French president Emmanuel Macron has outlined plans to build at least six new nuclear reactors in France in the coming decades, reports the Financial Times, “betting big on atomic power to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. Speaking in Belfort, eastern France, about measures to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, Macron said that state-controlled utility EDF will build and operate the new reactors, which will be advanced versions of the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) and will cost an estimated €50bn, the paper explains. In his speech, Macron said: “In the long run, nuclear power and renewables will provide cheaper energy, protected from the turbulences of markets,“ reports Bloomberg. In addition to the six reactors by 2050, there is “an option for another eight”, the Guardian says, adding that Macron would also “seek to extend the lives of all existing French nuclear plants where it was safe to do so”. Macron announced the creation of a new inter-ministerial body charged of monitoring the implementation of the plan, reports Politico. And Reuters reports that EDF will hire more than 3,000 new staff. The Associated Press says: “France’s nuclear safety authority agreed last year to extend the operational lifetime of the country’s 32 oldest nuclear reactors by a decade to up to 50 years. Most nuclear reactors were built in the 1980s, meaning they could be shut down in the 2030s.” The New York Times notes that Macron “had previously pledged to reduce France’s reliance on nuclear power, but has pivoted to burnishing an image as a pro-nuclear president battling climate change as he faces a tough re-election bid in April”. For the new plants, Macron said the state would assume its responsibilities in securing EDF’s finances, indicating that the government may inject fresh capital into the 84% state-owned firm, reports Reuters. And the Independent notes that “EDF’s EPR reactors have suffered a troubled history. EPR projects at Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in Britain are running years behind schedule and billions over budget, while EPR reactors in China and Finland have been hit by technical issues.”

At the same time, Macron also announced that France plans to multiply its solar energy production capacities roughly 10-fold by 2050, reports Reuters: “Solar energy capacities should reach a capacity over 100 gigawatt by 2050, while off-shore wind capacity should grow to 40 gigawatt from virtually zero at the moment.” Shortly before the announcements, “EDF confirmed it would buy a France-based nuclear turbine unit from General Electric as the state-owned utility seeks to bundle nuclear activities deemed as strategic in France’s new push for multi-billion investments into new reactors”, says another Reuters piece.

In other nuclear news, the Economist reports on how UK regulators have approved a Chinese nuclear-reactor design for construction on British soil, but “it is unlikely to be built”. The outlet says: “Hualong One, known in Britain as the hpr1000, has a more straightforward design than other reactors being built in Europe, including one at Hinkley Point, in Somerset. The idea is that it should be cheaper and faster to build than previous models. In the rush to decarbonise the power grid, such a reactor would be a boon. One is destined to be the heart of Bradwell B, a planned nuclear-power plant in Essex.” However, “no Hualong reactor is likely to be built in Britain, no matter what that regulatory assessment says”, the outlet explains: “The politics of Chinese investment in Britain have changed during the five years in which the project has been under consideration…Publicly, the government says no decision has been taken. Privately, it is clear that Chinese involvement in British nuclear-power plants is at an end.”

In the US, Reuters reports that “counterfeit parts” have been discovered in US nuclear plants, “potentially increasing the risk of a safety failure”. And the Associated Press reports that the Tennessee Valley Authority – the largest public power company in the US – is launching a programme to develop and fund new small modular nuclear reactors as part of its strategy to reduce emissions.

The owner of the shale fracking company Cuadrilla will permanently plug and abandon its two shale wells in Lancashire, reports the Guardian, “drawing a line on Britain’s failed fracking industry”. Francis Egan, the chief executive of Cuadrilla, said the industry regulator – the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) – had ordered the “ridiculous” shutdown of the wells in the northern Bowland Shale gas formation despite Europe’s gas supply crisis. The paper says that the OGA originally called for the wells to be shut down last summer and gave Cuadrilla until June this year to complete the work. Egan’s stance has “won support from two members of the Conservative net-zero scrutiny group”, the paper says: “Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, the [climate-sceptic group], described the shutdown of the redundant wells as ‘madness’ and Steve Baker, the group’s deputy chair, said the decision would ‘make the situation even worse’ for households struggling with energy bills.” A Whitehall source tells the Times: “Fracking led to unpredictable and unmanageable seismic events in local communities. Even if new scientific evidence emerged and we lifted the moratorium tomorrow it would take approximately 10 years before sufficient quantities of gas could be produced for the market. Given [that] gas is a globally traded commodity with prices set by international markets, there’s no way domestic production would have a material effect on wholesale prices.” The OGA said it expects licensees to manage redundant well stock “responsibly”, notes the Independent, which includes the “timely plugging and abandonment of non-producing wells”. The Daily Telegraph reports the comments of a department for business, energy and industrial strategy spokesperson, who said: “We ended support for fracking on the basis of scientific evidence, showing that it is not currently possible to accurately predict the probability and size of tremors associated with fracking. Shale gas remains unproven as a resource in the UK.“ Environmentalists “welcomed the decision”, reports the Daily Mail, with Greenpeace UK’s head of climate Kate Blagojevic saying the claim that shale gas could help with the energy crisis had been made a decade ago, but “years later, all this industry has given us are a couple of holes in a muddy field and some minor earthquakes”. BBC News and Sky News also have the story, while the i newspaper has an explainer on fracking.

Meanwhile, an i newspaper investigation reveals that Cuadrilla “carried out Facebook surveillance on anti-fracking protestors and forwarded a stream of intelligence to police”. The outlet says it has obtained “more than 180 pages of redacted company and police emails”, which “show the firm grabbed screenshots from activists’ public Facebook groups and passed them to Lancashire Police during the fraught protests over the firm’s fracking site near Blackpool”. One expert in the legalities surrounding protests, tells the outlet that there is “mounting evidence” of an “increasingly unhealthy relationship” between fracking companies and the police.

Chinese financial publication Caixin reports that China’s regulators are “ramping up” their efforts to “rein in” soaring thermal coal prices as the gap between supply and demand for coal “widens” after the Lunar New Year break. The outlet notes that China’s state economic planner “proposed to cap the ex-mine prices for the most-used 5,500 kilocalorie thermal coal below 700 yuan ($110) per tonne, and the price at ports under 900 yuan” at a meeting with “top local energy officials and executives” on Wednesday. Caixin cites “people at the meeting”. Reuters reports that China’s thermal coal futures “fell as much as 7.5%” on Thursday after the state economic planner “warned companies against inflating coal prices”.

In a separate article, Caixin reports that China has “scrapped” an “ambitious” plan for its steel industry to peak carbon emissions “by 2025”. It says that the country pushed the deadline “back five years” in the final guidelines published earlier this week. (Carbon Brief’s China Briefing, sent out to subscribers yesterday, analysed the latest instructions for the steel industry.) Meanwhile, China Daily reports that, according to Chinese authorities, the country has made “notable progress” in fast-tracking businesses’ low-carbon transition through its carbon market. The state-run newspaper says that “a decline had already been registered in carbon emissions per unit of electricity” following the carbon market’s first cycle of trading last year. Separately, China’s state news agency Xinhua reports that China’s green bond market “is likely to expand in 2022 and for years to come” due to the nation’s carbon-peaking and carbon neutrality drive.

Elsewhere, the South China Morning Post analyses Beijing’s efforts to make the Winter Olympics 2022 “carbon neutral” and assesses the criticism against it over artificial snow. The New York Times calls human-made snow “the environmentally unfriendly secret of the Beijing Olympics”. Furthermore, China’s Securities Times reports that the country’s Ministry of Transport instructed relevant officials and agencies to “fully promote all carbon-peaking and carbon neutrality works” for the transport industry in a meeting on Thursday.

Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest private sector coal producer, posted its highest quarterly profit in at least two decades, reports the Financial Times, “as it rode a wave of surging demand despite global efforts to shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel”. The company yesterday reported a net income of $513m in the final three months of 2021 – up from a loss of $129mn a year ago and “marking its most profitable period in records going back to 1999”, the paper says. Peabody said the revenue surge was due to “significant improvements” in prices for both metallurgical coal, used to produce steel, and thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity. The FT explains that “a rebound in steelmaking as global economies bounce back from the pandemic has driven up prices for the former, as supply chain issues constricted availability. Demand for coal in power generation has risen because high natural gas prices have driven a switch back to coal among many power producers”. The results “have turned round the fortunes of Peabody”, the paper notes, which “went through bankruptcy proceedings in 2016-17 and had warned of its ability to continue as a going concern as recently as 2020”. (Peabody has been accused over the years of funding lobby groups attacking climate science.)

In other coal news, Reuters reports that Indonesia has suspended the operations of more than 1,000 miners of coal, tin and other minerals due to a failure to submit their 2022 work plans. Indonesia is the “world’s top exporter of thermal coal”, the newswire notes.

In an “exclusive”, the Sun reports that “North Sea gas could be prioritised for British homes and businesses ahead of being sold abroad under new plans”. The paper continues: “Senior government figures have ordered officials to look at ways of prioritising UK energy suppliers over foreign customers, as global prices rocket.” Britain exports “enough gas in three months to heat 8.5m homes for a year”, the paper says, but “with a new Cold War with Russia looming, secret plans are being drawn up to protect the UK’s energy”. A source tells the paper: “Unlike EU countries, Britain is not dependent on Putin’s gas. We are in an enviable position thanks to a secure gas supply from the North Sea in an uncertain world.” (A Guardian editorial – see Comment section below – notes that “producing more hydrocarbons at home doesn’t increase our domestic energy security because the product is exported to international markets. One answer would be to nationalise production – but Tory MPs are unlikely to welcome such a policy.”)

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that “electric car owners will be called on to help Britain avoid an energy crunch as suppliers prepare tariffs allowing them to draw power from parked vehicles at times of low supply or high demand”. The paper explains: “In the trial, which will begin at some point from April to June, car owners will agree to allow the grid to draw power from their vehicles and release it as and when required. They will be paid for energy which the grid drains off. The scheme is being run by the National Grid and domestic supplier Octopus Energy, which has recruited 135 households.” The paper has an accompanying article explaining how the scheme will work. It also has a piece from personal finance reporter Will Kirkman on “why you should say no to getting a smart meter”.

“With gas prices trebling and the bosses of fossil fuel companies proclaiming ‘cash machine’ profits, surely Labour’s Ed Miliband is right to call for a one-off increase in corporation tax on North Sea producers to fund lower bills for consumers,” says a Guardian editorial. The paper says that “Big Oil’s claim that it is paying its fair share to the Treasury is not credible, given that handouts from the state have often actually exceeded the tax take that the industry generates…Such firms say cash is needed to transition away from fossil fuels. Yet since 2016, BP has spent just $3bn (£2.2bn) on clean energy investment, against a whopping $84bn on oil and gas exploration and development.” However, a windfall tax is not part of chancellor Rishi Sunak’s plans, the paper says, as he “seems more intent on currying favour with climate sceptic Tory MPs”. The article concludes: “To protect consumers, politicians should crack down on profiteers. To protect the planet, they should transition the economy away from carbon-based energy in favour of green substitutes. Both policies could be combined if firms were forced to pay for frying the planet. But there will be an electoral price for doing nothing.”

(In related news, Bloomberg energy reporter Laura Hurst says that the “world’s oil supermajors are pumping out cash as if crude was already trading at $100 a barrel”, and the Financial Times reports that TotalEnergies is to launch a $2bn share buyback and increase interim dividends after higher oil and gas prices delivered its most profitable quarter in 18 years.)

Taking the opposite view, Martin Vander Weyer – business editor of the Spectator – writes that windfall taxes are “a rotten idea”. The reasons, he writes, are because “they are retrospective, opportunist confiscations from investors who are in many cases the pension funds that hold the savings of millions of citizens; and because, both by signalling political hostility towards big business and creating the possibility of repeated tax raids, they deter capital investment by UK companies and multinationals”. Jeremy Warner – assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph – agrees: “The basic point of principle is that if there are excess profits to be made, it is better that the markets decide how they are reinvested and allocated than they are just squandered anew by government on supporting consumption. One of the great structural weaknesses of the UK economy is that we under-invest and over-consume. A windfall profits tax to cut energy bills would merely compound this failing.”

In the US, Catherine Rampell – opinion columnist for the Washington Post – has a piece arguing why fuel duties should not be cut in the face of rising gasoline prices. She writes: “Already, the price of gasoline doesn’t reflect the fuel’s full cost to society from carbon emissions and other pollution. Further subsidising gasoline – with the biggest benefits going to people with the least fuel-efficient vehicles – isn’t helpful. In the long run, we want incentives that entice people to shift their behaviour toward less greenhouse-gas-intensive technologies. Not an implicit government guarantee that gas will always stay cheap.”

Philippa Nuttall – environment and sustainability editor of the New Statesman – writes that the British public “was sold a lie” on leaving the EU and “it is about to be sold another by the same troupe that brought us Brexit”. Climate action “appears to have become his new whipping boy” for Nigel Farage, founder of the UK independence Party, writes Nuttall: “Rumours abound that Farage plans to launch a national campaign for a referendum on pursuing net-zero. ‘Just like the European question, just like the open-door immigration question, just like so many things, these [net-zero actions] are imposed upon British people,’ he said this week.” A supporting cast could include Tory MPs Steve Baker and Craig Mackinlay (once the deputy leader of Ukip), says Nuttall: “They, too, have adopted opposition to net-zero as their new standard, launching the net-zero scrutiny group in 2021. Climate scientists have accused the group of opposing climate action, but supporters insist they are only opposed to the cost of reducing dependence on fossil fuels.” The right-wing media is also “leading the charge against climate action”, says Nuttall, “printing misinformation or playing with the truth to suggest that the green agenda, rather than gas, is responsible for the energy crisis, and casting doubt over everything from wind power to electric vehicles and heat pumps”. While the prospect of a net-zero referendum “might now seem remote”, Nuttall notes that “the same could have been said of a Brexit referendum, which, in 2011 was rejected by parliament”. She adds: “History could repeat itself; instead of focusing on how renewable energy offers a way out of the cost-of-living crisis, politicians and climate campaigners might frame their defence of net-zero around emissions targets and potential temperature rises, concepts that set nobody’s heart racing.” Concluding, Nuttall writes that, “while there are many similarities, there is one significant difference between Brexit and climate change. Brexit is a costly annoyance…but hopefully no-one has died because of the vote. If the anti-net-zero brigade win, however, it would have global repercussions including death and destruction. This is not a game. We have all been warned”.

Meanwhile, in a letter to the Guardian, the chairs of eight all-party parliamentary groups – including on climate change, net-zero, clean air and fuel poverty – write that “parliamentarians who are not fully behind net-zero are a small minority”. They continue: “Our groups are supported by hundreds of parliamentarians, from all major parties, representing the full geography of the UK. We recognise that all our 2019 election manifestos committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. We recognise the environment is now a top concern of the British public. And we recognise the spiralling climate crisis and the urgent need to transition to a more sustainable economy. There are different approaches to reach net-zero, but we all support the goal. Delaying action will cost the country more, as the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility have made clear. In the national interest, we will continue to support and promote ambitious environmental leadership in parliament.” The Guardian has an accompanying news article.

Finally, Shaun Spiers – executive director of the Green Alliance thinktank – has a piece on the group’s “Inside track” blog on the “steady drumbeat of opposition to net-zero”. The Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto and the government’s commitment to net-zero and nature restoration, “are now being opposed by an increasingly vocal group of MPs and commentators”, says Spiers: “How seriously should we take these guys (they are mostly guys)?” This “small group of Conservative ultras should not be dismissed”, writes Spiers: “They have zeal and a large chunk of the press on their side. And, while we argue about substance, they are really fighting a battle over the future of the Conservative Party and whether Brexit delivers what many of its supporters wanted: a small state, ‘low tax, low regulation’ country that is safe for unbridled capitalism.” However, “it would be a huge electoral risk for any Conservative leader to weaken environment policies ahead of the next election”, says Spiers, adding that “it would also be economically and strategically foolish for the UK to backslide after effectively leading the way, from net-zero to COP26”. He concludes: “The net-zero strategy is a long term market signal. It is bringing investment to areas across the UK that badly need it. Policy equivocation would cause this to dry up rapidly, fatally undermining the government’s flagship levelling up agenda. I hope the government will hold firm, even if there is a change of leadership. But there is no room for complacency.”

A new study finds that the pyrogenic carbon – including soot, biochar and black carbon – generated from fires can persist in landscapes for thousands of years. Researchers use a land surface model in a quasi-steady state to calculate the carbon generated by fires in different types of biomes. They find that while the carbon lost from forest fires outweighs the pyrogenic carbon generated, fires in grasslands and savannahs can actually result in long-term carbon accumulation and partially “compensat[e]” the losses from forest fires. The authors write that their study “highlight[s] the regional complexity” of fire-carbon dynamics and “challenges the narrative that fires are solely catastrophic phenomena”.