What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

jamesingram

Following on from comments on other thread

Here's an attempt at a solution to this problem http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/

Feel free to rip it apart

jamesingram

This is worth a watch, to get some background info. from the regulator
How secure is Great Britain's electricity and gas supply over the next decade?"

Alistair Buchanan 2012 CIBSE Lecture http://!!!!!!!!!!/53144064

"The 2012 CIBSE Annual Lecture, held on 7 November, gave Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem's Chief Executive, a chance to review the UK's rapidly changing energy supply landscape. Maintaining energy security of final supply was emerging as a key issue. It could offer new opportunities for the energy demand side to play a key future role.
In his lecture "How secure is Great Britain's electricity and gas supply over the next decade?" Alistair Buchanan looked at the complexity of energy supply and planning for the future, He touched on existing resources and the potential of shale gas, which has helped the US move towards self sufficiency, from a European-wide and UK perspective."

Martyn1981

Ok, here goes, bare bones suggestion:

First 25years
New gas to replace old gas and old coal,
new nuclear to replace old nuclear,
renewables to fill gaps,
then renewables to reduce gas consumption,

25years+
then renewables and storage to replace gas and eventually nuclear,
if CCS can be made to work well, then coal + CCS to replace gas, retaining gas for domestic heating, or automotive use,
nuclear fussion, which seems to be getting more funding than thorium.

Explanation, regarding 'old' nuclear - I'm not a big fan of nuclear, and the costs (before decommissioning) look to be terrifying, but without a huge shift in our attitudes towards energy consumption, I can't see a realistic way in which nuclear can be left out ...... yet.

So easy for me to criticise nuclear, but since I can't offer a better solution, that would be unreasonable of me.

Additional:
Higher prices, stop hiding any support or subsidies outside of energy bills.
Reverse pricing so first units are cheaper than later units.
Use VAT as a weapon, apply it on a rising schedule based on average consumption rates.
Redirect any extra funds into supporting the poor, increased tax brackets at the bottom, free efficiency improvements, etc.

Mart.

grahamc2003

jamesingram wrote: »

This is worth a watch, to get some background info. from the regulator
How secure is Great Britain's electricity and gas supply over the next decade?"

Alistair Buchanan 2012 CIBSE Lecture http://!!!!!!!!!!/53144064

"The 2012 CIBSE Annual Lecture, held on 7 November, gave Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem's Chief Executive, a chance to review the UK's rapidly changing energy supply landscape. Maintaining energy security of final supply was emerging as a key issue. It could offer new opportunities for the energy demand side to play a key future role.
In his lecture "How secure is Great Britain's electricity and gas supply over the next decade?" Alistair Buchanan looked at the complexity of energy supply and planning for the future, He touched on existing resources and the potential of shale gas, which has helped the US move towards self sufficiency, from a European-wide and UK perspective."

Yes, it's really good to see Ofgem talking some sense and identifying the severe issues we face, most of which on the electricity side have been posted on various threads here, much to the annoyance of many of the ultra 'green'. Surprised at the donors of the 'thanks' for your post - I guess they'll probably remove them if they ever watch and understand what Ofgem are saying.

So much sense that Alistair Buchanan is soon to leave Ofgem. For an accountant, he had a very good grasp of the issues our electricity supply is facing. And that is before the technical issues regarding system risk which he can't realistically be expected to understand. But as an overview, I think his talk was excellent, and required viewing for anyone really interested in the problems we face.

Here's the link, I couldn't get yours to work

http://!!!!!!!!!!/53144064

tberry6686

First 25years
New gas to replace old gas and old coal,
new nuclear to replace old nuclear,
renewables to fill gaps,
then renewables to reduce gas consumption,

Completely disagree with this.

Gas is running low in this country, to maintain security of electricity supply only nuclear and coal in the next 25 years can hope to work.

Renewable (except for hydro) fill no gap due too :
1. Unreliable
2. Massively uneconomical (and unlikely to be for many years to come unless wave power is mastered and can be produced at a reasonable cost)
3. Renewables will not replace any power station within the next 25 years due to the above.

Only way to secure electricity supply in the next 25 years is nuclear and coal.:cool:

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yes, it's really good to see Ofgem talking some sense and identifying the severe issues we face, most of which on the electricity side have been posted on various threads here, much to the annoyance of many of the ultra 'green'. Surprised at the donors of the 'thanks' for your post - I guess they'll probably remove them if they ever watch and understand what Ofgem are saying.

Can anyone explain why Graham thinks the presentation is anti green, or anti renewables?

Or have I just fallen for a trick and wasted an hour listening to it again, to find his point?

It seemed to me that the lecture explained that we are facing a major shortage, and all possible solutions are struggling and behind. If anything, it seemed to criticise nuclear the most, for being so far behind (because it's so expensive, nobody is willing to build it). As nuclear is Graham's beloved baby, I'm still unsure how the negativity in his post is justified. Even if nuclear was progressing well, the vast majority would not be commissioned before 2020 anyway!

@James, no intention to remove my thanks. If I could, I'd thank it again. Cheers.

Mart.

jamesingram

Struggling with links on both posts now , really worth a watch so try this
http vimeo dot com/53116658 or search on title.

rogerblack

Speaking personally - new nuclear building program to around 20 times the current capacity.
Completely decarbonise the existing electricity generation sector, and move all industries and homes using oil, coal or gas for heat over to electricity.
With the rise of China, India, ... in the next several decades, we _MUST_NOT_ be in a position where we are paying for fuel imports at the same time as our export industries run into problems due to 'the third world' upskilling.

Save the oil and gas for export, and industrial non-thermal use.
Renewables as makes economic sense on top of this.

Martyn1981

tberry6686 wrote: »

Completely disagree with this.

Gas is running low in this country, to maintain security of electricity supply only nuclear and coal in the next 25 years can hope to work.

Renewable (except for hydro) fill no gap due too :
1. Unreliable
2. Massively uneconomical (and unlikely to be for many years to come unless wave power is mastered and can be produced at a reasonable cost)
3. Renewables will not replace any power station within the next 25 years due to the above.

Only way to secure electricity supply in the next 25 years is nuclear and coal.:cool:

Hiya, so apart from nuclear, coal and renewables (hydro and wave) I completely disagree with you too!

Joking aside, I was trying to formulate a plan within the time constraints that we have, so ...

For the next 10 years we can't dismiss gas, it's simply too key to our generation, whether we like it or not. Also nuclear (and clean coal) won't be here till the middle of the next decade, hence why I had to add a 'sort of' before and after to the 25yr question.

Renewables - we can't look at the nuclear option, without allowing renewables the same time span, or considering the high subsidies that nuclear will lock us into - recent reports were for a 16p subsidy on nuclear (I've been told more like 12p by a friend in the industry, due to repetition of reactor type), plus decommissioning costs. So 10 to 12 years, plus those levels of subsidy allow for a huge development in storage technologies, and further cost reductions, especially in off-shore wind.

The same applies to wave technology, or even tidal barrages, the time and development costs for them, should in fairness be considered when assessing other renewables, rather than applying todays figures.

Of course, things get even trickier, with carbon taxes, and EU sanctions on subsidising nuclear indirectly, and UK rules limiting the amount of levies that can be added to bills to support nuclear directly etc.

Phew, looks like we are in a right mess, especially for the next 15 years.

Mart.

jamesingram

Zero Carbon Britain 2030: Narrated Slide Share with audio

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/component/content/article/128

a bit more accessable than the full report.
Interesting in the way it tries to reframe the process , by saying
Think what the structure should look like in the future, then work back, rather than somewhat blindly working from our current posistion.
Power down
56% reduction in energy use by 2030
Power up
The demand is then potentially easier to achieve via renewable.

It does require efficiency and resilency design changes in all aspect of society (80% reduction in Dairy & meat production for starters !) and a massive investment in offshore wind

grahamc2003

jamesingram wrote: »

Zero Carbon Britain 2030: Narrated Slide Share with audio

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/component/content/article/128

a bit more accessable than the full report.
Interesting in the way it tries to reframe the process , by saying
Think what the structure should look like in the future, then work back, rather than somewhat blindly working from our current posistion.
Power down
56% reduction in energy use by 2030
Power up
The demand is then potentially easier to achieve via renewable.

It does require efficiency and resilency design changes in all aspect of society (80% reduction in Dairy & meat production for starters !) and a massive investment in offshore wind

Quite contrast with the Buchanon talk!

This is the type of report which gets the greens all excited and certain that the ideas expressed are the way forward - and yet to me it appears to be like an essay a sixth former would write without, understandably, any depth of knowledge of any of the topics discussed. Buchanon's talk illustarted the balance of any dicision - on how even small decisions can have effects not expected, frequently the exact opposite of that intended, when procedures/strategies/initiatives are introduced without sufficient knowledge of the implications (e.g. the eu agreements on coal designed to lower coal burning but having the opposite effect currently, and a major step change coming up, the effects being worse than if they did nothing).

Basically, whoever this zerocarbonbritain lot are, judging by their presentation, seem puerile and naive in their views and devoid of any previous relevant appropriate experience, imv. They are just words, with no substance to back them up. Unfortunately, that stuff seems to be extremely appealing to many greens who post on these boards (and in general I expect). It's as if they think if you are 'passionate' enough about some 'vision', then simply stating it will bring it about. It aint that simple.

While I think it's stupid to both import apples and export the same number, I'm open to the view that there may be a valid reason (can't think what). While I would also like to see the amount of meat eaten in the UK decrease for various reasons, I don't thin reducing it by 80% is politically possible, and indeed would have implictions throughout the economy and society far beyond what I could hope to understand. 'Solving' global warming by cutting the UK's energy use by 40% or whatever will not work, because the UK energy consumption is such a tiny part of global energy consumption. Drawing a diagram of a 'new' national grid infrastructure doesn't mean it could work - putting it midly, they may not understand all the implications of their new design. Maybe it's a little difficult to the point of impossibility to get people to charge their car/do their washing when the wind is blowing strongly, and not do those things when it isn't. People would get quite smelly not bathing if the wind didn't blow for several days. etc etc etc etc.