Bulgarian Reactors are Not of Chernobyl Design.

The reactors at the Bulgarian Kozloduy nuclear power plant are not of the same type as those at Chernobyl, but of the PWR design with better safety features. I wrote back in 2006 that Bulgaria was due to close two more reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, with severe consequences both in terms of providing for electricity in the Balkans generally and financially in Bulgaria since electricity is sold for hard cash. This was part of the conditions laid down by the European Union for Bulgaria to join it.

There are many issues involved, both social, economic, political and environmental, but I have read a number of implications to the effect that the reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear power station are the same as those at Chernobyl. It has been made clear to me that this is not true, and so I wish to put this part of the record straight now. The reactors at the Kozloduy power plant are of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), (VVER-440: V-230) type, and so are entirely different from the graphite-moderated, water-cooled (RBMK) type at Chernobyl.

The designation of the Kozloduy reactors in the public consciousness is especially sensitive since Bulgaria wishes to re-open the two that were closed at the end of 2006 to ensure its inclusion among the enlargement countries in the EU, which considered them unsafe. President Georgy Parvanov has urged the EU to carry-out a peer revue in order to re-evaluate safety features at the two closed reactors with the view that they be reopened. Parvanov said, "There is not a single survey proving the reactors are unsafe to operate." Bulgaria agreed to close two 440 MW reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant thus leaving them with just two 1,000 MW reactors from the six there were originally at Kozloduy, since the two oldest reactors were shut in 2002.

Mr Parvanov said, "If the Commission decides that it does not have the capacity to conduct such a peer review and assigns the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (instead), we will agree. We will accept the result of the review."

Apparently, the IAEA had already checked the reactors immediately before they were closed and found no immediate objections to their operational status. However, the EU's own experts decided that the facility could not be upgraded at an acceptable cost. The consequence is that Bulgaria is no longer a principal exporter of electricity within the Balkans, having decreased its exports from 8 billion kWh to just 300 million kWh in 2007. In order to make up for this lost capacity the Bulgarian government has signed an agreement with the Russian company Atomstrolexport to build a new nuclear plant at Belene which is planned to start operating in 2013 (unit 1) and the second unit in the following year.

I shall watch the details of this highly complex and pressing issue unfold with interest.


Related Reading.
[1] "Bulgarian President Wants to reopen Nuclear Plant." The Bulgarian Post: http://bulgaria.the bulgarianpost.com/printarticle.php?id=354
[2] "Bulgarian leader urges EU to allow reactors' reopening." http://eubusiness.com.news-eu/1201454221.89/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozloduy_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Shell say cheap renewable energy is "years away".

Jeroen van der Veer has said that while the world faces a doubling in its thirst for energy by 2050, renewable sources of energy remain too expensive and their full development will take decades. Meanwhile, we will need to rely on conventional fossil sources such as gas, oil and coal, which have a finite supply and makes me think it is touch and go just to what extent renewables might be installed before the world has to confront a major energy crunch. There are three main forces driving human demand for energy, one being the rising population - predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050 - secondly, that many conventional fossil resources that were readily recoverable are now in a phase of depletion; thirdly, that renewables are still far too expensive.

I wonder that if, as has been suggested, the governments of the world joined forces on a scale that has been compared to the "Manhatten Project" which gave birth to the atomic bomb and ended WWII, that the cost of renewables might be borne, in praise of the longer-term survival of humanity, but as yet there is no sign that this will take place, and more likely individual nations will continue to grab what they can of what is left. Ultimately it is not pure economics that will drive political and social strategy, but cooperation or conflict, and surely it should be hoped in the interests of preserving life on the planet the former is the better means. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that the huge amount of energy we currently use worldwide can be provided entirely from renewable sources, especially that for transportation with its own particular requirements.

In the absence of artificial fertilizers and fuel to power farming, it has been estimated that there is so much arable land on Earth to support anywhere between 2 billion and 3 billion people, but not even 6 billion let alone that predicted 2050 number of 9 billion. This raises all kinds of unpalatable issues of controlling population in the face of limited resources.

On the matter of more immediate resources, President Putin has threatened Ukraine that if it allows the Bush Administration to put nuclear missiles on its soil (i.e. on the Russian border) , Russia will point its nukes back at them. Poland and the Czech republic have agreed to allow US missiles to be emplaced in their countries, and Putin said that the real purpose to host the missiles in central Europe is to aim them at Russia not at missiles fired from rogue states like North Korea and Iran. There are already issues between Ukraine and Russia over supplies of gas from the latter and the former's ability to pay its debts for Russian gas. Actual cuts of gas have been averted, however, since the Ukrainian president Victor Yushscenko has promised to pay a bill for $1.5 billion (£750 million) to Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, owed for supplies of gas from central Asia and Russia. Gazprom provides 71% of Ukraine's gas.

The deal apparently follows a concert at the Kremlin to mark Gazprom's 15th birthday, for which the company booked Tina Turner and the UK heavy-rock band, Deep Purple. Dmitry Medvedev, the first Russian deputy prime minister, is said to be a "devoted Deep Purple fan" and is marked as a successor to Putin's presidency.


Related Reading.
[1] "Cheap, renewable energy years away: Shell", By Mark Trevelyan, Reuters: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080221.wshell0221/BNStory/energy/home
[2] "Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to hist shield", By Luke Harding, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/russia.putin
[3] "Russia, Ukraine Reach Last-Minute Deal, Avert Gas Cut (Update 4)", Bu Greg Waleters and Lucian Kim: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKcub4dYlxLA&refer=home

The State of Oil.

I noted a while ago that oil-giants such as ExxonMobil, Shell and B.P. are set to get 30 year contracts to exploit the Iraqi oil. There are nonetheless worries, within that nation, regarding multinationals exploiting its natural resources, and without much doubt, having oil will determine the relative economic and social prosperity of nations in the future, including Russia. Basra has been described as the economic "lung" of Iraq since it accounts for around 90% of government revenue and holds 70% of its proven oil resources. There are some 4,000 British soldiers based in Basra, and along with other actions in Afghanistan and Kosovo, would account for the fact that we have apparently run out of soldiers - I note a vigorous military recruitment campaign, currently.

Basra has its own access to the Gulf and could be one of the Middle East's most affluent regions, but it remains assaulted by rival militias which destabilises its infrastructure and the detailed planning of matters there. Nonetheless it is recommended to investors, and as Michael Waring, head of the Basra Development Commission, has noted "if you look at other economies in the world, particularly the oil-rich economies, many of these places are quite challenging countries in which to do business." I have no doubt of that, and the underpinning fact is the enormous value of oil, which has increased five times in the past five years. Since oil underpins the world, both as a fuel and as a chemical feedstock for industry, how much it costs affects everything, and we see the price of fuel, and indeed food, rise without pause. Yes, anywhere with oil will always prove a sound investment during the next few decades, and all efforts to grab it will be made. The Iraqi government has not, as yet, approved a "hydrocarbon law" in which it is established the terms and conditions as to how oil companies will practice and indeed how the overall revenue will be apportioned.

Meanwhile, BP (which used to refer to British Petroleum, but now subtends the phrase "Beyond Petroleum", or "Oil Dearth Era" as I envisage it to become) have been accused of dropping a pivotal stratum in Gordon Brown's policy of "beyond petroleum" per se, and to figure out what we will in reality do when petroleum is not "gone" but its supply is compromised and it costs probably twice or more its current price. What this is about is that BP is going to move into the tar-sands market through a deal with the butch sounding "Husky Energy", and it has almost inevitably been castigated by Greenpeace as a "climate crime". Well, yes, my understanding is that tar-sands is a pretty dirty business, and consumes huge amounts of water and natural gas, and is as popular with environmentalists as nuclear power.

I am trying to track-down some detailed figures, but I noticed a suggestion by Friends of the Earth that we can do without nuclear and produce 50% of our electricity from renewables. This was my position a couple of years ago, and I would like it to be true, but I have yet to be convinced that the engineering can be done in much short order, or if that energy balance works out without us using far less energy than we do now. In a comment from an article I wrote quite a while back, I have been taken to task for expressing that nuclear power can't provide for transportation - now please allow me to elaborate on this. Recently, I visited Prague, which along with many European cities, has a wonderful tram system, of course fuelled by electric power.

My main bugbear refers to transportation fuel, and while I would concede that all forms of electricity generation (coal, gas, nuclear, renewables) could supply localised transportation networks of this kind, it is the matter of longer distance transportation that is at issue. Yes, there are nuclear subs and the prospect of other nuclear vehicles scares me somewhat, especially planes; neither do I do think that the Hydrogen Economy is round the corner, if at all, and we need in any case to confront the "Oil Dearth Era", driven initially by huge hikes in the cost of fuel and all else, but this changes absolutely everything, in terms of how we live, and within 5 - 10 years.

If we can't move around easily then we will, effectively by default, return to a system of mostly localised economies, in smaller communities that demand far less in the way of transportation. Rather than hydrogen, my bet is on liquid fuel, and the best I have come across is diesel from algae, if that can be scaled-up to equal 30 billion barrels of oil a year, worldwide. I think that is a tall order, at least in the short term, again due to the necessary engineering involved, but it may prove our road to salvation.


Related Reading.
[1] "BP goes back to petroleum", By Terry Macalister: http:www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/21/bo.oil/print
[2] "Oil giants are poised to move into Basra", By David Smith: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/iraq.oil/print

UK Gas Prices Soar.

UK gas-bills look set to rise by 17.2% and those for electricity by 12.7%, in consequence of soaring wholesale energy costs, which must be handed-on to the consumer. This reflects a 66% increase in the wholesale costs for electricity and 60% for gas in 2008 from last year, according to Npower. It may not seem obvious that the two forms of final energy should both increase, but much (40%) of the UK's electricity is made from burning gas, and the country is negotiating deals to bring gas in from elsewhere, e.g. Qatar and Norway, since the North Sea fields are declining in production both of gas and oil. The result is to plunge over one million people into a state of "energy poverty", where energy costs absorb more than 10% of their income.

The blame for this is placed on the rising costs of oil. It is also not immediately obvious why this should be; however, 15 - 20% of the world's "oil" is in fact derived from gas in the form of natural gas liquids (NGL) and condensates, and so the two are inextricably linked. Wholesale gas prices have risen as North Sea supplies have fallen, in recent years, and has necessitated investment in gas production and storage facilities, e.g. the giant gas terminal at Milford Haven, which is set to handle one fifth of the UK's gas supply in the form of liquefied natural gas imported from Qatar. European nations have also been pilloried for failing to provide sufficient gas to Britain via an interconnecting pipeline. Now, the latter has disturbing connotations, i.e. if mainland Europe gets a bit short of gas (for example, if Russia cuts its supplies to them), Britain may have to take up that slack in the chain.

There was a fire too at the main Rough Field North Sea gas storage site, off the East coast of Yorkshire, which needed to be closed temporarily, which contributed to a shortage of gas. To reassure consumers, a spokesman from National Grid said that the larger consumers, industry and commerce, can have their supplies interrupted in the case of an emergency, in order to protect domestic consumers, but such a situation is not envisaged in the immediate term.

I note that Fidel Castro has stepped down as the leader of Cuba, after almost 50 years. That history is interesting enough, including as it does, his nationalisation of a number of US owned companies and a commitment of the nation to communism. The latter provided for many years, supplies of oil and fertilizers from Russia, which were abruptly curtailed when the regime collapsed at the end of the 1980's. Cuba is often hailed by the green movement as the superlative example of how we might survive in the Oil Dearth Era, in view of the fact that Cubans adapted successfully to a system of localised economies and farmers markets, and this is indeed a wonderful achievement. However, the price of food from these markets is now such that many Cubans are no longer able to afford it and the nation's economy is struggling overall.

It would seem comforting then to read that the US Geological Survey has estimated that the North Cuba basin in the Gulf of Mexico might contain 4.6 billion barrels of oil (with a high end potential of 9.3 billion barrels), which would be worth quite a lot of money (about $460 billion). There is also reckoned to be around one trillion cubic feet of natural gas there. Meanwhile, despite considerable investments in recovery infrastructure for gas and oil, existing supplies of gas and oil have increased only marginally. Cuba produces 47% of its fuel and imports the rest from Venezuala on a barter system, which exchanges 31,000 doctors and nurses and 8,000 of workers to provide their services there. All current Cuban heavy-oil production is focussed along the northwest heavy oil belt, which is a stretch of coast some 80 miles long, in the provinces of Havana and Matanzas, and has an API (density) rating of 8 - 18, along with a high sulphur content, mostly burned in power stations and for industry. Deals are being done to exploit the North Cuba basin involving several companies, who are no doubt keen, since if the Survey is right, there is more oil down there than is believed to lie under the whole of the Arctic region.


Related Reading.
[1] "UK gas prices soar on new warning", http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4804504.stm http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/papps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/
[2] "Double-digit rise in Npower bills", http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7171345.stm
[3] "CORRECTED - Cuba oil and gas stagnates despite investments", http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2635019220071226?sp=true

U.K. Population Unsustainable.

A new study by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) finds that the U.K. is drastically overpopulated and if everyone had to be provided for from entirely its own resources, only 17 million could be supported from a population of 60 million. I knew that the U.K. depended heavily on imported food, and during World War I, German submarine blockades threatened to starve their adversary by torpedoing British Merchant ships. At that time the population stood at just over 40 million, who were obviously very dependent on imports. I thought that now we produced around 60% of our food in total, but using modern agriculture which depends on oil and natural gas to run farm machinery and make fertilizers.

It is debatable just how much we will still be able to import in the future, as oil supplies become stretched and much more expensive - around the turn of the century, ships were powered by coal, and it might seem feasible to return to that means to drive them, although indigenous U.K. coal supplies, and how easy they will prove to extract in reality is another question. It is reasonable that we will be able to still import coal from Germany and Eastern Europe, however, for quite some years yet.

The OPT study have based their startling conclusion on the "carbon footprint" per capita, which suggests that a 70% reduction would be necessary, to maintain 60 million of us, requiring a gearing-down in the sophistication of our lives to that similar to developing nations. The number of population for the U.K. is projected to reach 65 million in a decade and to rise above 70 million by 2031, and yet even if we became carbon neutral the nation could support about 40 million at our existing quality of life. If the entire world population lived as a typical Britain, it would take three and a half planets to keep it going, which is similar to other west European nations but somewhat less than the 5 planets worth of resources if we all lived an American lifestyle.

The number of people living in the U.K. has increased by a factor of six since 1800 and by a fifth since 1950 causing relentless pressures of development on land and natural resources, and also impacts from the U.K.'s consumption of other world resources. What if anything can be done about it is another matter and certainly a political hot-potato than no political party has the temerity to address. As a mean, British parents are having less kids, down to a low of 1.63 per couple. It is suggested that couples should be encouraged to "stop at two children" and "to make greater efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, especially among teenagers."

London and the south-east of England are rated as being among the world's most densely populated regions, which I can believe since this is where I live. Interestingly, the U.K. is more densely populated than China - which is after all a very large area despite its own huge population. There are around 7.5 million London-dwellers, which has resulted in an increasing drive to move out into the countryside, with rural and suburban regions finding themselves under population pressure.

The OPT researchers conclude that, if there are no dramatic new forms of energy provision (which as seems likely there won't be, or not quickly enough to offset shortages of conventional energy sources such as oil and gas, which are imminent) , an environmentally sustainable U.K. population is probably under 30 million, or half of us, begging the uncomfortable question of what will happen to the other half? These conclusions are based on methods of ecological footprinting, but the underlying trouble is too many of us for the available resources, and is in fact a worldwide problem, not just for the U.K.

On the subject of resources, namely oil, I note that major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Shell and B.P. all reported falling production despite increasing spending on discovering and pumping the resource. The fall is thought to reflect the way increasing oil prices reduce the amount of money oil companies get back from production-sharing agreements with various governments, but also the decline in supply from ageing fields such as those under the North Sea. It is thought that the latter will cause serious difficulties in building overall production levels, particularly after 2012, which is the expected time of arrival for Peak-Oil. While there are considerable efforts being made, to develop 175 large new oil projects by 2012, it is debatable whether they will be able to offset high levels in decline from existing fields.


Related Reading.
[1] "UK unable to sustain population, says study", By Joanna Corrigan. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/18/npop118.xml
[2] http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
[3] "Top oil firms spend more but get less crude", By Alex Lawler. http://uk.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKL1216899220080214?symbol=BP.L