UK opposes a 2030 renewable energy target (Conservative push nuclear)
Fledgling green industries could be hit as document reveals move to put nuclear power on equal footing with renewable energy
Fiona Harvey and Juliette Jowit
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 March 2012 15.41 EDT
The UK government wants nuclear power to be given parity with renewables in Europe, in a move that would significantly boost atomic energy in Britain but downgrade investment in renewable generation, according to a leaked document seen by the Guardian.
...
"The UK envisages multiple low-carbon technologies: renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, all competing freely against each other in the years to come … For this reason, we cannot support a 2030 renewables target," it reads.
...
The UK's renewable energy sector has already suffered a series of blows, with an anti-renewables backlash whipped up by right-leaning thinktanks and Tory MPs, more than 100 of whom sent a letter to the prime minister attacking renewables and calling on him to cut subsidies from onshore wind farms. Many wind turbine manufacturers have expressed concern over the effect of this on their prospective multibillion-pound investments in the UK.
...
(Ruth) Davis (of Greenpeace) added that the moves to boost nuclear power would backfire, and be a gift to the gas industry. "Including carbon capture and storage and nuclear power in the target would enable the big six energy companies to retain their current stranglehold on our power sector, building whatever kind of power generation most suits their business models. It will lock in public subsidies to nuclear generation and make us more dependent on expensive imported gas."
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/11/uk-renewable-energy-target-nuclear-power
= new reply since forum marked as read
> "It is hard to understand why the UK government wants to waste its energy on this
> expensive French technology, when it could be focusing on maximising the potential
> of home-grown renewable energy technologies, which would create thousands of jobs
> in the UK."
> Meanwhile, the gas industry has been lobbying heavily, arguing that gas offers
> a cheap alternative to renewables, despite being a fossil fuel.
Yeah, we see that a *lot* around the globe ... desperately trying to greenwash a
vast increase in gas burning as beneficial ...
Coal is responsible for a significant, but minority, amount of our carbon emissions. Since, using established measures of emissions natural gas emits about 40% of coal's CO2 emissions, replacing coal with natural gas would have a immediate positive impact, but by itself would do little to change the trajectory we are on.
The primary positive benefit would be the difference in the economic and operational profile of the grid that such a change would bring about. Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace as more and more renewables come online. Their relatively small capital investment is far easier to work out with a renewable induced decline in market share because there is a related steadily escalating value in the ability to ramp up and down quickly. This will assure increased per MWH revenue even as the number of MWH generated declines.
In other words they phase out without even a whimper, much less the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage. For them, the encroachment of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating almost constantly. If they lose 25% market share it is nearly impossible for them to raise the price of the power they sell into the remaining 75% enough to make up for the revenue lost.
We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste. However given the real choices on the table, the quickest route is to shift the economics and technological profile of the grid by shutting down as much large scale centralized generation as rapidly we can. Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.
...
According to the EIA, the drop in generation from the black rock is the result of warmer weather and increased natural gas use. Total electricity consumption was down 7% in December 2011 compared to December 2010.
Despite this, natural gas saw its consumption rise 12% to 86 terawatts between December 2010 and December 2011 On the other hand, coal's generation dipped 21% to 132 terawatts during the same time frame.
For energy providers, coal is still the number one option, however, low prices and the high efficiency rate of combined cycle power plants is making natural gas more competitive with America's old stalwart energy source.
Coal's competitive advantage in the energy sector looks as though it will continue to decline in near future. New environmental regulations imposed on the industry by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has led to a series of power plant closures, as utilities claim it is too expensive to implement the technology required to meet the new standards.
http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/us-electricity-coals-share-drops-33-year-low-winter-2011
... and which I was agreeing was a "pretty crap decision by HMG" ...
Why do you insist on spamming the shit out of me even when I'm agreeing with you?
Don't you ever bother to read?
(As you well know.)
To recap:
.0 (Kristopher) OP article entitled "UK opposes a 2030 renewable energy target"
(with appropriate extracts).
.1 (Nihil) Agrees that this was a bad decision by the UK government and agreed with
the OP article comment that "the gas industry has been lobbying heavily".
.2 (Kristopher) Unrelated repost of standard "Let's defend gas and attach nuclear" paste buffer.
.3 (Kristopher) Unnecessary repost of extract already posted in .0
.4 (Nihil) Reply to .3 with sarcastic comment on the above unnecessary posts and questions
why the apparent spamming when my only previous post (.1) was actually in full agreement
with the OP and the article quoted therein.
.5 (Kristopher) Parrot of question in .4 with a link to .2
.6 (Nihil) Points out that have read that the contents of .2 both here and (many times) previously.
.7 (Kristopher) Standard accusation that X is "still serving the nuclear industry"
(despite the fact that this lie has been disproved many times over the years).
.8 (Nihil) Points out that .7 is yet another untruthful smear.
.9 (Kristopher - the person who has been posting the lies) tries to reclaim the "moral high ground"
with a "who me?" post pretending to be some sort of victim.
-------------------------
No, in .6 I *didn't* ask "what the point of post 2 was", I asked what the point of .5
(the one I replied to) was as it certainly wasn't an answer to my previous question:
"Why do you insist on spamming the shit out of me even when I'm agreeing with you?"
I am genuinely amazed that you seem incapable of recognising agreement on even a single point.
Why?
> Why don't you stop being so rude.
You are the one who is repeating lies (e.g., in the subject line of .7).
> You asked what the point of post 2 was and I told you even though I would have thought it was clear.
No, in .6 I asked what the point of .5 was (i.e., the post that I replied to) as I had been hoping for
an answer to my previous question ("Why do you insist on spamming the shit out of me even when
I'm agreeing with you?"
but was being diverted by evasions.
> Your rants against natural gas serve no purpose ...
Strawman: The statement that "the gas industry has been lobbying heavily, arguing
that gas offers a cheap alternative to renewables, despite being a fossil fuel" came
straight from the OP article (that you posted).
My comment on that extract ("Yeah, we see that a *lot* around the globe ..." is in no way
or form a "rant against natural gas".
> You can't get rid of natural gas or coal by building more nuclear.
Strawman: I didn't claim that.
So ... for another patient attempt to get an answer, why are you being so negative and
aggressive towards me when I am in agreement with your OP?
>> I read it the first time on this thread (and on every other thread I've seen it) ...
>> ... and had no need to comment on that post so didn't reply there.
... but, just to keep you happy, ...
.2>> We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition
.2>> to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative
.2>> and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste.
I totally agree with that sentence/wish/desire/hope.
.2>> Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts
.2>> of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital
.2>> cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace
.2>> as more and more renewables come online.
I not only agree with that sentence but believe that it simply does not go far enough:
Without natural gas plants, it is almost impossible to integrate large amounts of variable
energy sources like wind and solar until the grid can be changed to suit.
If your claim about having "more than enough installed natural gas plants to make
the transition to renewables" is true then there is no need to build additional gas plants.
Result: Happy bunnies all around as you will be happy, I will be happy and the planet
(and all occupants) will benefit from the transition to renewables.
If there is a need to build additional gas plants then your claim is not true.
Result: Sad bunnies all around ... except for certain marketing firms who now have the
opportunity to make money pretending that this unnecessary additional gas burning
is beneficial to the planet (and all occupants).
Given the comment originally noted (in .1) from the article originally posted (in .0)
>>> "Meanwhile, the gas industry has been lobbying heavily, arguing that gas
>>> offers a cheap alternative to renewables, despite being a fossil fuel."
It makes me suspicious that the "happy bunny" option is not, in fact, true.
Hope this helps!
I definitely agree with the first two of your three points relating to "category of need":
> First is technical capability to integrate renewables. We have more than enough
> existing capacity to do the job. There may be a trend towards building more
> small, distributed combined cycle plants going forward, but that would be
> in response to decreased demand on larger units...
>
> Second is the need of natural gas as an industry to increase profits. We can
> both agree that this is not, on its face, a reason to go along with deploying
> more natural gas plants.
... but, to me, your third point ("the need to shut down large-scale thermal"
is the same as the first ("... to integrate renewables" .
Looking back to your reply in .2 (with which I agree) ...
.2>> We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition
.2>> to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative
.2>> and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste.
... and the previous reply (with which I agree) ...
.14> However, what about the need to shut down large-scale thermal? We are both
.14> witness to "the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage" because "the encroachment
.14> of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they (large scale
.14> thermal plants) can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating
.14> almost constantly".
... I suspect we have different views of "transition" and/or "integrate".
I have been reading "the transition to renewables" as necessarily meaning "shutting down
large-scale thermal" as, otherwise, there is no benefit in such a "transition" as it is less of
a transition between generating regimes and more of a simple addition of power
from renewable sources with no corresponding reduction in power from large-scale thermal.
Increasing the total power available to the grid (by adding both renewables *and* gas) isn't a benefit
to my eyes as it risks involving Jevon (not to mention tipping pricing/profit/demand equilibria and their
corresponding political ramifications) rather than the desired direct displacement.
And I suspect that this is mainly where we differ: having been misled and seriously disappointed
by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past, I am very loathe to trust that an argument
such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to
economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion as opposed to being
used to justify further exploitation of land/people in order to reduce their "high fuel cost".
To put it differently, I have been pleased to see public pressure closing coal plants but I'd want to see
more of this happening *with* the "more than enough installed natural gas plants" *before* agreeing
to *additional* natural gas plants as at least that way there would be historical evidence to support
the strategy before having to test the "phase II" assumption (i.e., that the gas corps would not be
able to dig their heels in to avoid going out "without a whimper" .
Here's hoping for the happy and smiling lagomorphs all around!
You wrote, "I suspect we have different views of "transition" and/or "integrate" based on my use in these two instances:
"We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables..." and "First is technical capability to integrate renewables. We have more than enough existing capacity to do the job."
The difference seems obvious to me but that must reflect my view as someone immersed in the issue. A 'transition to renewables' places emphasis on the end goal of a carbon free grid. 'Integrating renewables' places emphasis on the process of getting there. We are not going to build a separate grid in a factory and bring it, full-blown, out of that factory and plug it into the continent's energy consumption points, therefore to effect a 'transition' we must first go through a period of 'integration'.
Now let's recap the three needs identified:
Need to integrate
Need for corporate profits by natural gas companies
Need to shut down large-scale thermal
The need to integrate is not the same as the need to shut down large-scale thermal.
The need to shut down large scale thermal is 'our' need and stands in opposition to the need of those vested in large-scale thermal to maintain their socio-economic position.
The question central to our need is "How do we dismantle the economics of the energy system that was created by large-scale thermal and continues to favor them?"
We could take over control of the energy supply and do it by fiat, but I doubt that has any chance of happening, don't you?
We can enact policies that make fossil energy more expensive. We've been pursuing this approach for decades and it has had little success. There may be a time in the future where it becomes a valuable tool in accelerating the process of transition, but the political climate that exists where entrenched energy interests hold all the power makes it impossible to enact this strategy at a meaningful and consequential level today.
We can enact policies that promote market acceptance of renewable energy sources, a policy also known as subsidies. There are fewer structural economic barriers to this approach but it is still a difficult sell politically. Fortunately the regional areas where political will has manifested itself have had consideral success in driing the market and pushing technological advances and price reductions, however the pace of change is slow relative to the need for change. The political power structure built around entrenched energy's money is still in control in far too many places and it has the potential to delay transition for decades that we do no have.
Enter natural gas - the potential Judas Goat of the entrenched energy interests. It is already an integrated part of the techno-economic structure; consequently there are no barriers to it as there are to renewables.
Imagine a venn diagram where the left circle represents an electrical system oriented both economically and technologically around the steady state operating characteristics of centralized thermal with it's fuel costs. It is composed of coal, nuclear, hydro, (natural) gas turbines and storage.
The right circle represents a grid oriented, both economically and technologically, around the variable operating characteristics of renewables with zero fuel costs. It is composed of wind, solar, various forms of hydro, geothermal, biomass, (methane) gas turbines and storage.
The overlap area includes hydro, gas turbines and storage - these technologies are fully functional in both circles.
With this in mind let's return to the third need - "How do we dismantle the economics of the energy system that was created by large-scale thermal and continues to favor them?"
Here is your comment about meeting that need:
corresponding political ramifications) rather than the desired direct displacement.
And I suspect that this is mainly where we differ: having been misled and seriously disappointed by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past, I am very loathe to trust that an argument such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion as opposed to being used to justify further exploitation of land/people in order to reduce their "high fuel cost".
To put it differently, I have been pleased to see public pressure closing coal plants but I'd want to see more of this happening *with* the "more than enough installed natural gas plants" *before* agreeing to *additional* natural gas plants as at least that way there would be historical evidence to support the strategy before having to test the "phase II" assumption (i.e., that the gas corps would not be able to dig their heels in to avoid going out "without a whimper"
.Not to be rude, but the first of those three paragraphs is not based on an understanding of economic forces. It is loosely used jargon, nothing more. Also in all of it there is no trace of a *means* by which we move from the left circle to the right.
You say you don't trust "that an argument such as "their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs (natural gas plants) also are easier to economically displace" will actually lead to their removal in a timely fashion".
???
The raised eyebrows are a result of that coming right after you wrote of "having been misled and seriously disappointed by the abyssmal behaviour of human greed in the past".
You see, it is human 'greed', as you put it, is the foundation of why the zero fuel costs of renewables dictates that they will replace natural gas. But to get to that point we must first break down the institutional and systemic barriers that go along with centralized thermal - which is precisely the opportunity that the glut of natural gas affords us.
If you want to transition away from centralized thermal as soon as is practically possible, this is the path.
If you have another route I'd love to hear it.
