have fallen rapidly in recent years) and would thus now be 'economic'. The British Treasury or electricity consumer will then be saddled with a bill to pay for the further cost overruns.

Perhaps we are already being softened up for this. The recently issued National Audit Office report indicated how expensive and uncompetitive Hinkley C is, but contained the quite ludicrous assertion that if only Hinkley C was half paid for by the Government then it would cost half as much. Of course this applies to anything: windfarms, solar farms, my next pair of shoes etc etc etc

But perhaps this is an echo of policy before privatisation of electricity when nuclear power appeared to cost very little simply because the Government, through the aegis of the nationalised industry, paid for all of the construction costs, not to mention taking responsibility for 'back-end' decommissioning costs. Then nobody noticed that they, the taxpayer and electricity consumer, were really picking up the bill. The nuclear industry longs to return to these bad old days.


Sunday, 18 June 2017

This Parliament is almost a perfect storm that favours Labour

As political scenarios go, the new Parliamentary position is just about as good as it gets for an Opposition. The Government is facing an almost impossible task (securing 'good' Brexit terms), is much too weak to push through much the Opposition doesn't really want, and has seriously lost its political momentum. Crucially, the historical precedents are heavily stacked against the Government surviving anything like its full Parliamentary term.

Let's put it this way. The current Tory Parliamentary position of being just a few seats short of a majority of 322 (that is with Sinn Fein votes subtracted, and they will never turn up) is almost identical to that of the Callaghan Government in March 1979. And that was the moment when they lost their famous vote of confidence! The Labour Government had become a minority one in 1977, having lost its majority of 3 (won in October 1974) in by-elections.

You will search in vain for a Government in the last century that has lasted for much more than 2 years without a single party majority. The 'best' example was the the 1929-1931 Labour Government that was sustained by the Liberals. But then that only seemed to last as long as it did because the then PM, Ramsay Macdonald was offering a real prospect of electoral reform to the Liberals. But the Government collapsed in 1931 in the midst of a national crisis. Remind of you of anything (that's coming)?

The Liberals survived longer after an inconclusive 1910 General election, but only because they had Irish Nationalist support to put through Home Rule legislation (which was ultimately short-circuited by the First World War). The few baubles of things like aviation taxes, infrastructure projects and an indemnity law for soldiers that the current Government can offer to the DUP do not constitute anything that compares anywhere near to that prize. Indeed, this time the complications of Northern Irish Government point in a negative direction!  Once the political tit-bits are passed, the key incentive to support the Government disappears.

Although it is true that on technical grounds the Government can limp on so long as the all the DUP MPs back it in confidence votes until such time as the Government loses several by-elections (4 years?), the arithmetic looks too thin to imagine that Conservative backbenchers can withstand this sort of pummelling for quite that long. The DUP, who don't as a rule, much favour the Tories fiscal priorities anyway, are hardly likely to want to sacrifice themselves for the little that they will be able gain after the first couple of years at most. Because, short of a definite upswing in the UK economy, once the Government have put whatever mainly financial incentives in place for Norther Ireland, and Labour have indicated that they will not disturb them, the DUP will have no incentive to carry on supporting what may become a rather unpopular government.

Perhaps if the DUP agrees a pact to last a defined period, say 18 months as was the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-1978, we shall know when the next General Election will be (ie more or less directly after the end of the pact). A pact of more than 2 years covering 'supply and confidence' , even if it is signed on paper, may lack credibility and deliverability. I am writing this before we know how long the pact with the DUP will last, but I must say the announcement that there will be no Queen's speech after the imminent one until 2019 might be regarded as a giveaway. Another General Election in 2 years? That is, if they last that long......

Meanwhile the Labour Party can ambush the Government at times of their own choosing. They can draw in even DUP MPs to support them on many issues, and leave the Government with the ownership of  an exit deal with the EU involving the UK paying a compensation bill of tens of billions of pounds. No doubt it will be a deal that satisfies nobody very much. Personally, I'd like a referendum on whether it is worth leaving the EU to have to pay that particular bill.
If a political party had to choose a time when it had to be in opposition, this is the perfect time for Labour!

Thursday, 15 June 2017

France to tilt EU energy market towards nuclear power

The French Government's announcement that it will legislate for a carbon floor price of 30 euros per MWh marks a dramatic turn in EU energy markets which will now be shifted to favour nuclear power above renewables. This is because just over half of nuclear power generated in the EU come from reactors in France, whereas less than 10 per cent of EU renewable energy production comes from France. The fact that nuclear power is being given special privileges undermines the policy credibility of the Green Energy Minister Nichals Hulot who has just been appointed by President Macron.

Given that three-quarters of electricity in France comes from nuclear power, and very little from fossil fuels, this measure is a thinly disguised extra incentive for nuclear power, an incentive that the large bulk of renewable generation in the EU will not be able to receive. Only the UK has a carbon floor price, which is around 17 per cent lower than the proposed French one.

A case in point is Germany, which generates a third of the wind power in the EU. German electricity wholesale power prices are relatively low - much lower than in the case of the UK for example, and there are fears that some windfarms will no longer be economic after their feed-in tariff contracts end after 2020. But they would be likely to stay online if they had access to the carbon floor price being set in France. There is no carbon floor price in Germany.

Macron seems, in energy at least, to be continuing 'business as usual' in letting EDF run the French state. The French Government has effectively ploughed several billions into bankrupt nuclear generators AREVA and also injected money to EDF through a 'share flotation' (EDF is 85 per cent owned by the French Government) that seems associated with building Hinkley C power station.
In addition there have been fears that the need to refurbish ageing French reactors means that they might be closed down but for extra money being paid by French electricity consumers to keep them running. The carbon floor price may go at least some way towards keeping them open.

Nicholas Hulot has been associated with a move to shift French electricity generation away from nuclear and towards renewable energy. From where I am sitting it looks like the nuclear establishment at EDF is still very much in control and Hulot will achieve very little in switching France from nuclear to renewables.

See for example:

Monday, 12 June 2017

Why Greens should stop beating themselves up over the lacklustre general election performance

I suppose it's inevitable that any party will engage in some soul searching and point-settling when it loses votes, but we should consider that in the context of a generally greater focus on the two party contest that it is unlikely that ANY Green Party strategy would have avoided a substantial fall in votes.

The focus on the most Presidential campaign that has been framed in Britain for decades (May versus Corbyn), the relative resurgence of Labour and also the special appeal that Labour made to the youth vote all meant that Green candidates were going to be squeezed. Of course the main exception to this was Caroline Lucas herself, and that is because in her constituency she is not only a formidable reputation but also the most credible embodiment of the forces that propel what we could describe as radical Labour today.
I'm sure now that Green Party meetings will be full of debates about 'progressive alliance' and such forth. But I'm also sure that the Green Party's vote losses in the 2017 election were more caused by the single factor of Labour being perceived as matching Greens on the subject of abolishing tuition fees for students than the strategy of 'Progressive Alliance'.

But what to do?

Really Greens ought to put their efforts into building up their local base, fighting for local social and environmental causes. Indeed, at a national level, we should earnestly fight for and certainly hope for that we get a Labour Government as soon as possible, while at the same time pointing out the shortcomings of Labour's programmes. I know in energy, for example, there is much confusion about objectives (see my earlier post). We need, for example, to have a clear, separate ambitious target for renewable energy. We need bottom up campaigns for ownership of the grid, not some top-down version that benefits only the energy establishment. We need much more radical and locally centred initiatives for energy saving and also a commitment to develop a more flexible, smart, energy system that fits in with the future, not the past.

I'm not suggesting Green candidates should automatically stand aside for Labour - heaven forbid! - but the cruel fact of the political logic at the moment is that until we get a Labour Government there is going to be a strong force behind Labour squeezing Greens in many of those constituencies that Greens hope to win.

Of course, when we do have a Labour Government, things will change in the Greens favour. I am certain about that! Maybe Greens should be a bit more patient and put their energy into positive action rather than slagging each other off.

Now that Trump has pulled USA out of Paris can China take a lead in fighting climate change?

Now that Donald Trump has pulled the USA out of the Paris Agreement more attention has been focused on China's role in reducing carbon emissions (the title of a book of mine that has just been published). And it seems there is a good chance that China will be able to reduce its energy-related carbon emissions by as much as two-thirds by 2050.

Given China's apparently accelerating growth in output of carbon emissions, this does seem a strange conclusion to make. But only if we ignore recent trends and, perhaps most importantly the economic, industrial and political dynamics at play.
Recent carbon trends suggest that China is stabilising its carbon emissions earlier than projected by the Chinese Government. Independent evaluation of the carbon output in 2014, 2015 and 2016 indicate that during these years carbon dioxide emissions were stable and not increasing. There are three factors behind this turnaround.

First, economic growth is slowing. There are good reasons to suspect that this is part of a longer term trend, and growth is likely to fall further. Developing economies can see rapid increases in carbon emissions as they develop infrastructure eg roads, railways, bridges, buildings, that forms the basis of the economy. However as time goes on there is less return from these developments and they slow down. Second, again, as people accumulate facilities that we almost take for granted in the West, such as fridges or TVs, production of this equipment rapidly increases. Certainly there are still products where ownership is still much less than is the case in the West - motor vehicles is the most important item here for energy consumption, but still it is becoming the case that for many products the early growth has subsided down to production of replacements.

In addition to this the advantages of low labour costs, low land costs and cheaply available capital are declining for China leading towards a similar loss of advantage in exports of manufacturing products than has already occurred in the case of Japan and South Korea. There we are seeing lower rates of economic growth and also a shift towards a more service based economy. Indeed the main issue is not whether this shift is occurring, but whether it can be completed without the sort of economic collapse that occurred in Japan at the end of the 1980s and which produced a zero growth economy throughout the 1990s.
Indeed many people are worried that China has simply built up too much debt and that many 'zombie' companies are being kept alive with endlessly recycled loans. China may avoid an economic crash ( I hope so because its effects on the world economy could be terrible), but a further slowdown in economic growth seems inevitable. All of this will, of course reduce energy consumption.

China's per capita carbon footprint is just above the average level for the EU; higher than the UK, less than Germany. However, given that China's urban density is higher and its average building space per person a lot lower than the EU implies that China already has the capacity for a lot of energy efficiency improvements. The Government is improving its efforts on this front. Building energy efficinecy standards have been improved, although enforcement still lags behind. Local government needs to be made more accountable in order to improve environmental standards and protection in general. . So there is good reason to believe that China can greatly reduce, never mind stabilise, its energy consumption.

Then there is the second factor, the build-up of non-fossil energy sources. China has been rapidly expanding renewable energy in recent years such that in 2015, for example, half of the world's capacity of wind turbines and a third of the capacity of solar pv panels were installed in China. Hydro and nuclear power has also been expanding. Hydro power leads generation among non-fossil fuels so far followed by wind, then nuclear and solar. China now has the biggest market for, and is the biggest producer of, electric cars.

The third factor reducing carbon emissions in China is the increased pressure on the Chinese Government to achieve environmental objectives. The build-up in non-fossil fuels is driven partly by climate change considerations, but most of all by tremendous pressures to reduce the appalling levels of air pollution in the cities. A lot of this is caused by the burning of coal in the power stations. Because of a lower than expected increase in electricity consumption and also the increase in non-fossil fuel power plant, coal fired power plant in China have been operating at low capacity factors (meaning that they have been only been generating for about half the time in 2015 and 2016).

There are problems with incorporating variable renewables into the grid, and much more renewable energy has been 'load-shedded' (wasted) compared to western countries with much higher proportions of variable renewable energy on the grid. The system still involves coal fired power plant being given priority over wind and solar in dispatch. Although there has recently been a drive to build nuclear power stations there are also strong pressures to increase safety standards - something which is likely to increase costs as in the west and slow growth in nucrear power. Various plans for nuclear power plant in the inland areas have been cancelled due to opposition. Large hydro schemes have been criticised for displacing large numbers of people and their expansion is likely to slow in coming years. However the fall in costs of wind and solar is likely to counterbalance these trends leading to large expansion of these sources.

Certainly studies done by the China Centre for Renewable Energy indicate that renewable energy on its own could generate the bulk of China's energy by 2050 -assuming of course that energy consumption can be stabilised, something that seems likely as China's economic growth rates fall and also China's population growth rate falls off. Large reductions in carbon emissions from China seem probable by 2050.

In conclusion, much needs to be done to improve China's policies and strategies, but there is more hope at present that China will lead the way towards carbon reductions than the USA. Given the authoritarian nature of China's Government this can only be regarded as a great embarrassment for democrats around the world.

You can read much more about this discussion buy buying a copy of the book 'China's Role in Reducing Carbon Emissions' published by Routledge. An electronic version can be purchased for £25. See

Thursday, 1 June 2017

Labour pledges massive target for renewable energy

It still may require a slight touch on Douglas Adams' improbability drive to imagine that a Labour Government could emerge from this general election, but let us assume that it happens and we can talk about what this might mean for green energy prospects. Basing my analysis solely on what Labour's manifesto says, perhaps two words sum it all up: benign confusion. But within that, there's no way around it. Labour are pledging to achieve a massive target for renewable energy.

The manifesto says, in a sort of summary 'We will transform our energy systems, investing in new, state of the art low carbon gas and renewable electricity production'. That's not too bad, and there is even the implication that 'low carbon gas' could be biogas from grass, suggested by Ecotricity, Jo Abess and Keith Barnham (now what a coalition that is!). Fracking gas is to be banned. Jolly good, Makes a change from the Conservatives who to want to make compulsory for local authorities to accept planning applications for exploratory drilling.

Perhaps the biggest piece of confusion generated by the manifesto is the statement that a Labour Government would 'ensure that 60 per cent of the UK's energy comes from zero-carbon or renewable sources by 2030', not least because, as all energy nerds of whatever prejudice will tell you, there is no such thing as a zero carbon energy source. Now, yes you can have rules about  zero carbon homes (about which Labour will 'consult') since low energy usage can be balanced by energy production from, say, solar panels, but zero carbon energy source itself? No, not really - low carbon is the term to use, please.

Some have suggested that the '60 per cent of the UK's energy' 'by 2030' pledge is itself a mistake, and that they really meant 'electricity' rather than 'energy', but of course that's not what the manifesto says. 60 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2030 is a much less radical target, although this in itself is similar to the Liberal Democrat pledge and much better than the Conservatives.

BUT IT SAYS ENERGY. And we wouldn't let them forget it! It can't include nuclear power since that is not zero carbon, and zero carbon doesn't exist anyway, as already pointed out. So it must mean renewables. Entirely. Saying that this was some sort of typo will just not wash! Of course you can guess from from my tone that this means the 60 per cent of ENERGY target is actually pretty radical - not far, in fact, behind Green Party policy (and no, I didn't write that by the way, though I approve its general direction). With that policy it will be all renewable hands on deck! Full speed ahead!

Indeed, achievement of this target would mark good progress towards achieving the task, enshrined in the 2008 Climate Change Act, of delivering, by 2050. a minimum of an 80 per cent reduction in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is some confusion on what Labour policy means for nuclear power. There is talk for support for future nuclear projects, but then there is no mention of specifics like Hinkley C and an impression that this just might mean decommissioning projects and a bit of international marketing. If so, that would be damage limitation. Who knows? Probably not the people who wrote this!

There are some laudable promises on energy conservation, insulating 4 million homes (that would be a start, at least), offering home owners interest free loans for energy efficiency.

There is an interesting policy on establishing publicly owned 'locally accountable' 'energy companies and cooperatives'. This could in the right form, be highly innovative in various ways, and smacks of the influence of Alan Simpson.

But how innovative this foray into creating local energy companies will be really depends on what is meant by 'locally accountable'. If there are some local popular elections to fill the executives, then great! Lots of exciting things could happen. But I have a fear that what might actually happen is that the whole thing will be run by groups of Labour councillors, which is not really very accountable. They may appoint some 'energy' trade union guys from the GMB who might spend their time and money given to them trying to get 'small modular reactors' and 'carbon capture and storage' projects going which will never actually happen anyway.

That possibility aside of course, Labour's manifesto is a lot better for green energy than the Tory manifesto whose main preoccupation seems to be to persuade the English Tory shires that they will not be bothered by more wind turbines.

But, methinks, what is the chance of all this? Well, I console myself, at least there is a bigger chance of this happening than Donald Trump forming a coalition with Syria and Nicaragua to successfully 'renegotiate' the Paris Agreement on Climate Change!

NOTE: Some, however, still think even the 60 per cent of energy by 2030 target is conservative - or at least Keith Barnham writes to me saying so, explaining that, for example, offshore wind could be supplying all of UK electricity by the early 2020s. See a piece he wrote in 'Nature':

Saturday, 27 May 2017

More delays in EPRs signal more problems for Hinkley C

It's now the middle of 2017 and still, after 12 years of trying to build the French European Pressurised Reactor, there is still no model in operation. Even in China, which has, according to some of its domestic critics, let us say a more relaxed attitude to safety requirements compared to western agencies, the EPR at Taishan is still not generating electricity.
It was 16 months ago that the constructors announced that 'cold start' tests had been successful and that the whole of the plant (including two sets) would be fully functional this year (2017). Now they say that this will not happen, although one set 'will' be running sometime in the second half of this year. But then the plant, which begun construction in 2009, was supposed to be finished in 2013.
This failure does present the question of how it is that other nuclear plant built in China have not been subject to this much delay. How can we explain this? The obvious reason is that the EPR is a turkey that is widely regarded as bordering on, if not actually, 'unconstructable'. The difference with other nuclear plant built in China may simply be that the EPR was designed to suit western safety standards. It's an easy guess to say what this means for Chinese plans to build nuclear power plant in the UK!

In France construction at the EPR at Flamanville began in 2007 and completion by 2019 seems possible but uncertain. The other EPR at Olkiluoto started in 2005 and is about, so they say. to undergo 'cold tests'. On the basis of what has happened in Taishan this doesn't mean that it is about the generate electricity, though.

Of course none of this would be happening unless the French state was shovelling, in stages, numerous billions of euros into the different projects, including, it seems, Hinkley C. The EPR would have been abandoned withoiut these massive payments from the French state. Even many workers and leaders of EDF have marvelled at the paradox of the French Government pouring several billion euros into financing building power stations in other countries, especially the UK with Hinkley C

Of course some day this has to end, and EDF, which has mounting financial problems from various angles, will be restructured, maybe privatised. EDF's own, ageing French nuclear fleet is in deep trouble, and vague Government plans to increase electricity prices to shore them up may be the straw that break's the camel's back of French public tolerance of EDF. Nuclear power stations last 60 years, nuclear supporters will say. Well, only if you carry on paying a lot of money to refurbish them.

Some have said that EDF will get a lot of money when it starts up the Hinkley C project, whenever that is completed - the projected start date of 2026 can be regarded with some scepticism in view of the history of building EPR plant - but by then so much money will have been spent that for so long a period on the EPRs that this could not possibly justify what has been done.

British advocates of the Hinkley C say that the British Government is effectively indemnified by the contract with EDF to build the plant with EDF taking the risk. But that of course assumes that EDF will continue to exist as a company over the next decade. If it does not, and Hinkley C is still half built, we'll see how much that contract and all the lawyers fees that took to draw it up is worth. And the British consumer may be asked to come up with even more money than the £92.50 at 2012 prices for 35 years we are committed to pay at the moment.

What is happening in the USA with the Westinghouse designed AP1000 reactors in Georgia and South Carolina is a bad omen. There there are worries that with Westinghouse's bankruptcy the already increased cost of completing the power plant will balloon, and that electricity consumers will be asked to fork out more and more dollars for projects that never seem to get completed (see and

It should be remembered that nuclear power is and always has been governed by politics, not commercial considerations. The spectacle of a half-built nuclear power plant (originally began by the nationalised CEGB) having to be re-financed afflicted the last nuclear power plant to be competed in the UK - Sizewell B. Privatisation, in 1990 meant that even though the plant was half-built, it still wasn't profitable under standard commercial criteria for privatised interests to complete it. This experience was wished away among a smokescreen of talk of decommissioning costs, which although real, were besides the point that it was the construction cost that stopped it being completed - until the electricity consumer was given a hefty bill.

Will this happen again and will more British as well as French consumers and taxpayers money be ploughed in to Hinkley C than is already slated? We will have to wait several years for the answer to this question. Meanwhile tremendous amounts of money that could be spent on real green energy that would be working and saving energy and pollution will be poured down a big black and ever deepening hole.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Why the left should focus on countering inequality rather than banging on about globalisation

The 'debate' we are currently having about globalisation, is at best distracting, at worst highly toxic to the cause of spreading peace, equality and green politics in today's world. To put it simply, rather than banging on about globalisation the left and greens ought to be focussing on the issues that count.

I feel moved to say this now because of the terrible spectacle of left-wingers suggesting that it is best to be neutral between the xenophobic right wing (Trump, Le Pen) and the 'neoliberals' (Clinton, Macron). This has a few lurking  echoes with the position taken by communists in the early 1930s in Germany when they refused to back the social democrats and the centre against the Nazis. Now I am not suggesting that Le Pen and Trump are fascists. But there is no doubt that they have encouraged xenophobia, and I totally dismiss any argument that just because they profess antagonism to 'globalisation' they have anything in common with leftist objectives. This should be obvious; on economic grounds alone Trump's economic programme is oriented towards widening tax and state spending inequalities. The same, I am sure, would be the case for Le Pen if she was elected.

What we are left with is some xenophobic notion that the foreigners are taking stuff away from the workers, an impression which I was disturbed to see reproduced in a recent video produced by Momentum (Labour's pro-Corbyn group) supporting rail re-nationalisation. As if the job losses in countries around the world had much to do with foreigners or trade policies.

The point about 'globalisation' is that it actually has very little to do with the reasons we have had economic dislocation, job losses and rising inequality in recent decades. High up on the list of job losses is automation. The old industrial working class are a disappearing force. In addition to this as economies develop, so the employment patterns shift towards services and away from traditional industries. That's good news, by the way for ecology since it means lower energy outcomes. It is happening in China today something which I have noted in my new book 'China's Role in Reducing Carbon Emissions' , which, by the way you can buy as an e-book for £25 from Routledge now at

It's not that countries just buy their industrial products from somewhere else with lower labour costs - you can find some example of that - but that's not what is changing the patterns of work and economy. As in China, after a certain point the need to put in place the initial foundation of infrastructure, road, rail, bridges, water supplies, electricity wires etc declines. The surge in people buying many manufactured products such as fridges and TV sets declines to replacement rates once most families have got them. In other words demand for manufacturing declines relative to earlier industrial phases. Moreover, information technology and robots is dramatically reducing the number of workers needed to produce such products.That doesn't mean unemployment rises, but it does mean that people do different jobs.

This 'deindustrialisation' is not specific to particular places and the result of 'foreigners'. It is not connected in any particular way with what people call 'globalisation' either (see an LSE blog post below about this). You could actually have siege economies 'protected' by high tariffs and the same trends would be visible in almost exactly the same way. I don't recommend protectionism, I emphasise. Putting someone out of a job somewhere else will not even even do any good for your domestic economy, especially when the economic retaliation sets in and acts as a political bedfellow to rising xenophobia.  Going on about globalisation actually encourages such dead-end thinking.

What we need is not a self-defeating 'jobs for Brits' , Americans, French etc narrative but a drive to reverse the  devastating trends towards inequality throughout the world that have been going on since the 1980s (see some references below). This has a lot to do with changing marginal tax rates. The political right has had us locked in what is a distracting argument that somehow lowering higher income tax rates will not harm the total tax take. That's dubious, although it gets a lot of attention.

What is almost always avoided is the evidence that reducing taxes on higher income earners simply encourages them to go for higher and higher salaries. The most important point about the reduction in marginal tax rates for the better off that has occurred since the 1970s has nothing to do with the tax take. It is the fact that in any given company, the top bosses will be encouraged to take bigger and bigger salaries at the expense of the rest of the workforce. Yes, there is evidence for this generated by the famous Professor Picketty. The CEOs are simply taking the money off the rest of us, not increasing productivity. They would not do this if the tax system was a much more progressive one. The claim made for regressive tax systems is that they increase prosperity for everyone. Yet, even in the narrow term of economic growth figures this claim does not stack up since growth levels in the West have been lower since the 1980s than before.

Of course we can rightly criticise centrist politicians, including Macron, for implying that a political project called globalisation is somehow necessarily connected to the technological changes in information and robots and that this has a lot to do with trade liberalisation. Whatever the arguments about trade liberalisation, such trends are irrelevant to the issue about technological change and income inequality. And in any case the trends towards increased international trade are not as strong as is generally believed.

Our focus, however, should definitely not to point to some sort of equivalence between Macron and Le Pen and shy away from backing Macron as (I was devastated to see) was done by Melenchon. It should be to stop going on about globalisation and talk about the most important issues of encouraging international peace and cooperation, equality and ecological protection.


Piketty, T., Saez E., and Stantcheva, S.,  (2014) "Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities", American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol 6(1), 230-71.

References on income inequality since the 1970s:

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

So why are China's carbon emissions stabilising and will this continue?

This question is answered by the newly published book: China’s Role in
Reducing Carbon Emissions - The Stabilisation of Energy Consumption and
the Deployment of Renewable Energy.

Published by Routledge

By David Toke, University of Aberdeen, UK

This book discusses the prospects for China achieving
radical reductions in carbon emissions, within the context
of the current economic and political landscape. With a
particular focus on technologies such as such as wind
power, solar power and electric vehicles, Toke examines
the way in which China is transitioning to a state of stable
energy consumption via a service-based economy and
heavy investment in non-fossil energy sources. The book
concludes that China may be set to reduce its carbon
emissions by around two-thirds by 2050.

20% Discount Available - enter the code FLR40 at

Hb: 978-1-138-24441-2 | £76.00

eBook: 978-1-315-27694-6 | £27.99

* Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer or discount and only applies to
books purchased directly via our website.
For more details please contact: Elena Tsang, Marketing Assistant,
For more information visit:

Friday, 24 March 2017

Government admits gas is substituting for cheap renewables

In the latest Government forward energy projections the Government implicitly admits that reductions in contracts to be awarded for renewable energy are to be replaced by more generation from natural gas plant.

You can see an analysis by Carbon Brief of the Government's latest projections. The Government recognise that the costs of renewables have continued to fall but for reasons that Carbon Brief has been unable to find out (from Government) the Government have cut back its previous projected growth in renewable energy.

Well, I can tell you why the Government has cut back its projections of renewable energy even though onshore wind and onshore solar have become the cheapest electricity supply sources: the Government prefer more expensive, carbon emitting natural gas for political reasons. They much prefer seeing UK natural gas reserves run down to having windfarms and solar farms built.

However the Government has even let the cat out of the back. Carbon Brief (CB) explain this, taking readings from from the latest political tealeaves (posing as models) generated by the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). So says CB's Simon Evans:
'Finally, in the latest BEIS projections, the output of renewables dips in the early 2020s. BEIS says: “This is due to a number of factors, including the temporary increase in gas generation to maintain system flexibility.” Consequently, gas output picks up the slack in the projections. See

I notice that Cornwall Energy insight are saying that there is a possibility of a 'technology neutral' bidding round for renewable energy coming around soon for new renewable energy to be installed after 2020.

Technology neutral? Well, only in the sense that it's a bit like a race when you go around and break the legs of the strongest runners before you start. Only technologies like offshore wind and tidal power will be allowed to compete for contracts. Onshore windfarms and solar farms would be barred.

I think it is quite funny when economists at large call for 'technology neutral' bidding auctions to supply electricity. It was only a few years ago it was assumed that this would lead to gas fired power stations followed by nuclear power with renewables energy having to have a separate rather larger subsidy scheme for them to be economic. The wise consultants hired by the power industry establishment to justify their own existence would sneer at the alleged green fantasists like me for suggesting that this was not what would happen in the future! Now, though reality has turned out to be different from all those glossy consultants reports that the industry paid so much money for (note, I'm not talking about Cornwall Energy here!)

Today separate rather larger subsidy schemes are reserved for nuclear power and 'capacity markets' for fossil fuel power schemes. These people need the subsidies, so much in the case of Hinkley C that not only are EDF to be paid loads more than onshore wind is getting paid per MWh (under the Renewables Obligation) but EDF, the developers, are also getting handouts from the French Government!

In fact all onshore wind and solar need now is a level playing field with the rest. But instead they get nothing. Nix. Not a sausage. In fact they are banned from been given any government contracts to supply electricity!

It rather reminds me of Ken Livingstone's saying 'If voting changed anything they'd abolish it'. In this case of course you can read a parallel saying that 'if technology neutral auctions of electricity contracts gave lots of opportunities to onshore wind and solar they would abolish them' (for onshore wind and solar).

That's precisely what they have done!

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Why we need smart grid charges before smart meters

We desperately need green NGOs and campaigners to campaign for time-of-day-electricity charging. Then we will get real smart meters, not the sham ones that are being installed now. The so-called smart meters, being rolled out in a house near you, are mainly a bit of meaningless hype which won't do the very thing that popular mythology thinks they will do - that is ensure that electricity prices are geared so that they fit in with when electricity is being generated.

The Government and OFGEM need to implement grid and distribution charges that would discourage electricity companies from supplying energy at peak times. Such charges would make it much more likely that the electricity industry would encourage their consumers, through their pricing policies, to consume less electricity during peak times.

As the green energy revolution gathers pace, and the number of electric cars increases we ought to be making the system really smarter. This involves incentivising consumers to charge their electric cars and perform other functions (wash clothes etc) at times when there is a surplus of generating capacity rather than when there is a shortage.

But practically none of the 53 million smart meters being rolled out across the country will do this. I have heard of one small supplier that offers tariffs according to time of day, but regrettably such efforts will be stymied by the failure of the electricity system to encourage this type of scheme.

In theory electricity suppliers will have an incentive to encourage their consumers to buy electricity at times when there is a surplus of electricity, and thus when it is cheapest on the wholesale electricity markets (ie power coming from power generators). Alas, the system does not do enough to encourage this. This is because if a brave electricity company (eg 'Green Energy') does introduce time-of-day pricing they will help their competitors as well by reducing the general prices on the wholesale market. The other electricity companies will just act as free loading parasites and the smart company will be sharing their gains with them.

One solution to this is for the Government to regulate the electricity distributors to ensure that they introduced substantial charges on suppliers for use of the system when there is peak demand for electricity. Thus all electricity suppliers will have a greater interest in introducing 'time-of-day' electricity charging schemes. Then we might see some real smart meters being installed that allow this. There are some small variable charges for using the system at the moment but they are paltry compared to what needs to be done to encourage a decentralised energy system that responds to consumers and clean energy needs rather than the needs of the big electricity companies.

Electricity distributors also need to be given more incentives to develop storage systems on their local electricity 'feeder' systems rather than increase distribution capacity through bigger transformers etc.

However this will not happen if the electricity industry is left to itself. The Government and OFGEM will shuffle a few reports and do nothing of any consequence. All the electricity industry  will do, as witnessed by the current smart meter fiasco, is to channel slogans about how consumers can be greener into feather bedding their own interests. In this case this doesn't extend much further than saving costs on sending around somebody to read the electricity meter! Rather than put all their efforts into ensuring system flexibility the network operators emphasise how we need more power lines to be built.

Organisations like FOE and 10:10 need to get to grips with the smart meter issue and start making demands. Otherwise we shall carry on hearing the same old stories about how we need dozens of gigawatts more of centralised power stations - rather than decentralised, variable renewable energy sources. The committees that decide policy are stuffed with with the representatives of the existing energy establishment. Slogans like decentralised energy and smart energy systems will remain meaningless marketing catchphrases used by the electricity industry merely to reproduce themselves as near as possible in their current form.

Please don't let this happen!

This post has been reproduced in Cleantechnica:
and also in The Ecologist:

Some useful references:

Sunday, 26 February 2017

Tens of billions of taxpayers money at risk as pressure mounts to spend billions more on new nuclear

Giant portions of public spending are now at risk of pouring down a nuclear power black hole as calls for the Government to make direct investments into new nuclear power plant intensify. Ultimately the sums at risk would be much larger than the Government's own estimates of the cost of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Former Minister and House of Commons Energy Committee Chair Tim Yeo is the latest to call for the Government to take 'minority' equity shares in new nuclear m projects. There has been a flurry of such demands in the wake of the near bankruptcy of Toshiba, who spearhead the 3GW proposed plant at Moorside in Cumbria.

In fact nuclear power is proving to be virtually undeliverable and ruinously expensive in western countries. Toshiba's problems stem from the fact that they own Westinghouse who are responsible for the construction (so-far non-construction) of AP1000 reactors in South Carolina and Georgia in the USA. These plant are as costly as the failing French EPR design that is so disastrous in  the cases of the Finnish and French reactors, something which is bankrupting the French nuclear industry and EDF.

Despite the manifest bankruptcy of the technology, rather than question whether it is right to continue with the new nuclear programme, its supporters are in effect wanting to bet the British economy on it. If the Treasury are forced against their will to sanction 'equity' stakes in new nuclear reactors, the losses and., eventually, all the liabilities will fall on the UK Government. Nobody else will invest in the projects unless the Government guarantees the lot. Hinkley C (3.2GW planned) will cost over £24 billion according to the European Commission. The reactors at Moorside and Wylfa, assuming they cost similar amounts, would thus make the taxpayer responsible for around £50 billion of debt. People will claim that the Government is 'only' taking a minority equity stake. That's how it will start, and then would represent an enormous amount of state spending and liabilities. After all one quarter of £24 billion is still £6 billion. But it won't end there, as sure as night follows day, not with the construction costs as well as the rest. It never does with nuclear power!

Normally of course under the Government's 'low carbon' programme, project raise their own finance and the project owners earns their money from premium price contracts (CfDs) awarded through the Government. That is always the case with renewable energy projects. They find their own money. Electricity consumers pay a premium price to enable this on their bills. But now for nuclear to go ahead, so it is said, not only will the consumers have to pay a high premium price, but taxpayers will have to fund at least part of the construction as well. This is money, please note, that will disappear from the Government's coffers as the plant is built - it is not something that will be shuffled onto future generations like decommissioning

The fact that the Government is effectively financing the building will produce a conflict of interests with the Government negotiating with itself in setting the CfD price. No doubt a 'lower' CfD price will be set (that is less than the notorious Hinkley C price) when in fact it will be the taxpayer that will end up paying out countless billions for the projects.

Annual spending on primary education is around £26 billion. Hence building just Moorside will give the Government liabilities (which are likely to be paid by the Government) which will rival this spending.

But then to listen to some people, you'd think building Moorside was more important than closing down all primary schools for a year.

It isn't.

Some sources:

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

No we don't need any more nuclear power stations to power electric cars

Desperate to cover the latest catastrophic meltdown to hit the nuclear industry as Toshiba sinks under the weight of its failures to construct nuclear power plant through its Westinghouse subsidiary, nuclear supporters are spreading fake news about the alleged need for new nuclear power stations to power electric cars.

Last Saturday the Times published a headline stating 'Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants'. I organised the submission of a letter to the Times objecting to the headline. The letter has not been printed, although today they did carry a correction (lower left hand corner, page 26) that the headline ‘was a significant miscalculation based on a confusion of energy and power. We apologise for the mistake’.
Yet, the headline and story was repeated by The Mail on the very day the Times retracted it. See

Will the Mail also carry an apology? I doubt it. 

Of course, as could be expected, far from the Toshiba meltdown causing the UK Government to re-think its nuclear strategy, there are reports that the UK Government is now considering putting billions of pounds of taxpayers money at risk to prop up the failing Moorside nuclear project. Moorside is dependent on the AP1000 reactor design that has failed so miserably and catastrophically to be delivered in the USA (in South Carolina and Georgia). It has ruined Toshiba.  Up until now the Hinkley C project (to be developed by EDF) is relying on a 35 year payment of £92.50 in (2012 prices - now about £97/MWh) and on EDF being propped up by large infusions of cash from the French Government. 

The electricity consumer will have to pay for Hinkley C, but no more than £2 billion of taxpayers money is being risked as a guaranteed loan. But now people seriously expect the Government to step in as equity providers for Moorside where no company in the world would have the madness to risk their money without a Government guarantee to foot the bill.  Indeed the taxpayer plan to fund Moorside is likely to escalate so that tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money could do down a nuclear black hole, as well as the electricity consumer paying over the odds for 35 years. See

It is surely madcap politics to take as a lesson from the fact that a technology is failing for the Government to re-double its efforts to back it - pouring tens of billions of money that could be spent on public services (that is already in very short supply) down the drain for power plant that may take several decades to be built.

Meanwhile of course wind and solar pv farms don't need any taxpayer money. They can be built at lower prices than nuclear power - but of course the Government is only now issuing contracts for nuclear power!

Paul Dorfman made some useful comment on the Toshiba meltdown at

See our letter below:


We are concerned about the highly tendentious headline ‘Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants’ (report February 11th). The story speculated about the need for increased electricity supply.

The headline implies dogmatically that increases in non-fossil generation can only come from nuclear power rather than green energy. Why not speculate instead about the number of windfarms, solar farms or energy efficiency measures needed?

The changing profile of UK electricity requires a flexible supply system based on variable renewable energy, storage, power plant reserves and responsive demand and charging systems - not outdated, inflexible and, so far, undeliverable nuclear power.

In the last 15 years renewable energy has expanded from around 3 per cent to what will soon be 30 per cent of UK electricity consumption. In the same period not a single nuclear power plant has come on line, nor is likely to at least until 2026, and even then only with luck and huge expense.


Corresponding signatory:
Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Politics, University of Aberdeen, tel 07583568643, email:, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen, Kings College, Aberdeen AB24 3QY

Jeremy Leggett, Solar Century, email:

Jonathon Porritt, Forum for the Future, email:

Professor Andrew Stirling, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email:

Professor (Emeritus) Dave Elliott, Department of Engineering and Innovation, Open University, email:

Tom Burke, Chairman, E3G, email:

Professor Mark Pelling, Department of Geography, Kings College London, email:

Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, email:

Professor Jeffrey Henderson, Professor of International Development, University of Bristol, email:

Professor (Emeritus) Andrew Blowers, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Open University, email:

Professor (Emeritus) Bryan Wynne, Science Studies, Lancaster University, email:

Professor Mark Lemon, Institute for Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montford University, email:

Dr Alan Terry, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of West of England, email:

Dr Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email

Dr David Lowry, independent consultant email:

Dr Abhishek Agarwal, Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Policy, Robert Gordon University, email:

Dr. Gabor Sarlos,  Senior Lecturer,  University of Worcester, email:

Emily Cox, Associate Tutor, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, email:

David Thorpe, Sustainability Author and Consultant, email:

Michel Lee, Senior Analyst, Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy, email

Dr Matthew Cotton, Lecturer, Department of Environment, University of York email:

Katherine Begg, email:

Dr Paul Dorfman, The Energy Institute, University College London, email:

Dr Ben Fairweather, Faculty of a Technology, De Montford University, email:

Dr Ian Fairlie, independent consultant, email:

Dr Matt Watson, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Sheffield, email:

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Will US force the UK to water down GM food rules in a Trade Deal with the USA?

Newspapers are already carrying stories about how the UK may be forced to accept GM food from the USA under a trade deal. But how realistic is this? The answer, ultimately, is probably no, but the probability is that the UK Government will start off by vacillating. This will re-ignite the British GM food controversies that exploded after the first US imports of GM food neared European shores in 1996.

American farmers will undoubtedly press the US Government to demand that the UK abandon EU rules about labelling of GM and to scrap rules which ban imports of milk and beef products from cows treated (in the US) with somatropin (BST). BST is a GM growth hormone enzyme that makes cows more 'productive'.

I actually doubt that the US will achieve a total victory here, although they might be offered some concessions.  The idea that consumers want to know if a food product is made from GM food is well entrenched in British consumer culture, and it is difficult to see how the UK Government could afford to row back from the labelling of GM foods, at least in principle. We should remember that it was the Daily Mail which campaigned vigorously against GM food in the late 1990s with tasty headlines such as 'Frankenstein Food Fiasco'.

There will be a lot of talk about how the UK will now be able to give authorisation to grow GM crops, but the fact is that the big retailers won’t stock anything that has to have a GM label. As a result there is little prospect of commercial GM farming in the UK starting anytime soon. In addition, a lot of US food cannot be sold in the UK since it contains GM food products and the US does not allow GM food to be labelled to allow supermarkets to know the difference between GM and non-GM US food.

It is perhaps even more unlikely that British politicians would be allowed to legalise imports of milk and beef from the US. There is plenty of evidence that cows treated with BST suffer adverse health effects, not least from the side-effects of increase in milk they are induced to yield, and the animal welfare lobby in the UK is, if anything, rather stronger in the UK than even (other) EU countries generally.

Ultimately the areas of conflict are likely to be what the trade negotiators will say are 'marginal' issues. But anti-GM food campaigners won't see it that way. You can see from the coverage of the run-up to the (now abandoned) attempts at a US-EU trade agreement and also the TPP (involving anti-BST Canada) that there were arguments about standards for testing how much GM food and BST milk there is in food imports from the USA. The UK will be under great pressure to water down the 'zero-tolerance' approach to food imports that demands certification on non-GM content that currently obtains under EU rules. The EU didn't give way in its negotiations, but will the Brits have the same resolve? Maybe, eventually, after some prodding from the Daily Mail and a campaign from environmental groups.

Another major point of controversy of course will be the adjudications mechanism used to decide disputes between the US and the UK in a bilateral trade agreement. The proposed EU-US trade deal fell down ultimately precisely on this point. Campaigners in Germany and other EU states pointed out that the adjudication mechanism would allow privileged access by multinational corporations to get their way over environmental and social legislation without any recourse to democratic accountability. Now, at first sight you'd expect the UKIPers under their 'take back control' slogan to involve rejection of such tyranny. Surely much worse than the EU which was at least subject to political pressure from democratically elected politicians? But no, because to some the 'take back control' slogan is but a cover for giving even more control over our lives to the corporations!

We can look forward to a big and long row about the UK-US trade deal!

David Toke is author of 'The Politics of GM Food' (2004, London: Routledge)


Monday, 9 January 2017

How Scotland could double the amount of low carbon electricity being generated for the same amount of consumer spending

A new report written by me has just been published by the Scottish Green Party on how spending on renewable energy rather than nuclear power will result in around twice as much low carbon electricity being generated . It explains how the Scottish Government could be given new powers to fund renewable energy out of the monies that Scottish consumers would otherwise have to pay for new nuclear power.


See Scottish Green Party press release

Executive Summary:

This report argues that the costs of delivering the UK s low carbon programme could be reduced substantially if the Scottish Government were given powers to fund its own renewable energy programme. This could be done by giving the Scottish Government control to spend money that would otherwise be added to Scottish electricity consumer bills to fund the Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power plant (and any other new nuclear plant). UK electricity consumers will each have to spend around £16 a year extra for 35 years to pay for HPC. If Scottish consumer s money was spent on supporting renewable energy rather than paying for their share of Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant then, even on conservative calculations, nearly double the amount of electricity would be generated from wind power as from Hinkley C. The costs of onshore windfarms and also offshore windfarms even on current prices need much less support from consumer surcharges to generate an equivalent amount of electricity compared to HPC. Wind power costs are falling rapidly, with some especially low prices being reported in Denmark and The Netherlands. Under such a programme organised by the Scottish Government the cheapest onshore windfarms could start generating in 2020 and offshore windfarms organised under a new, Danish-style framework, could be online in 2026. The Scottish Government s own preference for renewable energy over nuclear power lends support to the suggestion that the Scottish Government should be able to use Scottish consumers money to pay for new renewable energy rather than new nuclear power. Moreover the best value for money for Scottish consumers in terms of generating non-fossil fuels is likely to come from the Scottish Government having powers to fund its own renewable energy programme from Scottish consumer bills. This is because the Scottish Government will be able to decide on what contract length to offer wind developers, for example offering to pay guaranteed prices for 20 years rather than 15 years as done by the Westminster Government now with renewable energy. Also, the Scottish Government will be able to organise a much more effective offshore windfarm programme than is being done by the Westminster Government. The Westminster Government s methods are increasing the costs of offshore wind by leaving too much uncertainty to be dealt with by developers. The Scottish Government could organise a much cheaper offshore wind programme on the lines done by the Danish Energy Agency. This is likely to lead to lower costs and less confrontation in the courts over planning issues than is the case with the current offshore windfarm programme.