This week Chancellor George Osborne told Parliament that the power from the planned Hinkley C nuclear plant would be cheaper than onshore wind, writes Doug Parr. That could be true on Planet Zog – but here on Earth the reverse is the case. Exactly what are Osborne and his Treasury mandarins smoking? There is an increased air of unreality about what is going on in UK Government on energy policy, and what is visible to the rest of the real world. Nowhere is this clearer than their continued bullishness on the proposed Hinkley Point nuclear power station. On the one hand, earlier today the Financial Times joined environmental campaigners in saying that the project should be abandoned. That’s become almost normal, given that the energy minister who last gave the go ahead to new nuclear power in the UK (David Howell, now Lord Howell) has withdrawn his support. But the reason the Financial Times offers for its view is interesting, as they argue that “the cost of alternative low carbon sources, such as solar, and better battery technology, is falling fast.” The UK’s Chancellor George Osborne in stark contrast claimed that the country’s first new nuclear power station is the cheapest form of low-carbon generation available – cheaper even than onshore wind.
Ecologist 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The UK’s Finance Minister has claimed that the country’s first new nuclear power station is the cheapest form of low-carbon generation available. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne made the claim as he appeared in front of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee yesterday in their “annual evidence session”. In the session he also suggested that the UK taxpayer doesn’t really bear any of the risk should the reactor design used by French state owned builders, Areva, turn out to be a dud. These are fairly clear claims – they also aren’t true. It’s important to be clear that we are not talking about the relative costs of nuclear and renewables in various economic models – but the actual costs of particular projects. Hinkley has been christened by the FT the “biggest and most controversial infrastructure project in Europe”. It has also been named as the “most expensive object ever built” – at least on planet Earth as it appears the International Space Station is more costly. It is therefore rather disturbing to have him seemingly coming out with complete nonsense during parliamentary evidence. It’s true that we are not bearing all of the risk – some does lie with EDF through it’s subsdiary New Nuclear Power (NNP). But UK is substantially underwriting the project through the government’s Infrastructure Guarantee Scheme which may be offered, for example, to Chinese state investors who don’t want to take a risk. The National Audit Office said earlier this year that UK infrastructure guarantees are “up to £17 billion for Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant” out of a total construction reported by the EU Commission at £24.5 billion. Under some circumstances if the Hinkley project is started but abandoned, or doesn’t work when completed, then UK citizens will be required to come up with that £17 billion, just over two thirds of the projected cost. That, after all, is the point of a guarantee. Secondly the Chancellor said Hinkley was “substantially cheaper than any other low carbon technology” going on to clarify that it was cheaper than onshore and offshore wind in particular. The cost of onshore wind is far lower. Importantly the calculation included the costs of managing intermittency. Essentially the Chancellor would appear to be either misleading a Parliamentary committee, or has a very poor grasp of the facts in relation to the biggest contract his Government is likely to sign.
Energydesk 9th Sept 2015 read more »
Campaign group Greenpeace is urging Chancellor George Osborne to come clean with the UK public over the true costs of building a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley after it was claimed he made two misleading remarks about it in Parliament. Questioned by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee about the costs of the Hinkley project, Osborne said the strike price agreed for the new reactor was “substantially cheaper than any other low carbon technology like offshore wind or indeed onshore wind”.
Click Green 9th Sept 2015 read more »
Chancellor George Osborne was criticised today (9 September) after claiming that nuclear power was “substantially cheaper than any other low carbon technology,” when defending government subsidies for the controversial Hinkley Point C project. Academics and environmental campaigners told EurActiv that the government’s own data proved many low-carbon energy sources, such as renewables, were already cheaper than than nuclear power in Britain. Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said: “The Chancellor is either deliberately misleading Parliament and the public, or has a very poor grasp of the basic facts. “If Osborne removed his ideological goggles for just one minute, he’d realise that smart and clean technologies are a far safer bet for the UK’s energy future than a nuclear project bedevilled by high costs, design flaws, delays, legal challenges, and what not.” The subsidy was branded “incredibly expensive” and a “bottomless pit” by Lord Turnball, a member of the UK’s second parliamentary chamber, during the 90 minute hearing. The results of the first government contract for difference auction for renewables were published in February this year. They showed: Onshore wind – average price of £82/MWh (about €113); Large scale solar – £79.2/MWh (about €109); Energy from waste with combined heat and power – £80/MWh (about €110). EurActiv contacted the UK Treasury and asked if Osborne would stand by his comments. A spokesperson said, “Nuclear energy is an important part of the UK’s energy mix as we move towards a low carbon future. It is also the cheapest low carbon technology that can reliably generate electricity at such a large scale.” An offshore wind contract at the auction was more expensive at £117.8/MWh (€161). But Gaventa pointed to research showing that by 2025, when Hinkley is expected to go live, offshore wind costs will be between £64-104/MWh (€88 – €143). By 2030, this will drop to £53-99/MWh (€73 – €136). All the contracts were for 15 years, rather than Hinkley’s 35 years, making them cheaper in overall terms.
Euractiv 9th Sept 2015 read more »
Consumers could end up paying more than £40 billion in subsidies to support Hinkley Point C, Britain’s first new nuclear power station in 20 years, an expert on Europe’s nuclear industry has warned. Antony Froggatt, senior research fellow for energy at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank, said that the figure was based on a forecast of the extra payouts made by households to EDF Energy, the French state-controlled energy group, during the 35-year lifespan of a contract signed by the government in 2013. Based on existing power prices, he said that each of the two reactors at the plant in Somerset would receive an extra “top-up” of about £650 million a year — £1.3 billion in total — once the reactor was fully operational. This will be funded by a levy on household bills.“It’s become a ridiculous project in terms of cost,” Mr Froggatt, an expert in European nuclear policy, said. He said that the estimate of £45.5 billion over the 35-year lifetime of the contract, which draws on research on the long-term costs of the Hinkley project from HSBC, would be a disastrously bad deal for British consumers. Wholesale energy prices have crashed since the agreement two years ago, offering increasingly attractive terms to EDF.
Times 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Letter Vincent de Rivaz: It is a shame that great infrastructure projects are often criticised before they begin – only to be recognised later for the value they bring. It is always good to face questions and challenges but your editorial (“UK should think again about Hinkley Point nuclear power station”, September 10) is based on some misleading assumptions. Your comparison with the current market price is not a benchmark for the price of electricity in the next decades. Today’s price depends on polluting fossil fuels and ageing power plants. Our project will ensure we do not need to continue to depend on them in the future. We need to replace the majority of our electricity generation with low-carbon energy and new nuclear is substantially cheaper than other options.
FT 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Your leader “UK should think again about Hinkley Point nuclear power station” (September 10, 2015) makes a convincing case for ministers to ”take a fresh look at the underlying assumptions for the [planned HPC nuclear power plant] project in the light of changing circumstances, then publish and defend them.” agree this would be the prudent way forward for energy secretary Amber Rudd and chancellor George Osborne, who defended the economics of Hinkley C before a Lords select committee earlier in the week. Last December, I made a freedom of Information request to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) asking for five documents DECC had submitted to the European Commission which backed the Government argument that led to the Commission reversing its initial decision (of December 2013) that proposed state aid for the HPC plant was illegal, and thus giving the green light for considerable subsidies. This application was rejected, and also on appeal. I referred this rejection to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which, after several months consideration, informed me on 17 August it had decided in support of the government refusal to disclose the documents which include several financial appraisals by independent consultants. The ICO response to me revealed DECC had submitted not five but 126 documents to the Commission. Importantly, the ICO cited the letter DECC sent to them justifying non-disclosure, which included the following (in paragraph 55): “We would need to ask EdF (Électricité de France) to consider the information that is covered by DECC’s non-disclosure agreement with them in greater detail than they have already, as it is their commercial interests that would be effected by disclosure.” I do not think the economic interests of a foreign energy services company in EDF should be put before the clear public interest in having the full economic appraisal open to independent, professional and political scrutiny in Parliament, especially by the Public Accounts Committee and Environmental Audit Committee. I thus agree with your judgement that “if the economics does not make sense, it should consider scrapping the deal and retendering it, this time on a properly competitive basis and with more stringent criteria.” For that to happen, we need to see the primary documentation.
David Lowry’s Blog 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has spoken out after it was reported a deal for a new Chinese-backed station in Bradwell could be signed next month. Professor Andy Blowers from the group told Heart the site is too low to cope and will be vulnerable to the impact of climate change. He said: “We’re looking at the site being active for at least, I would say, up to 200 years. “By that time the whole of that coastline will be entirely different and the site itself will probably be swept away.” He also said there are is not suited for a station of the planned size and if something went wrong 300,000 people could be at risk, especially on Mersey Island.
Heart 10th Sept 2015 read more »
An application has been received by the Environment Agency (EA) to extend the permit for discharges arising from the dissolution of fuel element debris (FED) at the former Bradwell nuclear power station, from 12 months for a further 24 months. This news has been met with anger and disbelief by local campaign group, the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG). Chair of the group, Andy Blowers, said: ‘Frankly throughout this whole saga, the public has been given a pack of half-truths, misinformation and lack of explanation’. The River Blackwater is a designated Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) – please sign and help protect this beautiful estuary, wildlife and future generations. We need as many signatures as possible by Friday 18th September.
Change.org 10th Sept 2015 read more »
AP1000 are not proven technology, they are not operational anywhere. They would produce waste even hotter than from existing nuclear reactors, needing cooling with fresh water (the proposal is to use Thirlmere) for decades longer than existing wastes before even thinking about what to do with the crapola in the long term. The “land deal” is the handover of publicly bought land for an unspecified amount on unspecified terms. Land that had been bought out of the public purse by the UK government to provide a buffer zone of fields and ancient hedgerows around the already intolerably dangerous Sellafield site is being sold down the radioactive river along with Cumbria.
Radiation Free Lakeland 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The proven deployment and modular construction of the US-built AP1,000 reactor make it an excellent fit for the 3.4 GW Moorside plant and NuGen can use infrastructure from nearby Sellafield for the project, Tom Samson, the company’s CEO, said. NuGeneration Limited (NuGen) cleared a key stage in its development of the Moorside plant in July when it completed a land acquisition from the state-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority based at the nearby Sellafield site in northern England. The deal represented a strong start for Tom Samson, who was recently appointed CEO of NuGen after a role as Chief Operating Officer of Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC). Samson recently spoke at a new build forum held by the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association. He has big ambitions for infrastructure consolidation between the adjacent Moorside and Sellafield sites, including the joint use of land and consolidation of infrastructure resources. The Moorside plant could also benefit from the significant decommissioning resources on the Sellafield site, Samson said.
Nuclear Energy Insider 27th Aug 2015 read more »
The arrangements for managing Sellafield, Europe’s most complex nuclear site, are changing. A new management model will give Sellafield Ltd maximum opportunity for improving performance in decommissioning and delivering value for money for the UK tax payer. Pete Lutwyche, NDA Sellafield Programme Director, says: Cleaning up Sellafield requires an enormous investment of public money. We have a responsibility to UK tax payers to ensure that Sellafield Ltd has maximum opportunity for improved performance: accelerating hazard reduction and delivering value for money. A new model can create that environment for success.
NDA 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Up to 50 more jobs could be lost at the redundant Sizewell A nuclear power station following the completion of one of the major phases of decommissioning work.
East Anglian Daily Times 10th Sept 2015 read more »
A public consultation on the specifics of a geological disposal facility for nuclear waste has been launched by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The consultation outlines proposals for assembling and presenting information on the geology of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to help decide where a long term underground store for nuclear waste might be sited. The 12 week consultation is being run by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), a part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), and is one of the first steps to ensure that the public plays a role in the project to plan, build and operate a geological nuclear disposal facility.
Professional Engineer 9th Sept 2015 read more »
UK Energy Minister Amber Rudd has supplied further information in reply to queries raised with her at the first meeting with MPs on the Westminster Energy Committee, which is chaired by the SNP’s Angus MacNeil – the MP for the Western Isles. The Committee asked for information on why we allow the current nuclear fleet to bid into the Capacity Market given they may continue to be operational without capacity payments. The Capacity Market is a market-wide, technology neutral scheme, drawing on a full range of sources of production to deliver the best possible value for money in ensuring our security of supply. Alternative designs have been considered, for example, where plants deemed likely to remain operational without payments would be excluded (a ‘strategic reserve’ design). However, other designs which are not technology neutral would have perverse effects, such as lowering the wholesale power price and causing losses for existing generation remaining in the market, in turn, this could cause capacity to close. Our analysis suggests that the Capacity Market design offered the least potential for large power plant to exercise market power making it cheaper in the long run, and more likely to bring forward new build.
Scottish Energy News 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Nuclear vs Climate
Nuclear energy should be considered to tackle climate change and decarbonise electricity systems. Agneta Rising, Director General at the World Nuclear Association (WNA) believes it should be part of the discussions at the COP21 conference in Paris later this year.
Energy Live 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Future electricity systems cannot be based entirely on renewable energy sources, delegates at the World Nuclear Association’s annual Symposium in London heard today. However, they were told a new energy narrative is needed to overcome the mixed messages from the nuclear industry that has stymied public support. Ben Heard, director of ThinkClimate Consulting, told the conference there are anti-nuclear statements saying, “We don’t need nuclear, we must not use it” and a number of studies have been published on electricity systems based entirely on renewable energy sources. However, an analysis of 20 of these studies shows that none of these systems is feasible. He noted, “The challenge is to supply electricity reliably … It is not the quantity of power supplied, but the quality of the supply.” In order to be feasible, the proposed renewable-based electricity systems must meet the following criteria, he said. They must firstly be able to meet demand scenarios from mainstream forecasts. They must also be capable of constantly meeting demand, even during extreme events. They should also take into account transmission requirements and confirm that “ancillary services are provided”.
World Nuclear News 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Tuesday announced that it was cancelling an in-progress study on cancer risks for populations living near reactor sites, citing cost and expected low value of the overall project—but at least one nuclear watchdog group is charging the agency with being part of a cover-up. Beyond Nuclear, which describes itself as an organization that tracks “health, safety and environmental dangers of nuclear power facilities,” said the NRC’s decision to drop the study after completing its first phase was “outrageous” and comes at “the expense of public health and safety.”
Common Dreams 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Beyond Nuclear 8th Sept 2015 read more »
The well-founded idea that nuclear radiation is dangerous even at the lowest levels is under attack, writes Karl Grossman. Three determined nuclear enthusiasts have filed petitions to the NRC calling on it to apply the doctrine of ‘radiation hormesis’ – that low levels of radiation actually stimulate the immune system and promote better health. Disagree? You’d better act fast.
Ecologist 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The world nuclear industry is ready to meet the uranium and fuel service requirements of a growing nuclear generation share over the coming decades, according to the latest edition of the World Nuclear Association’s newly published Nuclear Fuel Report.
World Nuclear News 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The world’s nuclear power capacity could grow by nearly 45 per cent in the next 20 years, according to a report from the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Generation is predicted to grow to 552 gigawatts equivalent (GWe) by 2035 from the current 379GWe, as many countries build new plants as a lower-carbon option and for energy security, but the WNA’s Nuclear Fuel report says that pace of growth will fall short of what is needed to curb climate change.
Engineering & Technology 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The global nuclear industry should aim to achieve a 25% share of world electricity production by 2050, Agneta Rising, director general of the World Nuclear Association said today. To do that it will need to add 1000 gigawatts of new generation capacity.
World Nuclear News 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Global nuclear power generation capacity could increase by more than 45 percent in the next 20 years but the pace of growth will still fall short of what is needed to curb climate change, an industry organization report showed on Thursday. The World Nuclear Association Nuclear Fuel report forecasts global nuclear capacity will grow to 552 gigawatts equivalent (GWe) by 2035 from 379 GWe currently, as many countries build new plants as a lower-carbon option and for energy security. The International Energy Agency has estimated that nuclear capacity needs to reach 660 GWe in 2030 and more than 900 GWe by 2050 to help keep a rise in global temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius this century, a threshold scientists say should avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Reuters 10th Sept 2015 read more »
A new £3 million facility for nuclear materials research has officially been opened in the University of Sheffield. Academics in the research centre will develop new technologies and “efficient and environmentally sound” strategies for the safe treatment and disposal of radioactive waste. The launch of the Materials for Innovative Disposition from Advanced Separations (MIDAS) facility follows the UK Government’s plans to expand nuclear power in the country.
Energy Live News 10th Sept 2015 read more »
E.ON SE will post a massive loss this year after ditching plans to unload its German nuclear operations into a new company, in a nod to government proposals to saddle utilities with liabilities related to nuclear energy.
Wall St Journal 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Germany’s Eon is no longer planning to spin off its nuclear business into new company Uniper after Berlin has warned it will prolong financial liability for the parent company, the utility said late on Wednesday. “Eon will retain responsibility for the remaining operation and dismantling of its nuclear generating capacity in Germany and not transfer it to Uniper,” the company said, adding the nuclear power business would be managed by Hanover-based subsidiary PreussenElektra.
Montel 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Eon’s plans to offload its nuclear assets to spin-off company Uniper have been axed as the German government moves to close a legal loophole which could have saved the German energy giant billions in nuclear dismantling costs.
Utility Week 10th Sept 2015 read more »
FT 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Times 11th Sept 2015 read more »
Politics forces group to cancel move of nuclear assets into Uniper spin off. Nuclear waste is toxic; nuclear politics are not much better. Berlin’s determination to make parent companies forever liable for the costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants has forced Eon to modify plans to separate its generation assets from its renewable and supply business. Its shares, which were already lagging behind other European utilities, have slumped further.
FT 10th Sept 2015 read more »
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) is seeking answers over a concerning incident when a UK submarine collided with the nets of an Ardglass based trawler „MV Karen‟, 18 miles off the County Down coast. Despite happening in April 2015, amidst media reports that it could have been a Russian submarine, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has just confirmed some five months later that it was a British submarine that was responsible.
Nuclear Free Local Authorities 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Morning Star 11th Sept 2015 read more »
The development of renewable energy on industrial sites is being undermined by the UK Govt’s removal of pre-accreditation, a leader renewables chief has claimed. Richard Gueterbock, Director of Clearfleau, has condemned DECC’s recent actions on renewables, saying this will ‘seriously damage the market.’ “Anaerobic digestion has already been hit by too many staged decreases of the sub 250kW Feed in Tariff (FIT) rate (50% in the past three years compared to 15% cut for the rate above 500kW). Getting rid of pre-accreditation will require projects to proceed with no guarantees of revenue when the plant is built – which can often take 18 months for technologies like anaerobic digestion.
Scottish Energy News 11th Sept 2015 read more »
Alan Whitehead MP: this autumn will see what is increasingly a success story for Britain, the deployment of renewable energy of all shapes and sizes halted in its tracks, or will renewables continue on a path to ensure that climate change targets are met and that clean energy continues to supply larger portions of the UK’s energy needs over the next decade.
Alan’s Energy Blog 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Renewables – solar
Clean Power Solutions has claimed that energy storage systems could be a solution to problems raised by cuts to the solar feed-in tariff. The company believes that its new system to store generated energy, instead of selling it to the grid, will prove more attractive to investors as a means of reducing energy bills by taking advantage of times when local supply exceeds demand. Storing the power appears to be the answer. Instead of sending the excess, unused power to the grid, it is stored for use when required rather than when produced. Even using the proposed new tariffs, prices, a 50 kW solar PV system with a ‘Smart Power’ energy storage system could give a five year payback, and an IRR of 21%. This is in addition to the fact that future energy costs would be locked in forever at zero.
Scottish Energy News 11th Sept 2015 read more »
Steve Munday, Managing Director, said: “If we cast our minds back to 2010, a 4kW domestic installation could cost £16,000 to £18,000, actual panel prices were between £1.80 and £2.10 per watt, and the FIT was 43p. The government objective was that people with a decent south facing roof would earn about 8% rate of return while other less favourable orientations might be down at 5%-6%. With savings rates as low as 2% the government thought this would attract householders to invest. “What we actually saw was a rapid drop in installations costs to between £10,000 and £12,000 yielding financial returns as high as 25% leading to what seemed draconian, but was actually perfectly reasonable, reduction in FITS to 26p. Investors were still achieving returns of around 15%, way above the government’s objective for a ‘reasonable’ incentive. Today, panels are nearer 40p per watt, complete installations nearer £6,000, FITs of 12.8p and investors still getting returns of 10% – 18% depending on orientation, which is still way above government objectives.
Scottish Energy News 11th Sept 2015 read more »
The UK renewables sector has been dealt a further blow by the Conservative government following its decision to scrap measures designed to give subsidy certainty for renewables projects in the early stages of development. The government said on Wednesday that it would axe pre-accreditation for projects applying for support through the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme, effectively blocking developers from securing an agreed subsidy rate before costly permitting applications and construction begins.
Utility Week 9th Sept 2015 read more »
Renewables – Island Energy
Cumbrae could become Scotland’s ‘greenest’ island according to the company behind plans for a £6 million solar farm on the island. ComSol Energy, who are behind the solar farm project for Ballochmartin Farm on top of Cumbrae as well as a major £5m holiday village, made the claim at meeting organised to discuss the economic future of the island. Scott Watson, ComSol’s head of marketing, said: “We are currently investigating the potential to provide the Isle of Cumbrae with up to 100% of its electrical energy from renewable sources in the form of the proposed 5MW solarfarm.
Largs & Millport Weekly News 9th Sept 2015 read more »
A change of bulbs in 20,000 streetlamps in Bristol has seen the council save £1m a year on energy bills, reducing C02 emissions by 4,000 tonnes in the process. The second phase of a major street lighting upgrade has seen a further 12,000 lamps fitted with energy efficient bulbs from GE Lighting, who had already installed 8,000 during phase one. The economic savings that these bulbs bring has seen the Council’s investment returned a full year earlier than expected.
Edie 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Eric Rondolat, chief executive of Philips Lighting, has called on world leaders to move faster to curb global energy use by setting more ambitious targets at the upcoming Paris climate change summit. Rondolat said politicians need to set bold targets to boost the global energy efficiency rate from the current 1.3 per cent to three per cent per year by 2030. Global energy demand is increasing at twice the rate of our capacity to save energy, he told delegates. “We absolutely need to save more energy than we do today and we need to do it faster. Technology is available, and it can be done in developing countries and mature countries without sacrificing our quality of life,” he said. Rondolat maintained the three per cent rate was achievable using existing technology, such as LEDs, smart meters and insulation, and voiced irritation at the current speed of improvement.
Business Green 10th Sept 2015 read more »
Andrew Warren: It has now been officially confirmed that the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund (GDHIF) has been axed. This is despite its regular over-subscription – and with less than one-third of its original budget allocated. And with no explanation as to what would be done to replace the millions of tonnes of lost carbon dioxide savings specifically attributed to the scheme. All this occurred in the wake of the Prime Minister’s infamous pledge to reduce environmental levies (“all that green crap”, as the Sun’s front page once quoted him as saying), in order to cut domestic fuel bills. Perversely, the only such policy to be cut happened to be the only programme specifically designed to lower fuel bills.
Business Green 10th Sept 2015 read more »
A tenth of energy ‘smart’ meters installed in British homes do not work and are functioning like traditional ‘dumb’ meters, official figures show. More than 1.3 million of the devices, which automatically send gas and electricity usage readings back to suppliers, have so far been installed in homes as part of an £11 billion Government scheme. But figures show that 134,200 of the gadgets are not actually functioning as smart meters, because of problems when customers switch supplier, and poor coverage in the networks they rely on to transmit data.
Telegraph 10th Sept 2015 read more »
OPPOSITION MSPs are plotting to force SNP ministers to clarify their position on fracking, after the Government was accused of fobbing off the public by repeatedly dodging questions over its moratorium. It is understood that Labour are planning to bring the issue to the floor of the Scottish Parliament and demand Nicola Sturgeon or her energy minister Fergus Ewing come clean over what is covered by the temporary ban, with the Government once again refusing to answer basic questions over its policy this week. Despite a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas developments being announced in January, it is still unclear whether test drilling for shale is covered and the Government refuses to say when a public consultation will be carried out.
Herald 11th Sept 2015 read more »