“Hackers breached a dozen US nuclear plants, reports say”

But we don’t need to worry – our nearest nuclear plant will be owned by the Chinese and French – who will totally protect us. Won’t they?

“… The hackers appeared to be attempting to map out computer networks for future attacks, according to the DHS report seen by the Times.

They sent highly targeted emails to senior engineers at operating firms behind the nuclear plants, mimicking job applications but laced with malicious code, the newspaper said.

Officials told the Times that the techniques resembles those used by Russian specialists linked to previous attacks on energy facilities. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40538061

Tuition fees benefit University Vice-Chancellors not students

Owl says: two university vice-chancellor (Plymouth: £310,149 gross in 2015/16; Exeter: £400,000 (including £58,000 performance-related remuneration) and a college principal of a college (South Devon College) offering university-level courses (salary not found) are all amongst the 21 board members of our Local Enterprise Partnership.

“Tuition fees in England should be scrapped after becoming a “Frankenstein’s monster” that loads £50,000 or more in debt on to the backs of graduates, according to the architect of the last Labour government’s education reforms.

Andrew Adonis, the former adviser to Tony Blair who also served as an education minister, has used a column for the Guardian to attack the system of student finances, accusing the government of running a Ponzi scheme that leaves students in England with crippling debts.

“In my view, fees have now become so politically diseased, they should be abolished entirely,” Adonis writes in the Guardian.

Admitting that he was “largely responsible” for the structure of fees and loans, with repayments pegged to graduate incomes, Adonis complains that greedy university leaders have failed to improve teaching quality but still rewarded themselves handsomely.

“[Vice-chancellors] increased their own pay and perks as fast as they increased tuition fees, and are now ‘earning’ salaries of £275,000 on average and in some cases over £400,000.

“Debt levels for new graduates are now so high that the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that three-quarters of graduates will never pay it all back. The Treasury will soon realise it is sitting on a Ponzi scheme,” Adonis writes. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jul/07/tuition-fees-should-be-scrapped-says-architect-of-fees-andrew-adonis

English devolved areas “too small” – wheel to be reinvented!

After the abolition of the South West Regional Development Agency which was considered too big, we got a Devon and Somerset Local Enterprise Partnership which is now considered too small!!!!! The solution: a South West regional development area!

And if our current LEP area is considered too small, imagine the even smaller mooted “Golden Triangle LEP” (Plymouth, Exeter Torbay)!

So many heads, so much banging together needed.

“… A simple comparison with other similar developed nations suggests that the average size of subnational regional government stands at around 5 million people. The average size of a German länder, for example, is 5.2 million; for French conseil regions it is 5.3 million; and for US states it is 6.1 million. Greater Manchester stands at little over 2.5 million. And are we seriously suggesting that English regional governance should be sub-divided into 39 or 40 separate units?

While clearly there is no right answer to the question of the optimal scale of a functional economic area within a competitive global economy, let alone the right-size for more functional democracy, in the case of the English LEP areas, it is clear that in global terms they are very much at the smaller end of the scale. With Brexit on the horizon and the challenges that might bring in terms of global connectivity, the case for a larger-scale approach to economic strategy and democratic decision-making could not be more clear.

Any new form of subnational governance needs to be developed at scale. While England is too big, our current city-regions and combined authorities are too small. This may well be the reason that ideas such as the Northern Powerhouse or Midlands Engine have in recent times gathered so much momentum. We are still a long way from such ideas taking more political or democratic forms, but to claim they lack public support would be to misread the signs of the times. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/07/06/englands-devolved-regions-are-too-small-bigger-ones-would-have-more-clout/

Nuclear plants – becoming old-fashioned in USA

RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY OUTPACE NUCLEAR PLANTS

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Nuclear power has taken a back seat to renewable sources of electricity for the first time in decades.

Electricity production from utility-scale renewable sources exceeded nuclear generation in March and April. That’s the first time renewable sources have outpaced nuclear since 1984.

The growth in renewables has been fueled by scores of new wind turbines and solar farms. Recent increases in hydroelectric power as a result of heavy snow and rain in Western states last winter also provided a boost.

Experts predict output from the nation’s nuclear plants will still outpace renewables for the full year. One reason is seasonal variation. Less water flows through dams in the drier summer months. Also, nuclear plants tend to undergo maintenance during spring and fall months, when overall electricity demand is lower.”

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/For-first-time-in-decades-renewable-sources-of-electricity-outpace-production-from-nuclear-plants/id-e35f006c31014341b1d97c7a82d92a1a

LEP and value for money

Further to the two posts below, the National Audit Office report on combined authorities can be found here:

Click to access Progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities.pdf

and its summary is here:

Click to access Progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities-Summary.pdf

Perhaps the most significant paragraph for us is this one:

“5. However, evidence that investment, decision-making and oversight at this level is linked to improved local economic outcomes is mixed and inconclusive. Combined authorities themselves often assume in their plans that there is a strong link between investment in transport and economic growth, for example. Despite this, evidence on the additional value that governance at this level can bring to economic growth is mixed, and combined authorities’ administrative boundaries do not necessarily match functional economic areas, or the existing boundaries of local enterprise partnerships. We assessed combined authorities’ draft monitoring and evaluation plans, and found that while they are working to link spending with outcomes and impact, they vary in quality, and measures tend to vary depending on data already available.”

Elsewhere, they also note:
“Also not much coincidence in boundaries between combined authorities and LEPs. EG Bristol combined authority and “West of England LEP”.

They might well have added the lack of symmetry between Somerset ( where most LEP money is going to Hinkley C) and Devon. Of the 48 “projects” listed on their website:

21 projects are transport-related
8 are related to Hinkley C
Only 3 projects might benefit the Exeter area specifically (the “Growth Hub” and its extension, Science Park completed in 2016, Met Office campus which as yet has no funding)

LEP – who will be to blame if things go pear-shaped?

Following on from the article below (which basically says metro-mayors/combined authorities/LEPs don’t work), Owl has a question:

If, as it appears, our LEP wants to take credit for any and all good that arises in Devon and Somerset for whatever reason (eg economic growth, Hinkley C) will it be taking the blame if it all goes horribly wrong – and would our local authorities accept their share of blame for going along with a dangerously flawed model where, not only does the Emperor have no clothes, the local authorities bought the clothes the Emperor doesn’t have?

Final big nail in Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership coffin?

The type of organisation detailed here is exactly how our LEP is structured. Surely, now someone, somewhere will pull the plug on it?

“The six mayor-led combined authorities risk becoming “a curiosity of history” as there is little evidence to back their assumption that devolution will improve local economies.

That is among findings by the National Audit Office in a report Progress in Setting Up Combined Authorities.

Parliament’s spending watchdog said the six – Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West of England – could have been joined by other areas but these had “been unable to bring local authorities together to establish combined authorities”.

The NAO said there was “a logic to establishing strategic bodies designed to function across conurbations and sub-regional areas, and there is a clear purpose to establishing combined authorities especially in metropolitan areas, as economies and transport networks operate at a scale greater than individual local authority areas”.

Most combined authority proposals were put to the government on the basis that they would deliver more rapid economic growth by spending money and exercising powers locally.

But the NAO noted the combined authorities were “inherently complex structures” and evidence that investment, decision-making and oversight at this level was linked to improved local economic results was “mixed and inconclusive”.

It said combined authorities “often assume in their plans that there is a strong link between investment in transport and economic growth, for example”, but evidence on the additional value that governance at this level can bring to economic growth is mixed, the NAO said.

It was also concerned that combined authorities’ administrative boundaries do not necessarily match functional economic areas, or the existing boundaries of local enterprise partnerships.

“We assessed combined authorities’ draft monitoring and evaluation plans, and found that while they are working to link spending with outcomes and impact, they vary in quality, and measures tend to vary depending on data already available,” the report said.

Despite this, the combined authorities’ economic regeneration role “would become more pressing” if Brexit leads to reductions in regional funding at present received from the European Union.

Combined authorities “are generally in areas which receive the most EU funding”, it noted.

NAO head Amyas Morse said: “For combined authorities to deliver real progress and not just be another ‘curiosity of history’ like other regional structures before them, they will need to demonstrate that they can both drive economic growth and also contribute to public sector reform.”

The County Councils Network strongly opposed the government’s requirement for elected mayors to lead combined authorities – and only Cambridgeshire and Peterborough involves a county council.

CCN director Simon Edwards, said: “This report from the NAO highlights many of the concerns the majority of CCN members raised over the prospect of mayoral combined authorities in county areas: an added layer of bureaucracy in an already complex landscape, a lack of co-terminosity with key public sector partners, and questions over whether this format would lead to economic growth in rural areas.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/07/combined-authorities-risk-becoming-curiosity-history

Hinkley C escalating costs – do we have too many LEP eggs in the Hinkley C basket?

First, the latest report:

“Hinkley Point C in Somerset will cost £1.5bn more than planned, says developer EDF, and completion could be delayed by 15 months beyond the 2025 target date. In one sense, this news lacks any element of surprise. EDF only seems to build nuclear reactors that are late and over-budget, as witnessed in Finland and on its own patch at Flamanville in Normandy.

Yet the timing of EDF’s “clarifications” is a shock. It is very early in the life of this £18.1bn (now £19.6bn, possibly rising to £20.3bn) project to be recasting the numbers. The tricky stages of construction, like pouring the right mix of concrete, lie ahead. The additional costs relate to mundane matters, such as “a better understanding” of UK regulators’ requirements and “the volume and sequencing of work on site”.

These are planning areas in which EDF would surely have made allowances for uncertainties. That all that slack, and more, has been used up is puzzling. Sceptics within EDF who argued that Hinkley is too big and too financially risky will feel vindicated already. EDF’s projected rate of return on the project was never high at 9%; now it is down to 8.5% and will fall to 8.2% if the delays materialise.

Still, it’s a French problem, right? Didn’t the UK government insulate us by making EDF and its Chinese co-financier shoulder the construction risks? Wasn’t that the trade-off for the UK guaranteeing to buy all Hinkley’s electricity for 35 years at twice the current wholesale price?

Well, yes, that’s how the contract is structured, and EDF’s UK boss was full of reassurance on Monday that UK taxpayers remain protected. But no contract of this size is ever so straightforward, as the National Audit Office pointed out in its blistering report last week.

“If the HPC [Hinkley Point C] project or developer runs into difficulties, the UK government could come under pressure to provide more support or take on additional risk, particularly given HPC’s potential importance to ensuring energy security,” said the NAO.

That dire circumstance remains some way off, but it can’t be ignored. What if real engineering problems follow? What if EDF’s projected returns fall to 7%, which would be closer to the company’s cost of capital? Would EDF seek better terms knowing that Hinkley is scheduled to provide 7% of our electricity?

“The [UK] government will hold a stronger negotiating position if it maintains alternative ways of ensuring energy security if HPC runs late or is not completed,” said the NAO. That advice was sound last week, now it looks prescient.

It is bad enough that UK consumers are locked into this “expensive and risky” project, as the NAO called Hinkley. It would be calamitous if we end up being bullied into paying more. Ministers need to draw up a proper contingency plan – starting now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jul/03/ofgem-energy-price-cap-shows-mays-help-for-millions-is-off-the-boil

And why does this matter to us in Devon? Hinkley C is Somerset isn’t it? Ah, but our Local Enterprise Partnership covers Devon AND Somerset, so masses of money that used to go directly to our councils for local projects is pouring into their (unaccountable and non- transparent) coffers.

And because these are the projects our LEP is putting OUR money into on the assumption everything is hunky-dory:

Bicton (Cornwall College) – this project is a dedicated Skills Centre for Engineering and Construction, including nuclear.
£300,000 from Growth Deal.

Bridgwater – HPTA – National College for Nuclear (Southern Hub). This project is to base the National College for Nuclear (NCfN) – Southern Campus on Bridgwater College’s newly developed University Centre in Cannington.
£3 million from Growth Deal

Exeter College – a Centre for Advanced Industrial Automation to address the LEP priorities for the HPTA, Hinkley Point C supply chain and the New College for Nuclear advanced manufacturing and Business Incubation.
£3 million from Growth Deal

South Devon College – The project is a suite of small capital investments that will enable the College to extend and enhance the range and quality of our provision to meet the direct and indirect skills needs for the new nuclear development at Hinkley and address the replacement skills resource needs locally.
Already received and spent £213,980 from Growth Deal

Yeovil College – Addressing skills gaps in Construction/Civils and Facilities Management
Provisional allocation of £637,500 from Growth Deal.
Of which our LEP says:
“This project forms part of the Nuclear South West strategy – a strong partnership between three south west LEPs (Heart of the South West, West of England and GFirst) the nuclear industry, local authorities, academic and skills sectors and business support agencies – generating £55bn of nuclear opportunities over the next decade”

The above does NOT include the massive numbers of houses to be built in the Hinkley C area by companies such as Midas (LEP board member).

Check out the nuclear and other interests of LEP Board Members (including EDDC Leader Paul Diviani and non-Board member Mark Williams, EDDC CEO) here:

http://heartofswlep.co.uk/about-the-lep/lep-board/

AND IF THERE IS NO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY? WHAT THEN?

Surprise! Hinkley Point C costs rise say EDF!

“The company, which is the project’s main backer, said the total cost of the plant was now likely to be £19.6bn.

Hinkley Point C would be the UK’s first new nuclear plant for decades, but has been beset with budget problems.

A review of the project found there was also a risk it could be delayed by up to 15 months.

… The extra costs result from a better understanding of the design, supplier contracts and the volume of work, the company said.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

1. The extra costs come from desperate attempts to rectify breathtakingly serious design flaws.

2. If you believe the numbers above, you need your head examining!

3. Green energy costs are tumbling; if ever this dangerous white elephant gets built … it will be a dangerous white elephant that has sucked up vast amounts of UK money in infrastructure and development costs that could have been better spent almost anywhere else – except on propping up this government with the DUP.

And PS: our nuclear-very-very-friendly company bosses and developers that make up the majority of our Local Enterprise Partnership just LOVE this project – so there must be something wrong with it!

A northern Tory councillor and his view on devolved power

Tomorrow I’ll be toddling across to Leeds where, among other momentous matters, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority with consider whether to change its name to Leeds City Region Combined Authority. This has caused a ripple of disgruntlement in my city as people ask quite why this decision is being taken now and whether it marks the end of Bradford’s separate and individual identity.

I don’t like the proposal. Mostly this is because it is totally unnecessary. We’re told by officers that the current brand (essentially ‘West Yorkshire’) is confusing because there’s another brand – ‘Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership’ – within the purview of the combined authority and having two brands might be confusing for high-powered, multi-million pound wielding international business folk wanting to invest. That and all the others are named after cities (well Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool at least but not Birmingham and Bristol).

The report tells us that the basis for the change results from ‘comprehensive research’:

“…benchmarking the WYCA against other combined authorities nationally or internationally, an audit of existing communications activity by the organisation, and substantial engagement with audiences including elected members, local authority chief executives, private sector business leaders, central government officials, partner organisations and WYCA employees.”

Sounds good – just the sort of paragraph I’d have put into a client presentation about research when I didn’t have any budget. What we have here is a series of chats with existing connections such as members of the LEP, political leaders (but not opposition leaders) in the West Yorkshire councils and senior officials who we work with. There’s no script, no presentation of findings, no suggestion that we’ve done anything other than ask the opinion of a few people who we already know.

In the grand scale of things all this probably doesn’t matter much. Except that, for us in Bradford at least, we’ll begin to recognise that plenty of decisions previously made by councillors here in Bradford are now made somewhere else (Leeds) by a different organisation. This – as councillors on Bradford’s area committees have discovered – includes mundane and very local stuff like whether or not to put speed bumps on a street in Cullingworth.

What annoys me most about this stuff is that we are gradually replacing accountable political decision-making with technocratic, officer-led decisions. So us councillors, for example, get pressure to put in speed cameras but have precisely zero say in whether and where such cameras are actually installed. Somewhere in the documentation of the soon-to-be Leeds City Region Combined Authority there’ll be a line of budget referring to the West Yorkshire Casulaty Reduction Partnership. That is what ‘member decision-making’ means most of the time these days.

So to return to the name change. I’ll be opposed because it’s unnecessary nd divisive. But when it goes through (I love that they’re planning an extensive ‘member engagement’ after they’ve made the decision) it will at least be a reminder that most of the big investment decisions out there are being made on the basis of Heseltine’s ‘functional economic geography’ rather than using the democratically-elected local councils we all know and love. OK, not love- that’s going too far – but you know what I mean.”

http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/so-is-bradford-part-of-leeds-on.html

UK has lowest economic growth of G7 countries – the implications for East Devon

Owl says: According to our Local Plan, the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan AND the plans of Local Enterprise Partnership, development in East Devon, Exeter, Devon and Somerset (economic and housing) was based on an expectation of constant, uninterrupted high growth. Now what?

“The consumer-driven momentum that has kept the British economy afloat since the Brexit vote is declining rapidly, with new data showing households in the grip of the most protracted squeeze on living standards since the economic crisis of the mid-1970s.

Against a backdrop of rising prices and stagnant wage growth, incomes adjusted for inflation have now fallen for three successive quarters, the first time this has occurred since the International Monetary Fund had to bail Britain out in 1976.

At the same time, the amount being set aside as savings has now slipped to just 1.7% of disposable income – the lowest level on record, and a fraction of the near-10% average for the last 50 years. Just a year ago, it was more than three times the current rate.

The new data from the Office for National Statistics shows that in the first three months of 2017, the mounting financial pressure on consumers brought the UK’s strong performance following last summer’s Brexit vote to an abrupt halt.

On Thursday, separate figures showed an unexpected jump in consumer credit. Households borrowed an extra £1.7bn in May – £300m more than had been expected – on credit cards, personal loans and car finance. A survey of consumer confidence also showed a steep decline.

Despite saving less and borrowing more, consumers still reined in their spending, contributing to economic growth confirmed today at just 0.2% – the lowest of any of the major G7 industrial nations.

Spending in the shops, new car sales and property transactions have all showed signs of weakness, and the Bank of England has expressed concern about rising levels of consumer debt. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/30/britons-savings-at-record-low-as-household-incomes-drop-says-ons

Fukushima yesterday, Hinkley C tomorrow?

Owl says: think there is no chance of a tsunami on the Severn estuary? Think again:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607

Three former executives from the operator of Japan’s tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant went on trial Friday, the only people ever to face a criminal court in connection with the 2011 meltdowns that left swathes of countryside uninhabitable.

Ex-Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, 77, and former vice presidents Sakae Muto, 66, and Ichiro Takekuro, 71, all pleaded not guilty to charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury, more than six years after the worst atomic accident in a generation.

Katsumata told the Tokyo court it was impossible for him to have directly foreseen the risk of the towering waves that pummelled Japan’s northeast coast in March 2011.

“I apologise for the tremendous trouble to the residents in the area and around the country because of the serious accident that caused the release of radioactive materials,” Katsumata said in a barely audible voice, as he bowed.

But “I believe I don’t have a criminal responsibility in the case”.

The indictments are the first — and only — charges stemming from the tsunami-sparked reactor meltdowns at the plant that set off the worst atomic crisis since Chernobyl in 1986.

If convicted, the men face up to five years in prison or a penalty of up to one million yen ($9,000).

Prosecutors had twice refused to press charges against the men, citing insufficient evidence and little chance of conviction.

But a judicial review panel composed of ordinary citizens ruled in 2015 that the trio should be put on trial, which compelled prosecutors to press on with the case under Japanese law. …”

https://www.24matins.uk/traf/headline/ex-bosses-stand-trial-over-2011-fukushima-crisis-in-japan-2-10241

Nuclear inaction – it’s hotting up

Owl says: no worries, our Local Enterprise Partnership has it all under control. What? It doesn’t? It’s getting very warm in here …

Business Commentary – Alistair Osborne (The Times – paywall)

“Lucky the National Audit Office got its Hinkley Point C report out last week. Then, it merely concluded that the government had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. Oh, and that the reactor was of “unproven” design and other projects incorporating it were “experiencing difficulties”.

Well, guess what?

The £18 billion bill is shooting up and Hinkley Point could be another two years late, at least if you believe Le Monde. A report over the weekend added a potential £2.7 billion to the cost of the project and put back the start date to 2027 — conjecture hardly denied by the main contractor, France’s EDF, which must pay for any cost hikes. It said only that it was doing a “full review of the costs and schedule”.

Still, all that’s just for starters. More alarmingly, France’s nuclear watchdog has just produced a howitzer of a ruling over one of the two prototypes for Hinkley: a similar European Pressurised Reactor at Flamanville in France.

Having ordered a review of the nuke after finding carbon spots in the reactor vessel, the regulator has now told EDF it will have to replace the vessel cover within a few years of operation unless it can pass further tests — a bit tricky as the cover is no longer accessible.

The upshot? It’ll be replacing the cover on a live nuke, much to the delight of the locals. Anyway, this is the kit on its way to Somerset. Gives you such a warm glow.”

“Spending watchdog condemns ‘risky and expensive’ Hinkley Point”

Owl says: abd still our Local Enterprise Partnership sleepwalks into disaster with OUR money.

“Generations of British consumers have been locked into a “risky and expensive” project by the UK’s subsidy deal for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, according to a damning report by the spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office said the contract sealed by ministers last September with EDF to construct the country’s first new atomic reactors in two decades would provide “uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.

Further, Brexit and Theresa May’s decision to quit an EU nuclear treaty could make the situation even worse, by triggering taxpayer compensation for EDF or a more generous deal for the French state-controlled company.

The watchdog condemned the past two governments for failing to look at alternative ways of financing the power station, such as taking a stake in the construction.

Observers labelled the report “deeply worrying”, a “strong reprimand” and a vindication of Hinkley Point C’s critics, who had argued it was too costly and advocated alternatives such as wind and solar power.

Under the terms of the 35-year contract, EDF is guaranteed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour it generates, twice the wholesale price.

The subsidy is paid through energy bills, which the government estimates will translate to a £10 to £15 chunk of the average household bill by 2030.

At the heart of the spending watchdog’s criticism is the coalition government’s failure to look at any alternative financing model, such as taking an upfront stake in the £18bn project.

Instead, the Lib Dems and Tories decided all the construction risk for the plant must lay with EDF and its partner, Chinese state-owned CGN, to keep the project off the government’s books.

Taking a stake would have posed its own risks because of delays to projects with the same reactor design in Finland and France, the NAO admitted. “But our analysis suggests alternative approaches could have reduced the total project cost,” it added.

If the government had taken a 50% equity stake in the construction it could have almost halved the guarantee power price to as low as £48.50 per megawatt hour, according to the NAO.

The auditors were critical of ministers’ decision to negotiate bilaterally with EDF, rather than waiting for other new-build nuclear consortia to compete – an approach that the NAO noted had brought prices down on similar subsidy deals for windfarms.

The government’s case for the contract also weakened after the commercial terms of the deal were agreed by the then prime minister, David Cameron, in 2013, the watchdog said.

Delays to Hinkley and falling wholesale prices, caused by a two-year oil price slump, meant the total costs to consumers for the 35-year deal ballooned from £6bn in 2013 to £30bn now.

That number may rise even higher after new figures on power price expectations are released by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) next month.

Brexit could make matters worse still, the spending watchdog warned. In January, the government said it would quit a nuclear cooperation treaty as part of the process of leaving the EU.

That withdrawal from Euratom, the NAO said, “might be interpreted as a change of law” resulting in an adjustment of the £92.50 price promised to EDF, or even trigger a one-off payment for EDF through a compensation clause in the contract.

While the NAO concluded “it will not be known for decades whether Hinkley Point C will be value for money”, the usually conservative watchdog was strongly critical of the government for not assessing alternative finance models.

However, it said the report should not be taken as a recommendation that the government takes a stake in future nuclear projects – but the idea should be explored. Such an approach has been discussed by the Japanese and UK governments for a Japanese-backed plant in Wales.

Unions, industry experts and green groups said the report showed lessons must be learned for any future nuclear subsidy deals.

Commentators also raised questions over whether Hinkley would look cheap compared with alternatives such as wind and solar, which the government had argued would cost more.

Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union, which represents nuclear workers, said: “This is a deeply worrying report that highlights the lack of accountability and leadership in British nuclear policy.”

Dr Robert Gross of Imperial College called the report a “strong reprimand” of the past two governments.

A “slavish devotion” to free markets that ruled out taking a stake and failure to wait for other nuclear projects to bring competition were to blame, he said. “Renewables will become cheap, and this was not anticipated at all. It now looks likely that by the time it is built Hinkley will seem expensive compared to new solar and wind projects.”

Nina Schrank, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, called the report a damning indictment of the government’s agreement. “This year’s school leavers will still be paying for Hinkley when they approach their pension age, so it is concerning that the National Audit Office is suggesting it may not be worth their money,” she said.

Jim Skea, president of the Energy Institute, which represents energy professionals, said the report held “clear messages on the steps needed to protect consumers and taxpayers in the future, including possibly radical changes to nuclear policy”.

An EDF spokesman said: “Today’s report shows that Hinkley Point C remains good value for consumers compared with alternative choices. Consumers won’t pay a penny until the power station is operating and it is EDF Energy and CGN who will take the risk and responsibility of delivering it.”

A BEIS spokesman said: “Hinkley Point C will be the first new nuclear plant in a generation. This was an important strategic decision to ensure that nuclear is part of a diverse energy mix.

“Consumers won’t pay a penny until Hinkley is built; it will provide clean, reliable electricity powering homes and creating more than 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships in the process.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/spending-watchdog-condemns-risky-expensive-hinkley-point-c-nuclear

“Sizewell B and 27 other EDF nuclear plants ‘at risk of catastrophic failure”

“A new report finds that 28 nuclear reactors, 18 of them EDF plants in France and one at Sizewell in the UK, are at risk of failure ‘including core meltdown’ due to flaws in safety-critical components in reactor vessels and steam generators, writes Oliver Tickell. The news comes as EDF credit is downgraded due to a growing cash flow crisis and its decision to press on with Hinkley C.

A new review of the safety of France’s nuclear power stations has found that at least 18 of EDF’s units are are “operating at risk of major accident due to carbon anomalies.”

The review was carried out at the request of Greenpeace France following the discovery of serious metallurgical flaws by French regulators in a reactor vessel at Flamanville, where an EPR plant is under construction.

The problem is that parts of the vessel and its cap contain high levels of carbon, making the metal brittle and potentially subject to catastrophic failure. These key components were provided by French nuclear engineering firm Areva, and forged at its Le Creusot.

“The nature of the flaw in the steel, an excess of carbon, reduces steel toughness and renders the components vulnerable to fast fracture and catastrophic failure putting the NPP at risk of a major radioactive release to the environment”, says nuclear safety expert John Large, whose consultancy Large Associates (LA) carried out the Review.

His report examines how the defects in the Flamanville EPR reactor pressure vessel came about during the manufacturing process, and escaped detection for years after forging. It then goes on to investigate what other safety-critical nuclear components might be suffering from the same defects.

Steam generators at 28 EDF nuclear sites at risk

After several months of investigation LA found that critical components of a further 28 nuclear plants were forged by Le Creusot using the same process. These are found in the steam generators – large, pod-like boilers – that have been installed at operational EDF nuclear power stations across France.

The conclusion is based on documents provided by IRSN (the independent French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire) that reject assurances given by both EDF and Areva that there is no safety risk from steam generators containing the excess carbon flaw.

In August 2016, IRSN warned the French nuclear safety regulator Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) that:

EdF’s submission was incomplete;

there is a risk of abrupt rupture which could lead to a reactor core fuel melt; and

immediate “compensatory” measures need to be put in place to safeguard the operational NPPs involved.

… EDF stated yesterday that it will carry out further tests on 12 nuclear reactors during their planned outages in the coming months – and that extended periods of outage are to be expected. “There are outages that could take longer than planned”, an EDF spokesman told Reuters.

“In 2015, we discovered the phenomenon of carbon segregation in the Flammanville EPR reactor. We decided to verify other equipments in the French nuclear park to make sure that other components are not impacted by the phenomenon.”

In anticipation of the nuclear closures, year-ahead electricity prices rose in the French wholesale power market, forcing power rises across Europe up to a one-year high.

Meanwhile Moody’s has downgraded EDF credit ratings across a spectrum of credit instruments. EDF’s long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings fell from A2 to A3 while perpetual junior subordinated debt ratings fell to Baa3 from Baa2. Moody’s also downgraded the group’s short-term ratings to Prime-2 from Prime-1.

The Review also shows that the reactor pressure vessel of the Flamanville EPR, which is already installed, does not have a Certificate of Conformity issued by ASN. This means that it does not comply with the European Directive on Pressure Equipment, nor does it meet the mandatory requirement of the ASN, which since 2008, stipulates that any new nuclear reactor coolant circuit component has to have a Certificate of Conformity before its production commences.

“Without a Certificate of Conformity the reactor pressure vessel and steam generators currently installed in Flamanville 3 will almost certainly have to be scrapped”, said Roger Spautz, responsible for nuclear campaign at Greenpeace France.

The review, he added, “reveals evidence that at the Creusot Forge plant, Areva did not have the technical qualifications required to meet exacting nuclear safety standards. The plant was not under effective control and therefore had not mastered the necessary procedures for maintaining the exacting standards for quality control in the manufacture of safety-critical nuclear components.”

Areva has now acknowledged that ineffective quality controls at le Creusot Forge were mainly responsible not only for the flaws in the Flamanvile 3 EPR, but across other operational nuclear power plans – and that the technical failures date back to 1965.

Moreover, ASN has indicated that in the nuclear components supply chain three examples of Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Substandard Items (CFSI) have occurred in the year ending 2015.

The recent ASN publication (24th September 2016) of a list of the NPPs affected by the AREVA anomalies and irregularities demonstrates that the phenomenon not only has reached alarming proportions but is continuing to grow under scrutiny.

The number of components affected by irregularities and installed in NPPs in operation increased by 50 in April 2016 from 33 to 83 by 24th September this year. Irregularities affecting the Flamanville EPR increased from two to 20 over the same period.

… As for For Hinkley Point C, it now appears inevitable that the Flamanville reactor will not be completeted by its target date of the end of 2020, indeed it may very well never be completed at all. Under the terms of agreement for the plant’s construction accepted by the European Commission, this would render the UK government unable to extend promised credit guarantees to HPC’s financial backers.

“Now that ASN has deprioritized efforts on the under-construction Flamanville 3 NPP because of its pressing urgency to evaluate the risk situation for the operating NPPs”, says Large, “there is a greater likelihood that Flamanville 3 will not reach the deadline for operation and validation of its technology by the UK Credit Guarantee cut-off date of December 2020.”

Also at risk are the two EPRs that Areva and EDF are currently constructing at Taishan in China. These are now at the most advanced stage of any EPR projects in the world, however there are increasing fears that they contain faulty components.

The vessels and domes at Taishan were also supplied by Areva, and manufactured by the same process as that utilised by Le Creusot. It is suspected that Chinese nuclear regulators may have decided to overlook this problem and hope for the best. However if they discover that the steam generators, which along with the reactor vessels have already been installed, are also at risk of catastrophic failure, that might prove a risk too far – even for China.

The danger for EDF and Areva is that the massive commercial liabilities they may be accruing for faulty reactors supplied to third parties, together with the tens of billions of euros of capital write-downs for projects they have to abandon, and the loss of generation revenues due to plant outages, could easily exceed their entire market capitalisation.

In other words: for EDF, Areva, their shareholders and the entire French nuclear industry, the end really could be nigh.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988175/sizewell_b_and_27_other_edf_nuclear_plants_at_risk_of_catastrophic_failure.html

Should we judge our LEP by results?

Our LEP loves to take credit – often for the most tenuous reasons – but will it take criticism?

“The South West has haemorrhaged more than 50,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade, a new study by GMB has shown.

The figures were discussed at GMB’s annual Congress in Plymouth between June 4 and 6. …

In 2006 the South West supported 294,400 permanent and temporary manufacturing jobs – almost 12% of the all jobs in the region.

By 2016, that had slumped to just 243,100 or 9% of the total.

http://www.devonlive.com/staggering-50-000-manufacturing-jobs-lost-in-a-decade/story-30391778-detail/story.html

No money trees in Devon – or are there?

“Workers in the South West are £1,500 a year worse off in real terms than they were before the financial crash, according to new figures published by the TUC.

The analysis shows that real wages in the region are 6.7 per cent lower, on average, than they were in 2008. …

One in three jobs created in the South West since 2011 have been in insecure work, according to the figures. The TUC estimates that 281,223 people now work in insecure jobs in the region. That represents one in 10 workers in the South West.

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Workers in the South West are £1,500 a year worse off than before the crash.

“This region badly needs a pay rise. It’s nearly ten years since the financial crisis, and working people are still suffering. Politicians have to explain to voters how they’ll create decent jobs that people can actually live on.

“And there needs to be recognition of the damage pay restrictions in the public sector are having. Hard-working nurses shouldn’t have to use food banks to get by.”

http://www.devonlive.com/figures-reveal-devon-workers-are-1-500-a-year-worse-off-than-in-2008/story-30369615-detail/story.html

AND YET:

“The head of a publicly funded body tasked with boosting prosperity in Devon and Somerset has been awarded a 26 per cent pay rise.

Chris Garcia will now earn £115,000 a year for his role as chief executive of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership.

The controversial proposal was approved by the LEP board at a meeting in Tiverton on Tuesday, January 17.

Devon County Council had signalled that its representative on the board, Councillor Andrew Leadbetter, would vote against the proposed pay award in light of “the tight financial times in which we live”.

http://www.devonlive.com/figures-reveal-devon-workers-are-1-500-a-year-worse-off-than-in-2008/story-30369615-detail/story.html

Undemocratic mayors, undemocratic scrutiny

“The mere election of a mayor … does not mean these new mayoralties are automatically democratic. Mayors work within combined authorities, with cabinets made up of council leaders – all of whom are indirectly elected through a broken First Past the Post voting system.

But there is no directly elected assembly to hold them to account, like that of the London mayoralty. Instead, the Mayor is scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny Committees made of councillors and within the council chambers themselves. This means who sits on those committees really matters.

At the Electoral Reform Society, we want to see a better democracy. And the metro mayors are the biggest change to the governance of England in decades. They are an exciting opportunity to change the way our cities are governed to be more inclusive, more local and more visible.

But we are concerned that this structure passes up existing legacies of problems in local government to the new mayoralties, as we point out in our new report From City Hall to Citizens’ Hall: Democracy, Diversity and English Devolution.

Due to our electoral system, Britain has a multitude of local ‘one-party states’, with almost no opposition in the council chamber. Many of these abound in the areas electing metro-mayors, with some councils having just one member from outside the controlling party.

Previous work for the ERS has shown that these councils risk an extra £2.6bn on public procurement each year, due to a lack of scrutiny.

Concerns around scrutiny are particularly strong in some of the metro-mayor areas because the council leaders – who will make up the cabinets – lack any diversity whatsoever. Only two of the council leaders of the six areas electing combined authorities are women. Only one is from a BAME community. This carries with it risks within the policymaking process, narrowing the experience and knowledge-base around the cabinet table.

So far the combined authority scrutiny committees have also demonstrated a lack of diversity, both political and demographic. On the West Midlands Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for instance, ten of twelve political members are drawn from one party, and ten are men.”

Who’s going to hold the new metro mayors to account?

Owl says: Should Devon and Somerset EVER become a combined authority, our councillors and the Mayor will bend their knees to the nuclear and property vested interests of the majority of businessmen (men) who run our Local Enterprise Partnership – forget scrutiny. It didn’t help when the self-same people gave their CEO a 24% payrise and there was NOTHING councils could do about it.

English devolution – undemocratic and unrepresentative

“… The ERS (Electoral Reform Society) has been vocal in pointing out the solely economic focus of devolution – and the corresponding lack of attention to the democracy of devolution. With the public largely shut out of the process, and models imposed rather than chosen, so far citizen involvement in the constitutional future of their own areas has been minimal. …

… The creation of combined authorities highlights a continuing shift in the role of the councillor. Where once councillors took decisions directly on committees they are increasingly scrutineers: holding to account formal executive structures in the form of mayoral or cabinet/leader structures, or scrutinising bodies such as Clinical Commissioning Groups, Local Enterprise Partnerships, Police and Crime Commissioners, and now combined authorities.

The traditional argument for First Past the Post: that it elects ‘strong’ governments, cannot hold up to the reality of modern councillor life in which councillors are as often scrutinisers as decision-makers, not only of their own executives but of bodies external to the traditional council governance structure.

Yet, there are still many councils overwhelmingly dominated by a single party. …”

Click to access From-City-Hall-to-Citizens-Hall.pdf

Devon County Council witholds payment to LEP over CEO 24% salary increase

Owl says: treat the LEP’s comments about the size of its investment with tons of salt, ask for a REAL breakdown of the figure, particularly all expenses related to Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset.

Politicians from across the political spectrum have joined forces to condemn a publicly-funded local enterprise partnership for giving its chief executive a £24,000 pay rise.

Devon County Council has withheld £10,000 of the funding it gives to the Heart of the South West LEP after Chris Garcia, its boss, took a 26% pay rise. Eight Devon district councils have each held back £1,000 in protest.

The LEP was one of six set up in the South West in 2011 to replace the regional development agency (RDA), which was abolished by the incoming coalition government.

Its chief executive’s pay leapt from £90,729 to £115,000 in January, voted through by business representatives on the board in the face of fierce opposition from local authority members.

John Hart, leader of Devon County Council, told a meeting of the full council that Plymouth was the only council on the board which supported the increase. He said the LEP should be called in for scrutiny after Thursday’s local elections “to ask them to justify their existence”.

Alan Connett, Devon Lib Dem leader, asked councillors to pull out of the partnership “until common sense prevails with regard to top management pay increases”.

He told last week’s meeting: “To award a £24,000 pay rise was obscene in the circumstances, at a time when teachers, nurses, doctors and the public sector generally had been under restraint of low or no pay rises for years.”

Coun Hart said the council should take no further action because it had gone past the point where anything could be achieved. He said the RDA was a body that was strong and represented the whole region, and it had some clout behind it. “The six LEPs are six mini-RDAs,” he said.

Coun Hart said the Government put up £189 million to be shared among the six LEPs. “The initial allocation for Devon and Somerset was abysmal. It did improve, but at the same time it’s not much in relation to what was being asked for,” he said. “Now, unfortunately, a decision has been taken by the LEP which is beyond our control, but I think it’s right that we show that we are not happy with what’s going on.”

Coun Hart said some of the money allocated in the second tranche of funding still had not been spent, while the third tranche was on the way.

Exeter Labour county councillor Rob Hannaford said: “The time for this body to be abolished has clearly come.”

A LEP spokeswoman said: “We look forward to working with the confirmed leaders of the local authorities following the elections and working with them on how we can together increase productivity and prosperity for all in Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay.”

She said the LEP had brought in £722.70 million investment and that the LEP was spending tranche two.”

http://www.devonlive.com/politicians-protest-as-devon-enterprise-boss-takes-24-000-pay-rise/story-30305397-detail/story.html