UK Energy Security Strategy

The UK Energy Security Strategy was released today, so we gathered the views of energy professionals to get their views. The headlines are as follows (courtesy of Logan):

• 50 GW offshore wind by 2050 – including a cut in planning timescales
• 24 GW Nuclear by 2050 – Wylfa and up to eight other reactors
• Solar – No new commitment but BEIS will “look to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity which could grow up to 5 times by 2035, consulting on the rules for solar projects, particularly on domestic and commercial rooftops”.
• Oil and Gas in the North Sea – expanding exploration activities
• Onshore Wind – nothing specific but a a promise to consult with supportive communities
• Hydrogen – 10 GW of low carbon hydrogen by 2030, 50% of it to be green
• Heat Pumps – a competition to make British heat pumps

Here’s the thoughts of our professionals

Andrew Crossland, Founder of MyGridGB and Associate Fellow at Durham Energy Institute. linkedin.com/in/afcrossland/

It’s great to see what appears to be a rapid ramp up in low carbon generation, but in reality the targets are not as ambitious as they need to be. They should be compared to Germany which wants 115GW of wind and 200GW of solar by 2030. Although necessary for decarbonisation, there’s no hiding that nuclear generation will be expensive and there’s no clear mechanism to reduce financing costs or will there be increased safety risks?

Most disapointing to me is a clear lack of commitment to reducing energy use. Energy efficiency (or a lack of it) hurts Britain’s poor and constrains business. Efficiency is essential for our small island to reduce the poverty gap and reduce bills.

I’m also very concerned by a reexploration of fracking. The dangers of fracking extend beyond earthquakes. The climate impact of the technology is frightening, and the risks to polluting water supplies are not worth contemplating. I’d want a Government who can commit to reducing carbon and bills, but opening the door to fracking seems to open up more environmental issues. Not cool!

Some quick policy wins could follow the announcement:

• A target and incentives to install solar on homes once again. I think the Government is talking standards, but keen to see the detail on whether that will deliver solar on roofs for all new builds – a policy which is successful in Scotland and other parts of the world.
• A drive towards heat storage where the UK could lead the world.
• A fund to create innovation in heat production including but not limited to district heating, heat from mines and geothermal heat. Low cost finance to support these technologies could be a game changer for this highly seasonal, and critical, part of our energy system.

Logan Black, Chartered Energy Engineer. linkedin.com/in/logangblack

Good to see ambitious targets set for offshore wind and nuclear but we are still awaiting the detail on the headline figures will be delivered. Developers will be glad to see planning timescales for offshore dialled back, but it’s important to remember why these planning measures are there in the first place.

The nuclear target goes beyond what I thought we would get, as discussed in a previous post, but this infrastructure takes a long time to build, recent experience has shown it takes ~10 years so does not address short term issues. This is also true for offshore wind, which takes around four years for a full build-out of a project.

There are a few faux pas in my view. Oil and gas exploration, for one, fracking being given the time of day for another. I’m an advocate for leaving carbon in the ground, but understand the position that we will be importing it anyway so we may as well have some security over its supply. Don’t expect cheaper prices at the petrol pump though as the products are sold on an international market.

Weak positions on onshore wind and solar PV. Why not support the lowest-cost, quickest to  deploy forms of energy generation at a time when we need it?

Energy efficiency was not given enough attention, and a lack of new funding for our infamous poor quality housing stock. Sure heat pumps get a look in but we have missed a real opportunity to highlight the value that reducing our demand could have. Demand reduction really should be the first point of any energy strategy, no matter what scale you are talking about.

Overall, It’s disappointing to see missed opportunities on onshore wind, solar and energy efficiency it might be more fitting to call it an Energy Generation Security Strategy – though big commitments to offshore wind and nuclear are welcome.

Brian Matthews, Managing Director at TerraUrsa, Durham Energy Institute

LinkedIn profile

Targets but no clear path, perhaps an opportunity to lay our own stepping stones to achieve some big numbers for the UK energy sector. Having spent 20 years in the nuclear sector, a vivid memory was visiting neckarwestheim power station in Germany just after the policy change that closed the Nuclear industry (the last 3 stations are about to close, all the others have already been shut down) everyone couldn’t believe what was happening, low carbon, very well operated (up there with the best in the world) power stations just closing. Little did they know that this would expose them to a risk 10 years later, the risk of the highs and lows of renewables, and the need to fill the gaps with gas and coal, and no policy to electrify domestic heating or accelerate energy storage. Resulting in high Green house gas emissions and poor security of supply as they’re finding out right now. So beyond the targets, the arguments for who is best: solar, wind, or nuclear, the right answer is they are best together, but there’s a security of supply question that in part has been answered if we hit these numbers, we will have security of supply in the UK for many decades to come. The other part of the trilemma the UK’s environmental (earth) impact will be lower, but the final corner of the puzzle, the cost of the energy is going to be hard over the next few years but will stabilise esp. with nuclear which if performs well hardly budges in cost and with CFD’s in place for solar and wind, you remove the need for a trading system. As much as I used to stand in awe at the scale of engineering and safety functionality of nuclear power stations (I do think they’re amazing) you need to step back and look at the whole picture; they are expensive to build, really hard to build, can be tough to operate (though we were good at doing it and WANO keep the global standards very high) and hard to regulate. No one has, and I don’t think they ever will in the western world successfully building them effectively with low time and cost risk profiles. Arguments over replication hold no water but might be cracked by the new smaller nuclear plants coming soon (hopefully) from Rolls Royce and NuScale. This strategy accepts all this and we all need to and move on, the cost if we don’t is too great for all corners of the trilemma. The thrust from the wind sector which I consult in now is brilliant to see but everyone thought 30GW was a stretch so 50GW will probably snap (reach for the stars and get to the clouds is still good)! Solar needs to be coupled with storage or don’t bother. Making the UK housing stock (some of the oldest in the world) more efficient just has to be done, making big improvements (every house EPC C or better) will remove the need for 20% of of the energy capacity and might make this strategy more realistic. I won’t even talk about fracking, more oil and gas… bonkers. Well done to the scientists and activists today, if being professional, writing clear reports based on facts and lobbying doesn’t work, you don’t just do the same thing you have to do something else. I hope people stop to read the IPCC report that’s now on the outside of offices of some of the world top polluters.