Viewpoint
The government’s diverse approach to UK energy targets raises considerable questions about the future of our electricity system, says Jim Watson
The future of the electricity system is at the heart of current debates about energy policy. Despite recent controversies, there remains a widely held view that the UK’s ambitious targets for climate-change mitigation require rapid emissions cuts in the electricity sector. The rationale is that this will make reducing emissions in transport and heating easier to achieve. At the same time, a significant proportion of the UK’s ageing power plant fleet is due to close in the near future due to tighter emissions regulations. These imperatives have provided a strong rationale for reforms to the electricity market to support investment in low-carbon electricity generation – and to match this with a renewed commitment to energy efficiency.
The main options for electricity-system decarbonisation are now the subject of explicit government strategies and policies. Dedicated offices have been set up within the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) tasked with supporting nuclear power, renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency and unconventional fossil fuels. The compatibility of the development of unconventional gas with the government’s own climate targets is, of course, hotly debated.
In effect, the government is following a diverse approach to the low-carbon transition – an approach that has significant advantages. Diversity is one of a number of strategies that can be used to square the transition to a low-carbon energy system with the need to maintain energy security. Diversity doesn’t guarantee energy security, but it can help to mitigate the impacts of some of the key risks to security, including technical failures, extreme weather events, geopolitical tensions and civil unrest.
It’s unlikely that a future low-carbon electricity system will include every option available
So does this mean that the UK needs to pursue all available technological options to meet our climate-change and other policy goals? Not necessarily. Among those who support the government’s decarbonisation targets, opinions differ about the mix of technologies, fuels and other measures that should be prioritised. The differences of opinion are partly due to technical and economic uncertainties, and partly due to social and political preferences of different advocacy groups.
A recent report comparing modelled scenarios from the UK Energy Research Centre concludes that all scenarios show the importance of energy efficiency and deep cuts in electricity-sector emissions by 2030, but also argues that there is considerable uncertainty about the mix of low-carbon electricity-supply technologies that could be deployed. The DECC’s 2050 Pathways Calculator includes scope for even more variety than UKERC’s scenarios. For example, it’s possible to use the calculator to show how the 2050 decarbonisation target could be met without further nuclear power plants but also possible to use it to construct a low-carbon-energy future that includes a significant expansion of nuclear power.
One reason why it may be difficult to sustain a low-carbon transition in which all options play a significant role is path dependency. Path dependency tends to be a feature of electricity systems – and of other large, complex infrastructures. In his book American Genesis, historian Thomas Hughes shows that this path dependency is not just a technical and economic phenomenon. He argues that electricity systems ‘incorporate not only technical and physical things such as generators, transformers and high-voltage transmission lines, but also utility companies, electrical manufacturers and reinforcing institutions such as regulatory agencies and laws’.
Once this combination of technologies and institutions is established, Hughes argues that they tend to favour particular technological options and particular solutions to problems they encounter. The UK electricity system is a good example of this, having been developed using a centralised model, dominated by large-scale power plants and vertically integrated utilities. There were some good reasons for this, including a desire to realise economies of scale. But this history matters to those trying to implement radical reforms today.
Two lessons are particularly important for contemporary policy. First, it is unlikely that a future low-carbon electricity system in the UK will include every possible option available. Even if the economic climate improves, governments, consumers and businesses will be subject to significant budgetary pressures. Second, there is a need to consider path dependency, especially where there is a need to deploy technologies and measures that have not historically been part of the UK electricity system. These include technologies with unfamiliar characteristics, decentralised generation investments and more radical technologies and business models that bridge the divide between electricity supply and demand.
Professor Watson is research director for the UK Energy Research Centre
I think a Trans European Energy network such as the proposed European Supergrid would solve these issues and indeed much progress is being made towards this agenda.The main barrier as you suggest is politics and their is a definite need for cohesion across all the platforms involved to make this concept a success. The UK really does need to move in line with Europe though regarding renewables, if it wishes to maintain its energy security, in my humble opinion.
The final mix of different energy technologies is far from certain. And there is certainly needs to be a huge transition away from fossil fuels and towards low carbon technologies that needs to occur in order to meet future energy and climate change targets. The real question is how much of the ‘new’ low carbon energy sector will be left to the market and how much will be determined by Government intervention. The Governments role should be to set the strategic direction and correct market failures using allowing the market to decide what technologies will be deployed. However, a quick look back in history shows us that hand picking different technologies has generally proven to be wrong decision and has also tended to be the most expensive option. The Governments role thus should be to correct market failures (where they exist) such as the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and then step back and let the market decide what technologies are employed, whether that be energy efficiency, wind-farms or nuclear it doesn’t matter…
In case no one has noticed, there has been a succession of very cold winters in Europe, the world has not warmed for the past 17 years and, according to the Met office, it will not warm this side of 2018. More and more papers – the latest one in Nature – say that the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature has been much exaggerated. We can now be confident that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming.
Therefore, if we lived in a rational world, we would be developing modern coal and gas-fired stations and also nuclear power.
But, instead of that we squander far more money on subsidising solar and wind power that makes a tiny – and unpredictable – contribution to our energy needs. And now everybody is telling us that serious electricity shortages are likely.
It is time to look at the evidence, and to develop solutions that will actually do some good at the lowest possible cost.
there are some who still don,t believe what is happening around them the world is warming up ,the ice shelves are melting, ask any Austrialian, and it is a good idea for the European union super grid = a steady supply of power for all and it is cheaper to have a steady supply of power than the stop start we have at present
Bryan, you are very much mistaken. There has been warming in the surface temperature records, though at a reduced rate, the oceans have continued to warm at an alarming rate. The oceans absorb 94% of all the additional heating and this has, in part led to the measured sea level rise. Arctic ice is very much thinner than it was with significant summer melt leading to changes in salinity in the Northern Hemisphere. There are actually very few scientific papers that reject AGW, less than 3% of the last 30+ years.
I must agree with Bryan Leylands comments that the whole energy policy needs to be revised as the whole pack of cards regarding Global Warming has been destroyed. The true cost of the mis-guided pseudo-religion of AGW is beyond sensible understanding.
The sooner the politicians change their approach the better for the world. The first essential is to scrap the Carbon targets and get back towards a lower cost energy economy.
In my view we must analyze the real cost of wind energy since we are using a resource, the kinetic energy of air, which always determine the climate of each region
Bryan, usually comments like yours are found in the DM or DT.
A study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).
Several studies have confirmed that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
Only ill-informed deniers like Bryan prevent action to be taken.
My job, prior to retirement, ensured a highly challenging, indeed it may be said, cynical view of much of what ‘specialists’ say. The key issue here is not research results, its job protection.
Why no focus on felting and re tiling existing older roofs?
Well i think Bryan and the others all have valid points, we need to be clear what the difference between diversity and lack of government policy is. Leaving the security of supply to market forces, will not work unless the nation are happy to provide large profits to private companies. The government need a credible plan which is sadly missing, and subsidising inefficient technology is lunacy.
Ryan Rachelle,
In the last 4 yrs there have been 3 ‘independent studies’ showing an overwhelming 97% ‘consensus on anthropogenic global warming’-
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. 97%
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011, 97%
Cook et al. (2013), 97%
As we know from our daily lives to get consensus on anything is unusual, so to get 97% is remarkable.
To get 97% 3 times from different data sets is unbelievable …really unbelievable !!
Look as the figures from the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. 97% consensus study.
“The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an ‘unbiased survey of a large and broad group’ of Earth scientists”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 61,000 members from over 146 countries.
In 2008 an online poll was performed by Doran & Zimmerman (University of Illinois) in a cherry picking exercise.
From the 61,000 AGU earth scientists, they solicited 10,257. (the other 50,000, that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers, were not asked !!)
Of the 10,257 only 3,146 replied,
3,069 of those respondents (97.5%) were then excluded after the responses were received (deemed unsuitable, because they didn’t positively support AGW or were neutral !!)…
… leaving just 77 scientists.
Doran & Zimmerman then chose to highlight the views of that subgroup of 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.
[ So not an unbiased survey OR a large and broad group ]
The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The REAL numbers of American Geophysical Union members agreeing on ‘anthropogenic global warming’ are –
75 of 77 answering Question 2** is 97.4%
75 of 3,146 respondents is only 2.38%.
75 of 10,257 contacted is only 0.73%.
75 of 61,000 possible is only 0.12%.
So at best, the data states only 2.38 % AGU members agree with AGW…
…although the figures suggest it’s less than 1%.
[ **[ Question 2 =“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” ]
The first question asked respondents to compare current temperatures to the depths of the Little Ice Age (“pre-1800s”), and asked whether it’s warmer now.!! ]
More on the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 study here- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
(Nb; Nor does the consensus include the 31,000 scientists who have signed this petition AGAINST the alarmism of global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/ )
All the other studies have similar rigged data. No space here to elucidate.
In science, consensus means nothing. Consensus was against Galileo, the man who discovered continental drift (for 35 years) and many many others. But they were right.
The key question – which everyone seems to avoid – is about the evidence supporting the hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. This hypothesis is supported only by computer models that use are hardly forcing factor to treble the well-known fact that, under ideal conditions, (which never exist) doubling carbon dioxide will increase temperatures by about 1.1°. The computer predictions – driven by the forcing assumption – other warming will be between three and 6°. as you can see from Dr Roy Spencer’s website, all of the models have failed to predict what actually happened – not much warming. Also, as all computer modellers know, computer models do not handle clouds well And a 1% decrease in cloud cover explains all the warming we have ever seen.
So forget about consensus and look at the evidence.
Regarding the heating of the oceans, could someone please explain to me how, as world has not warmed, all this heat got into the deep ocean?
( “• Editor’s comments | 6 Jun 2013 10:02 pm
The point is that the world has warmed, just more in the oceans than in the air.” )
Yes the climate is warming (we are still coming out of the last ice age, another 8-10,000yrs should do it ), but it fluctuates due to complex solar cycles in conjunction with even more complex planetary movements.
In a few hundred yrs we may be lucky enough to have the same climate the Romans enjoyed in Britain in 1st century AD.
In the last ice age (22,000 yrs ago) the ice on Britain was several kM thick, given that there was NO industrial fossil fuel catastrophic contribution, what do you think melted it & cause a 300m rise in sea levels ???
A 3 letter answer, begins with S: clue its big, round, hot, shiny & 5,000yrs ago the Egyptians worshiped it.
The sun is the main driving force of our climate, with additional input from planetary gravitational effects triggering volcanic activity.
The earth’s main (95%) ‘greenhouse gas’ is water vapor & as any plants person should know, CO2 is a plant food
Man is a transient animal but like many previous species, we are too specialized to survive the next 20million yr hot – cold earth cycle. It is the meek who will inherit the earth – like Microbes & Bacteria,…. not us. Get over it & enjoy the short time you have here.
Mike McClory, ( “Arctic ice is very much thinner than it was” )
you are mistaken on the Arctic Sea ice, (is supposed by the AGW lot, to be thinning),
This 10yr comparison (from NASA etal data), 2003-2013 shows the dramatic INCREASE of ice density in Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay & Greenland Sea.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=02&fy=2003&sm=02&sd=02&sy=2013
plus some loss in Berents Sea around Spitsbergen, caused by volcanic activity in the Mohns Ridge
& the Sea of Okhotsk, ( Top end of ‘Ring of Fire’, they had another 5.3 Quake 2 days ago- http://earthquake-report.com/2013/06/05/moderate-earthquake-sea-of-okhotsk-on-june-5-2013/ )
A foundation course in geology will tell you all you need to know about future climate change, not the ravings of a failed USA politician (although we can learn how he made a fortune from the scam).
I see that if the false statements about the reality of the current climate change and its causes are long, include all kind of calulations (one more iteration and we get 0% of AGU members agree on anthropogenic global warming), quote all the well-known and long ago rebutted denialists “challenges” (Galileo, Al Gore, the sun, the volcanoes, etc.), there are some who think they can convince anybody, who is not already in the tiny denialists camp. It does not work, it’s a waste of high-carbon electricity!
Back to topic, which is beautifully named “Electric dreams…”. I agree that a major barrier to the agreed-upon need for an electricity-system decarbonisation is the existing infrastructure, both tangible and intangible. The solution is to become more innovative about removing that barrier. I find that a great and exciting challenge for the engineering community in the UK and worldwide.
Oh dear, someone else parroting the “97% of scientists” meme! This figure has been widely discredited and is basically bunkum. Any sensible person reading the scientific, peer reviewed literature would have to conclude that there is still an enormous level of uncertainty about climate drivers.
Virtually all the forecasting models completely fail to match observed temperatures. Greenland wasn’t called Greenland by the Norsemen because it was white and it is almost certain that past warm periods were significantly warmer that the present.
Warmists threaten us with an as yet undefined “tipping point” where, due to positive feedback, we shall suffer runaway warming – so why didn’t the climate tip when CO2 was in excess of 2,000ppm rather than the current 400?
Some politicians are calling CO2 a pollutant (The EPA in the US) – what nonsense. It is a greenhouse gas with only modest effect on warming that is vital to plant growth and its increase may well boost crop yields and move the corn (and other crop) belts North and help to feed our growing numbers.
Follow the money and note how many of those trumpeting dangerous warming have strongly vested interests in their message.
And, before anyone calls me a denier, I have invested significant cash in the environment, I drive a solar powered electric tractor and have ordered an electric car. My lighting is ultra low power LED. All this because energy efficiency and freedom from oil dependence makes financial and security sense.
Read the literature and make up your minds for yourselves. And remember that it is climate cooling not warming that we have to fear.
Everyone forgets that we breathe out C02 all the time. With the doubling of the population & more animals to feed us we have actually doubled the C02 level without any thing else needed since the sixties! Also cutting down thousands of square miles of forest all over the planet is also stopping those trees from absorbing that C02!
Yes, we could get more energy sources. We could also try to use less by improving efficiency.
Could we use glass to let light into the building instead of switching on electric lights everywhere?
Could we use electronics to control additional needed illumination?
If we have one employee regularly commuting from London to Scotland, could we employ someone in Scotland, and save all that travelling?
Instead of paying that outrageous rent in London, could we open a new office in Rugby or Dudley, and benefit from local human resources?
We could then also pay them some of the saved rent and get peace of mind regarding personnel turnover.
There are many ways to improve efficiency, and often alternative ways are not obvious.
I stopped buying videos the moment I realised that I can’t play them on my player because of different region codes. Instead I used the money to pay for swimming in the local pool.
This also saved me some electricity costs for watching videos, and the light, fan heater and shower heater.