Share
Sam Shead
Reporter
Iceland's volcanoes could power the UK: but at what cost?
The government is considering the possibility of using geothermal energy generated in Iceland to power homes in the UK through sea-floor cables that would link to a Europe-wide supergrid. But what are the technical and political implications of creating a new European supergrid?
The idea of introducing new interconnector cables over the next decade to link the UK to a Europe-wide supergrid — that would also harness wind and wave power of northern Europe with solar projects in Southern Europe and North Africa — has been backed by the UK’s Prime Minister. There are two existing international interconnecters linking Britain to the Netherlands and France but nine more are at various stages of development, including the UK-Iceland interconnector.
In theory it’s possible to pump low-carbon electricity from Iceland to the UK to meet up to a third of the UK’s average energy consumption through thousands of miles of high-voltage copper-cable that would be placed along the ocean floor.
Interconnector cables can be laid at 30km per day but for the plan to work, the cable would have to be by far the longest in the world - between 1,000 and 1,500km - with each kilometre containing 800 tonnes of copper. While this would undoubtedly be a huge engineering project - with costs likely to be far greater than the £500m Britain-Netherlands interconnector - it could still be completed relatively quickly.
The financial costs are one thing but many people may believe that we should not be looking overseas to meet Britain’s energy demand. The UK used to be fairly self-sufficient in oil, gas, and coal, but that has changed recently as the North Sea oil and gas reserves near depletion and coal’s damaging effects to the environment are recognised. While there are other energy sources available in Britain — such as wind and solar — their cost effectiveness remains uncertain.
Jonathan Farr, a DECC spokesperson, told The Engineer: ‘The idea of the Iceland project is to ensure we’ve got access to energy when we need it. The UK has lots and lots of power — enough to meet demand — but it’s the intermittency [of the renewables] that is a problem.’
Farr used the example of UK homes in the middle of winter when someone boiling a kettle in a fully heated house with the TV on, compared to 3am in the middle of summer when next to no energy is being consumed. ‘Now is it worth having all that capacity built and ready standing, if elsewhere it’s just there and available through a pipe?’ Farr asked.
The ambitious idea of pumping energy to the UK will be discussed in greater detail in May when Energy Minister Charles Hendry visits Iceland to discuss connecting the UK to its abundant supply of geothermal energy. Hendry believes that a web of interconnector cables ending the energy isolation of the British Isles will keep household energy bills down, as they would allow access to the cheapest energy at any particular time.
The general idea of pouring surplus renewable energy reserves into one big European pot is a sensible one. But the project will only become a reality if sufficient private funding can be located and governments across the continent can agree on the appropriate terms and conditions for investment and exploitation.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (39)
Jeremy | 13 Apr 2012 1:56 pm
As much as I applaud the engineering skills and endeavours of projects such as these, I cannot help think that we need to remove our dependency on energy from overseas and look upon the generation of electricity as a possible export to other countries such as Germany who have 'boxed' themselves into polarised thinking on renewables.
Geo-thermal energy is available in this country and although more difficult to harness than in a location like Iceland doesn't have to be transported thousands of miles and does not reek havoc on our economy but quite the opposite.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carolyn Knight | 13 Apr 2012 2:05 pm
It would probably be cheaper to deep-drill in the U.K. and harvest geothermal energy that way. A European grid makes far too much sense. Therefore it will never happen.
Solar power from the Sahara should be on the cards but then there's the politicians....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike McClory | 13 Apr 2012 2:16 pm
I'm all for an HVDC 'super grid' to transfer energy around Europe and North Africa. The idea has been touted around for a long time (most recently by Desertec).
But what's the largest capacity of any of these interconnectors? Would they really be capable of catering with the intermittancy problems associated with some renewables?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sinnadurai sripadmanaban | 13 Apr 2012 2:21 pm
If the volcano erupts will it destroy the geothermal plant and substation
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Grand Pubah | 13 Apr 2012 2:23 pm
I thought that this was an Engineering magazine. No mention at all of energy losses in a 1500km cable?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 13 Apr 2012 2:23 pm
According to Siemens, for every 1,000km a DC line will lose less than 3%.
DC line losses are 30-40% less than AC lines, which is good because long-distance cable transmission DC is the only solution from both a technical and economic perspective.
roy hodson | 13 Apr 2012 2:48 pm
Tidal power.. you dont have to go thousands of miles away. It's here all of the time its green and it just needs investing in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian M | 13 Apr 2012 2:57 pm
Editors comment
"for every 1,000km a DC line will lose less than 3%. "
Pity - was thinking we would get our cod pre-cooked!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Davies | 13 Apr 2012 3:12 pm
Whilst the geothermal idea is good, the practicalities pose some “challenges”
1. a project of this size needs to be funded by government but led by engineers not politicians. To rely on the market to stump up the cash to do a job like this means the end user will be paying large bills to service the debt & shareholders returns on top of energy costs.
2. A few well placed demolition charges at the interconnection ends puts the lights out, how can you prevent that?? We cannot survive for very long with a blackout situation.
We can always rely on our glorious leaders wind follies, so nothing to worry about ….although I note that today the UK’s total stock of 3729 wind turbines are currently contributing 112MW - a massive 0.7% of demand …
.. I’m stocking up with candles.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Bennett | 13 Apr 2012 3:26 pm
'...to service the debt...' I don't see how public funding as opposed to private capital makes any difference, as governments have to borrow money to finance large projects anyway. I would agree, however, that it makes sense to remove the profit element, though, by carrying out the whole enterprise as a publicly owned project.
The wind power operators are perfectly aware of the fact that on calm days, turbines don't work. That is the whole point, do please keep up!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13 Apr 2012 3:43 pm
So once again the politicians are avoiding the decision, to our ultimate cost. Why put the UK ever more in the hands of an oversea source of power? Even if we have to import the primary "fuel", for goodness sake have the commonsense to build the power stations here and that means NOW. At least we will be in charge of their security. Scrap the HS2 and use the money to kick start the construction of new UK power stations. At least we will all benefit from that investment, rather than just saving a few minutes on a trip to nowhere.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment