Renew Extra Weekly

Rapid growth of the global hydrogen economy can bring significant geo-economic and geopolitical shifts, giving rise to a wave of new interdependencies, according to an analysis by IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency. ‘Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation: The Hydrogen Factor’ sees hydrogen changing the geography of energy trade, regionalising energy relations, and it hints at the likely rise of new centres of geopolitical influence built on the production and use of hydrogen, as traditional oil and gas trade declines:‘The push to develop clean hydrogen as a major energy carrier… might lead to an entirely new economic geography’ Francesco La Camera, Director-General of IRENA, said green hydrogen ‘will bring new and diverse participants to the market, diversify routes and supplies and shift power from the few to the many. With international co-operation, the hydrogen market could be more democratic and inclusive, offering opportunities for developed & developing coun

A new study ‘Nuclear for a decarbonized future’ by Barclays Research says investors have got it wrong- far from being a risky, costly, loss-making liability, nuclear is viable and bankable!  ‘We believe that the current view of investors is that almost the entire gap of required carbon free generation output until 2050 will be met by building more renewables capacity. Nuclear energy, even though still a key part of the global generation mix, is not expected to see an increase in installed capacity. This is partially because of a view that while some countries could add net generation capacity to their power markets such as China and the US, others, such as Germany or Spain, want to exit nuclear altogether. We believe that this is an overly simplistic assessment. Given the scale of the challenge to transform the global generation mix, it is likely that nuclear will have to play a more important role in certain power markets, especially where there is clear and adequate government suppor

The latest round of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) energy technology support scheme opened for bids in December, aiming to secure 12GW of renewable electricity generation capacity , the largest amount in the scheme’s history so far. Offshore and onshore wind, solar, tidal, and floating offshore wind projects are all eligible for support worth £285m a year. £200m has be allocated for offshore wind, with £24m set aside for floating projects, and £20m has been ring-fenced for tidal stream projects. On shore wind and solar projects are back in the contest, with £10m allocated, but with a 5GW cap.  The new CfD may of course put some extra costs on consumers bills, at a time when that really is a big issue . Energy prices are accelerating seemingly out of control. But actually the way the CfD is structured, with competition for capacity slots and a claw back of any excess income over strike price costs, it may not be too bad- it does seem to limit excess cost pass-though , unlike the old

Last December, Energy minister Greg Hands told the Nuclear2021 conference organised by the Nuclear Industry Association that the government was backing high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) as the centrepiece of its £170m Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) Research, Development & Demonstration Programme. That’s not much money of course, but Paul Howarth, CEO of the National Nuclear Laboratory, saw the announcement as ‘a further signal of the resurgence of nuclear’.  The goal of the AMR programme is to ‘prove the potential’ of advanced reactors and have a demonstration unit in operation ‘by the early 2030s, at the latest’. The aim was to develop technology to produce high temperature heat which could be used for hydrogen production, to supply industrial processes and potentially district heating, as well as electricity generation. After a consultation, the HTGR was confirmed as the preferred choice for this, but the government said it would continue to support other ‘advanced’ re

The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster. It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at l