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.
ianraustin says:
October 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for the article. There is another side to this story, I have not seen discussed anywhere, and that is on the demand side i.e. something called “Dynamic Demand”. Domestic devices such as fridges and freezers are being made with electronics that monitor the mains frequency so that during periods of heavy load, when the mains frequency will be lower your fridge and freezer will not run thereby reducing the overall load on the system.
Better still, the government could, for once, do something useful and require white goods manufacturers to add timers so that washing machines, dishwashers and dryers could be set to start in the early hours on an economy tariff. This would cut peak loads during the day.
As for Groucho Walport – obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer!
“Bill Church says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:58 am”
Fisher and Paykel do this already with appliances like dishwashers so that you can run them overnight during low demand times. It is a good idea!
“SandyInLimousin says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:56 am”
I am fully aware these extremely wealth career politicians are so far removed from the realities of ordinary life in the UK. I recall the winter of discontent, during one of the coldest winters (Yes, during the time when the “consensus” was an ice age was coming. Look up the lyrics of “London’s Burning” by The Clash), along with power strikes. Fortunately, albeit cold in the mornings, the house I lived in then did have an open fire with a wet-back, we burnt coal when we could afford it and wood from where ever we could find or “acquire” it, no central heating but gas cooking and a gas powered fridge (Via a coin operated meter).
This is scary. Are these people for real?
For the concerned go here:-
http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_8,cos_8.1,cos_8.1.10/139808
Portable generators will be needed by the sound of it. This one is OK for light and basic electricals, but no good if you want heat.
I would also invest in some warm clothes , due to extreme price of gas over here in the UK.
Luckily fire lighters are not taxed heavily (yet). So it might be time to open up the chimney again and get a real fire going. All the public information received regarding climate change should burn nicely.
“John Edmondson says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:24 am
Luckily fire lighters are not taxed heavily (yet).”
You will find Doritos work just fine as fire lighters too!
Strong, autocratic central control of business must result in decay.
Governments make political decisions.
Businesses make business decisions.
When government controls business, they make political decisions. Businesses being run on political decisions will decay.
Nice article Paul. I’d have responded sooner except my ISP managed to screw up a minor service upgrade and shut our internet down for about 14 hours. Anyway, IMHO, 82 MW of wind and 14MW of solar are a travesty without something approaching 60MW (not sure I calculated that properly, but intuitively it seems about right) of backup … UNLESS THERE IS MASSIVE POWER STORAGE CAPABILITY THAT WE CURRENTLY DON’T KNOW HOW TO BUILD.
Unlike many folks here, I have nothing whatsoever against renewable energy. But let’s get the engineering right. And right now in 2013, economics and the realities of wind and solar availability say that only relatively small amounts of wind and solar electric power make sense, If one expects the lights to come on reliably when the switch is toggled. IMO, there must be sufficient economically viable backup power for the inevitable days that the entire UK is obscured by clouds, the wind doesn’t blow, and heating demand is high. Planning based on a sunny windy day in June or even annual average sun and wind simply will not work.
What would an installed capacity of 82GW wind actually mean for a small island like Britain ? Energy density from wind is 2.2 W/m2 of land cover. This figure is derived in David Mackay’s book appendix B of “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” and he is currently chief scientist at DECC. The main problem with wind is that you have to space turbines at least 5 blade diameters apart otherwise they shadow each other.
Area needed for 82 Gw = 8.2*10^10/2.2 m2 or 37300 square kilometers.
That is nearly twice the surface area of Wales. But the problems don’t stop there because wind farms cannot be sited in valleys or on roads or residential areas so you would need to use all exposed spots across Scotland, Wales and the the West Country. OK simple – all we need to do then is site the majority of them off-shore! But then there are other problems.
1) They cost 3 times more to instal and maintain
2) They can really only be located in shallow waters of depth < 10 meters avoiding shipping lanes. Of course they will also start killing migratory birds, swans and rare ducks.
3) Their lifetime is reduced by anything up to 50% because of the harsh conditions.
The only scenario that could hope to deliver anything sensible is the "High nuclear solution". It would also be much better for the environment. The land footprint of all the stations combined would be less than one large wind farm.
Don K
I’m with you, Don. I have no objection to renewables at all in principle.
I simply believe that:-
1) They should not be subsidised. They are either competitive or not.
2) Installations need to go through the same planning system as all other industrial projects, rather than being foisted on local communities regardless.
Don K says:
October 19, 2013 at 5:36 am
>>Unlike many folks here, I have nothing whatsoever against renewable energy.<<
I honestly don't know of anyone who regularly comments on this blog who has "something against renewable energy". The sarcasm and derision that you detect is leveled against government policies that force citizens to subsidize renewable energy and, in many cases, blight the landscape and kill off thousands of bats and birds.
And commenters get particularly derisive because only in rare cases will these renewable energy boondoggles actually reduce CO2, the stated goal of these policies.
I'm all for renewables, but they have to be able to compete in the marketplace.
Patrick says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:54 am
“Look up the lyrics of “London’s Burning” by The Clash”
You surely mean “London Calling”.
The slide that you are discussing is entirely based on the Government’s own (2011) Carbon Plan. The Carbon Plan describes a “corridor” of 2050 pathways, for the entire energy system, that the Government intends to keep on the table as available options. Every number on the slide was published in the 2011 Carbon Plan (before Sir Mark Walport became GCSA). The four pathways on the slide describe one central pathway and three extreme edges of this corridor. You might enjoy reading the Carbon Plan.
David Mackay
I already have read it, and I did assume it was DECC’s plan in the first place, and not Sir Mark’s
But perhaps you could address my specific criticisms and explain how this pathway will:
1) Provide sufficient capacity for when there is little wind.
2) Cope with the enormous amounts of surplus power when wind power is running at above normal rates.
I would also be curious as to whether Sir Mark actually asked the same questions I have raised, or if he simply regurgitated the govt’s own plans.
Surely the job of a Chief Scientist is to offer independent advice, and not just rehash what the govt tells him.
Paul Homewood writes:
It’s worse than you thought!
You really need 10x rotor diameter spacing between wind towers to get the second tower to become efficient again. Above, the area is based on a 5x rotor diameter spacing – which will yield a very, very poor performance!
Any closer than 10x diameters apart, and the first tower can get whatever wind is available, but the second, third or fourth gets only 55% to 80% of the first. Obviously, if you can place them all in a row on the very edge of a steep-rising hill, and can guarantee that the wind will be rushing up that cliff face every day of the year, you could place them next to each other at a closer distance than 10x diameters (closer than 5x diameters actually), but those locations are even less common than good hydroelectric dam sites on well-flowing rivers in deep canyons with a large lake area upstream!
And it’s even worse than you thought! The usual world-wide wind efficiency factors are only 21% to 23% of rated power, averaged over the entire year. Above, 29% to 35% average effectiveness is really too high. (I note though, that this did exclude periods when no power (or nearly no power) was generated.)
Thus, his calc’s actually show wind turbines require 4 times the area, but delivery some 15% to 20% less power over the year.
AndrewZ says:
October 18, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Gerry is right. STOR is how they’re going to keep the lights on, albeit at huge cost. But no government scientist will ever want to talk about that because the whole rationale for the dash for “renewable” energy was to reduce CO2 emissions, and even that isn’t going to happen if the system requires back-up from hundreds of diesel generators. The only thing it will do is to force ordinary people to drastically reduce their energy consumption, which of course is exactly what the greens want.
Sounds really really good. However, Short Term Operating Reserve will only save you if ‘short’ is shorter than the diesel that you have. Let’s take a really bad winter with heavy snow blocked roads followed by clear still nights of hard frost. STOR kicks in to supplant the stationary windmills – and uses most of its fuel, Tankers cannot replenish due snow – then there is more snow the windmills pick up then there is another series of cold still frosty days – no wind power and STOR is now out of fuel. Add a few generation plant problems and UK will be in real trouble the STOR people will have fat wallets but that won’t save frozen old people. Has anyone looked at the resupply issues for STOR during extreme winter weather? No – thought not.
A good example of how green ideology has crippled near term energy security in the UK is the case of E-ON being forced to abandon its 2008 proposal to build 2×800 efficient low emission supercritical coal-fired units at Kingsnorth. see : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8296076.stm
Andy Atkins, executive director of environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth, said the station would have “seriously undermined the UK’s credibility on climate change”.
He added: “The government must now show real leadership and say no to all new coal plants which aren’t fitted with 100% carbon capture and storage from day one.”
Oxfam’s campaigns director Thomas Schultz-Jagow noted it had come after “thousands of campaigners raised the alarm about this proposal”. He suggested “the plug has been pulled on this dangerous initiative”.
Greenpeace campaigner Ben Stewart, one of the so-called Kingsnorth Six who climbed the existing power station in a protest against carbon emissions two years ago, described it as “a really big setback” for E.On and “really good news for the environment”.
“As time goes on people get more concerned about climate change, there’s more time for renewables to get built and that squeezes out coal,” he said.
In April this year the UK introduced a new “Carbon Floor Price” charging energy companies £16/tonne in addition to EU charges for CO2 rising to £70/tonne by 2030. As a result of this DRAX is converting 2 burners to imported US wood chips – perhaps the most ludicrous “green” initiative imaginable.
Now these same politicians are blaming the greedy energy companies for not investing enough in new capacity. Germany meanwhile has 19 modern coal-fired stations currently under construction and Holland another 3. Britain meanwhile is very likely to face the prospect of power cuts/restrictions for the next 3 winters.
a “corridor” of 2050 pathways ?
why cant you just use good old common sense speak (this is a blog for the common man/woman to get insight into matters that affect us).
and some wonder why they are are losing the “communication side of the debate” – sigh
I found that some of the scenarios on the slide, including the high renewables one, can be reproduced from the DECC model which can be downloaded. It contains a lot more detail on the assumptions used, also the land requirements and cost estimates..
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2050-pathways-calculator-with-costs
(You paste your choice of power sources and also energy savings in to the input column on the control sheet to change the future projections. Column Q contains the inputs used to get the high renewable scenario.)