Share
Jason Ford
Jason Ford
News editor
Focus on the UK's energy mix
Briefing starts the week by asking if wind power - on and offshore - is a viable way of generating energy or a green fantasy lining companies’ pockets with subsidies?
It’s a valid question and in Birmingham this Thursday John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre, will deliver the Hunter Memorial Lecture based around the subject of wind energy.
The lecture will explore the technical and commercial challenges of wind power during the current financial climate and political consequences if the government strategy fails.
Said strategy aims to deliver 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and the lecture will consider the technical issues associated with the increasing penetration of intermittent sources onto the electrical transmission system, the commercial implications for a reduction of ‘truly despatchable power’, and the cost of building and installing the equipment itself.
A quick glance at DECC’s website sees a positively bullish outlook for wind, with predictions that wind turbines can generate electricity for 20 to 25 years.
In the third quarter of 2010, wind power is said to have produced 3.5 per cent of the electricity used in Britain and this is expected to rise to around 20 per cent by 2020, with about a third of all electricity coming from renewable sources.
Wind is also good news for the wider economy. A survey published in January 2011 by Renewable UK concluded that around 10,800 full-time employees were working on renewables at the start of 2010. Fifty-six per cent of these are associated with large-scale onshore wind, 29 per cent in offshore wind, 7-8 per cent in small-scale wind.
It would appear that the political appetite for renewables is backed up by electorates around the world and nuclear could suffer as a consequence.
A survey published last week says that public opposition to nuclear power has grown since 2005.
Conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, the survey of 23,231 adults in 23 countries shows that many people believe renewable and not nuclear energy can meet future requirements.
Most of those polled in countries with operational nuclear plants are opposed to building new reactors. The proportion opposing the building of new nuclear power stations has grown in Germany from 73 per cent to 90 per cent, but also increased significantly in Mexico from 51 per cent to 82 per cent, in Japan from 76 per cent to 84 per cent, and in France from 66 per cent to 83 per cent.
Click here to read more.
With this in mind, Chatham House continues its debate series with the question: ’Is Nuclear a Sustainable Energy Option?’ given that Japan’s Fukushima crisis has highlighted not only the potential environmental damage associated with nuclear power but its financial risks too.
More gloomy portents from the Treasury and news that the chancellor’s Autumn Statement looks certain to deliver a reassessment of the UK’s growth forecast to one per cent. Due to be delivered tomorrow, it is widely expected that George Osborne will announce a reduction in interest rates on small business loans and incentives for private investment in roads, railways and schools.
Over at IMechE tomorrow the internal combustion engine comes under scrutiny in an event entitled Internal Combustion Engines: Performance, Fuel Economy and Emissions.
The event’s blurb states that challenges facing internal combustion engine manufacturers are greater than ever, therefore how can engineers: reduce CO2 emissions and the dependence on oil-derivate fossil fuels? How will they meet the future emission limits? What is the vision of the engine and fuels industries?
Finally, Friday sees The Engineer team head to the Royal Society to celebrate The Engineer Awards 2011. Good luck to all of the short-listed entrants across nine categories.
Readers' comments (6)
P Baker | 28 Nov 2011 1:32 pm
If you are involved in the Electrical T&G market, you will already know, that the technical difficulties of using wind and wave power as any base load support, have already established, that they have failed within the immediate 20 year time frame.
All that remains of the governments positive discrimination alternative energy policy, are companies riding the remaining government gravy train of grants and allowances of a failed alternative power strategy.
Its time for the UK government to move its energy policy on to the core of the issue.
What thermal technology is to supply our base load electricity supply?
As in the 60's, fuel security was the primary consideration, as it remains even more so today.
Nuclear predominant, with coal firing as a secondary support, filling the gaps.
Is anybody listening? or do we really need to start hording candles ……..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham Nicholls | 28 Nov 2011 1:36 pm
Unfortunately we will probably still require nuclear for some time, but are the current 'dirty' reactors with long-legacy radioactive waste the only viable option? Is there a realistic prospect for Thorium based energy which, according to the (non-scientific) material I've seen on the subject, can provide power with much less danger to the environment and produce waste with radioactivity in the tens of years rather than thousands. The Engineer may have covered this already, but how about an update? One source I've seen is at: .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter F | 28 Nov 2011 3:08 pm
As a very green engineering undergraduate almost 25 years ago, our team came up with the idea to use off-shore wind turbines produce hydrogen by electrolysis. This would then be transported by pipeline and be used in converted coal fired power stations. I think we all thought this was going to be the next big thing.
Little did we know about Hydrogen powered cars, fuel cells and global warming.
A report in 2006 by NREL concluded that hydrogen could be produced, either on-site or at point of sale for around $3-4/kg. A kilogram of hydrogen has roughly the same energy content as a US-gallon of gasoline, so this now looks favourable with today’s fuel prices.
I suspect infrastructure costs is holding this idea back, but hydrogen could be stored and so mitigate the base-load issue.
Personally I think when the lights start to dim and people asked to pay more for their renewable electricity, nuclear and coal fired power stations will be welcomed back with open arms (suitably modernised of course).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob Hill | 28 Nov 2011 4:53 pm
Unfortunately this debate is fuelled with the hot air of political rhetoric and the exaggerated claims of vested interests. Somebody (prof. Mackay please step up to the plate!) needs to ensure that the posturing stops and we get down to sums that add up. All the subsidies for renewables cannot overcome the simple fact that they are all very dilute sources of energy. As a result you need very large machines and an awfull lot of them to match the output of a power station fuelled by hydrocarbons or (whisper the word) nuclear. In addition the intermittent nature, and hence low load factor, of wind makes it unsuitable for being a large-scale contributer to the overall mix of generation. It may inspire an idyllic image from the public and politicians alike but you will never get the sums to add up. Whatever mix of generation we come up with - and if nuclear is part of it, that's OK by me - the sums must add up or the lights will go out. The debate must not be about entrenched positions and posturing it must be about the numbers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 28 Nov 2011 7:22 pm
I certainly agree with the coment from Rob Hill about the political rhetoric, I would also add to the "gravy train" aspect. Many of the wind and alternative companies cannot and will not survive without the massive subsidies as their business plans and models rely on these massive subsidies. In addition to this we have a number of established companies looking to consolidate their market position. This will invariably end up with a lot of foreign companies buying up a lot of the smaller companies, closing them in the UK, and moving the prime jobs and profits abroad.
Unless things change, and politicians stop falling for sales spiel and false promises the UK will have no energy security.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 29 Nov 2011 9:43 am
Over 98% of all electricity coming through our electric meters is generated just one way, do you think in 100 years time that percentage figure will be so high? If your answer is yes, please give reasons. If your answer is no, please give reasons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment