Renewables are doing quite
well in the UK, supplying around 33% of is electricity, but there are worries
as to whether the energy transition can continue. Business Green’s editor
recently said ‘The policy framework that
delivered the first phase of this historic transition is fast running out of
road…those Ministers hailing the success of the UK's clean energy transition
have been dining out on the policy decisions made by their predecessors. Since
2015 there has been a steady erosion of this policy framework’.
The UK is still well behind most
other European countries in terms of the percentage of total
energy supplied from renewables (around 10%), but it is catching up, helped by
the large offshore wind programme. Some of problems have been due to the
funding schemes used. While competitive mechanisms have their place, the UK
experience with developing renewables has been mixed, with some at least of the
mistakes arguably being due to an over zealous political belief in the efficacy
of markets as a way to identify winners and get prices down rapidly.
It is true that we need to get costs down. Fortunately,
that is happening- the technology is getting cheaper as the market
expands. We can argue about whether that
is because of the competitive pressures, or due to the subsides, but the key
thing now is - can can
we ensure that falling costs compensate for the rising cost of rapid capacity
expansion that is needed, so that consumer backlashes are avoided? Or must we
expect to pay more to get to a green future? The signs are that the transition should not cost more, if well planned. Indeed, there are
options for reducing costs at the local level via peer to peer trading: see the
examples in the appendix below. Longer term, the develop of smart more
efficient energy system should cut cost significantly.
Replacing nuclear
More
immediately, with the UK nuclear programme now in tatters, the issues of what to do next takes on a new urgency – with renewables waiting in the
wings to help.
RenewableUK says that around 4.5GW of on-shore
wind projects already have local planning permission but have been blocked from
CfD support. SSE’s CEO has also argued that we need to be more ambitious about offshore wind . PV solar can also be expanded,
particularly at the local community level with a FiT-type support scheme.
Tidal Current Turbine technology needs more support (the 399MW Meygen scheme in
Pentland Firth is stalling for lack of funding), wave energy possibly too,
although it is less developed. Biomass AD, using wastes (not forestry wood
combustion as at DRAX) needs more support, and CHP too, as part of an expansion
of heat networks.
The
power, heat and gas networks need reconfiguring to help deal with variable
renewables with more electrical storage, more gas storage and more heat storage
being added to increase system flexibility.
A key to that will be “Power to Gas” conversion of the regularly surplus
power outputs that will be available at times from renewables into hydrogen gas
for later use to generate power when renewable inputs are low. Some of this
synthetic green gas could also be used, along with biogas, for direct heating
and for heavy transport vehicles. The UK
has been a pioneer in this Power to Gas area. It is part of the shift to a new
more efficient and flexible way of balancing variations in demand and supply.
As the
head of the National Infrastructure Commission has said, all of that (and much else) needs
revisiting and a new approach devised. Hopefully we can come up with one that will
be more coherent and effective than those in the past.
The state of play
The current situation is that the FiT
system has been abandoned and no further new
allocations under the CfD will be allowed, after one last round of auctions,
with, otherwise, all new spending on the various green levies having been frozen
until after 2025. The expectation seems to be that renewables like on shore wind
and PV, and soon offshore wind, should be increasingly able to stand on their
own feet without subsidies.
That won’t be easy- given they they face
other energy options which continue to get subsidies, like nuclear, outside of
the competitive system. Subsidies for new technologies are useful: for renewables,
project prices have fallen faster than they would have without the support
systems. However, the successfully emerging technologies (wind and solar) still
need access to the market that the CfD provides even is no subsidy is provided.
Moreover, what of the newer less
developed options? If the aim is to
expand renewables overall, and to do so rapidly, then continued support for the
new technologies, like wave and tidal power, would be wise, so as to reduce
their costs. Unless that is you believe
we should just stick with the currently lowest cost options- and that wave and tidal
have missed the boat.
While short-termism has its appeal (go for
the current cheapest), so does diversity, spreading risks across a wider range
of options. New or improved
technologies continue to emerge. They too may get cheap, as PV and wind have done. It would be
unwise to foreclose green energy options.
A new plan
At present there are no UK
renewable energy targets, just indicative BEIS
scenarios, which suggest the UK could
get up to 50% of its electricity from renewables by around 2035. There are more
optimistic views some looking to 100% of all
energy by 2050, assuming proper attention is given to demand reduction and
energy saving. Labour’s last manifesto was backed up by a plan to ‘ensure
that 60% of the UK’s energy comes from low-carbon or renewable sources within
twelve years of coming to power.’
This ‘60% by 2030’ low-carbon energy target excludes transport, but
includes nuclear, a very
contentious issue. The costs are rising
and public support is low- 38% in the 2018 BEIS survey compared to 85% for
renewables. A large nuclear programme
would also make it very hard to balance the expanding renewables programme-
nuclear plants cannot vary their output regularly and quickly to balance
variable renewable input. They just get in the way of the new more
flexible supply and demand system
that is needed.
There was also talk in Labour’s plan of ‘support the development of tidal lagoons, starting with approval of
the Swansea Tidal Lagoon’ which is debatable. The latter is very expensive.
Tidal current turbines are far superior and faster to install. Small tidal
barrages (e.g. on the Mersey) may have role to play, as they are able to help
with balancing, but large barrages are expensive and can have major
environmental impacts. Wind and Solar are better bets with clear potential for
expansion, though tidal may be able to make a small contribution by 2030.
A detailed plan is now needed, facing up to all these and other choices,
including on the demand side. One such
plan has been outlined recently by Greenpeace. It assumes the Hinkley project goes ahead,
but not the other proposed new nuclear plants. It calls for rapid expansion of
wind and solar. It is a useful starting point for discussion.
Rachel
Reeves, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee says ‘...it’s
vital the Government comes forward with a Plan B to plug the energy gap. This
alternative plan must ensure security of supply and address the pressing need
to decarbonise the UK’s power generation. Renewable energy offers significant
opportunities for UK jobs, for business, and for industry and Government must
take a fresh look at creating the right environment for attracting investment
in future energy capacity, including renewables.’
That is a
good summary of the challenge, and the opportunities that we need to grasp. Labours
Bringing Energy Home report is not a bad start- but it’s only a start
The above was
produced earlier this year by Dave Elliott as part of lobbying activities
focused on the Labour Party. It has continued to push ahead with renewables
well, but still seems all over the place on nuclear – it’s out, no it’s in. The Green New Deal proposal, backed at Conference, though very positive on
renewables, is a bit vague on nuclear. Odd
when most of the media has given up on it as a dead duck, Hinkley
especially. But that’s the right wing press. New Statesman meanwhile ran a double
page Nuclear Industry Association advertorial!
The debate continues.
