By Paul Homewood
I have previously looked at the potential costs of the Climate Change Act, for instance here. But now I want to look at its potential impact on energy supply.
Let’s start with the basic targets that have been set for emissions reduction. The Act commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels, by 2050. Five Year Carbon Budgets are set to plan in more detail how this is to be achieved, and currently these are in force for up to 2027.
Although the First Budget for 2008-12 already shows a saving of 23%, most of this occurred long before the Act, partly because of a mass switch from coal to gas fired electricity during the 1990’s, and partly because of the decline of manufacturing in the UK. The Fourth Budget demands a further reduction of 35% from 2008-12 levels.
In this post, I will be concentrating on electricity generation. I will be looking at the implications for heating and transport in a future post. Let’s then look at how the UK’s power is generated at the moment.
UK Electricity Generation – 2012
| TWh | |
| Coal | 143 |
| Oil | 4 |
| Gas | 100 |
| Nuclear | 71 |
| Hydro | 5 |
| Wind | 19 |
| Solar | 1 |
| Bio | 15 |
| Others | 5 |
| Total | 363 |
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends
It is worthwhile noting at this stage that, although CO2 emissions have been going down since 1990, electricity supply has been going up. Since 1990, demand for power has increased by 44 TWh, or 14%. All of the increase has been from domestic consumers, as the use of labour saving devices, computers and electronic equipment have soared. As population is forecast to increase substantially in coming decades, it seems highly unlikely that demand for electricity won’t continue to grow, despite government hopes for energy saving.
However, leaving this “little” problem aside, let’s look at how the power generation sector might look by 2030, based on government scenarios.
[A note here – the government have made clear that there are various scenarios, and they are not committed to any particular one. Therefore their, and my, numbers are by necessity ballpark. All my calculations, though, are based on the government’s own assumptions]
For the latest Fourth Carbon Budget, the government has set several targets of what needs to happen by 2027. There are also certain changes, which have already been set in motion. In summary:-
- Approximately half of the coal fired capacity will have closed by 2015, because of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. Given the governments’ stated objective of reducing emissions in 2023-27 period to 16% of 2009 levels, it seems highly unlikely there will be any scope for coal fired generation by 2027, (unless with CCS).
- The above also applies to oil.
- Out of the nine nuclear power stations currently operating, only one, Sizewell B, is scheduled to still be operational after 2030. The others are all due to shut by 2023, or earlier.
- The planned switch from conventional heating and transport, into “low carbon” alternatives,(i.e. electric cars, heat pumps etc) will significantly increase demand for electricity. The Committee on Climate Change estimates an increase of 30% between 2020 and 2030. This would imply an increase from 363 TWh to 472 TWh p.a.
- The demand for low carbon heat, in particular, will mainly impact at times of peak demand, i.e. winter months and daytime hours. By 2050, DECC have estimated we may need as much as double today’s electricity capacity to deal with peak demand.
- Government plans assume that Carbon Storage, CCS, could provide 10GW by 2030, about a quarter of current supply. However, the technology for this still has not got off the ground, and planned pilot projects have not yet materialised. It is therefore extremely unsafe to rely on this technology.
- Plans also assume that 15GW of nuclear capacity will come on stream, which represents about ten reactors. The government is currently in negotiations with EDF to build two of these, but these have been bogged down for sometime now. There is no guarantee that they will be successful, or whether the price will be affordable. Given the long lead time in building nuclear, it looks increasingly unlikely whether all ten reactors can be built, on satisfactory terms, in time for the Fourth Carbon Budget.
- Gas produces about half the CO2 as coal does, so currently contributes about 25% of emissions. The Carbon Plan aims for a reduction in emissions from total electricity generation of between 75% and 84%. In other words, based on the lower number, gas can continue to contribute its current level of 100TWh. On the higher target, it would need to be reduced to to 74TWh.
So, taking account of these factors, I have laid out below how the UK’s electricity supply arrangements might look by 2030. There are two scenarios:-
1) BEST – based on the government’s key assumptions.
2) LIKELY – what I would regard as the most likely outcome, and certainly the only one that could safely be used for planning purposes.
Projected UK Electricity Generation TWh – 2030
| BEST | LIKELY | |
| Coal | 0 | 0 |
| Oil | 0 | 0 |
| Gas | 100 | 100 |
| Nuclear | 131 | 50 |
| Hydro | 5 | 5 |
| Bio | 30 | 30 |
| Others | 5 | 5 |
| CCS | 80 | 0 |
| Sub Total | 351 | 190 |
| Balance To Fill | 121 | 282 |
| TOTAL REQUIRED | 472 | 472 |
So even under the best case, there is a hole of 121 TWh to fill, about a third of the electricity currently generated, and logically this can only come from wind/solar.
Solar can be ignored, as it makes such a small contribution currently, and simply is not reliable. But what about wind?
To produce 121 TWh from wind, even on the best scenario, would be a sixfold increase on current levels, an increase of 102 TWh. In the last three years, wind generation has increased by 3TWh per year, so at this rate, it would take 34 years to build up to 121 TWh. On the “most likely case”, we would need an extra 16TWh added each year, something that appears to be totally unrealistic.
Then, of course, there is the question of backup capacity. Wind often operates at less than 10% of it’s nameplate capacity, so, in practice, most of the 121 TWh, (or 282 TWh), will need to be matched by an equivalent amount of backup capacity. In other words, gas.
Unless we are prepared for the spare capacity on the grid to be cut to dangerous levels, there would need to be at least a doubling of gas capacity, all to be left idly spinning when the wind blows. And all of this assumes the best case.
Under the most likely scenario, we appear to be entering La La Land. Energy from wind would need to multiply 19-fold, and all in the space of 10 years or so. And to back it up, we would need to quadruple the current capacity of gas fired power stations.
Generators will not be prepared to put down this capacity without being generously paid for the privilege, and the Energy Bill includes provision for a Capacity Market mechanism, which will offer compensation to suppliers, to be paid for by consumers. Whether even that will be enough to procure the long term investment required remains doubtful.
Either way, consumers can look forward to massively increased bills and energy rationing.
References
1) Electricity Statistics from DECC
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends
2) The Carbon Plan
3) Committee on Climate Change Executive Summary
http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/4th%20Budget/4th-Budget_Exec%20Summary.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I cannot for the life of me understand when DECC think that “a miracle will happen”.
We appear to be entering La La Land.
That just about sums it up.
I believe that if lead times are taken into account there is no possibility of the UK maintaining stable power supplies there will just not be sufficient generating capacity. The costs will also be rising as the subsidies will continue to grow with the number of subsidy farms being built.
In UK in just the first two weeks of March 2013, more than 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty. . That is more people dying of cold in two weeks that died on the UK roads in a year.
Next winter will be worse.
What does it take to UK government ministers and MPs to take action? How many people have to die in UK before these people in power stop trying to make money out of ‘green energy’ and realize the irreversible damage they are doing?
UK energy policy is so goofy that it is almost unbelievable and you just could not make it up. Then you look at the country’s political leaders: Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, all card carrying greenies with little concept of how the real world functions or of any science.
Historians will look back in awe and wonder how the UK could be so stupid over its energy policies.
What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?
UK is a services and high-added value manufacturing economy. Thant means that reliability of supply is vital, else computers and servers go off, and the economy will suffer huge losses, even from a single blackout.
Today in FT: “UK living standards drop to lowest level in a decade” – doubling of energy bills, already at ridiculous levels, will reduce UK to a third world country, as large sways of people already do not use their heating, and higher bills will make the poor chopping trees to cook on, and reduce the middle to the poor.
As I understand, this week UK Parliament passed law by which they expect cut power consumption by 40%.
If UK sticks to the course set by the Parliament, indeed, it is time to abandon ship, as I can see this country completely destroying itself.
I have tried making my views on this clear to the DECC but they are so obviously living in a land of make believe that I gave up in despair.
Mi> Peter Miller says:
June 13, 2013 at 10:55 am
What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?
Especially when the population realizes that:
1. It was deliberately done,
2. The politicians have been left in no doubt that the power grid will go down, and
3. Many of the members of the government have made these decisions in order to line their own pockets.
“As I understand, this week UK Parliament passed law by which they expect cut power consumption by 40%.”
No, that is not correct. The Green Party did propose that as an amendment but it was not part of the bill as passed. The fact that they proposed it shows how mad the UK has become. Of what conceivable benefit to the UK would such an action be?
The Greens in the UK however are totally insane and have started trying to destroy the country along with the environment in orde to save it.
I’ve heard they plan to expand bio-mass. Can they convert some of the coal stations to wood and bump up their bio-mass number? You have it static. I’m not saying anything about the plan makes sense; its obviously insane. But Bio-mass is considered a renewable and the coal plants can be converted – couldn’t some of that 282 Twh deficit be met with bio-mass?
For the National Grid to work it must hold in reserve the maximum theoretical power delivery, which for the UK is currently ~70GW. An all renewable grid is completely impossible in a country like the UK lacking truly massive hydro resources for energy storage. A decarbonized future in the UK without a large nuclear base load is nonsense. In the short term only fossil fuels can dispatch sufficient power to handle the random intermitancy of wind power. Gas is the only resource which can be held in reserve to quickly meet peak demand. Wind is randomly intermittant and if it were to reach more than ~10% peak capacity would threaten the grid with complete collapse as its output fluctuates so wildly. Nor is energy storage on the scale needed feasible, since otherwise we would already have it.
To quote from a recent Danish newspaper article.
The whole energy debate in the UK has become so politicized that it is almost impossible to hold a rational discussion. There are two arguments to de-carbonize energy. The first argument relies on the existential threat of climate change. Independent of whether this is a real threat or not, it still makes no sense for a small country like UK to act unilaterally because it alone can have no effect whatsoever on the climate. So until there is some international agreement the government should not hinder our citizens and industries with very high energy costs all to no avail. The second argument to de-carbonizemore makes more sense. This is that eventually fossil fuels will run out and the world will then have to rely on non-carbon sources, so an effort now is worthwhile in the long run. However we likely have at least 100 years before this becomes an urgent issue. In the meantime there is a related argument that the UK should not have to rely on ever more expensive fossil fuels from unstable countries, and renewables help in this respect. Investment in renewables in this picture is better viewed as an insurance policy against “risks” from climate change and uncertain energy supplies. What insurance premium would you be willing to pay ?
The premium is just too high for Wind Power – A highly unstable National Grid costing 28p/Kwh for wind/gas to insure against a possibly beneficial 1-3 deg.c temperature rise. With another lousy summer developing here in the UK – a bit of warming would be a vote winner.
How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering ?
I suspect that either the plan will be violated or people will leave. Sorry to see this happen in the UK. As Governor Rick Perry would say, Texas has plenty of energy and electricity. Please move to Texas.
William Abbott says:
June 13, 2013 at 11:25 am
I’ve heard they plan to expand bio-mass. Can they convert some of the coal stations to wood and bump up their bio-mass number? You have it static. I’m not saying anything about the plan makes sense; its obviously insane. But Bio-mass is considered a renewable and the coal plants can be converted – couldn’t some of that 282 Twh deficit be met with bio-mass?
Well yes – but not in any ,logical way. They are converting DRAX one of the larger coal powered generating stations to burn woodchips. They are importing these woodchips from the USA – shiploads of them. All this while UK has still got lots of coal.
And government call the UKIP swivel eyed loons !
Bloke down the pub says:
June 13, 2013 at 11:05 am
I have tried making my views on this clear to the DECC but they are so obviously living in a land of make believe that I gave up in despair.
===================
Don’t despair.
The populace is beginning to wake-up 🙂
Sadly the crop of politicians responsible for this madness won’t actually be prominent when the SHTF. Like Bliar, they cosset the limelight when the going is good and then feed off the population in their decline. We, the people, will never get the redress we deserve.
the only sane way to back this up is with shale gas for the spinning capacity.
they need massive grants for that green project, and urgently, it can stand alongside the wind farms.
clearly if you build the wind farms at massive cost the small addition of drilling say 100,000 shale wells and building dozens of combined cycle gas station is chicken feed.
everybody needs to relax, but as a suggestion drill the wells and build the CC plants first in preparation for the wind to back them out of the picture, this will give time for new better technologies in wind, or temperature stability to stop the madness.
Ian W: ‘In UK in just the first two weeks of March 2013, more than 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty.’.
I can well believe it but do you have a source for this information? Seems a difficult set of facts to ascertain for each death.
William Abbott
But Bio-mass is considered a renewable and the coal plants can be converted – couldn’t some of that 282 Twh deficit be met with bio-mass?
Currently it runs at 15 TWh, and I have assumed it doubles to 30 TWh. There may be more potential, as coal plants have be switched to bio.
There could of course be problems with supplying so much woodchip, if other countries follow suit!
With all of this, though, it seems foolhardy to plan energy policy on ifs and maybes. Get the new technology and plant working, and then move on.
How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering?
Probably none. Most of them are ex-lawyers, accountants or Union Shop Stewards/Organisers, so their knowledge of anything technical is strictly limited, which is why the Civil Service runs rings round them and essentially tells them what to do. Incidently, in a recent argument with a “Green Party member I was told all “heat exchanging” systems of power generation MUST go as the heat ‘lost’ in the “Cooling Towers” is contributing to Global Warming …
These are the kind of people driving the UK’s energy policy. La La Land about sums it up.
Thanks for the good information, Paul.
I’m glad I will soon have no family in England.
I thought there were lemmings in England. But I’m told this creatures jumping off the cliffs of Dover are actually people! What a shame.
Peter Miller says:June 13, 2013 at 10:55 am “What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?”
______________________________________________________________________________
On top of an inability or limited ability to afford any power in the first place, power impoverished citizens would appear to be effectively removed en masse from participating in ‘civil society’. I imagine the UK will resemble the set of a very dark science fiction movie. /sarc
In fact, I would anticipate an absence of what passes today for societal cohesion.
Brits are so funny.
The miracle that everyone thinks doesnt exist….
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2013 (this version, v3))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
I know what you meant, but “logically” is not even remotely the right word to use here.
If the government holds to these targets, including the nuclear closures, then clearly the anticipated demand cannot possibly be met. Shortages and rationing must necessarily follow.
P.J. O’Rourke once observed “Communism is the only economic system in the history of the world that can take 80 million highly educated, Protestant work ethic-imbued Germans and turn them into a third world country”. Looks like Greenism may also prove equal to the task.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
June 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“P.J. O’Rourke once observed “Communism is the only economic system in the history of the world that can take 80 million highly educated, Protestant work ethic-imbued Germans and turn them into a third world country”. Looks like Greenism may also prove equal to the task.”
Yeah sure. What communism never achieved Green policies do: A producer is paid a high fixed price for a good that is then given away with some money on top of it. Namely, buying subsidized solar power and “selling” it for negative prices just so it stops melting down the grid.
While the watermelons are in general just socialists, this is a real improvement on Marx.
I see it more like a return to Feudalism. Rich land owners and a privileged elite live in luxury on large estates and “grant” us plebs just enough power to keep warm in return for stringent taxes. The green economy simply turns back the clock 200 years. How can an energy policy possibly make sense which employs 100,000 people to produce 10GW rather than 1,000 people ? Is that progress ? Following that logic why not simply pay people to cycle 8 hours a day on dynamos ? I reckon I can produce 100 watts on a cycling machine – so 3 million people working 3 eight hour shifts could either produce 100 MW of continuous power or be used as emergency backup when the wind drops.
I am currently in correspondence with DECC to let them know I object most strongly to their policy of killing old people in this country. The response from them is to quote the IPCC reports and the Stern review and then, to my last letter they said –
‘It is the Government’s view that the scientific evidence for current man-made climate change is robust and compelling. The scientific case for action is very strong and our policies are firmly based on the weight of this evidence. We would be failing in our duties to pretend otherwise and with other countries around the world, we must take the actions necessary to protect our planet from future significant and potentially dangerous climate change.
Ice core records for the past 800 thousand years demonstrate a close relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and temperatures, with low CO2 concentrations in cold periods and high concentrations in warm periods, due to positive (or amplifying) feedback effects. In the distant past this meant that temperatures tended to ‘lead’ the rise in CO2 but, at the present time, man-made greenhouse gas emissions are leading the temperature rise.
Global average temperature has not increased significantly since around 1998; however, periods of little or no warming should be expected due to both natural climate variability and other drivers (such as small variations in solar output), which can temporarily mask long term warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Other such 15-year long periods of little or no warming have occurred in the record since 1850.
Despite the uncertainties, it is recognised that there are substantial risks associated with some of the projected impacts of climate change, which are likely to be well beyond the range of human experience. For that reason action must be taken to try and minimise these risks. The UK’s contribution to this aim is the Climate Change Act of 2008 which binds the UK to a number of challenging emissions reduction targets. They were recommended to the Government by the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body set up for this purpose under the terms of the Act. In their report[1] they also advised that these emissions reduction targets are affordable.’
I like the bit about how increases in CO2 used to come after temperature rise but now the CO2 rise comes first – it’s the modern way?
‘Robust and compelling’ – they say. We in the uk are in big big trouble with idiots like this in control of our energy policy.
As I lived in the UK until a year ago, I know the reality is people lucky enough to live in older houses are switching en-masse back to burning coal and wood in domestic fireplaces – in many cases, in defiance of clean air laws..
In many cases I believe the wood was stolen from nearby forests, possibly with a bribe paid to the local park ranger – always delivered by people who “did it as a hobby”, who expected payment in cash, never provided a receipt, who you heard about from your neighbour.
Turning to the black market is how you survive, when normal supply is impossible.