Ditch coal for biomass and gas and build nuclear, urges UK report

[FBaggins]

Title leaves wind off the list, but it's in the recommendation

A cornerstone of the UK decarbonising its power sector is to switch from coal to biomass or gas and build a wave of new nuclear and renewable power infrastructure in the 2020s, according to a report out today. The report has been compiled by independent think tank Carbon Connect and is part of an on-going 12-month, cross-party inquiry into the future of UK electricity generation.

It argues that significantly decarbonising the power sector by 2030 is the key to solving the energy trilemma of securing energy sustainability, security and affordability. It states that switching the UK’s reliance on coal to gas while using fossil fuel power stations increasingly for backup will be the most viable method of achieving this.

...snip...

It says switching from coal to sustainable biomass or gas would solve this, although “it is also important that significant investments are made in energy efficiency and building new nuclear, wind and biomass power stations”.

...snip...

Inquiry co-chair Charles Hendry, a former UK energy minister, said: “Rhetoric in the energy debate has frequently sought to exploit political divides, often ignoring areas of consensus and driving political uncertainty. This uncertainty has far-reaching consequences in a sector where power stations are built and operated by companies, often with international portfolios and investment opportunities.”

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pei/2013/04/ditch-coal-for-biomass-and-gas-and-build-nuclear--urges-uk-repor.html

[kristopher]

2. A typical "all of the above" strategy

One we know isn't workable. Coal with Carbon Capture and Storage along with nuclear are not recommendations to change the system since, by their centralized nature, they are incompatible with a distributed renewable infrastructure.

[FBaggins]

3. "Incompatible" with a system that doesn't exist... nor is likely to?

Not much of a concern.

Nor does this really seem to be an "all the above" strategy any more than the one you posted a few weeks ago. They recognize that fossil plants will continue to exist (more and more as backup) and remediating that carbon is still useful.

More importantly, our dissatisfaction (warranted) with carbon capture for power plants is largely because (apart from it not working well yet) we worry that it will keep coal plants around longer and delay a cleaner transition). We're focused too much on electricity generation. What they're also focusing on is the use of coal in industry. There's nothing that wind/solar/biomass/nuclear/etc can do to replace thermal coal... carbon capture has some value there.

nuclear are not recommendations to change the system

It is for Carbon Connect (as well as a number of other think tanks and government agencies)... which is why it's the UK's current strategy.

[kristopher]

4. Which is why the UK is lagging behind countries like Germany.

They've diddled around for the past 7 or 8 years trying to jump start nuclear - a technology that the IEA just described as a "market failure". If they were to pursue the same strategy as Germany, they would be much further along than they are with this conservative government's effort to ensure business as usual under the guise of an "all of the above" policy.

[FBaggins]

5. They both have similar 2050 goals

And both are about as likely to achieve them

The UK is just doing it with less disruption (to themselves and neighbors) and at lower cost.

I'd also say that they're lagging in solar, but not much else. They're among the best in the world at offshore wind and tidal/wave. Well ahead of Germany. And while it was silly to claim that Germany gets more sun than the US... they do get quite a bit more than the UK does

this conservative government's effort

So the Obama administration is a conservative government to you too?

[FBaggins]

7. Let's look at that "lagging" again.

I admit I haven't done a comparison in the past and just took your word for it.

From wikipedia -

Germany has gone from 849 metric tons of carbon emissions in 2004 to 762 in 2010 (a 10.3% reduction) on a slightly declining population (-1%)

The UK has gone from 537 tons to 484 (a 10% reduction)... but on a population that has increased by 3.9%.

So the UK (2004-2010) did a better job at per-capita carbon reductions.

They have also decreased their power consumption by 3.9% even on a growing population, while Germany has increased their consumption 1.7% on a slightly shrinking population.

Germany met their Kyoto 2012 goals in 2008. The UK did it almost a decade earlier.

[kristopher]

8. Pretty selective set of numbers Baggins (why no link for context?)

Posted on March 16, 2013

"Renewable energy transition – if Germany can do it, why can’t the UK?"

Finn Jensen asks this question at the end of his post on Germany’s energy transition.


The answer may lie in the way that successive UK governments have allowed themselves to be captured by fossil fuel and nuclear companies.




This is the view of Sergio Oceransky, Director of the Yansa Community Interest Company. He thinks that the reason why UK has “the worst possible renewable energy regulatory framework…resulting in one of the lowest shares of green power in one of the countries with the largest renewable energy potential in Europe” is that nuclear and fossil fuel companies have captured UK governments’ energy policy process.

He notes that the UK government has also worked hard to extend its energy policies into the EU, with the result that the EU 20 20 20 climate change and energy policy package “is based on instruments that have proven totally unsuccessful in terms of promoting renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emisions, and that will displace existing successful policies and alternatives”.

<snip>

The results of the UK’s RO policy speak for themselves. The UK, with a much higher renewable energy potential than Germany, has installed far less renewable energy generation capacity than Germany, which has a renewable energy policy based on feed in tariffs.

http://www.energyroyd.org.uk/archives/7865

[FBaggins]

9. Apologies for the lack of a link

I was on my phone and it's a hassle. I assumed that saying that it was wikipedia's "energy in germany" page was enough... but for some reason that didn't display.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom

Nevertheless... I can't imagine why you would say that a comparison of relative progress in decarbonizing electricity generation is a "selective set of numbers". What could possibly be more relevant to the conversation? The measuring stick is not "who comes closest to the mix I desire?"... it's "regardless of their choices, who is coming closest to the goal of decarbonization compared to their challenges, and at what cost?"

A hypothetical country that shifts from 100% coal to 100% natural gas has done much more than one that has shifted to 90% coal and 10% renewables. Renewables are part of the path to the goal... they not the goal itself.

The results of the UK’s RO policy speak for themselves. The UK, with a much higher renewable energy potential than Germany, has installed far less renewable energy generation capacity than Germany, which has a renewable energy policy based on feed in tariffs.

I'll presume that since you bolded this, you find it particularly persuasive... but you're falling for the same spin that you too often dish out. Germany has focused the largest portion of their renewables capacity on what? Solar. The UK picked wind.

You can have 2-3 times the "capacity" of solar compared to wind and still get more actual electricity out of wind. And with their comparative advantage in offshore wind, that could be even higher.

I don't have statistics, but I'd bet a week worth of lunches that if we compared value for expenditure between the two (that is, the amount of carbon-free generation actually consumed in-country per euro/pound spent on the transition)... the UK would come out way ahead. On edit - Perhaps not. I keep forgetting that the UK has almost no traditional hydro capacity - and I never credit them enough for thei biogas generation. Oh well.

"Renewable energy transition – if Germany can do it, why can’t the UK?"

This is only the case if you control the terms of the debate. "Renewables" as opposed to "carbon-free"... and (more importantly) only focusing on renewables growth and not on the overall energy mix. IOW, giving Germany no black (sooty) marks for their coal consumption (overwhelmingly higher than in the UK - which had cut coal consumption about in half over 20 years).

[kristopher]

10. Cameron's conservatives do not get the credit for what previous govts have done.

Cameron has let nearly all the transitional initiatives wither on the vine in his party's pursuit of nuclear. Their energy efficiency effort was a deliberate disaster because they didn't want to destroy the market required to support nuclear and coal.

I don't blame you for not wanting to use the legitimate metrics like rate and total of installed renewable capacity. Answer a simple question, though - do you think that we should pursue energy efficiency aggressively (consistent with modern standards of comfort) or do you think we should pursue a strategy of growth in energy consumption?

[wtmusic]

6. K&R