Ministers misled parliament over the need to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations, distorting evidence and presenting to MPs a false summary of the analysis they had commissioned, a group of MPs and experts alleged in a report published on Tuesday.

If MPs had been presented with an accurate picture of the evidence for and against new reactors, the government’s plans might have been challenged, according to the report. Both the previous Labour government and the current coalition overstated the evidence that new nuclear power was needed, it also alleged.

Building new nuclear power stations is highly controversial, as polls consistently show a substantial minority opposing them. But many people, including some environmental campaigners, have been persuaded towards supporting nuclear by the argument that they would help the UK generate power without carbon dioxide emissions.

The previous government cited its own research in order to make that case, but according to today’s report, some of the findings were misrepresented when relayed to MPs by ministers. For instance, the report found that rather than assess the requirement for new nuclear power stations and then work out how many would be needed, the government commissioned research that took as its central assumption that 10 new reactors would be built and then presented its research as evidence of the need for 10 reactors.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: “We are confident that the Energy National Policy Statements [which set out the government's arguments that new nuclear power was needed] are robust documents which took account of all relevant factors.”

The report suggested that the current government’s repeated assertion that electricity demand was likely to double was based on taking some of the highest estimates from its research rather than the average. The author, Ron Bailey, who has written against nuclear power, also accused ministers of ignoring key findings of the research they had commissioned that showed ways in which the UK could do without new nuclear power.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “We need a range of new energy infrastructure to keep the lights on and reduce our carbon emissions in a secure and affordable way. The UK has everything to gain from becoming a leading destination to invest in new nuclear power. This will come alongside investment in other technologies such as renewables, clean coal and gas, and improved energy efficiency.”

The report, called A Corruption of Governance?, was written by pressure group Unlock Democracy and the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and was endorsed by a cross-party group of MPs. The organisations called for the debate on new nuclear power to be reopened in parliament.

Caroline Lucas, the UK’s only Green Party MP, said: “Despite claiming that it wants an open debate on the UK’s energy future, the government has already made it clear in the proposals for electricity market reform and in its dismissive response to the Fukushima disaster that it is betting its money on nuclear. Given what we know about the strength of nuclear industry lobbying, there needs to be far greater transparency around the decisions that will determine where our electricity comes from in ten or 20 years time.”

She added: “With other countries turning away from nuclear power, MPs and the public must be told the truth about how we can achieve energy security and a genuinely green economy.”

However, despite the report’s findings, many experts support nuclear power on the grounds that other low-carbon alternatives cannot supply enough power, particularly when electric cars replace petrol-driven models and more electricity is used for heating to replace gas and oil, driving up electricity demand. For instance, Prof David Mackay, now chief scientific advisor to DECC, has made the case that not enough on and offshore wind farms, biomass power plants and other low-carbon forms of electricity can be built in the UK to satisfy demand, so investments in nuclear power will be needed.

Peter Facey, the director of Unlock Democracy, said his organisation did not have a position on nuclear energy, but wanted to “ensure that the information on which ministers based their decisions is as impartial and robust as possible”. In the case of the arguments used for nuclear power, he said: “The data appears to have been politicised. It is crucial that meetings between government officials and the nuclear lobby are opened up to greater scrutiny so we can have greater confidence that policy makers are not being misled.”

The MPs endorsing the report included Alan Whitehead (Lab), Tessa Munt (LibDem), Mike Weatherley (Con), Martin Horwood (LibDem), Joan Walley (Lab) and Caroline Lucas (Green).

“Should February show another rise then we may be seeing signs that the
gloom is dispelling – until then we should treat January’s findings as good,
but certainly not great, news.”

Despite the collapse of a number of high-profile retailers, notably Peacocks,
many retailers reported surprisingly buoyant trading during December and the
January sales, in marked contrast to gloomy predictions about a melt down in
the high street.

While most shopkeepers and economists are cautious about the outlook for
consumer spending this year, some have ventured to suggest that conditions
might improve with inflation levels falling, an end to public sector job
cuts, and the boost from the Olympics.

However, Howard Archer, chief UK economist at Global Insight, said: “Confidence
is still at a historically very low level and likely to be brittle.
Unemployment is likely to rise appreciably further, wage growth looks set to
remain muted, tight fiscal policy will continue to bite and debt levels will
still be high, so the overall environment will likely still be tough for
consumers for some considerable time to come despite waning inflation.”

The survey revealed that people’s hopes for the economy over the next year had
increased eight points to -33 between December and January. And perceptions
of their personal finances over the past 12 months and their hopes for the
next year had also improved.

The last time the GfK index was in positive territory was back in 2005. It hit
its nadir in the summer of 2008, in the run up Lehman Brothers’ collapse,
with a reading of -39.

Here we go again. In the past 12 months, we’ve had significant hikes in our gas and electricity bills (not reversed by recent cuts due to a fall in wholesale prices) and above-inflation increases in train fares – which are already the highest in Europe. Now it’s time for the water companies to put the boot in.

Ofwat has announced that average household water and sewerage bills in England and Wales are to increase by an average of 5.7% from April. As in the case with the rail fares, we’re told that the reason that prices are rising is to enable more “investment” by the water companies. But a closer inspection is highly revealing. While English water companies are hiking charges by as much as 8.2%, Glas Cymru, the owner of Welsh Water is only raising prices by 3.8%. In Scotland, there’s going to be no price rise at all.

The discrepancies can be explained by the different ownership structure of the water companies in England, Wales and Scotland. While England’s water industry was sold off to the private sector by the Conservative government in 1989, Scotland’s stayed in full public ownership. Scottish Water, with no pressure to provide dividends to shareholders or reward wealthy investors, not only charges lower prices to its users than English companies, it has also recently announced that its price freeze, introduced in 2009, will continue for a fourth successive year. In Wales, Glas Cymru is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, set up after the collapse of the privately owned Hyder in 2001. Average household water bills in Wales in the six months to September 2010 were £4 lower than a year before.

Despite the obvious benefits to consumers in Scotland and Wales from these ownership models, pro-privatisation zealots are keen to see the whole of the UK’s water industry in private hands. While acknowledging that “undoubtedly, efficiency has improved at Scottish Water”; and that “Glas Cymru has performed well”, the Adam Smith Institute, in its paper “Privatisation – Reviving the Momentum“, has called for both the Scottish and Welsh water industries to be privatised. On Glas Cymru, the ASI states: “There remains scope for further improvements, which the discipline of private-sector ownership are best placed to deliver”.

Today’s news surely shows that it’s England which should be copying the Scottish and Welsh models and not the other way round. Water privatisation was arguably the most ideologically extreme of all the Conservative sell-offs of the 80s and 90s. Selling off water would have been regarded as completely barmy idea by the One Nation, middle-of-the-road postwar Tories like Harold Macmillan, but it became Conservative party policy under Margaret Thatcher. So thanks to the Conservatives, we in England now have our water provided by companies such as Thames Water, whose parent company Kemble Water is a subsidiary of Kemble Water Holdings Limited, which is owned by the Macquarie Group, an Australian global investment banking conglomerate. Thames Water is raising its prices by 6.7%.

Southern Water meanwhile, which is increasing charges by 8.2%, is owned by Southern Water Capital Ltd, which in 2007 was bought by a consortium led by JP Morgan Chase. JP Morgan’s Chase announced profits of $4.26bn last October – something for those about to fill their kettles in Brighton or Eastbourne, to reflect on.

Bringing water back into public ownership in England – which could be done by the government simply nationalising the existing companies and establishing a new publicly owned body named “English Water”, would not only lead to lower prices, but would be a move of great significance. For a key hallmark of the neoliberal era, which kicked off in Britain on 3 May 1979, has been “commodification” – ie the turning of things never before seen as goods into commodities, to be bought and sold.

Water, which falls out of the sky for free and which everyone needs, was obscenely commodified by the Thatcherites. You don’t even have to be a Marxist to agree that there is something fundamentally wrong about water being sold off in order for global conglomerates to make even more profits from hard-pressed ordinary people. Action to end England’s great water rip-off urgently needs to be taken.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

LONDON |
Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:22pm GMT

LONDON (Reuters) – A forensic review of UK energy company accounting practices has found no evidence of financial irregularities aimed at justifying steep rises in retail gas and electricity bills last year, regulator Ofgem, which commissioned the study, said.

A string of double-digit price increases, announced in the summer of 2011 by utilities, helped drive UK inflation to a three-year high in September at a time of stagnant wage growth and economic hardship, prompting a consumer backlash.

The energy watchdog launched the study partly to answer allegations that utilities had used accounting techniques to justify raising retail energy bills, by making those operations appear less profitable.

Britain’s six largest utilities, E.ON, RWE, Centrica, SSE, Scottish Power and EDF have not shifted profits between business segments to make retail operations look less successful, Ofgem said on Tuesday.

The analysis, undertaken by accounting firm BDO, found “no evidence of distortions to company profitability” and said reporting practices were in line with guidelines.

The investigation did, however, find discrepancies between reporting practices of all six energy companies that Ofgem wants fixed with reforms, including making financial information comparable.

“These changes are part of a raft of reforms aimed at making the retail market simpler, clearer and more competitive,” the regulator said.

(Reporting by Oleg Vukmanovic; Editing by Anthony Barker)

Countryside campaigners fighting hundreds of miles of 50-metre tall electricity pylons said on Tuesday that they have been vindicated by an independent report, which says burying cables is far cheaper than has been claimed by the National Grid.

The report by engineering consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff into the comparative costs of routing transmission lines was commissioned by government planning body the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). It found that underground cabling was 4.5-5.7 times more expensive than traditional overhead pylons. This compares with the claim of being 10-20 times more expensive, which is often made by the National Grid company in planning applications. The National Grid has been the monopoly supplier of UK pylons for 60 years.

When costs are calculated over 40 years, overhead cables were found to cost between £2.2m/km and £4.2m/ km to install and maintain, compared with between £10.2m/km and £24m/km for those buried. Costs varied according to the technology used and the voltage of the lines.

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said the latest figures made it feasible for the government to insist that cables are buried when crossing national parks, or protected areas like areas of outstanding national beauty.

Calling for a new study to consider environmental and social costs, a spokesman for the group said: “We are not saying that you should bury all cables, and we accept that this is a more expensive option, but we think people would be prepared to pay a few extra pounds a year to have them buried in treasured landscapes like national parks and areas of outstanding beauty.”

The report’s authors considered several ways to bury the cables, including putting them in tunnels, directly into the ground and in gas-insulated pipes. On every count, it was far cheaper to use overhead lines.

The report did not try to calculate the social and environmental costs of the pylons, which have been deeply resented when proposed in some areas. However, it concluded that there may be visual intrusion, community disruption, loss of property values and concerns about radiation.

However, National Grid said the study’s findings were broadly in line with the costs it had been quoting. David Mercer, National Grid’s major infrastructure development manager, added: “This report will be a valuable contribution to the public debate on the right balance between visual impact and costs that must ultimately be paid for by consumers.”

More than 200 miles of new transmission lines are expected to be demanded in the next 10 years, in order to connect new nuclear power stations and onshore and offshore windfarms to the grid.

The masts have been strongly opposed in Scotland, the Lake District and mid-Wales. Some of the proposed lines would cut through England’s finest landscapes like the Mendip Hills, Somerset, and the Dedham Vale on the Essex-Suffolk border.

The Campaign for National Parks (CNP) welcomed the report’s findings. Its deputy chief executive, Ruth Chambers, said: “We welcome the report’s conclusion that underground solutions for electricity transmission are cheaper than previously thought. There will now be a more level playing field between overhead and underground technologies, making it easier for solutions that respect England’s finest landscapes to be implemented.”

“This is only part of the jigsaw. We wanted to give the IPC a tool to apply to future applications,” said Mark Winfield, consultant with Parsons Brinkerhof and lead author of the report.

Last year, a Danish “T-Pylon” design by Copenhagen-based practice Bystrup won a competition by the Department of Energy and Climate Change to design new pylons.

DUBLIN–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/4a5d3d/electricity_glob)
has announced the addition of the “Electricity
– Global Group of Eight (G8) Industry Guide” report to their
offering.

“Electricity
– Global Group of Eight (G8) Industry Guide”

Electricity
– Global Group of Eight (G8) Industry Guide is an essential resource
for top-level data and analysis covering the Electricity industry in
each of the G8 (United States, Canada, Germany, France, United Kingdom,
Italy, Russia and Japan) countries. The report includes easily
comparable data on market value, volume, segmentation and market share,
plus full five year market forecasts. It examines future problems,
innovations and potential growth areas within the market.

Scope:

• Contains an executive summary and data on value, volume and
  segmentation
• Provides textual analysis of the industry’s prospects, competitive
  landscape and profiles of the leading companies
• Incorporates in-depth five forces competitive environment analysis and
  scorecards
• Compares data from the US, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia
  and Japan, alongside individual chapters on each country.
• Includes a five-year forecast of the industry

Market Definition and Highlights:

The electricity market consists of the sale of electricity to
industrial, commercial, household, transportation, and other end-users,
including agricultural.

The G8 countries contributed $926,242.7 million in 2010 to the global
electricity industry, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.8%
between 2006 and 2010.

The G8 countries are expected to reach a value of $1,337,914.7 million
in 2015, with a CAGR of 7.6% over the 2010-15 period.

Among the G8 countries, the US holds the major share of the electricity
industry. It accounted for a share of 40% in 2010.

Among the G8 nations, the US is the leading country in the electricity
industry, with market revenues of $370,565.5 million in 2010.

The US is expected to lead the Electricity industry in the G8 nations
with a value of $460,516.3 million in 2015.

Why You Should Buy This Report:

• Spot future trends and developments
• Inform your business decisions
• Add weight to presentations and marketing materials
• Save time carrying out entry-level research

For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/4a5d3d/electricity_glob

January 31, 2012 12:41 pm

By Elaine Moore

An innovative Cambridge-based developer and manufacturer of photovoltaic (PV) glass, Polysolar, has applied its transparent solar panels to develop greenhouses, orangeries, car ports, balustrades, canopies, lean-to shelters and garden offices. 

Just imagine a glasshouse that not only protects your plants but also enables you to generate electricity, not just in direct sunlight but also on cloudy days, a familiar situation in the UK!  Polysolar’s transparent solar panels have been tested in the Solar Farm at Sheffield University for almost 18 months and have shown to produce up to 25% more electricity than conventional solar panels.  In addition, the tinted PV glass lets light through for photosynthesis while it cuts out the ultraviolet wavelengths, preventing scorching of plants and helping to maintain a more constant temperature.

The electricity generated from these photovoltaic solar panels are eligible for Feed-in-Tariff (FiT), which is a payment by the electricity utility for the power generated by the householder from their solar PV system for 25 years.  Even with the recent Government halving of the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) the return on investment remains favourable or comparable to getting a free greenhouse over its lifetime.

To make PV economically viable as a domestic power source without subsidies, PV needs to perform multiple functions – not just electricity generation.  In other words it needs to act as a building material in its own right, substituting for existing building materials and, therefore, representing only a marginal additional cost, rather than a resource wasteful ‘tack-on’ solution.  This is known as Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) – currently the fastest growing segment on the PV market.

Polysolar, in addition to supplying its PV glass into the architectural construction industry has now launched a range of domestic greenhouses, carports and shelter solutions that enable householders to benefit from the multiple functions and cost savings of BIPV.
. 
For many homeowners putting conventional PV panels on the roof may not be possible for aesthetic, planning or positioning reasons but putting, for example, a solar PV greenhouse in the garden can “kill two birds with one stone”.  You get an effective PV system to power the home and a fully functional greenhouse in which to grow your plants! 

As Edison once said “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” – Thomas Edison, 1931

For further information visit: www.solarpvgreenhouse.com or www.polysolar.co.uk or contact: Jody Chatterjee: jody.chatterjee@polysolar.co.uk or M: 07887 691150

Polysolar is an award-winning Cambridge company developing and producing advanced photovoltaic technologies for building integrated applications (BIPV). The company was founded in 2007 by a group of experienced entrepreneurs with expertise and experience of renewable energy and Cleantech. The company works closely with architects, engineers and project developers.

Polysolar is a world leader in developing next generation large area printed organic polymer photovoltaic devices.  Our RD division has partnered with leading European glass and chemicals companies to develop low cost, clear PV window glass.
Polysolar’s BIPV products range from PV glass for pitched , and flat roofs, rain screen wall cladding, transparent PV glass for facades for office buildings, schools, hospitals and shopping malls to solar glass for greenhouses, carports, canopies, orangeries, atria, conservatories, balustrades and bus shelters. 

*******

Polysolar Limited
Hauser Forum, Charles Babbage Road,
Cambridge, CB3 0GT, UK
Tel: 01223-911534

National Grid is to invest between GBP3.2 billion and GBP3.3 billion
($5-5.2 billion) this year, sustaining capital spend in its regulated power
and gas transmission activities, the UK grid company said Tuesday in an
interim management statement.

“Longer term, our growth will continue to be driven by an increase in
our UK investment program,” the company said.

In November, UK energy regulator Ofgem published final proposals for the
one year (2012-13) transmission price control rollover. National Grid
accepted the proposals in December, it said.

“These included real increases in revenues for electricity and gas
transmission next year and a base real ‘vanilla’ return of 4.75%,” National
Grid said. “The revenue increase partly reflects the capital investment we
have made over the current control period which forms part of our forecast
total UK RAV [regulated asset value] at March 2012 of over GBP22 billion.”

National Grid submitted a business plan in November as part of the RIIO
(Revenue=Incentives+Innovation+Outputs) regulation process for agreeing new
eight-year price controls for its four UK gas distribution networks.

The plans recommend a baseline total investment of around GBP13.5
billion over eight years from April 2013, including GBP6.7 billion of
operating costs, GBP5.4 billion of replacement and GBP1.4 billion of capital
expenditure. “We expect to receive Ofgem’s initial assessment of the UK Gas
Distribution business plans in March,” it said.

National Grid mentioned the UK Government’s December update for the
Electricity Market Reform bill, expected to be passed into legislation during
2012.

“The changes envisaged by this legislation will be instrumental in
shaping investment in new generation capacity over the coming decade,” it
said. “It is proposed that National Grid assume responsibility for
administration of both the new capacity mechanism and the feed-in tariffs
that will replace the existing framework for renewable and low carbon power
generation payments. This additional responsibility is not expected to have a
direct material financial impact on National Grid.”

In its US transmission businesses, meanwhile, a restructuring program is
on track to deliver annualized cost savings of $200 million by the end of the
current financial year, National Grid said. US investment would be focused on
“the improvement and renewal of our existing infrastructure, the delivery of
improved customer service and the addition of new customers.”

In December, the New York Public Service Commission approved National
Grid’s request to recover $240 million deferred costs and a portion of recent
storm costs in our Niagara Mohawk electric business, it said.

Chief executive Steve Holliday said the company planned to deliver
nominal dividend growth of 4% for the 2012-13 financial year, “which
represents real growth in the dividend based on forecast inflation of around
3%. We expect to announce a longer term policy in 2013 once we have clarity
on the key regulatory outcomes and the resulting medium term growth and
investment needs.”

–Henry Edwardes-Evans, henry_edwardes-evans@platts.com

Similar stories appear in Power in Europe.
See more information at http://www.platts.com/Products/powerineurope

Aaron Morby | Tue 31st January | 12:31

Waste recycling giant Veolia has become the first UK company to buy the revolutionary Cat D7E electric drive dozer.

The fuel-saving electric dozer from will now set the benchmark for other sites across the group after being put to work at Veolia’s Rainham landfill site in Essex.

Vinod Mehroke, Veolia Environmental Services’ general manager, London Landfill said: “In all areas of business we strive to be leading in green technology and so the new D7E dozer is a great addition at the Rainham Integrated Waste Management Facility.

“With an already strong track record in green vehicle investment, we are very proud to be the pioneers in fleet efficiency by bringing this new dozer into service in the European market.”

Its efficient engine consumes 10-30% less fuel per hour than other equivalent dozers, saving thousands of pounds each year.

An innovative electric drive system cuts noise levels inside and out the machine.

Finning strategic account manager, Jonathan Davies said, “The new Cat D7E is a truly game changing machine. Having proved itself across the world, this is the first but certainly not the last time we will see this machine in operation in the UK.

“Early reports show that there is already a significant drop in their fuel usage. Operators are also extremely happy with the machine, praising the greater control and manoeuvrability, which leads to less operator fatigue.”

In addition to fuel savings and lower carbon emissions, the Cat D7E will be maintained by Finning with the machine having the capability to have a second and third life. With extended service intervals and quieter operation, the Cat D7E offers an overall reduction in total owning and operating costs.

About the Cat D7E



The Cat D7E is the most advanced track-type tractor drive system. The electric drive system has a Cat^{C9.3 engine, but instead of powering a mechanical transmission, it drives a generator turning mechanical engine power into AC electricity.}

The electric current flows through heavy-duty power cables and connectors into a power inverter.

Some of the current is converted to DC  to power the various machine systems, the rest of the AC current is routed to the drive motors.

All of these electric drive components are sealed against the environment and liquid cooled, so the whole system performs efficiently and reliably in the most demanding dozer applications.

The D7E is also built to help owners reduce the amount of all the resources that they use over the life of their machines, including fluids, replacement parts and raw materials, which is why they are built to be rebuilt for a second life.

The D7E produces noise levels 50% lower than previous models, largely because its electric drive train reduces the need for the engine to rev at high levels. That can help contractors comply with local noise restrictions.

The machine is quieter on the inside, as well. Interior cab noise levels during operation are a low 73 decibels.