By Paul Homewood
Bishop Hill had a post the other day, about a presentation on climate change given to the cabinet by Chief Scientist, Sir Mark Walport, seen at right.
One of the slides shown was this one on various scenarios for electricity generation in the UK in the brave new world. (Sorry for the quality, the original is no better!)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Walport-Cabinet%20presentation.pdf
So I thought I would have a closer look at one of the options, “Higher Renewables”, to see whether they made any sense. Let me first say that the presentation does not state when this is all targeted for, so I cannot make any comment about the likelihood of technology for CCS and marine (tidal) becoming available in time.
Total Demand For Electricity
Last year, UK electricity supply amounted to 354 TWh. Walport is projecting forward on a total of 530 TWh, an increase of 50%. This increase reflects the greater demand as domestic heating and transport are decarbonised.
Capacity Comparison
The table below compares projected capacities with current, to give an idea of the scale of change envisaged.
| Current Capacity
GW |
Projected Capacity
GW |
|
| Nuclear | 10 | 16 |
| Wind | 8 | 82 |
| CCS | 0 | 13 |
| Solar | 0 | 14 |
| Marine | 0 | 10 |
| Gas | 37 | 24 |
| Coal | 31 | |
| TOTAL | 86 | 159 |
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends
Notes
1) Current solar capacity works out at about 0.2GW, so to get to 14GW would be an enormous increase.
2) I have not included Hydro, as this is not in the Walport list, but currently capacity is 4GW, and unlikely to change much. Also, Bio is missing, and this currently has a capacity of 3GW.
3) Nuclear – of the current nine sites, only Sizewell B is scheduled to still be operating after 2030, and this has a capacity of 1.2GW.
My understanding is that the proposed new nuclear at Hinkley Point will be 3.2GW, so to get to 16GW, we would need another four of that size.
4) Wind capacity would have to be increased tenfold.
5) The current capacity of gas is probably a little bit misleading, as much of it is old and mothballed. To get a better idea of the amount needed for back up capacity, gas power stations provided 27% of last year’s electricity supply. To supply this amount would require 13GW of capacity, assuming the plants were running at 85% utilisation.
Put another way, the projected gas back up capacity would be capable of supplying about half the UK’s total power, in other words quite a lot!
Power Demand
Let’s now look at the power we need to keep the grid running. Currently, power demand fluctuates between 30GW and 60GW. (See for instance here.) There have been odd occasions when hourly demand spikes at near 70GW, but let’s assume 60GW as a realistic requirement. If total demand increases by 50%, as mentioned above, we would be looking at a need for 90GW, and, with a safety margin, at least 100GW.
It is worth noting here that, while electric cars would normally be recharged overnight when demand is lower, domestic heating would normally be at its peak at the very times when electricity demand already peaks – i.e.winter mornings and evenings. This could mean that peak demand for electricity increases by more than the average of 50%.
So how does Walport’s mix of capacity stack up against this? The guaranteed capacity, excluding intermittent wind and solar, and for the sake of argument assuming hydro and marine * are continuous, would be:
| GW | |
| Nuclear | 16 |
| CCS | 13 |
| Marine | 10 |
| Bio/Hydro | 10 |
| Sub Total | 49 |
| Balance needed from back up | 51 |
| TOTAL REQUIRED | 100 |
* The argument with tidal is that, although not continuous, it is predictable and therefore manageable
In other words, the 24GW of back up gas capacity, pencilled in by Walport, is less than half that is needed. The capacity of 51GW, that is actually required, would in fact be enough to produce about 380TWh a year, about 70% of the total UK supply!
This alone makes a nonsense of his calculations. But it gets worse!
What Happens When The Wind Blows?
Walport projects 82GW of wind power, but, as we have already seen, power demand will probably fluctuate between 45GW and 90GW. So, when the wind is blowing, wind may be able to provide most, if not all, of the power needed.
In which case, what happens to all of the other kit? Will nuclear operators be happy having their plant sat around doing nothing half the time? Of course not. Neither will any of the others.
The most likely scenario is the one we have now, whereby wind operators are paid to turn off supply. This would, of course, be horrendously expensive, but would also call into question why all this wind capacity had to be built in the first place. It would make much more sense scrapping all wind farms, and using gas to top up the other low carbon sources. I also suspect this solution would give a pretty low CO2 figure as well.
Quite simply, Walport’s numbers just don’t stack up.
How often might wind run at near capacity? Research has suggested that wind works at over 50% capacity for about 20% of the time. This figure would probably rise as more offshore wind comes on stream.
So, there will be plenty of days when wind will be able to supply most or all of the power needed.
(The same research suggests that wind runs at less than 29% capacity for half the time, and below 10% for an eighth of the time).
Other Considerations
1) Discussing tidal power, the Committee for Climate Change say, “Even at a social discount rate (e.g. 3.5% and declining over time as in HM Treasury’s Green Book), tidal range is expensive relative to wind and nuclear generation”
2) Imports/Exports can provide a certain amount of flexibility, always assuming we can find someone who wants all our surplus power, or has plenty for us when we need it!
However, net imports are a relatively low figure as far as the Grid is concerned. For instance, the French ICT typically imports about 1GW.
Summary
Let us assume that it is logistically and technologically possible to build the capacity that Walport wants. Even then, on a number of counts, his numbers simply do not stack up.
I may be missing something, and maybe he has all the answers up his sleeve. But there is certainly no evidence of that in his presentation.
Which all rather raises the questions:
1) How does the government’s Chief Scientist manage to come up with such an obviously flawed piece of work? He may be no expert on electricity supply, but there again neither am I, and it did not take me long to spot the obvious flaws.
2) Was there not one Minister sat around the Cabinet table, who had the gumption to ask some of these questions? What about Ed Davey, who is supposed to be Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change?
It has often been said that we only have a Secretary of State for Climate Change now. I guess this whole charade rather proves that this is true.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Government Scientist” = Oxymoron.
Also, CCS is not a power source.
According to Ed Davey (Andrew Marr Show) wind turbine generators are only paid when they produce electricity so either the availability charge does not exist or Davey is not upto his brief or maybe not telling the truth (Ho, Ho).
The tables ignore the imports at least 2GW daily from France and Netherlands.
The Economist had an interesting article last week on the German energy crisis where renewables have totally distorted the energy market and the major utilities RWE and EON are having major financial problems.
Analytic skills are lacking in many politicians and worse yet combine that with quantitative skills most politicians do not have the capacity to even follow your argument with out filling in many details and slowly and carefully connecting the dots. Example: when you argue that drew from his projected capacity numbers those that are guaranteed at all times to come up with the 51% total of projected capacity most of them will be a LONG ways away from your conclusion concerning 70% of the UK supply. They can not process that type of information without guidance.
Unfortunately Ed Davey’s understanding of energy generation is simply appalling. Furthermore, prior to the last UK election, he was firmly in the anti-nuclear camp and LibDems’ anti-nuclear strategist! So is it surprising the UK is commtting energy suicide?
Ed Miliband created the problem through the mad Climate Change Act. Chris Huhne and Ed Davey have stoked the fires of our destruction.
It says there are three electricity sources which are key to meeting the UKs legislated emissions targets. The solution is to simply change the legislation, reduce the targets. These targets are not caste in stone, they are merely chosen out of the blue, they are entirely arbitrary. Change the legislation. Its as simple as that.
Hear, hear: change the legislation!
I encourage as many respondents as possible to echo klem’s call. It’s called a Gordian knot, and if you are bold like Alexander the Great then you simply cut it.
Rich.
I don’t know how far Sir Mark Walport can be trusted. Anyone with a dodgy moustache like that must be a bit… oh, wait a minute. Take back all I said, he must be a decent sort.
rms
Also, CCS is not a power source.
It refers to coal/gas power stations that have CCS fitted.
Climate scientists lobbying for deep cuts in CO2 emissions cannot then wash their hands afterwards of responsibility to propose a solution. There is a missing chapter from AR5 and that is any sort of energy plan for the world that makes any sense.
Sir Mark Walport is a biologist and the poor guy is way out of his depth. He relies on Julia Slingo from the Met Office for the scary slide 3 (see here) and DECC (presumably David Mackay) for the energy plan. DECC seems to be more ‘CC’ than ‘E’ and must keep FOE and Greenpeace happy – hence the totally barmy “Higher Renewables” pathway. I am assuming that David Mackay knows full well that this scenario is pure cloud cuckoo land. I also hope there are some engineers still left working at DECC.
Fine expose, Mr. Homewood (and I KNOW why you used that photo, lol; seems weird (to this American) that “Sir” goes before that fellow’s name).
It is people like you who should be in jobs like his.
“… hope there are some engineers still left working at DECC.” Clive Best at 10:58.
Hey, there are! They put them all in the cafeteria. And it shows. Unlike the “science” belched out of that place, the food is terrific.
Today (in Ontario) we are currently using about 15,500 MW.
Of that Wind is supplying about 880 MW (or ~5.6% of overall supply).
That is actually spectacularly good – usually I observe a fraction of 1% as the wind contribution.
The installed capacity of wind is 1,700 MW, and it came to 3% overall of the 2012 supply.
For this we have paid many billions of dollars to (mostly South Korean) wind manufacturers.
But here is the kicker.
Gas is supplying 1060 MW right now, with an installed capacity of 10,000 MW.
Guess how much we are paying for?
That’s right – the full 10,000 MW capacity – not the actual 1060 supplied.
This is because the only way the government could convince the gas suppliers to stick around for backup was to agree to pay as if they are always running at full capacity!
Meanwhile Quebec (our neighbouring province) is selling a surplus of power to the US at around 6c per kWh, while our electricity bills are skyrocketing and manufacturing industry is fleeing the province.
And it gets even worse. As we are generating an oversupply on occasion, we need to sell electricity at a loss to our neighbours (at a price of around 3c per kWh) to balance the grid. This alone costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The sort of analysis Walport is applying is what has led us here.
I have seen your future and it is expensive.
See ieso.ca for the realtime view of Ontario power generation.
A good resource if you understand the details behind the numbers.
rms says October 18, 2013 at 10:17 am:
Correct, it is a power user.(OK, not net, but inefficient)
As for Paul’s response here to Walport: I hope against hope that he has managed to get it in front of at least some literate members of the Cabinet. Because, if I were Walport, I would not be able to sleep at night with what he is advising our – OUR – government to do…
Magic wands, if the UK invests now in this new technology we could be a leader in making wishes and casting magical spells, the UK government seems to exist in some kind of fantasy world where dreams come true and hopes are sure to be realised if they wish for them hard enough. Facts and figures are made up to order to fit policy narratives, no negative facts are allowed to spoil or detract from the policy aims, if they do they are ignored as if they dont exist. Uninterrupted power it seems has become not so much a disease but something like a frontal lobotomy as it removes our rulers ability for critical and sceptical analysis and even the ability to feel shame for telling deliberate lies. In the USSR a supreme unchallenged political class felt secure enough to lie without pause or shame until the day their rotten edifice collapsed about them, we see the dangers of allowing a political to grow such roots. The truth is that our rulers have been in power for too long, a mass clear out is the only option left before they lead us to ruin.
I’m having on-going discussions with a series of engineers at my office about the lack of thinking-things-through (that this post reflects). Smart people suggesting silly things.
One side, the generous side from my colleagues, is that few people lack the training or skills to “think-things-through”. They are short-term linear thinkers who cannot branch out, swing back, see how things interrelate or infer other things off to the side. Some of this I see in my work: a discussion of pressure increase, for example, without a consideration that, if the trend continues, the object will blow up in 23 months.
The other, less generous side that I now, being older and more cynical, is that many people CHOOSE not to think-things-through: support for politically correct things get very awkward when the real world forces its way in. The rationale in not looking to the inevitable is
1) that things will change before we get there anyway, or
2) as long as some movement along these lines occurs, it is good enough, a non-stated point being that only through exaggeration does ANYTHING happen, or
3) I don’t need trouble during my watch, or
4) really, I don’t care.
Without a doubt there is some inability to understand the ramifications of proposed ideas. But some is willful.
A current example: David Suzuki, among others, propose that there be less people on the planet than now or projected to be. Yet the ramifications of following through with this – as the white, Western, Northern Hemispheric, First Worlders are in numerical decline already (or minimally growing), and China already has a 1-child per couple policy – is enforced birth control and abortion for the non-white and non-yellow people of the planet. The blacks, browns and reds – the aboriginals, the poor and desperate second and third worlders. Suzuki is smart enough and travelled enough to understand where the population increase is coming from (though, with 5 children, he is part of the problem). But many of his followers are idealistic first worlders who think not so globally as to understand that some problems are regional.
High energy costs are already killing tens of thousands of poor pensioners in the UK every year.
These idiot policies will increase that toll.
If you look at this paper on the Danish wind experiment, you will see that wind power goes offline for very long periods of time (even in windy northern Europe). In fact, wind is so unreliable, that Denmark has NEVER USED ANY OF ITS WIND POWER.
http://incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
What does Denmark do? Well, it has interconnectors to Germany and Scandinavia, and when the wind blows it exports all its electricity (the Scandinavians can save hydro water, by turning off their hydro plants).
A good export deal?? Think again – wind power is so expensive to produce that Denmark has to subsidize its electricity exports. This is why Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe.
http://www.energy.eu
Face facts. Green power is economic suicide. All that happens is domestic industry is priced out of the market … your factories move to China … China builds another five coal fired plants to cope with demand … and CO2 output is ultimately doubled.
So if you believe in the CO2 scam, the Greens are actively increasing CO2 and making the climate worse. Wind power is Green fantasy politics at its best.
“… 3) I don’t need trouble during my watch… ” (Doug Proctor at 11:14am)
Or…
“Things as they are will last out my time.” Louis XV.
*****************************************
@ur momisugly Stephanie Clague (11:13am) – “Magic wands… .” LOL.
To be honest I feel quite frightened, I’m only grateful I live quite far (by UK standards) from large population area.
@paul home wood
Yes, agree. But the engineer in me says that they are comparing apples and oranges. Show coal and gas for the future quantities (probably increased due to inefficiency when CCS fitted) and then asterisk with not to say their expectation that xx% is by plants with CCS fitted.
CCS is not a power source. I am acquainted with people in UK who insist it is.
Talking of CCS, I am puzzled by some of the clamouring after this.
It uses far more coal/gas to produce a given unit of electricity. Yet as finite resources, surely greenies above anyone else should be arguing for processes that use them as efficiently as possible?
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Another Government Scientist Providing Politicians With Renewable Energy Calculations That “Don’t Add Up”. No Wonder Government Is So Dysfunctional.
Jud says:
October 18, 2013 at 11:06 am
Today (in Ontario) we are currently using about 15,500 MW.
Of that Wind is supplying about 880 MW (or ~5.6% of overall supply).
That is actually spectacularly good – usually I observe a fraction of 1% as the wind contribution.
As an Ontario resident, I too have kept a watch on the ieso.ca web site. I noticed that sudden jump in wind generation numbers in the 2nd week of September. That was shortly after the Ontario government announced that it would pay wind farm operators to not generate power (as we are in an electricity glut situation here in Ontario) a dollar amount equivalent to the amount of electricity that would have been generated. Bump up the numbers, and more money flows to the wind farm rent seekers.
If I am reading the energy.eu tables correctly the Danes paid on average 0.29525 euros (= CDN$0.42) per kWh…wholly crap that is expensive! No wonder the Tuborg beer we import into Ontario Canada is brewed in Turkey.
In Ontario which has the a pretty screwed up system the equivalent price is CDN$0.0845 per kWh. Note: the current cost of generation is only CDN$0.0052 per kWh which gets marked up thanks to governmental incompetence, corruption, and green policies.