Here is a link to this recent debate on the UK Energy Bill:
Energy Bill [HL] - Hansard - UK Parliament
Of particular interest is the contribution by Lord Moylan. Here is a short exerpt:
"Net zero is not an energy strategy but a constraint on how we might achieve our energy strategy. Nobody seriously thinks that the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 will have any significant effect on the heating of the planet, since we produce only 1% of global emissions. At best, it is setting an example to the world; its practical effect will be very small indeed. The core strategy for this Government has to remain abundant and affordable energy for the UK."
"One of the things the Bill does is encourage investment in wind power. Despite claims that the cost of wind power is constantly falling, that is simply not true. Although it has fallen from its early days, it is ceasing to fall; the fall is declining as a result of the maturity of the industry, as you would expect with any industry that matures. But even if the marginal cost of wind power can be brought down to something close to zero—in other words, that it is similar to nuclear power in that regard—none the less, the capital costs required would still require subsidies, in addition to the feed-in tariff, and these are very large indeed when it comes to offshore wind.
Moreover, despite providing in excess of 20% of our energy, there are many days when wind power falls close to zero, and much the same can be said of solar. This means that gas generation has to be available to take up the slack at those times."
It is good to see that there are still some politicians who are willing to speak the truth instead of simply repeating the usual mantra. I hope the next PM will take note.
Storage is the next big thing so that natural gas is needed less and less.
ReplyDeleteWe are still a long way from being able to store enough electricity in batteries. The £45m battery installed by Elon Musk outside Adelaide, South Australia, can power that city for 30 minutes. If you wanted to be able to cover a week’s power outage after a major storm, it would cost around 1,300 times as much using batteries as it would with diesel generators.
ReplyDeleteThere is way far more to storage than just batteries. RE will be built to overproduce to build up storage and to need less storage. Also there is transmission from other geographical locations. This can be designed for 24/7 power.
DeleteEven if the most optimistic scenario were to become reality, there would never be enough back-up to make up for when there is a lack of wind. There are often times when winds fall low over a wide geographical location, when there is no prospect of transmission from other nearby locations. The dream of "24/7 renewable power" cannot become a reality without reliable back-up from either fossil fuels or nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteHydrogen will be one of the big storage mediums for vacillating energy production. If you overbuild RE, there is a great deal more room before backup is needed. The utilities design their production just for those low production times. The engineers clearly know how much will be needed in those times.
DeleteThis all sounds very costly. If it were viable why is it not being done now?
ReplyDeleteGLobal warming is driving us out of present pollution energy.
DeleteSo you agree that it will be costly, but we have to do it to cut CO2 emissions. Most of the public will not support it.
ReplyDeleteThe damage of AGW is about 10 times more. That is what makes 100% RE a really great bargain.
Delete