The UK Party energy plans compared

In the run up to the general election, what is on offer so far in terms of energy and climate policy from the political parties? The Conservatives, in government, have had a mixed record. In common with the other main parties, they supported the expansion of the climate target from a 80% Green House Gas emission reduction by 2050 to 100%- or at least to zero net emissions by 2050. To get to that they have backed off-shore wind, plus some large biomass conversion projects, while phasing out coal plants. But they have also backed nuclear and blocked on-shore wind development, withdrawing access to the Contracts for Difference support system and toughening up planning rules. Same for large solar.   

With Extinction Rebellion noisily demanding ‘zero carbon by 2025’, the Liberal Democrats proposed a plan for cutting GHG emissions by 75% by 2030, with renewables supplying 80% of electricity, and then moving fully to net zero carbon by 2045, with no use of new nuclear, beyond Hinkley. On shore wind and solar PV would be fully reinstated, tidal power looked at more, but large biomass plants would be opposed. Energy saving and local energy projects were heavily backed: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/46346/attachments/original/1564404765/139_-_Tackling_the_Climate_Emergency_web.pdf?1564404765

An outline plan produced for Labour looked to a 77% cut in GHG emissions by 2030, but retained 9GW of nuclear- kept at that (current) level with some new plants. Renewables were strongly backed, including on-shore wind, with more wind & solar in place by 2030 (117 GW- 82GW of wind, 35GW of PV) than in the Lib Dem plan (83 GW- 53GW of wind, 30GW of PV), though in the latter plan, that rises to 149 GW by 2045 (92GW of wind, 52GW of PV).

Labour’s plan backed energy saving, aiming to reduce the need for energy across the UK by a minimum of 20% for heat and a minimum of 11% for electricity, relative to current levels.  Solar heating would account for 6% of total heating, biogas heating 5%, but large scale district heating was downplayed, except for networks using using waste heat/CHP. 3GW of tidal power was also mentioned, along with support for 2.5 GW of carbon capture for heavy industry: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ThirtyBy2030report.pdf

Labour’s outline plan suggested that ‘zero-carbon electricity could potentially be anticipated as early as 2034-2040, and zero carbon heating 2036-2040,’ but it didn’t specify the supply mix. However, that does beat the Lib Dems 2045 target date for net zero emissions. A bit of a choice, and a race, then, with the Green Party coming up as an outsider with a plan for a £100 bn a year climate action programme, focussed on renewables and energy saving- and no nuclear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50305284 The SNP is similarly very pro-renewables (in 2017 Scotland got 70% of its power from renewables and its now near 75%) and it wants no new Scottish nuclear: https://www.scottishrenewables.com/forums/renewables-in-numbers/

We’ve been here before…with more promises  

The Lib Dems backed a non-nuclear future once before, but in its 2010-15 coalition with the Tories, it relented, while Labour too switched from non-nuclear (when in opposition) to pro­-nuclear (when in power earlier in the 2000s), earning this (ineffective!) reprimand: http://herbeppel.blogspot.com/2009/09/professor-david-elliot-open-university.html

Labour didn’t come off too well this time around either, with some worrying that the new plan was just an electro-fantasy plan, with gas much reduced and nuclear pushed, but its locations misspelled/misplaced! http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2019/10/nuking-labours-progressive-energy-policy.html

However, as the election timetable moved on, we got more promises. The Tories had already promised to back Electric Vehicles more, and then announced that there would be £900m to support EV charging net work extensions and £490 m for other transport investment. However, the government has also allocated £222m to nuclear fusion research. It also imposed a moratorium of shale gas fracking- an option that all the other parties have long since opposed. But the government rather blunted the welcome but r maybe temporary fracking halt, by also backing a new coal mine, and by a commitment to invest £800m in CCS clusters – presumably to allow for the continued use of fossil fuel. Overall then, the Tories, unsurprisingly, didn’t get too much backing from the Guardian:  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/17/scientists-and-climate-advisers-condemn-tory-environmental-record

Labour came out with a £30m Warm Homes for All plan to install loft insulation, double glazing & renewable technologies in almost all of the UK’s 27m homes. That’s on top of its already announced plan to invest £6.2bn from its proposed £250bn national transformation fund in 37 new offshore windfarms - 52GW by 2030. That contrasts with Boris Johnson’s subsequent commitment to a ‘clean energy revolution’ with UK offshore wind capacity raised to just 40 GW by 2030.

There was a bit of last moment reiterations of Labours plans, with Barry Gardiner, Labour’s shadow trade secretary, saying that the aim was to get the power sector ‘90% powered by renewables by 2030’, rather than a commitment to zero carbon across the board by then, which some saw as the original target that Labour had agreed to work towards: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-climate-change-carbon-zero-emissions-general-election-a9206781.html

The Manifestos

However, we had to wait for the Manifestoes to see what actually was promised. In the event, Labour settled on 90% of power and 50% of heat from renewables & low carbon sources (which presumably includes nuclear) by 2030: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-green-industrial-revolution/ The Lib Dems stuck to  80% renewable electricity by 2030, and net zero Carbon by 2045: https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan The SNP too: www.snp.org/general-election-2019/  The Greens went for net zero carbon by 2030: https://campaigns.greenparty.org.uk/manifesto/ The Tories stayed with 2050 – the governments target: https://vote.conservatives.com/our-plan But they did say ‘we will use our £1 bn Ayrton Fund to develop affordable & accessible clean energy that will improve lives & help us to lead the world in tackling climate change’. And it mentioned 40GW of offshore wind.  There will also be £9bn for energy efficiency in homes, schools and hospitals, including £6.3 bn to improve the energy efficiency of 2.2 million disadvantaged homes: https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/11/22/greater-manchester-businesses-offered-energy-efficiency-funding/

The Tories noted their support for nuclear, including fusion, but surprisingly, there was no mention of nuclear  by the Lib Dems, while Labour said ‘We will build new nuclear power needed for energy security’, with no further explanation. However, Labour did say that its Green New Deal aimed to achieve ‘the substantial majority of our emissions reductions by 2030’, with help from a share of the new £250 bn Green Transformation Fund- a big spend.  It also mentioned tidal power.  And its programme would, it was calculated, create 1 million green jobs: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/21/labour-manifesto-promises-1m-green-jobs-to-tackle-climate-crisis All of which got a fair degree of expert support: https://theconversation.com/does-labours-green-industrial-revolution-tackle-the-climate-crisis-experts-weigh-in-127542

During the Channel 4 debate on the climate crisis, with Boris Johnson conspicuously absent, the party leaders vied with each other offering better zero carbon targets dates than his ‘2050’, the greens leading the pack with their 2030 target. They and the SNP also both dissed nuclear, but Corbyn said it had a role.  Otherwise, although they differed on the details, they all seemed to agree - we need more renewables, more trees- and less flying and less meat!

A race to the polls

So now it’s up to the voters. Few take election promises too seriously, but there does seem to be an appetite for change in terms of energy policy.  Public opinion polls suggest that renewables are overwhelmingly popular (84% for, at the last BEIS count), nuclear and shale gas fracking very much less so. It is interesting that business leaders seem to have backed a position somewhere in between Labour and the Tories, but nearer to the former, with the CBI backing nuclear and Carbon Capture, but also on-shore wind:  http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/3716/cbi-low-carbon-2020s-report-4-november-2019.pdf

Climate change has moved up the public and political agenda a lot recently, with two thirds in a poll saying it was the most important global issue and that 47% of Conservative voters backed a zero-emissions target by 2030, as opposed to the Tory governments 2050 target: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll However, with BREXIT still the leading issue for many voters, all bets on who might win most seats in the election are still off! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-latest-environment-climate-change-policies-poll-pollution-jeremy-corbyn-labour-a9206571.html

Alternatives for Nuclear

Nuclear looks to be on the way out- can it do something new?

Clean energy technology global investment, mostly focussed on renewables, has been running at around $350 bn p.a. for the last few years. For nuclear it fell to $17 bn last year.

In 2018, global renewable generation capacity saw the largest annual increase ever, with new solar outstripping additions in coal, natural gas and nuclear.  The bottom line is that, quite apart from all its other problems, as renewable costs have fallen, nuclear has become less and less economically attractive.

So you can see why the nuclear industry is keen to look for new openings. It’s having trouble competing in the electricity market, but could it make some headway in the heat and transport markets- or as a way to balance the variable electrical output of renewables?

There’s been some debate over options like this: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-is-the-key-to-hybrid-energy-systems  So we though we would review the possibilities            

Reuse them?  The industry is stuck at present with large mostly old very inflexible nuclear plants, usually run 24/7 to recoup their large construction costs. They may not be able to compete in the power market with renewables or even new flexible gas plans, but their generation costs are relatively low compared with old fossil plants, with their much higher fuel costs. So could the nuclear plants be partly repurposed to try to compete in other markets?

In theory, some of the surplus power output from the existing plants, produced at night when demand is low, could be used then to make hydrogen gas for heating or vehicle fuel. Indeed, some old uneconomic nuclear plants could be switched over to that full time, as a last stage in their careers. But that would only make sense if there was a market for the gas and if it was lucrative enough to justify spending money on building Power to Gas (P2G) conversion units for use just perhaps for their few remaining years. That’s unlikely. Moreover, while old nuclear plants may run at marginal costs (most of their construction cost having long since been paid off, which is why they are kept running as long as possible), they may need refurbishment to try to keep them safe, and that can cost a lot. So for old plants there will be diminishing returns.  

New plants Much better perhaps to look to new plants. They can be designed specifically for new purposes, including for heat supply, if they can be located near heat loads.  That is where small modular reactors are meant to come into their own. In theory, if they can be massed- produced, they will be cheaper. And if they could be installed in or near cities, perhaps run in Combined Heat and Power mode, that could make them even more economically viable. Trouble is there aren’t any plant like this yet! And would they be welcome near cities?

It may be more sensible to look to hydrogen production, since that could be done anywhere. For example, in big nuclear complexes well away from people, with the hydrogen being sent by pipe or transported by tanker to users. Some see nuclear fusion going that way, if it ever becomes viable on a large scale. But of course renewables can also be used to make hydrogen and there will be large power surpluses available from variable wind & solar for this at times, available to make hydrogen wherever it is needed.  In addition, there is the option of large solar projects in deserts, producing hydrogen and synfuels, either indirectly from electricity or directly by high temperature dissociation of water. High temperature nuclear fission or fusion plants might be able to do that too, in large remote complexes, but there are no special advantages from using nuclear heat, whereas solar heat is free, and abundant in desert areas. 

Balancing  options  Maybe since renewables seem likely to dominate, rather than competing with them, or finding new markets, nuclear could find a role in supporting renewables? It is sometimes claimed that we need nuclear to balance variable renewables. However, nuclear plant can’t vary their output rapidly and regularly. It takes time to safely disperse the radioactive Xenon gas that is produced when nuclear reactions are halted, especially once the reactor fuel has been in use for some time. If not dealt with Xenon can interfere with safe plant operation. Slow ramps downs are possible and that is done to meet low demand at night or seasonally, for example in France, and power output can also be dumped, or the steam to the turbines diverted for while to cut output, but that undermines the economics of the plants: they are usually run 24/7 at full power to recoup their high capital costs. No UK nuclear plants have been licensed to load follow and that includes the new Hinkley plant: http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf

However, it is sometimes said that the proposed new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could be used to balance variable renewables. Allegedly they will be more flexible, able to vary their output easily, either by having multiple small units, some of which can be taken off line for a while, or by being genuinely flexible in their operation, as is claimed may be the case for molten salt reactors. They would operate at high temperatures, and, in theory, power output could be varied by adjusting the molten mix.  However, it seems a very long shot technically and economically- quite apart from the safety and security issues. There are plenty of easier balancing options that don’t involve working with lethal corrosive radioactive materials at very high temperatures.

The current state of play For the moment, SMRs are all for the future- none yet exist. On the ground what we are seeing are some small moves to diversify existing large plant operations. For example, French state owned company EDF has launched a hydrogen production and distribution subsidiary, Hynamics, to support decarbonisation of industry and mobility using low-carbon electricity from its (large) nuclear & (small) renewable energy fleet, which it says produce large amounts of ‘marginal cost clean electricity’: http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-moves-into-the-hydrogen-market

Well we will see. That could be a marginal interim nuclear extension option. However, no one is likely to build new large nuclear plants for this purpose, and the overall pictures doesn’t look too good for nuclear, unless there are some breakthroughs with new SMR technology. That’s far from certain: https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/04/06/small-modular-reactors-are-dead-on-non-arrival/ It’s the same for fusion – which it is even further off, with unknown costs, but potentially big risks: see my earlier post in this series.

So, in the final analysis, it may be that decommissioning of old fission plants will be the only lucrative future nuclear option!

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-The-benefits-of-sustainable-decommissionand https://theecologist.org/2019/jan/29/nuclear-decommissioning-era-approaches Although what that’s saying really is that the cost of the clean up will be large- and it may be more than expected: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618303888?via=ihub

As for expansion, well a new reports’ title effectively sums up a common view of the present situation: ‘High-priced and dangerous: nuclear power is not an option for the climate-friendly energy mix’. And that included SMRs: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf

But that was report from some German critics. Maybe the last word should go to more of an an insider, Gregory Jaczko, one-time head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), initially a (cautious) supporter. Now he says: ‘This tech is no longer a viable strategy for dealing with climate change, nor is it a competitive source of power’. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html