Memorandum submitted by Robert Freer
1. My name is Robert Freer and I am a Chartered
Engineer and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I
have about 50 years' experience of the design and construction
of power stations and I am now an independent consultant.
2. I understand the Committee wishes to
examine: "the options for investment in meeting future requirements
for new electricity generating capacity".
3. I wish to make the point that there is
a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, investment
in base load power stations such as coal, gas or nuclear and on
the other hand investment in renewable sources such as wind, wave
and solar. These two sources of energy are as different almost
as chalk and cheese and it is not possible to make a direct comparison
for the purpose of investment, and especially investment for the
purpose of trying to reduce carbon emissions.
4. Investment in power stations which generate
base load will ensure security of electricity supply which is
of prime importance for an industrial and commercial country such
as ours. For example so much of our industry is now controlled
by computers that any interruption in the electricity supply could
bring the country to a standstill. Power stations fuelled by coal,
gas or nuclear fuels can produce as much power and energy as required
and it would be far sighted to ensure we have sufficient capacity
in these power stations to supply our base load demand of about
35,000 MW.
5. Investment in renewables, at least in
the government-supported renewables mainly wind and solar, will
never ensure security of supply because their output depends on
the weather which is unpredictable. Therefore their energy output
is intermittent. Also their output is very small and these two
sources will never do more than scratch the surface of the national
demand. The present output from the wind turbines is less than
2 TWh per year whereas our national consumption is about 375 TWh
per year and rising by 3 or 4 TWh per year. Therefore the wind
turbines do not even keep pace with the increase in consumption.
It has already been said that, without the government subsidies,
no-one would be building wind turbines.
6. The claim that wind turbines are a source
of clean energy needs careful consideration because their manufacture
is energy intensive which produces green house gases, and offshore
turbines create more green houses gases if their location causes
the diversion of shipping and fishing boats and their maintenance
requires access by helicopter.
7. There some forms of renewable energy
which have the potential to supply the base load but inexplicably
they are less well supported by the government. Mainly the conversion
of wastes to energy using straw, chicken litter, forestry trimmings
or municipal solid waste will provide base load energy and with
an estimated output of about 30TWh per year. Another source is
the methane escaping from old coal mines. All these sources have
the benefit of not only producing energy but also solving the
environmental problem of what to do with the waste.
8. Conclusion. Government investment and
subsidies for wind turbines are a complete waste of money and
should be stopped. They produce only a miniscule amount of energy,
make no contribution to security of supply and their influence
on greenhouse gases is doubtful. If the Government wants to support
renewables they should invest in energy from waste power stations.
The best investment from a national point of view is to build
nuclear power stations and the number we need to supply the national
base load using AP1000s is not 8 but 32.
21 September 2005
| 
