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.
■”Approximately half of the coal fired capacity will have closed by 2015, because of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. ”
This is the key one to follow if you think the general trend of greening the energy sector is going to be put into play. In only 2 1/2 years, all of this coal-fired power will have to be REPLACED, not just shut down. The dominoes will fall immediately, with brownouts if there isn’t a replacement.
As for replacements: we already know that solar and wind don’t work, i.e. aren’t reliable when you really need the power, as in a cold, still winter’s day. Natural gas has far too long a lead time if you think that shale gas with frac’ing is going to step in. No new nuclear plant is months away from operation. DRAX et al cannot produce existing power with wood chips for good, logistical reasons.
In the short term, coal-fired plants CANNOT be shut down at a signficant rate. These plans will be “delayed”, or some such. And that is how the green bandwagon will falter. One stumble at a time …..
… unless the politicos wish to bring on a brownout or blackout in deepest London and get themselves turfed out of office before they can say, “Sure, I’ll mke the seven thousand pound contact!”
I hope women understand that housework is gonna get a lot more difficult. We will not be able to work a paying job and get housework done in a 16 hour day. Without electricity, washboard and clothesline, here we come! That is unless we wise up and vote the globull idiots out of office!
Remember ladies, modern conveniences positively affected women more than men (look it up), and not being able to use them will negatively affect women FAR more than men. We will all be up to our elbows in bars of soap and dirty underwear waiting to be scrubbed unless we take these idiots out of office!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22745578
Critics fear that the measure (William: The ‘Energy Bill’) will make UK power prices uncompetitive and divert investment from other industries.
US electrical power costs are 37% less than Europe, the Energy Bill, will result in economic collapse, not less competitiveness. The critics say the UK should not commit itself to a “green” economy while there is no comprehensive global climate agreement obliging all nations to follow suit.
Note basic analysis indicates there is no significant reduction in CO2 emissions from the massive spending on soft green energy: Wind, solar, and biofuel. The only viable option if there was a warming problem, which there is not, is a massive conversion to nuclear power. (See new documentary produced by climate alarmist US news station CNN and converted environmentalists) China is putting two coal fired power plants into service every week; India one per week. The developing world is developing.
The UK politicians need to take a trip to India and China. If the EU jumps off the green economic cliff, will the US, China, and India also agree to jump off the same scam cliff?
Perhaps the developing world will stop using low cost coal to generate electric power when Hades freezes over.
Madness, does not seem like madness to a group of like minded mad people.
Although I believe nuclear is too expensive, it does at least reduce carbon dioxide emission, which would be a good thing if the planet were not about to cool.
This new film points out the limitations of ‘green’ energy, the inconvenient truth.
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/videos/environmentalists-go-pro-nuclear-in-pandoras-promise-trailer-20130430
The chancellor thinks the UK’s energy future lies with an expansion of power from gas. (William: That clearly is just blinder type thinking. All green thinking politicians should threaten to jump up and down; followed by sever name calling if there is any more of that crazy talk.)
The speech at a Met Office event in London takes place as 55 organisations from green groups to manufacturing bodies issued a joint statement calling on MPs to vote in favour of the 2030 decarbonisation amendment. (William: Oh dear, is it possible there are some groups that could profit from the green scams?)
It says: “We represent different parts of society but are united in the belief that the Energy Bill represents a major opportunity to put the UK firmly on track to becoming a world leading low-carbon economy, boost employment and show genuine leadership in the fight against dangerous climate change.” The list of signatories includes SSE electricity, the Royal Society of Arts and Commerce; Dong Energy; Renewable UK; the Carbon Capture and Storage Association; the Solar Trade Association, the Renewable Energy Association; Business in the Community; the Church of Scotland; the National Farmers Union and the TUC.
Reality will not bite until sub-prime minister Cameron stops subsidising Father-in-Law’s wind farms and the Etonian eco-blinkers fall off and we replace Green Alchemists with true scientists at all levels. All those billions of Green Garbage Renewable subsidies could have gone in starting new Nuclear [including Thorium Salt] reactors and thereby eliminating wind and solar ‘adjustments’ forever. Zak Goldsmith please note.
The politicians who make up all these environmental emergencies to get more power *could* always have a rush of brains to the head, declare the electricity shortage a crisis, and suspend the green laws to get more power plants built or reopened. If they don’t, maybe some candidate running against them will think of it.
I am reminded of this story from the Wikipedia page for Berkshire Hathaway
“In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company’s financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $111⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett’s shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $113⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[8] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing.
Buffett initially maintained Berkshire’s core business of textiles, but by 1967, he was expanding into the insurance industry and other investments. Berkshire first ventured into the insurance business with the purchase of National Indemnity Company. In the late 1970s, Berkshire acquired an equity stake in the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), which forms the core of its insurance operations today (and is a major source of capital for Berkshire Hathaway’s other investments). In 1985, the last textile operations (Hathaway’s historic core) were shut down.
In 2010, Buffett claimed that purchasing Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest investment mistake he had ever made, and claimed that it had denied him compounded investment returns of about $200 billion over the previous 45 years.[8] Buffett claimed that had he invested that money directly in insurance businesses instead of buying out Berkshire Hathaway (due to what he perceived as a slight by an individual), those investments would have paid off several hundredfold”
Mr. Buffet let his emotions get the better of him and made one bad allocation of his resources that ended up costing him hundreds of billions. Why this is relevant to this current discussion is that governments and corporations have, based on even less legitimate emotionalism, been committing more egregious misallocations of resources to unproductive usage 2 to 3 times a week, each and every week, for going on two decades. If we could flip a switch and halt it all right now, what has already been squandered would still cost us uncountable trillions or probably quadrillions by the turn of the next century.
Even if we were to stipulate to all the IPCC’s nonsense projections of catastrophe, none of this bovine excrement would make any sense. Especially since, by their own admission. if the whole world signed on to their harelipped plans and followed through 100% on their commitments, the best that could be hoped for is a change in the future climate that would barely be measurable with any currently available technology.
Of course, due to the inexorable momentum of bureaucracy and propaganda, we won’t be halting this BS any time soon. Which is why I continue to argue that the world of the future will indeed consider CAGW the greatest human disaster of all time, not from anything the climate may generate, but from the incredible damage, misery, and death we self-inflicted on ourselves because we were to foolish, complacent and or cowardly to rise up and say “NO MORE” to our government minders.
Current UK population is ~70 million. The UK Govn’t has just approved migration from a few other Eastern European countries and is estimated to swell the UK population by another 7 million over the next decade. Migration from already approved counties exceeded quotas, in each case, by a factor of at least 10. Good luck to the UK with power supplies, along with forced upto 40% reduced consumption, in the future.
“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?”
After years of strikes, high unemployment, social disruption, riots, increasing migration from Easter Europe, extended welfare demands etc I expect something similar to that which lead to the 1978/79 winter of discontent and/or the poll tax riots in the 1990’s. Mind you, policies and infrastructure is already well established and in place to protect politicians from their employers. I am quite glad to have left the loony EU behind in the mid 1990’s in favour of New Zealand and Australia, mind you we’re not too far behind replicating EU lunacy here as well.
It’s bad enough that they are planning this nonsense, but it’s even worse than you could believe. No engineering quality feasibility study has been done, no engineering quality roll-out plan has been put in place, no one has overall responsibility for the plan. Otherwise it’s ok, La la land indeed.
Some years ago I expected to be a life-long Conservative voter. But no longer. I will never vote for a party whose policies are designed to force up the price and availability of energy. Not only is it based on science that is so obviously wrong, it is also immoral.
There are several conditions that must be met before I return to the fold: Cameron must go, they must stop pushing wind power and they must scrap the Climate Change Bill.
Looks like I’ll be voting UKIP for many years to come….
Chris
It would make far more sense to forget the windmills, just build the backup gas stations and run them at their optimum level producing electricity. The nuclear option is good but should have been started ten years ago given the lead time. Gas stations take about two years to start of output from the first soil removal, and it would seem that fracking gas production can start in about two years provided we start drilling now.
Another thing this government could do of course is to forget the Climate Change act, since CO2 does not drive climate, and reinstate coal and oil. This would reduce power costs since subsidies would not have to be paid for the conventionally produced power. We would also save tax pounds not building the windmills.
Drax power station & BioMass:
Once again, the UK’s decision-makers were sold a pup, aided and abetted by the Beeb’s 5th-columnist Roger Harrabin.
He gleefully reported “Drax will have to import 90% of its biomass. The firm says its major source will be unwanted offcuts from the timber industry, mainly in the Americas.” [My bold]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20303668
Conveniently, that fact seems to have escaped Harrabin’s memory when 6 months later, he was enjoying a ‘freebie’ in Georgia, US, watching forests being cut down for BioMass.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815
It’s always truly amazing how the ballot box ignores common sense until only after the fact. It’s very difficult to be sympathetic when, after climategate, the “plateau” of warming, the series of cold winters, the demonstration of false predictions, the voters continue putting them back into office. Most even seem to have forgotten that five year plans worked swimmingly for the USSR. At least the US politicians doubled it to ten year plans (which makes them either twice as dumb as the UK politicians or the UK politicians half again as smart).
Regardless, the UK is assured of several years of misery when the voters finally take notice they’re freezing, in the dark, at home and without a transportation system capable of supply food to them. Think lead time to build even gas fired generation plants and trying to build them with vastly reduced skilled labor and a flatering economy. ‘Tis why, one supposes, all those colorful terms such as “nutters”, “mad”, “barking mad”, etc., originated.
How long before the American forests start running out of trees to feed our icreasing reliance on biomass from woodchip..?
Then what..?
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Paul Homewood investigates:
Alot of the blame can be laid at the door of “Troffa” Tim Yeo, disgraced ex-chair of the “Energy and Climate change Committee.
David
How long before the American forests start running out of trees to feed our increasing reliance on biomass from woodchip..?
Then what..?
You might be nearer the truth than you realise. We all recall the damaging effect biofuels have had on food production. What effect will deforestation and planting of new forests have?
America is being reforested. Shale gas is in the process of bailing us out. Even California will get on board, and the politicians there will have to make a choice between banning fracking or funding their own pensions. No doubt on that one. If England descends into chaos, thus serving as a salubrious example for the rest of us that it’s not easy being green, I” vote for a a rescue. Build yourself an LNG terminal, folks!
j fisk says: June 13, 2013 at 3:31 pm
We have the coal, lets burn it.
____________________________
We have the coal, but it is in very thin seams and highly fractured. The bottom line is that UK coal is very expensive to extract, in world market terms. Thus if you want to rely on UK coal, instead of easy-to-extract Oz coal, then expect an energy price increase.
We also have the oil, but the oil output is declining rapidly and will never increase in the future. UK oil is in its dotage, and will soon expire. We also have the gas, but that is on its way out too. R.I.P. the North Sea, it was nice knowing you (and wasting your wealth on stupid social projects and imported Chinese goods.)
We can import gas, but this comes from Algeria and Russia. And if you think we can rely on the N African Taliban and ex-Commie Ruskies for reliable gas supplies, during periods of international stress and tension, you have another think coming.
The US has the trees (for this stupid Drax wood-burning plant – biggest in the world), but wood-chip energy puts out as much CO2 as coal. Anyway, there are so many competitors for wood-chip (mostly used for paper-pulp at present), there are bound to be shortages and price increases. Expect the price of your morning newspaper to double, because of Drax and its many competitors.
We do NOT have solar – that is a non-starter. We need more energy in winter. Surely even David Ca-Moron understands that the UK Sun hides in winter.
We do have wind, but only on Thursday mornings and Friday evenings. During the winter of 2010 the wind went calm across the UK for 26 days. Yet David Ca-Moron still has not twigged that no wind equals no electricity.
We could have Severn-barage tidal. But David Ca-Moron still has not realised that the tides change 4 times daily. Thus the electrical supply stops 4 times daily. And when zero supply coincides with peak demand, as it will 4 times a month, the energy is useless. And during neap tides, which occur twice a month (in the first and third quarters of the Moon), your precious barrage will hardly produce anything anyway.
.
In short, we can only have electrical energy if you quadruple the price, kiss an Algerian arse, stop reading your morning newspaper, on windy Thursday mornings that are not in the first quarter of the Moon. Apart from that, the nation will run as smoothly as a sewing machine.
P.S. If we need to kiss Algerian arse to get some gas, this is the guy to send. George Galloway – the UK’s arse-licker extraordinaire….
(Queen Victoria would be turning in her grave.)
.
Ralfellis
HELP!!!!!
Meanwhile here in the Peoples Republic of America
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html
Barry has been promising his Green bankrollers new regulations by July. Given this news from earlier in the week
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/12/oh-good-obama-administration-sneaks-more-expensive-carbon-pricing-into-a-microwave-oven-rule/
“The Obama administration uses their “social cost of carbon” estimate as a tool to price out how environmentally costly they think proposed regulations are going to be, and they just significantly ramped up that price — and buried the move in a small rule about microwave ovens. Via Bloomberg:
The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops. …
With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly….
Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.
“This is a very strange way to make policy about something this important,” Frank Ackerman, an economist at Tufts University who published a book about the economics of global warming, said in an interview. The Obama administration “hasn’t always leveled with us about what is happening behind closed doors.”
No kidding. This is going to be a very useful mechanism for Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and etcetera in justifying the economic costs of their many rules and regulations — and boy oh boy, does the EPA have big plans for us. It really is much better for them if, all of a sudden, their impact studies concerning their many zealous ideas for reshaping our energy sector start to sound ever so much worse — and heck, why should the public need to know the real reason why? It’s all for their own good, after all.”
Given that several analyses from early this year of EPA’s proposed new regs suggested they would lead to the shutdown of nearly 2/3rds of coal powered electrical generation and that even the government, through the EIA, predicts that coal will still be the dominant source of our electrical supply for 30-40 years, everybody needs to be raising Hell with their elected legislators about this or we will end up in worse shape than the Brits, freezing in the dark.
I don’t think the original posting mentioned the new UK carbon tax, which is explicitly designed to make coal-fired generation uneconomic by 2020, regardless of the price of coal on world markets, or of the risk to UK electricity supplies from loss of generating capacity and greater reliance on intermittent renewables.
I’d say more, but words fail me.
BTW, in that first Bloomberg there is a nice bit of accidental truth in one of the quotes from a watermelon enviro
“A broader climate agenda is far more important in the grand scheme of things,” said Josh Freed, director of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way, a Democratic-leaning policy group in Washington, D.C. “Keystone is a battle but climate is the war.”
I know most of the folks who frequent this site like to think of this controversy as purely a matter of science, but the reality is that the science has never been more than another pretext in the continuing “war” of the statist collectivist’s against our Constitution, our rights, and our liberties.
And i hate to say it, but at this point we are in worse shape than General Lee at Appomattox Courthouse.
Since wind energy is often totally absent in the UK for long periods, e.g. during the last week of February 2013, the gas backup in 2030 needs to be equal to the total expected demand minus the dispatchable sources, such as nuclear, bio and “others”, assuming they are also dispatchable. Hydro in the UK is a joke, it runs out too quickly. This means that the total gas backup must be 387 TWh, not 282 TWh. This also means that in reality wind energy is an (expensive) extra.
It must also be taken into account that with so much wind, the gas backup will be running continuously to cope with the intermittency of the wind energy. But the gas plants will not be running at constant rated output with maximum efficiency, but at continuously varying output with (much)lower efficiencies, to cope with wind energy variations. As a result the gas consumption (and CO2 emissions) will be greater than when the wind energy is discontinued.
c.f. http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html
and
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
The targets are so preposterous, this was like shooting sick fish in a poisoned barrel.