The UK’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 is clearly laudable, but the challenges ahead are immense. How can the nation move forward to net zero whilst serving the needs of industry? The Engineer sought the opinions of five experts on the best way forward.
Meet the experts
Andrew Lever – Director, the Carbon Trust, an independent partner to global organisations seeking to move toward a more sustainable future
Dr Tim Stone CBA – Chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), the trade association for the civil nuclear industry in the UK.
Prof Jim Watson, Director, UK Energy Research Centre, which conducts interdisciplinary research into sustainable future energy systems
Richard Kirkman, Chief Technology and Innovation Officer, Veolia UK and Ireland, a provider of waste, water and energy management services
Edmund Reid, Head of Strategy for Centrica Business Solutions, a global provider provide energy expertise and distributed energy solutions
In what ways are net zero ambitions compatible with the demands of large electricity users?
AL: Dramatic growth in renewable electricity supply over the last decade means that net zero ambitions are in reach for large electricity users. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption can be eliminated by switching from fossil fuel-derived to renewable sources of electricity.
TS: Most large electricity users see the need to support the reduction of emissions to tackle climate change, but cost is a very real business issue. Fossil fuels have historically been cheaper and we have to work hard to bring down costs of replacement low and zero carbon power, as well as developing smarter systems to help big electricity customers manage their demand. Cost reductions are already happening with renewables and we know we can also bring down the costs of nuclear power dramatically.
National grid confirms first week of coal-free electricity since 1882
National grid hails greenest summer ever
JW: According to the CCC (Committee on Climate Change), electricity decarbonisation needs to be largely achieved by 2030. Clearly, it will be easier to accommodate the demand of large users of electricity if they maximise investment in energy efficiency. So it isn’t just a case of shifting to low or zero carbon generation, but also a case of improving energy efficiency across the economy.
RK: Large users can cut their energy use in many ways and maintain their operations, while moving towards a net zero goal. Whether it’s by energy efficiency, using technologies such as combined heat and power, or new energy sources such as biomass, biogas, solar and wind, they can meet carbon reduction targets. It depends on the business but there is always a way to cut carbon and we have to find the economic answer that also saves costs. There are many proven technologies that make good commercial sense and deliver the energy security essential to industry.
ER: In many ways, large energy users are better placed to reach net zero in energy terms than smaller businesses. Practically speaking, large energy users tend to have dedicated resource in-house, such as an energy manager, and dedicated budget for implementing energy saving measures. They also are more likely to own their premises making infrastructure changes much more straightforward. Many will have internal corporate objectives and shareholder pressure to reduce emissions. For some, they will also be subject to the EU emissions trading scheme, which provides additional cost incentive for reducing emissions.
Which nascent technologies should government be backing in order to help reach – and maintain – net-zero?
AL: In addition to a large-scale move to renewables and ultra-low emission vehicles, reaching net zero will require of greenhouse gas removal options including large-scale forestation, biochar, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), DACCS (direct air capture and carbon storage). Other areas to consider include the use of ammonia for refrigeration purposes. The decarbonisation of heat will require a range of technology solutions including district heating, heat pumps and hydrogen. Whilst many of these technologies are technically mature, further innovation can allow for the full decarbonisation of heat.
TS: A balance needs to be struck, between pushing for breakthroughs in technology, while investing in modern technology that we know works, today. Several smaller nuclear reactor designs are developing well, and the UK leads the world in the development of fusion. Progress is also being made in battery storage and dealing with waste CO2, but we need to make big decisions now on commercially available, proven technology or we will miss the mark.
To have any chance of achieving net zero, we need to be building all the proven low-carbon generation we can, as fast as possible.
JW: Whilst breakthroughs with new technologies might be made in time to meet the 2050 target, this target can be achieved using known technologies. Many of these are already commercially available – or well on their way. So for electricity, the priority should be to continue and expand the deployment incentives for low cost technologies – particularly renewables such as wind & solar – as well as the technologies and infrastructures that will help to balance the electricity system (storage, demand side response, interconnections, and flexible zero carbon generation).
RK: We think government can remain technology neutral and just incentivise the carbon reduction, that way the costs will be minimised and we can develop and deliver the best technical solutions that make carbon and business sense. Solar, wind, biomass, CHP, heat pipes in the ground, heat pumps, batteries are likely to remain important for the next 10 years pending development of new technologies. Waiting for the next technology to emerge simply means more carbon is released to the environment – and the planet can’t afford delay.
ER: Flexibility is the key to meeting net zero in energy. Renewables are a necessity in decarbonising our energy, but they are inherently variable. The question is, how are these gaps in generation filled? At present much of this is by burning fossil fuels. We see a future where homes, small businesses and our large energy users are connected as a virtual power plant and are able to make electricity generated by onsite renewables and stored locally, available to the grid. We’ve asked the government to commit to leading on the delivery of fully functioning flexibility markets by 2023 in order to support renewables and meet net zero targets.
Decentralisation is often cited as a way of reducing emissions from energy, but how realistic is this aim across the UK?
AL: Decentralisation is a necessary part of emissions reduction. We will see a convergence of the electricity, heat and transport sectors, which will result in a more holistic approach to providing solutions. As focus shifts to the decarbonisation of the heat and transport sectors, it becomes evident that many of the decarbonisation solutions are linked to the electricity sector. Electrification of transport is an obvious example. For heat, this could include electrification, bioenergy and hydrogen technologies. To achieve this holistic approach, planning and optimisation of local infrastructure is a key requirement.
TS: While we are seeing larger numbers of smaller ‘community’ energy projects, we will still need a centralised grid network to support and transport the doubling of electricity production. Decentralisation simply isn’t compatible with our projected reliance on interconnected systems. For example, electric vehicle-to-grid schemes will only work if there’s a centralised grid to sell your electricity back to. These issues are part of the requirements for the redesigned energy system.
JW: The UK has traditionally had a centralised electricity system – with centralised policies, institutions and governance as well as technologies. I think it would be difficult to achieve a very significant shift towards decentralisation of electricity unless governance, policy, funding and powers are also decentralised further than they are now. Even if this were achieved, there would still be an argument for some centralised infrastructure to balance supply and demand across different locations and regions.
RK: Very realistic. For example, Veolia is the UKs largest decentralised energy provider with around 400 energy production sites and 4TWh (enough for a million homes) under our umbrella. Over many years these have proven the concept of decentralisation and realised major carbon savings across a wide range of sectors including industry…and the water industry. So, we know it works and supports the energy needs of our customers – it just takes vision and commitment from organisations to take a step forward in how they view their energy supply.
ER: The existing energy network was designed for a world of energy flowing from large power stations to passive customers. As we transition to a world with significant renewable deployment and increasingly complex energy flows, so the traditional networks are likely to face new challenges. The future energy system is likely to be one where energy is generated closer to the point of demand. Larger energy users – such as manufacturers – can take control of their energy and turn it into an opportunity to reduce costs and carbon intensity whilst increasing energy resilience.
What grid-level changes will need to take place to accommodate increasing amounts of electricity generated by renewables?
AL: We are already experiencing innovation in the electricity grid to accommodate increasing amounts of renewable generation. One key trend is the emergence of flexible markets, where Distribution Network Operators contract for flexible demand to manage increasing variability from renewable generation. This potentially negates the need to reinforce the network in some areas and allows the grid to be utilised more efficiently. As decarbonisation of the heat and transport sectors continues, greater convergence of grid planning and local infrastructure planning will be required.
TS: In redesigning the energy system, the changes to the grid will be an output from that design. What is clear already, though, is that the resulting design is highly likely to have balanced mix of renewable and baseload or firm power. Managing the overall system so that there is a high degree of resilience at a sensible cost will require the grid to be properly supported both in terms of its own redundancy (which is arguably too little at the moment) but also in terms of the basis on which supply and demand are allowed to connect to it.
JW: There will need to be some further investment in high voltage grid infrastructure, to enable the further expansion of offshore wind. But the main changes are about investment in technologies, infrastructures and other measures to help balance the system – this means more interconnection with other countries, more storage (though battery storage can only help to balance supply and demand over relatively short timescales so far), demand side response (which is already common in industry) and flexible generation (which needs to be zero carbon – so powered by hydrogen, for example, rather than natural gas).
RK: We will need to invest in the grid infrastructure, particularly to facilitate increasing demand from electric vehicle charging, and that’s why we should avoid electric heating and look for solutions using waste or recovered heat. We are already helping the grid by encouraging large energy users to either increase demand or reduce generation at times of high renewable output and low national demand. By taking measures such as this, and battery storage, we can ensure supply is stable, makes use of intermittent renewable sources, and gains from a balanced grid that meets the needs of the UK’s energy users.
Scotland has got rid of 3 coal burning stations, has a little nuclear. I stay in Livingston New Town, which I supplied by 3 wind farms.
It would have been more interesting if the experts had given some factual information apart from their views. Is it really laudable to aim for carbon neutrality by 2050 is the underlying question. The known facts are:-
1. This will cost far in excess of £ 1 trillion;
2. The effect on carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere will be negligible, the UK presently only contributes 0.5% of world’s CO2 emissions;
3. The most optimistic reduction of the earth’s temperature by the CCA would be below 0.0005 deg K; and,
4. The rest of the world’s increase in emissions is over 2%/year and will increase as developing countries grow economically (and in population);makes the UK’s massive efforts inconsequential.
It appears to be unfashionable to consider the cost / benefits of our activities, but to impose this massive penalty on UK business for so little benefit seems crazy and it will be the poorest people who will pay for it.
We consume something like 500TWH of energy per annum across the UK from fossil fuels. Assuming like for like efficiency at point of use, and maintaining our current model of society (principally personal mobility) we need to generate (and make practical use of) this energy in either electricity or other non-polluting liquid forms over and above what we already use! Little sign of this from the Government other than maintaining the vanity project known as HS2, which completely ignores the need for people to access the few hubs on that new service.
You seem to be focused on coal, and not the whole petrol, oil, gas and nuclear energy industries, the focus must be on renewable energy. The vested industries have enormous financial and political influence and will not give up market share with out a fight. It is going to take natural disasters in the weather and the other climate change issues, to force the government to start looking at what is best for the people, and not what is best for a few elitist. The real issue is just how bad the climate change has to get before meaningful action is taken, and will there still be time to correct the predicted crisis. The bush firers and drought in Australia has slowly forced the Australian government, a real climate change denier, to slowly take action, and is only now starting to realize the costs in not taking action before to prevent the damage.
Thermal storage for solar energy in high temperature salts for dispatchable power is a solution that is now commercially available, but is not widely deployed.
Currently it costs just 10% of battery storage for the same kwhr, so even when the battery price tumbles, when it invariably will, thermal storage will still be the best way by far of producing dispatcable electric power from the sun.
Even in the UK, with its meager solar resource, this makes good sense, especially when compared to the cost of nuclear, which has never been cost competitive, anywhere in the world, quite apart from all the pother issues like waste disposal and the cost of mitigating risk.
But our ignorant (unscientific) politicians are adverse to anything new, so it will take longer than it should to be widespread.
“The UK’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 is clearly laudable,” – Surely you mean Laughable?
The Australian bush fires are the result of man-made fires and stupidity, not global temperature rises. The book was Fahrenheit 451, not Centigrade 40.
A sensible debate about the future of electricity generation and distribution is worth having, led by a government sponsored team independent of the Gretas and doomsayers. The UK leads the world in fusion (but hasn’t yet got one working system). How can we plan a reliable distributed model for energy supply to everyone when we don’t know, and seem incapable of controlling, how many we will be and where? Start with an ideal population model, and build policy from there. This will help in transport infrastructure, electricity generation & distribution, housing and resources. It needs to be centrally led, it needs to be independent of political bias, and needs to look at the long-term, ie 500 – 1500 years, not 10 – 20 years. Climate changes slowly but reasonably predictably at a macro level, but we persist in viewing it from a micro level. We can’t see reality for the noise.
The question I always ask myself is where does the electricity come from on a cold windless night? Notwithstanding the previous post I am not aware of any viable energy storage that can be scaled up to the capacities need to cope with powering most of the UK for a period of hours. It would be good if the Engineer did an article on the state of energy storage today and where the technology is heading.
So much debate about reducing carbon emissions, and so there should be, but very little seems to be said about energy waste. A government with the guts/common sense would be pushing and financing the proper insulation of as many buildings as possible instead of faffing about with not deciding which half baked scheme to promote next. I have recently retired from a company which had some 2 hundred moulding machines and roofs covered in large extractor fans to dump the heat to atmosphere and it’s well know that the temperature rises by 2 or 3 degrees as you enter a large town or city.
Eric >> where does the electricity come from on a cold windless night?
You mean like now… (21 Jan, 17:20) only 4% wind and 0% solar. Gas now providing 60% and coal has been cranked up to provide 7% with Nuclear providing 15%. The others sources of power providing the rest. Coal was 0% for most of the summer.
@ John Patrick Ettridge
You seem to be focused blaming the Australian bush fires on CO2 & Hi Temps (see1974)
2019 fires are not ‘Unprecedented’ (although we are told this by most headlines)
& is only 1/12th of the devastation of 45yrs ago.
The 1974 & 2019 fires can’t be attributed to CO2 levels;
‘Black Thursday’ Feb 6th 1851 : (CO2 = 285 ppm)
‘Red Tuesday’ Feb 1st 1898 : (CO2 = 295 ppm)
‘Black Friday’ Jan 13th 1939 : (CO2 = 311 ppm)
Largest on record 1974 ~ 117 million hectares : (CO2 = 329 ppm)
‘Ash Wednesday’ 16th Feb 1983 : (CO2 = 342 ppm)
‘Black Saturday’ 7th Feb 2009 : (CO2 = 387 ppm)
~ 10 million hectares : (CO2 = 411 ppm)
No correlation, No causation
Read Data … not fake-news sites.
There have been 57 enquiries into bushfires since 1939.
They all say the same thing ‘Reduce the Fuel Load’
& have all been ignored .
Under the 1995 NSW
‘Threatened Species Conservation Act’
removal any of dead wood & debris is a… “key threat” to wildlife – punishable by fines/prison,
home owners, trying to clear the trees and brush around their homes, have been hit with heavy fines. Amounts of A$40,000 and A$150,000 have been reported.
How much CO2 reduction is achieved in letting 10million hectares burn ?
But the idiots are still in charge
So this will all happen again.
After the August 2019 power cuts it would have useful for comments from the National grid to have been included — to say how they plan to enforce supply – and what is needed for the grid of the future (and, also, because it seems to be a topic that most of the speakers commented on).
There is talk about negative pricing (and, one would hope that suppliers would help pay for this..)
http://watt-logic.com/2020/01/10/negative-electricity-prices/ – which also mentions “…suggesting that it was the need to manage transmission constraints in Scotland rather than the simple generation surplus that drove the necessary balancing actions. ”
The most interesting comment ( from Rob Brunswick ) was with respect to storage was that thermal storage, in a molten salt, was much cheaper than battery solutions. However high temperature storage, with a noble gas working fluid, should hold few material challenges (no corrosion)
— If a thermal storage power station was to hold 10GW x 24 hrs = at 2000 degC this would require 240,000 cu m of rocks to store; i.e a cube of 30 metres size. And also would require turbines and generating equipment.
– Alternately a much smaller cube would be required for localised (domestic) application.
All the speakers described use of existing technology — but at what cost? no consideration was given as to that. We need affordable technology and technology that can deliver .when needed (eg when the wind not blowing or the sun not shining). The argument seems to be that these things take along time…it might be true but it does not seem that the questions are being asked of the right people – for example who is manufacturing turbine and generators for domestic daily/weekly thermal energy storage (if we are going to have a decentralised energy grid)?
And if the speakers are concerned about global warming why are fuel burning sources included (many of them producing net CO2)?; there are some arguments about sustainability but that is still looking at hundreds of years as opposed to millions for coal (and not withstanding the lost carbon capture capability of older trees)
“The challenges ahead are immense.” No; politico-economic corruption is the only problem!! There are simple, proven answers to ALL the engineering challenges in the transition from FF to RE.
“One key trend is the emergence of flexible markets, where DNOs contract for flexible demand to manage increasing variability from renewable generation.” If the CEGB had handled the switch to RE, there’d be neither ‘flexible’ nor ‘capacity markets’. The CEGB had a huge R&D programme and the industry would have naturally advanced to vertical integration with gas. (electricity generation and the hydrogen economy are symbiotic in green science.
The neoliberal theoretical model creates dysfunctional ‘markets’ with ‘horizontal disintegration’!
Rob Brunswick highlights the only existing Before-Generator Energy Storage. i.e. Molten salt storage utilised with CSP. The cost comparison to battery grid-scale storage is probably accurate, because ALL electricity storage, pumped hydro included, is expensive to operate. But CSP doesn’t make commercial sense in Northern Europe, whereas wind/wave and tidal power combined are clearly sustainable winners, IF they’re built with integral air/water accumulators – BGES.
EDF’s cheapest source of electricity is La Rance. If it had incorporated BGES, it would actually be the cheapest flexible/dispatchable electricity in the world, bar none. Tidal barrages usefully double as flood barriers too – location, location, location! The Aberthaw-Minehead project would deliver the annual output of an inflexible Hinkley Point C for 3x its service life. It’s a very simple political choice – £100bn on HS2, or build the Bristol Channel Barrage and cancel any future nuclear plans.
“There’s an acceptance in the nuclear industry and the government that the CfD approach won’t be used for nuclear again in the UK.” – Ergo, no more nuclear?!
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/u-k-looks-into-whether-renewables-could-re-start-the-grid
“The need to rely on synchronous generators for black-start capacity is one” (false) “argument for keeping carbon-fuelled assets on the grid, since black starts require gas turbines if no hydropower is available.” Pressurised air/water – BGES – hydropower has 100% synchronous generators. DEEP reserve will in future be provided only by hydrogen-fuelled turbines – spare capacity OWNED by the companies generating marine renewable electricity and green hydrogen. i.e. Vertical integration with no chaotic, expensive, pseudo ‘markets’ at all. Kill off the hedge fund casinos. . . .
Sure, you wouldn’t expet a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and area burnt – but it would be reasonable to expect record temperatures and prolonged drought to increase the risk and severity of fires – and they are clearly correlated with CO2 concentrations, with good theoretical evidence of causality. Catastrophes usually have multiple contributing factors, not single “either/or” causes, and bush management practices might also be one.
@ Jack Broughton. You keep quoting your guesstimate of the £1 trillion ‘cost’ as if there’s no ROI. If we fail to lead developments in essential technology, we’ll simply end up enriching the countries that do, by importing what we need. Do you think that’s a good idea?
https://renews.biz/57607/renewable-energy-patents-increase-28/
“EMW said increased concerns over climate change are accelerating R&I in renewable energy and driving the global growth in patent filing.”
Companies in China filed 81% (16,992) of the renewable energy patents, the most of any country, while the US came in second, filing 8% (1,613) and the UK sixth (84).
“Fuelled by generous government subsidies, China has been the largest investor in renewable energy over the last decade, having invested $758bn, over double the US’s $356bn.”
Guys overseeing $7 trillion of investment see the ‘market’ evidence that you’ve missed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/business/dealbook/larry-fink-blackrock-climate-change.html
Given that the GIB was never intended to be non-profit, and the Government’s standard appraisal calculates LCOE at investor rates of 10%, does UK political ideology aim to benefit (mostly) foreign investors or increase the prosperity of the whole (deeply indebted) British nation?
http://www.newstatesman.com/energy/2018/05/green-investment-bank-dodgy-deal-more-ways-one
“In spite of being a state investment vehicle it resisted investment opportunities in technologies such as tidal energy or carbon capture, because they were not sufficiently developed to be suitable commercial investments.” R&D isn’t necessarily a commercial investment, but it needs money. The private sector won’t fund it, so the state must take on that responsibility.
A working link to EMW patents story:-
https://sciencebusiness.net/news-byte/green-energy-patents-filed-globally-jump-28-year
Thanks again to David Smart for commenting on my correspondence.
While economical assessments have a long history of being incorrect, he is badly mistaken in suggesting that I just made-up the £ 1 trillion as the cost of zero carbon.
The Climate Change Committee reported last May on its proposals for zero carbon UK by 2050. The CCC did not actually cost this madness, but stated £ 50b/year would be needed as subsidy (50x 30 = £1.5 trillion, but whats a trillion here and there?). The subsidy means that the only benefit would be reduced carbon dioxide emissions as all other benefits are already taken. The £ 1 trillion cost was from Phillip Hammond (then C of Exchequer) and was widely reported (e.g. Daily Telegraph 12 June 2019 ). The OBR estimate for the current level of subsidy is £ 11.2 b/year and this is rising steadily.
The only benefit of this massive diversion of the UK’s income is that the world’s CO2 level will not rise quite as fast as it would otherwise rise, but the effect on the CO2 rise-rate is negligibly small for what is a massive cost.
If David truly wants to reduce world CO2 he needs to go to China and India where the real emissions are occurring and persuade them to cut-back on their growth plans.
David/Jack – I recommend cutting back on growth plans.. very good. Jack – woud you support the proposal below? i did the cutbacks years ago and banked the money. As soon as enough deposit, bought another property. Stopped at four. split one for the children. Sold one to support the Make-it Community. (As i only need a state pension, really – can donate to various causes).
do the repairs oneself, as on my principal private residence and any other investments.. For every £1.00/$1.00/Euro that’s about 1lb weight/mass of CO2 in the atmosphere – and WE – all of us – by buying all that Chinese stuff kicked this problem off. Reparations required. Globally about $1 trillion per year divided equal dollar amounts between the poorer countries and the rich. Could be based on a 12% slice off imports from the wealthy countries marking up the price of imports or “growth” in house prices. 6% return back to them, the bona-fide producers, often unable to afford much, let alone climaste-reducing measures. EXAMPLE Make payments/RESOURCES/ITEMS available in kind for energy-saving light-bulb and infrastructure – at least then they or their children can read at night. Or invest in water resources. plenty to start off with. the RICHER COUNTRIES similarly should be ploughing those funds into renewables – tidal across Bristol Channel, etc., ultra-insulating roofs, walls externally at sides and back, education, to slim the richer folk down, grow more, get off screens much more, subsidise the poor to each have allotment or share one (or grow nettles next to the house for their excellent food value, top 2 leaf brackets, save water). Jack, can you repl;y?
Jack, you need to read what the DT actually wrote:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/12/hammonds-1-trillion-bill-hitting-net-zero-innumerate-nonsense/
“Hammond’s leaked spoiler is a clutter of absurdities and category errors. It CONFLATES spending with investment to come up with the outlandish tariff of £1 trillion.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/06/cutting-uk-emissions-net-zero-cost-1tn-philip-hammond
Nobody but YOU calls it “subsidy” – not even Phillip Hammond!
“The costs related to meeting this target are whole-of-the-economy costs, NOT a fiscal cost. The climate watchdog’s report said the cost of a net zero carbon economy would be between 1% and 2% of GDP by 2050.”
https://progressiveeconomyforum.com/blog/on-philip-hammond-and-1-trillion/
“£1 trillion pounds invested between now and 2050 would be a paltry share of Britain’s annual income. It would amount to about £33 billion a year, which is roughly 1.5% of current GDP. But that figure has little regard for the aggregate impact of that spend – which, thanks to the multiplier, would generate additional income – not just for the employed, but also for the Treasury.”
“The CCC has estimated that the benefits of net zero emissions could potentially fully offset the cost of delivering the target. Analysis by the NIC similarly shows that electricity, heat and transport can be decarbonised by 2050 at net zero cost.”
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-energy-and-industrial-strategy/Correspondence/Letter-to-Philip-Hammond-MP.pdf
My gas fire/back boiler is nearly forty years old. If old domestic gas appliances need replacing at some point in the next thirty years, the cost of switching to electricity (heat pump) or hydrogen is net zero, but we’d gain employment and add to our GDP, if we manufacture all this new stuff. As you know, I advocate rebuilding the UK power sector with home-produced technology. Neoliberal economic incompetence allows the French and Chinese governments to build the most expensive nuclear plant in the world at Hinkley Point, heavily subsidised by UK tax and bill-payers. Novel designs of energy storage, integral with marine renewables, can also eliminate curtailment:-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/28/energy-firms-power-cable-national-grid-scottish-power
If National Grid had invested £1.3m in an energy storage research programme ten years ago, they would never need to ‘invest’ £1.3bn in an undersea cable. You can build a lot of distributed energy storage capacity for £1.3bn AND slash the cost of grid operations, IF you know what you’re doing!!
Jack, when we own the IP rights to the best RE design, China, India and the USA will be able to use it for a modest royalty or import the finished product from the UK. (I worked in China in the ’90s. My presence there, or in India, would have no effect. Any more silly suggestions?) The EU’s Green Deal promises more optimistic future developments. . . .
https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/our-ursula-rattles-sabre-in-davos-at-chinese-and-other-climate-fools/
“At the Davos World Economic Forum, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, told China to price carbon or face massive European import duties. The same threat is a veiled one to both the USA and India as well. A global price on carbon will accelerate renewables into parity with fossil fuels and halt coal and gas plant rollouts stone dead.”
Thanks again to David for his reply to my posting. I’m not sure that I understand all his points, but will try to respond to them. Am I really alone in believing that paying twice the base price for solar and wind power is not a subsidy? The OBR refers to the extra payments as an “Environmental Levy”, which at £11.2 b last year is a rising cost that we all bear for a negligible effect on the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Climate Change Act generated the Climate Change Committee, a massive cost-centre whose only raison d’etre is to reduce the UK’s CO2 irrespective of damage done to the economy. Apparently the rest of the world will follow our lead…… so far only Germany may do so, by importing Russian gas to displace coal.
The extra £ 1 trillion has to come from our GDP, and all the sophistry in the world does not change the fact that this money is purely to reduce carbon: any synergistic benefits will be good fortune, not intent. This investment might reduce the UK to zero carbon but will have negligible effect on the growing world total carbon burn which surely is what the carbon-lobby are obsessing about.
Neither Davos, COP meetings or any other economic force are going to make China and India cut-back on their massive growth plans and reduce their carbon output, their current massive investment in coal fired power plant is not going to be left unused. Their INDCs purely guarantee that their carbon intensity will be reduced (i.e. CO2 per $ GDP), allowing lots of room for increased coal burn as their economies grow and ours shrinks.
You’ve just moved the goalposts on what constitutes a subsidy! Yes Jack, you quite evidently don’t understand economics any better than Hammond.
“The extra £ 1 trillion has to come from our GDP. All the sophistry in the world does not change the fact that this money is purely to reduce carbon:” Nonsense! Even if it were £1 trillion, that is NOT “extra”! It would be part of a small expansion of GDP, which would’ve begun years ago, but for foolish austerity and the government’s abject failure to invest in green R&I. Your sophistry makes out that the UK economy is bound to “shrink”! You can’t have it both ways. It will only shrink if we follow your foolish advice. My game-changing energy storage leads the way to cheap, sustainable RE.
You assume that political idiocy will triumph worldwide and argue we should JOIN the idiots:-
California’s energy future:-
“For California to reach its lofty renewable energy targets, the government MUST invest in storage technologies to allow greater control over the state’s power grid and provide reliable power.”
https://www.power-technology.com/features/california-renewables-on-the-frontline/
One of the greatest challenges for California’s energy sector is maintaining a consistent supply of renewable power, despite the intermittent nature of solar and wind power. Another challenge is the Trump administration’s efforts to invest in offshore oil and gas operations. The state also has to fight efforts to expand onshore oil/gas, with California lawmakers challenging fracking projects near national parks and wilderness areas in September 2019.
Do you think England should get fracking, Jack?
Thanks again, David. I have been misusing the term subsidy, “a sum of money granted by the state to keep the price of a commodity down” for some time until you pointed it out. What then is the right term for payment of money by the state to enable a commodity to be sold at a price far above the market value? The governments “levies” enable wind and solar generators to receive between £ 120 and £ 140 /MWh irrespective of power demand, while the sales price of electricity is between £40 and £60 /MWh. The term “daylight robbery” comes to mind, but I’m sure that economists have a proper name for this.
You ask my opinion on fracking: I’m all for it as I do not believe in the CO2 bogeyman.
The IMF estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies in 2017 were $5.2 trillion
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509
Thank you Andrew for your reply. The topic of what a subsidy is has some very interesting aspects.
The common usage is that it is money provided by government to support businesses that would otherwise go broke, but in the case of levies applied to pay businesses to sell at above the market rate (electricity at £140 / MWh when the selling price is £ 50 / MWh) that definition seems to fall-down: maybe the “Ethical engineer” could help.
The source of the claim about energy subsidies is a largely discredited ODI report. The data that they used to claim subsidies are frankly ludicrous: they claim that transport VAT at zero is a subsidy and that VAT should be applied to domestic gas usage etc. These are politico-social issues and are certainly not subsidies in the normal sense of the word, in that all countries have different approaches to taxes.
Even the climate-change crazed UK government has decried the report and stated that fossil fuel taxes and duties have provided £b 29 – 39 per year to the exchequer over the last 30 years. The government stated that the only actual subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry are exploration and decommissioning cost allowances.
Fracking won’t work without subsidy, Jack and firms will go bust, if the market price drops. On top of that, sensible people add the cost of CCS, whether you “believe” in AGW or not!
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-revealed-as-eu-champion-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
YOU moved the goalposts; “The CCC stated £50bn/year would be needed as subsidy.” NO, they did NOT!! The figures YOU give are either false or out of date. PM Johnson said: “It’s great news that millions more homes will be powered by clean energy at record low prices.” However, Boris must reverse Cameron’s onshore policy and end CfD production subsidies, to stop foreign companies installing – in UK waters – HAWTs that aren’t fit for purpose. Before-Generator Energy Storage will eliminate both intermittency and curtailment, thereby ending ALL subsidy.
“The auction showed offshore wind costs had tumbled by a third to about £40/MWh, which is less than the price of electricity in the wholesale energy market.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/new-windfarms-taxpayers-subsidies-record-low – Less than half the £92.50/MWh awarded to Hinkley Point C.
Fossil fuel subsidies in the EU were €55bn in 2016. “This is a high number, given we are reaching the deadline for some of their [phase out] promises,” said Ipek Gencsu, of the Overseas Development Institute. Shelagh Whitley, also at ODI, was dismissive of the UK government’s claim to provide no fossil fuel subsidies. “They are lying,” she said. “It’s absurd. They are playing games and continuing to prop up a centuries old energy system.” In 2016, the UK pumped more than €12 billion into fossil fuel support. Germany topped the renewables table, having allocated more than €27bn in subsidies in 2016. They also spend much more than the UK on R&I.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/24/scottish-power-plans-major-expansion-of-onshore-windfarms
“The CCC has suggested that the UK’s onshore wind capacity should grow from 13GW now to 35GW by 2035 – about 1.4GW a year – in addition to building offshore windfarms at four times the present rate.” But as you know Jack, the CCC have no idea what they’re talking about! No offshore wind should be built without Before-Generator Energy Storage. i.e. First remove all the expensive gear (HV copper cable, rare earth generators) from the challenging marine environment.
There are often arguments about what subsidies are paid – and their unfairness. Much depends upon what lobbyists include as a subsidy; for example a decrease in that VAT on electric power could be counted as a subsidy to Co2 producing (gas, coal, oil, biopellets) generation and nuclear. I believe this is unfair as it is to the customers – not the producers.
However how one values electricity might be a fairer way of forcing the market; if, for example, windturbine generators had to pay the full cost of not producing electricity they agreed to do then that would concentrate their minds wonderfully. — indeed they might be keener to have thermal storage based power plants (and to develop the technology).
I believe , also, that alternative variants of thermal storage could be used by, for example, nuclear generators and, with incorporation of rapid response gas turbines access the funding for frequency matching and load-loping generation.
Though advanced thermal storage is most likely achievable in a cost-effective manner for concentrated solar power there has been very little (or any) development of non-concentrated solar power (possibly more suitable for UK with solar power often being available in a diffuse way.)
The “climate-change crazed UK government” is as divorced from reality as lying allows. . .
“The former Conservative minister for energy and clean growth, said people should be wary of the prime minister’s promises.” (AND the Tory Government’s statistical deceit!)
“My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises – whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees, or indeed family members – is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money’s in the bank,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
If HS2 is given the green light, we know the money’s there – it’s just being misspent.
“There is a yawning gap between what the world expects from us and where we are. It’s a systemic failure of global vision and leadership.” Mrs O’Neill recommended:
“Setting net zero emissions as the target for all climate ambition.”
Introducing a “properly-funded” global package for adapting to inevitable changes in the climate.
Placing nature-based solutions (such as forest conservation) at the heart of the agenda.
“New net zero sector deals from hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as cement and chemicals.”
Green hydrogen fulfils THOSE roles as well as ALL the other requirements, such as transport fuel, domestic heating, steelmaking, etc. etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51368799
“Her comments are not just aimed at the government.”