Political struggles for sustainable futures

The next few months will see some momentous political challenges on both sides of the Atlantic, with potentially major implications for energy and climate policies.  

In the USA: The imminent party Conventions will decide on the presidential candidates. Here’s a roundup of the various candidates’ energy platforms, including use of what seems to be Jacobson’s state-by-state 100% by 2050 renewables scenarios for its rendition of Bernie Sanderson’s position:  https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/no-more-berning-of-fossil-fuels/

That doesn’t make it according to the Hass blog, at least in California. But it’s not clear if Sanders does actually subscribe to this set of scenarios- which avoid biomass use. That, unsurprisingly, would make it harder to meet the 100% target if demand can’t be cut. Sanders has certainly backed renewables very strongly and wants nuclear phased out- with no more plant licensing renewals. Unlike all the other candidates: https://berniesanders.com/people-before-polluters/invest-in-clean-sustainable-energy/  He is clearly the most radical candidate by far, a self professed democratic socialist, sharing many positions with the European left and most greens.

However, sadly, baring last minute upsets, it seems unlikely that Sanders will get the Democratic nomination at the Convention, despite massive grass roots support: the delegate system is arguably biased to the allegedly ‘safer’ status quo i.e. the supposedly more likely to win national figure, Hillary Clinton, who is backed by wealthy donors. So it may be Clinton v Trump in November. A terrifying choice, with Trump saying, on climate change ‘I am not a believer. I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again.’  www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-global-warming_us_5601d04fe4b08820d91aa753  

Trump's opposition to wind energy  is also well known (in Scotland too!) and he has been dismissive of solar as ‘unproven’ and as too expensive- he has talked of 32 year pay-back times: http://solartribune.com/where-does-trump-stand-on-solar/   Looks like an all round disaster, if he makes it through, quite apart from his other policies.  Like the Mexican wall, neatly satirised in this April 1st spoof, which quotes him allegedly saying ‘we make the left-wing tree-huggers happy by introducing a price on carbon, and we make my right-wing supporters happy by closing the funding gap for my wall’:  http://carbon-pulse.com/17802/

In the EU:  The UK referendum on whether to leave the EU opens up many issues. The case for staying is strong, but it’s hard to predict what will happen.  Many do not like what they see as a wasteful, unaccountable, remote EU bureaucracy. There certainly are problems. Should we try to sort them, or just walk away? To maybe not so splendid isolation?

In terms of energy policy, the EU has pushed renewables quite hard and forced the UK to do so too. Certainly the UK has always been conservative in terms of renewable support systems, pushing for the adoption of competitive market approaches as opposed to Feed-In Tariffs. But Germany has now adopted a similar approach, as has the EU as a whole. So that’s unlikely to change whatever happens. However, although the UK has a huge renewable resource, more than most other EU countries, it has dragged its feet on developing them (the RO was much less effective that the FiTs), with its percentage contribution being amongst the lowest in the EU. So if the UK removes itself, the residual EU should be able to do better. Leaving the UK to stew in its own juice. But if the UK stays in the EU, not much new is likely to happen. It’s getting a bit better slowly, with offshore wind and PV booming, but if it stays in, the UK will still remain a drag on the EU. So some Europeans might welcome a UK exit.  So would some UK reactionaries! Brexit would mean that the UK could ignore EU energy and climate directives and that might provide a precedent for some climate/ anti green contrarians to call for us to exit from our own commitments too: http://euanmearns.com/the-origins-of-the-2008-uk-climate-change-act/

Whichever way it goes, a big new development is the European Energy Union, the EUs initiative seeking to complete the single energy market programme and integrate EU energy systems more effectively. This opens up many issues: for example is building a big competitive market really the best way forward? Won’t it squeeze out smaller players?  Or will it tame the big players, by exposing them to wider competition? Is there any alternative to integration given the need to link of renewables across the EU with supergrid networks?

The UK may be an island (or bits of islands), but, as renewables expand, it will need more grid links to the continent for balancing and trade: it may have a net surplus. Consultant group Pyory has looked at the costs and benefits of links and says they are ‘overwhelmingly positive’ and that may hold for the UK up to 9-11GW, as already envisaged long term, although it adds that beyond that it is less clear. While an EU-wide system would have overall socio-economic benefits for the EU, the benefits from more cross channel links might be marginal and even fall for the UK. It’s the Brexit issue distilled! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505222/080_Poyry_CostsAndBenefitsOfGBInterconnection_v500.pdf

Some of the institutional issues are explored in a timely book by Prof. Rafael Leal-Arcas from Queen Mary College London.   It suggests that the creation of a European Energy Union might be an effective and viable solution to the energy security problems that the EU is facing, by making it easier to trade energy inside the EU. It notes that ‘the EU currently has to rely on energy-rich countries for its energy needs, many of whom are politically and economically unstable. This places the EU in a vulnerable position’. http://www.claeys-casteels.com/eu_energy_studies_8.php

The book explores the institutional and legal framework for the creation of a European Energy Union, looking at some of the key issues, which it sees as the need to support security, solidarity and trust, the completion of a competitive internal market, moderation of demand and the decarbonization of the EU energy mix i.e., greater use of renewable energy. Much of that would of course be academic as far as the UK goes if it leaves to EU, though the UK might be able to join in some of the commercial trading, but it could not shape the market system design or its rules. It’s just one example of what the UK would miss out on if it leaves.  

However, for the average household, all this may be too remote. It may be that, in terms of energy issues, Brexit will be seen as just avoiding unwelcome lifestyle impositions.  It was amusing that the EU decided to delay its draft ruling on inefficient domestic appliances, including toasters (a classic UK kitchen item), until after the referendum. 

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/28/eu-inefficient-toasters-ban-delayed-avoid-pro-brexit-press-attack

Meanwhile, the EU seems to be sticking with its target of a 40% emission cut by 2030. Following the Paris COP21 accords, it has apparently abandoned its fall back target of 30% (if other countries did not make sufficient commitment), but it’s is evidently not willing to go much further. Some had called for 45%: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/02/eu-plans-no-change-to-climate-target-before-2030  Maybe the threat of Brexit shaped that, although in the past the UK has been amongst those pushing for higher climate targets, in part no doubt with nuclear expansion in mind. The EU as whole is meant to be agnostic on nuclear: that’s up to each country, with several key countries strongly opposed (notably Germany and Austria), but there is a strong pro-nuclear trend within the higher echelons of the EC. Hard to say what Brexit would mean on that issue, but the EU would loose a strongly pro-nuclear country- the Scottish bit apart. If the UK leaves the EU, that may of course precipitate calls for another  Scottish independence vote, and if that led Scotland to break away, then, with its huge renewables resource, already supplying 50% of Scotland’s electricity, the energy situation for the residual UK would look very different.

Green energy balancing: impacts and reactions

Renewable energy sources are variable, and ways have to be found to compensate for that. Fortunately there are many, as my new book ‘Balancing Green Power: how to deal with variable energy,’ tries to show. While no single grid balancing option will be sufficient on its own, it suggests that, taken together, in an integrated and widely interconnected approach, using a range of renewable sources, including the non-variable options, effective balancing should be possible. Certainly the range of approaches is quite large, including energy storage, flexible backup plants, smart grid demand response and supergrid imports and exports.

However, some may have problems. For example, in relation to balancing of local surpluses and shortfalls across wide areas by interconnectors, it remains unclear how much excess output will be available when needed for trade. Much will depend on prices and market structures, as well on which renewables are developed and where they are located. Perversely, if supergrids spread, countries may be tempted to reduce their renewable over-capacity, and so have less to trade. It is also likely that there will be large surpluses in the summer, when demand is less and solar at a maximum, during which time few trades will be viable or needed, with some of the renewable capacity being left idle.  Storage capacity will also be unused then, unless it is inter-seasonal storage, and not much of that may exist. 

Given that renewable capacity may have to be set higher than would otherwise be needed to meet demand, there will also be surplus production at other times, for example when wind output is high and demand low. As critics have pointed out, in some scenarios, assuming extensive renewable expansion, the surplus can be quite large and would be very wasteful.  However, this misses the point that, not only can some curtailment be avoided by supergrid exports, some of the excess can be stored directly, or converted into valuable storable fuels, for later use, possibly in other sectors e.g. heating and transport. 

In addition to technical and economic issues like these, which I look at in detail, there is also the question of social and environmental impacts. Given that the aim of balancing is to aid the development and use of clean, green energy systems, it is fortunate that most of the balancing systems looked at in the book seem to be environmentally unproblematic, with perhaps the exception of pumped hydro storage. Some environmentalists have opposed large hydro projects, though that has mainly concerned major new projects in remote areas that might not be suited to pumped storage. Much of the current development work concerns modifying and perhaps linking up existing, often smaller, hydro projects, so that they can operate in pumped storage mode, although some new medium-scale systems are also being developed. 

Some energy storage systems involve the use of toxic materials (e.g. in batteries), but non-toxic versions are being developed. Hydrogen storage and transmission also has risks, but so does the storage and transmission of most fuels, with hydrogen arguably being one of the less risky options: it is lighter than air and so disperses easily. Supergrid links may be invasive, but there are options for overlaying them with existing grids, or putting some sections underground. That is easier with HVDC than with conventional DC grids since, as the energy losses in transmission are lower, there is less heat to dissipate, although going underground would still add to the cost. 

The use of biomass, as a firm source of energy, and for production of biogas as a possible energy storage medium, opens up some environmental issues. Some environmentalist oppose the use of biomass for energy production on the basis of land-use and ecological impacts: it depletes a crucial carbon sink, reduces the area available for food production and can undermine local biodiversity. However, biogas produced from farm and food wastes should not face these problems, and avoids the release of methane into the atmosphere, in which case it should be able to play a role in balancing variable renewables on a sustainable basis. Some other forms of biomass may also be less of a problem, short rotation coppicing of fast growing non-food crops for example, although clearly careful regulation is needed, as with all types of renewable system. 

Although the environmental and safety issues of the balancing options do not seem insurmountable, in some cases, there might be negative public reactions to deployment, as there have been in the case of renewable deployment generally. On the supply side, some of the changes will be essentially invisible to the public. Most utility-run storage facilities, pumped hydro apart, will look much like any other plants. Similarly for most back-up plants and associated biogas/syngas stores and Power to Gas conversion plants. As indicated above, supergrid links may however be much less invisible, although, like hydro, they would be remote from most people, and, with supergrids, there are options for going underground in sensitive areas.

On the demand side, there would be more intimate and widespread interactions. It is not clear how consumers will react to smart grid demand management and time-of-use pricing system and how much that will help limit peaks and avoid energy waste. Most consumers are likely not to want to have to be bothered with energy management, so automated systems may prove acceptable, as long as they see some benefits. These benefits however may be longer term and not just economic and there are data protection and privacy issues.

However, if the new system can be seen to deliver energy reliably, without undue costs or impacts, and without too much need for behavioural change, then it may be widely supported. Then again, some consumers seem willing to voluntarily adopt new energy systems, perhaps wishing to make personal contributions to energy sustainability on behalf of future generations. The growth of the ‘prosumer’ self generation movement in many way challenges the technological and market status quo, making old certainties redundant: a new system may be emerging. And that will have to include new balancing systems.

‘Balancing Green Power’, Institute of Physics Publications: http://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-0-7503-1230-1

After Hinkley: Plan B

In March, Lynne Featherstone, a peer and former coalition minister, speaking in the House of Lords, asked: ‘If it does not proceed with Hinkley Point, what is the government’s plan B for the security of our energy supply in future years, given that the support for renewables industries has been completely undermined by the government and that there is still no commitment to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which would provide energy for 120 years – three times as long as would a nuclear power station?’

With the Hinkley nuclear project looking increasingly likely to fail, she was not alone in seeing the Swansea tidal project as part of  a ‘Plan B’, and as in any case, as better than nuclear: David Jones, a Tory former cabinet minister, said: ‘Nuclear projects are finite and have potential unforeseen consequences in terms of disposal of waste, [but] tidal lagoons provide a clean source of power that, built on a Victorian scale, will last for many decades if not centuries.’ Another Welsh Tory MP, Byron Davies, said the lagoon ‘has the potential to produce energy that is cheaper than even nuclear and gas’, while the Labour MP Paul Flynn said tidal energy was ‘free, British and of immense power, whereas the source of energy for Hinkley Point is an imported form of fuel that will leave a legacy for all time’. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/10/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-energy-project-hinkley-point-wales

Are they right? Andrea Leadsom, the energy minister, told MPs that the Swansea Bay scheme was ‘not comparable’ to the new nuclear station. Sadly, she is right, it’s only ~300MW compared to the 3.2GW nuclear plant- over ten times larger. And although its capital cost, put at around £1bn, would make it cheaper/MW than the £24bn Hinkley project (roughly £3m v £8m/MW), its load factor would be very much lower (maybe 18% v 90%), so the cost per kWh of electricity produced could be ~20% higher. Or even more, if EDF’s figure of £18bn for Hinkley is used (the £24bn figure is an estimate from the EU including the full project finance costs).  Certainly it’s been said the lagoon would need a much higher level of CfD support than Hinkley (around £160 v £92.5/MWh), although that could be reduced if the CfD contract ran over a long period. Hinkley’s contract is for 35 years. Renewables have only been given 15 years.

Leadsome did admit that ‘the Swansea Bay project was in our manifesto. The government absolutely recognises its potential to deliver low-carbon, secure energy for the future. However, it was not a commitment to deliver a contract for difference. This government [is] absolutely determined to prioritise keeping costs down, to be on the consumer’s side and to decarbonise at the lowest price while keeping the lights on.’ So while the project was ‘of huge interest’, the government ‘must keep a close eye on the cost’. 

That is not to say the Swansea lagoon and other larger, maybe cheaper, lagoons, cannot be part of Plan B, but, if we are seeking to replace the 3.2 GW Hinkley and the maybe 16GW of new nuclear at one time envisaged, we will need a lot more renewable energy projects as well as energy saving projects. That is on top of the already quite large contribution from renewables, with around 14GW of wind and 10GW of PV supplying about 20% of annual UK electricity at present. Renewables could reach over 30% by 2020 on current plans.  However, there is significant potential for expansion beyond that.

Hinkley is currently meant to come on line by around 2025, though more likely, in the event, it would be a bit later- if it goes ahead.  But if it doesn’t, there have been several high renewables scenarios, running up to 2030, that might be candidates for Plan B. For example from CAT: www.zerocarbonbritain.org  Greenpeace: www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/20160121_Study_Windgas_HPC_English.pdf   and  Friends of the Earth:  www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/plan_cbe_report.pdf And also, for the South West: http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-power-to-transform-the-South-West_FINAL1.pdf

They have their strengths and weaknesses. The Greenpeace ‘Windgas’ scenario focuses on direct replacement of Hinkley with wind, with power-to-gas conversion ensuring that the output would be the same- reliable around the clock. That’s fine for polemical purposes, meeting the intermittency issue head on. ‘Wind to gas’ is clearly clever and sensible. But a full alternative scenario would also include other renewables and other energy management options, as in the Friends of the Earth scenario. However, that was produced in 2012 and much has happened since then, including many advances in system management. Similarly, for the partial South West scenario. We need something new, fuller, and up to date. The best so far seems to be another one from Greenpeace: www.demandenergyequality.org/2030-energy-scenario.html  That aims to supply 85% of UK electricity from renewables by 2030. However, it too has limits. It downplays system management and does not look at the economics. Neither does the even more ambitious CAT near-100% renewable energy by 2030 scenario.

There are several 2050 UK renewables/low carbon scenarios which can act as guides, including one from a team of leading academics, which focuses heavily on local level systems, including biomass/waste-fired CHP,  feeding local heat networks: www.realisingtransitionpathways.org.uk/realisingtransitionpathways/news/distributing_power.html

And more recently, Dr Mark Barrett at University College has updated his extensive low carbon UK Energy system model, which runs up to 2050. He is presenting it in a talk soon:  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ucl-iedelearn-lecture-a-renewable-uk-tickets-22457647428

So we have plenty of guides. Renewables are getting cheaper by the day- on shore wind is already 30% cheaper than Hinkley would be by 2025/26 and it will get even cheaper: http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/onshore-wind-schemes-now-being.html So will PV- there are already projects going ahead with lower CfD strike prices than Hinkley would get. And offshore wind could well also be cheaper by then: https://ore.catapult.org.uk/crmf  Indeed, the recent Budget announcement said offshore wind CfDs would be set at £85/MWh for projects commissioned in 2026- much less than the £92.5/MWh Hinkley would get then, if it’s built. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508193/HMT_Budget_2016_Web_Accessible.pdf

More will need to be done on the heat and transport side (e.g. with bio/green syngas), but electricity use is actually falling -generation fell by13% over the last decade: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511931/Electricity.pdf

Given proper attention to energy saving, it should be possible to come up with a viable non-nuclear strategy, based on wind, on and offshore, PV solar, large and small, and biomass/waste CHP, as well as other renewables, including tidal current turbines and lagoons, along with the necessary balancing/energy management systems. The latter might add 10% to costs initially, but smart grid and supergrid systems will also lead to savings- the recent National Infrastructure Commission says of up to £8bn p.a. by 2030. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505218/IC_Energy_Report_web.pdf 

However, someone has to put this all together and campaign effectively on it.  At present Labour’s shadow energy minister, Lisa Nandy, still seems in thrall to nuclear- her Plan B is apparently to go for mini nukes! Can it just be left to the NGOs and academics to rescue the situation?