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
The biggest gripe I have about this analysis is its overly pessimistic outlook for nuclear power.
Britain has already allocated sites for new plants and has concluded agreements with I believe three companies for the Gen 3 plants. The world has changed over the past few years with respect to nuclear, and cost overruns and regulatory delays are mostly a thing of the past The US trails the world badly, with only 5 or 6 new plants scheduled over the next 5 years.
We once had the means to design and build nuclear powers stations in the UK, but now we are at the mercy of foreign companies who can refuse to build unless they are guaranteed profits well above the going rate.
The only way to meet the growth in demand is to frack for gas, and the only way to cope with retiring coal and old nuclear plants is also gas, since the gas is locally available and gas plants have a short lead time. Eventually an enlarged nuclear base load is the only way to achieve their aims.
The only thing in the proposal which has any sense at all would be to encourage the use of heat pumps in homes already using electricity for heat. Money spent on heat pumps is far more effective than money spent on windmills.
Just because the idiots in the house of commons passed it into law doesn’t mean those targets will or can be met. Perhaps UKIP will come from nowhere to pull off a clean sweep at the next general election and put an end to this idiocy which is economic suicide par excellence.
“Government plans assume that Carbon Storage, CCS, could provide 10GW by 2030,”
Am I missing something here ? how does carbon storage generate power ? Carbon storage sounds like another name for carbon capture which will consume even more power.
Invest in a 3kVA diesel genset and a few 5 gallon jerry cans. Unless these are banned by the loons in power, it is the only way to ensure a constant supply of electrical power, or vote UKIP, it’s cheaper.
@ur momisugly Eric Worrall
I can attest to that. I live in a large old house, with open fires, and three coal and wood burning stoves. We do have gas powered central heating system, but have not used it in years. Boiler just heats water for baths/washing up.
What makes me wonder, is that coal on the market costs these days 50 USD per ton, yet if I were to order it from my national coal merchant CPL, retail price is 380 UK Pounds, or 600 USD per ton.
We burn through about a ton of coal per winter, I am thinking of ordering a container load of coal from China, and starting business selling coal to neighbours. Everybody who I know living in older houses fitting wood and coal burning stoves.
We also burn a lot of wood, and I am thinking of getting a large lorry of round wood delivered. I am good with chainsaw.
We have abundance of heat in the house, but I feel sorry for the less fit or less capable of looking after themselves.
Years ago, I looked into installing solar hot water system (forget about solar electric, as it is even less efficient), and found it to be a waste of time and money. Best investment to keep us warm so far is my Huskvarna chainsaw, at 240 UK pounds, 10 years ago, still going strong, crunching trough tons of wood.
Economic suicide to achieve probably less than one hundredth of a degree centigrade reduction in temperatures, or a delay in global warming of about 1 day per year.
A broken economy, riots and social breakdown will be the outcome.
The only hope is that, ever shorter, cooler summers, ever longer colder winters which are looking increasingly likely may cause a rethink, especially if global temperatures fall markedly thus undermining the so called science that underpins the idiot members of parliament religious convictions.
Those who dwell in the UK need to practice living without sufficient electricity… and quick! Only reality seems to knock common sense back into action. Sadly, all this has dire consequences for the population.
Your conclusion, that “either way, consumers can look forward to massively increased bills and energy rationing”, seems to be supported by the last-minute amendment tucked into last week’s Energy Bill. The amendment was a new Clause 11 (see Hansard – end of http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130604/debtext/130604-0002.htm
and the begining of
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130604/debtext/130604-0003.htm.).
Item (1) of this amendement states, “The Secretary of State must within 12 months of the passing of this Act publish a strategy setting out policies to achieve a reduction in demand for electricity of at least 103 TWh by 2020 and 154 TWh by 2030.”
Since the UK used around 375 TWh in 2012, this means a 40% reduction in electricity use by 2030.
Item (2) gives the Secretary of state very wide powers to achieve this: “The Secretary of State may, instead of conferring functions on the national system operator, confer functions on such other person or body as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Finally, Item (5) says: “Nothing in the strategy shall rely upon the use of the price mechanism to reduce demand.”
The immediate questions are: (1) Why does the UK Government think this amendment necessary? (Your post gives an answer to that.) (2) Precisely how does the Government plan to achieve such a reduction in power consumption?
The Climate Change Act is dead in the water.
It just hasn’t realised it yet.
We are already living in LaLa Land over here in the UK, so far as energy policy is concerned.
Fortunately Tim Yeo MP has been forced to stand aside (for the moment) from the Chairmanship of the ‘Energy and Climate Control’ Parliamentary Committee; he has been pushing Green policies and profiting from them for years now, as recently recorded on WUWT.
If Peter Lilley MP takes over the Chairmanship we have some hope of sanity creeping in: he has a degree in Physics, and thinks the whole AGW furore is nonsense.
Meanwhile, I’m another of those lucky enough to live in a rural area with a fireplace in my house. the winter before last I heated my house entirely from fallen wood I carried home on dog-walks (bigger pieces in my car). I couldn’t do that this winter past, due to a broken leg; luckily a kind rich friend in America helped out with funds. When I’m too old for such exertions as foraging for wood, I shall have to live in one room and no doubt I shall be staying in bed most of the day.
Old people in rented accommodation with only gas heating are already living in freezing conditions, as it’s too expensive to use now all day (or for some, to use at all). In this way they contract bronchitis and pneumonia, and die off in great numbers, saving the govt lots of money no doubt.. From a government withdrawing ‘benefits’ from those dying of cancer, and from soldiers with severed limbs, on the grounds they are ‘fit for work’, little help can be expected to keep the economically inactive warm .
Agreed – the entire strategy is completely insane. Unfortunately the people of this country are not natural revolutionaries, usually accepting ridiculous laws with a shrug. In France they would be burning cars in the street by now.
Of course, the nation’s natural choice of news provider (the BBC) would not ever pick holes in the scam, being part of it.
The reality is beginning to bite now, however, with huge increases in energy bills. In my case the cost of heating my home through the cool spring has effectively tripled, compared with previous years. And this in spite of a new high efficiency gas boiler, new thermostats and new double glazing. I am fortunate that I am earning good money and can pay. There must be so many who cannot now.
People need to get into the streets outside parliament and make their anger known to the loonies in power.
arthur4563
The biggest gripe I have about this analysis is its overly pessimistic outlook for nuclear power.
Britain has already allocated sites for new plants and has concluded agreements with I believe three companies for the Gen 3 plants
At the last count, the Labour govt in 2009 allocated 10 sites. But currently no contracts have been signed to build them. We are still in negotiations with EDF to build two reactors, but price remains a sticking point.
Other potential bidders such as Centrica and the Chinese have pulled out, so EDF pretty much have us over a barrel.
Given the long lead times in building nuclear plants, it is difficult to see how we will get more than a couple by the mid 2020’s.
It is impossible to see further ahead than then, but I repeat what I said earlier, we should not be basing our energy policy on ifs and maybes.
J Martin
Am I missing something here ? how does carbon storage generate power ? Carbon storage sounds like another name for carbon capture which will consume even more power.
Govt is hoping that CCS technology will be developed to allow gas/coal plants to be built using CCS, to make up some of the shortfall.
By law, no new coal power stations are allowed to be built without CCS. Govt has the power to extend this restriction to gas as well in future.
The Gray Monk says:
June 13, 2013 at 12:15 pm
How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering?
Probably none. Most of them are ex-lawyers, accountants or Union Shop Stewards/Organisers,
——————————-
An increasing number don’t even have that sort of experience.
They start out in student politics, become a bag-carrier for a politician and are eventually, if they are bland, obsequious and glib enough, parachuted into a safe seat in a part of the country they have previously barely heard of. If there are any byways on this trajectory it is via local politics, “think tanks” or the odd fake charity/green pressure group. They become MPs without the faintest clue of how the real world works or how most people live their lives.
It goes without saying that anything actually useful they have done for anyone else in this time is purely coincidental. They have said a lot but achieved nothing.
Which perfectly prepares them for life as a 21st Century MP.
Incidentally iI watched the “cash for questions” Panorama last night where, in a sting operation, an MP was bribed to ask questions in the House of Commons for the benefit of that military dictatorship, Fiji.
Regardless of the corruption, I wondered how on Earth have we got to the stage where an MP can ask such questions in the House without other MPs not asking “What the **** has the prosperity of Fiji got to do with this guy’s job in supposedly representing the people of Newark in particular and the UK in general?” That’s even if they didn’t realize that Fiji’s sugar industry is direct competition for Newark’s only real industry, sugar beet!
Although it goes against the prevaling public belief, we have broken up the power industry too much. The individual companies are too small to carry the financial and technical burden of the required new build programme. In addition having so many smaller players allows ignorant an incompetent politicians and civil servants to highjack the industry. A monopoly or duopoly would be able to argue back against ministerial idiocy more effectively and manage the required resources. We have let shortsighted fools cripple one our key industries and every facet of our society suffers as a consequence even if they don’t recognise that fact.
a tale from South Australia:
13 June: Adelaide Advertiser: Miles Kemp: Power generators accused of using lack of wind as excuse to charge more for electricity
WELFARE groups have accused electricity generators of using a wind failure as a smokescreen for a wholesale electricity price spike that will increase electricity bills.
The incident happened last week when the price increased from the average below $100 per MwH to $12,199 MwH…
AGL owns Torrens Island power station, as well as about 25 per cent of the state’s wind power.
The price blowout began last week when AGL’s wind generation capacity dropped to zero. Between Saturday June 1 and Monday June 3, all wind generation in SA dropped from 900 MW to zero because of weather conditions.
AEMO has told adelaidenow other generation units were also offline, causing the price spike.
“The reduced thermal generation capacity included plant at Osborne and Torrens Island,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.
“The Murraylink interconnector (which brings electricity from Victoria) was out of service due to a cable fault.”…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/power-generators-accused-of-using-lack-of-wind-as-excuse-to-charge-more-for-electricity/story-e6frea83-1226663374181
——————————————————————————–
@ur momisugly krechetov
I have another suggestion – get away while you still can. I like Farage, the only sensible politician left in Britain, but I believe he will fail – if he approaches too close to success, he will have an unfortunate accident.
The looters who now run Britain will see your family cold and hungry, to keep their dachas warm. Your business will be destroyed by their politics and greed.
It was an expensive, difficult decision to leave, and we left it too late – the move wiped us out financially. But at least now we have a chance.
Paul, surely there is a limit to how much the people of UK will put up with. My earlier estimates of this, of course, have gone by the boards – I knew earlier generations of Brits and this confounded my thinking. Also, I give CAGW 5 years to totally collapse – helped by an election in the USA. UK will hang on longer because both left and so-called right have all bought into this figuratively and literally. You know in extremus that humans can turn to cannibalism eventhough they put this off for the longest possible time. For self preservation, I’m afraid the dominant left is going to have to opt for the hated, real right, just like reluctant cannibals have had to make their choices in extremus.
We have the coal, lets burn it. I am sure our Victorian forefathers would spin in their graves if they saw the mess we were in.
I recently had a meeting with a VERY senior civil servant at DECC (work related so unfortunately I cannot name and shame, will get sacked if I do). I asked what research the government is doing into thorium reactors? The response was ‘what is thorium’.
This country is screwed.
I understand what’s going on now.
The UN has the right idea.
Raise the price of energy.
This is the easiest way to get rid of the infirm and the poor.
The parasites are gone.
Only the rich and strong survive.
Those folks at the UN really know their stuff.
They’ll figure out a way to get 100s of millions of dead and refugees, somehow.
cn
Let’s not forget that the “planners” have another string to their bow.
At huge expense a programme of fitting “smart meters” will be rolled out across the country I think this was due to start in 2014 but has just been put back 12 months. A key feature of these meters is the facility for remote disconnection.
So, when power runs short – as it inevitably will – demand will be reduced by cutting off consumers.
In an earlier post someone asked how many of our MPs are scientists or engineers. Some time ago I found a list of MPs’ qualifications and activities, I think it was on a site called “They work for you”. As well as those with obvious technical qualifications I added some who are heavily involved in science committees, etc.. The total was about 70 – just over 10% of the chamber. ‘Nuff said.
Just as the alchemists of the past tried to turn lead into gold, what we really need now is someone to convert coal into biomass. It went the other way quite naturally, we just need to reverse the process and we can start burning it again.
(sarc)
Alleagra says:
June 13, 2013 at 12:10 pm
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.
There are multiple references in the internet the death rate is over 150 a day but who cares? right? –
“The number of deaths last month has increased by more than 5,000, following the second-coldest March on record. Official figures for the first 3 weeks of March 2013 showed that there were 4,206 more deaths than the average for the past 5 years. With another 1,000 expected during the last week of the month, this pushes the number of extra deaths to over 5,000.”
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/5000-extra-deaths-during-march/
It is easy to understand why the government doesn’t want the citizens to own guns. God Bless the U.S. Constitution. The inmates are in charge.