Memorandum by W J Hyde
SUMMARY
Infinite renewable Energy is available if cost
is not a consideration. But renewables are guaranteed to fail
to meet our need for Power, however much is spent.
Thus, regardless of renewable build, we must
have enough traditional power to supply our peak load on a winter's
evening in the dark. Solar power is then zero, and, when the UK
is enveloped by an anticyclone, wind and wave power will deliver
only a tiny fraction of what it says on the label, maybe zero.
At some states of tide, tidal power too, can be zero, or near.
The problems of renewable generation technologies
lie in the basic immutable scientific principles on which they
are based. Nobody will build renewables without subsidies, which
demonstrates their economic weakness.
Fossil fuel prices will undoubtedly escalate,
and nuclear is already economically viable, with offers from the
private sector to build without subsidy. That technology has every
prospect of very considerable development. The attractions are
indicated by the number of nations who are going down that route,
including our competitors in the world's market places.
The anti-nuclear lobby is led by many who believe
they are on a crusade, and are not open to reason. They seem ignorant
of the basics of the technologies they argue about, and carry
no responsibility for supplies of energy to UK homes, businesses
and essential public services.
When shortages are artificially created to put
the prices up it is usually frowned upon. In the case of electricity,
the UK government is putting up the prices to subsidise technologies
that will create shortages, and are ultimately economically unsustainable.
Reducing fossil bum and emissions of CO2 is
the real target. Sub-optimising to a target of maximising renewable
generation is a serious mistake. It has been likened to pursuing
motoring economy by sub-optimising to an mpg target. That can
lead to a 60 mile journey via motorways where high mpg can be
achieved, to avoid a 10 mile route to the same destination, using
unclassified roads, where mpg will be less.
We should reduce fossil bum, for several reasons.
Sub-optimisation of that to a target of "renewables"
is ludicrous, as Germany shows. Seeking to boost nuclear to cut
CO2 emissions is the only sensible way, as the French experience
shows.
Renewables cannot give us the supply reliability
we need without traditional backup. If that is nuclear, which
needs no subsidies, we don't need subsidised renewables.
The enclosed presents the detailed arguments,
together with three wind power charts I have prepared from Met
Office data during the 07-08 winter.
REALITIES OF
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
GENERATION
1.1 WEATHER SYSTEMS and the WIND RESOURCE:
Anticyclones affect the UK in whole or part several times each
year, winter and summer, and give rise to light winds. They are
large and slow moving, and often affect us for some weeks, in
part or whole. On occasions one will cover an area from the Azores
to the north Baltic, to the White Sea, to Turkey, covering all
Europe and the Mediterranean. Look at your newspaper's daily weather
map for widely spaced isobars.
1.2 Depressions are smaller and move faster,
mostly coming across the Atlantic. While they are usually gone
in three or four days, another often follows close behind, with
short periods of light winds between successive systems. They
also have light winds in their centres, "the eye of the storm".
No weather system gives us consistent wind speeds in the full
power range.
1.3 The potential UK wind power can be calculated
from the hourly Met Office wind speeds published on Ceefax 404.
I have noted figures at 8 am, 1pm, and 7pm, added 20% for tall
windmills and short anemometers, and then applied the cube law,
(bwea.com), to get Kilowatts. The results for Oct 07, Dec 07 and
Feb 08, typical of recent winters, are shown on the attached charts.
For periods of about a fortnight, aggregate UK power was about
5% of that installed, with dips below 1% on some days.
1.5 The total energy output of a UK-wide
wind installation is about one quarter of what would produced
by conventional generation of the same capacity running at continuous
full load.
2.1 I would recommend careful attention
to the precise meanings of words in the report on "Wind Power
and The UK Wind Resource", published by the Environmental
Change Institution, (copy from 01865 275 848). It includes the
following statement, with my emphases:
"Large wind turbines do not generate at
speeds below 4m/sec, and so all winds below this speed are included
in the definition of `low wind speed conditions'"
And,
"There was not a single hour during the
study period where wind speeds at every location across the UK
were below 4m/sec"
2.2 The ECI table for the Nordex80 2,500
KW machine shows it delivering 15 KW at 4m/sec. So if just one
in the UK armoury was doing that, then all is well? And is 4m/sec
regarded as a low wind speed? It seems not.
3.1 The British Wind Energy Association
web site, bwe.com/ref/stop/html contains the following item, which
I would also recommend reading with close attention to exact meanings.
These it is alleged, frequently becalm the whole
country, and will cause problems for the system operator, due
to the absence of any wind power, especially at periods of peak
demand Two points need to be made:
Neither the Renewable Energy Foundation, nor
any reference cited by them, have ever produced evidence that
this occurs regularly.
The Environmental Change Institute at the University
of Oxford, was quite clear in appearing before a House of Lords
Select Committee that "we have looked at this [stationary
anticyclones in the middle of winter over the British Isles] occurring
in the wind data, and the wind data does not show it."
4.1 SOLAR: The tilt of the Earth's axis
reduces winter solar energy reaching UK latitudes to about one
sixth of summer level. The 24 hour rotation reduces it to zero,
sunset to sunrise. Crucially, it is always zero at the time of
annual maximum demand, winter, around 6pm-7pm.
5.1 WAVES: Wind is an important contributor
to wave height: big waves and light winds seldom come together.
The Pelamis "sea-snake" is being trialled off the Orkneys.
The maker's figures say that 100% full power needs a wave height
of 5.5 metres and a wave period of 6.5-8.5 seconds. If the wave
height is 1.0 metre and the wave period is 5.5 seconds, the output
is under 3%. The emphasis on wave period suggests that wave periods
outside the specified range will give reduced output. See Review,
Institution of Electrical Engineers, September 2002.
6.1 HYDRO-POWER: The most useful UK sites
have been developed. Although more may become economically feasible
as fossil fuel prices escalate, there are few. France, with much
more mountainous terrain, can only manage about 10% of electrical
energy from hydro.
7.1 SEVERN BARRAGE: This has been predicted
to achieve a load factor of 22%. That implies long periods of
zero or little output, determined by the moon, not our needs.
The River Rance barrier, built by the French about 40 years ago,
has never been copied.
8.1 GAS FUELLED GENERATION: About 30% of
the cost of gas-fired electricity can be attributed to the power
station itself. The other 70% is the cost of the gas, government
figures, 2006. Fossil fuel costs are expected to rise as world
demand increases.
8.2 Thor Otto Lohne, executive Vice-President
of Norwegian pipeline co, Gasco, said that long-term contracts
to supply mainland Europe meant the UK could not always rely on
Norwegian gas exports, regardless of the price we were prepared
to pay, Observer Business, 20 April 08.
8.3 CARBON CAPTURE and STORAGE: CO2 never
decays, ever, and will be a threat for all eternity, should it
escape. It has been used to flush out oil wells. Does it leak?
Has anyone checked? Has the world enough storage space for the
decades to come? I am highly sceptical.
8.4 SECURITY of SUPPLY: Renewables will
always fail to deliver more than a fraction of their power rating
at peak load times, and will give significant periods of low or
zero output. That is why wind-power champion BWEA, says we need
gas or nuclear "when the wind stops blowing", bwea.com.
We can store gas to last several days, nuclear fuel to last us
for years.
9.1 NUCLEAR GENERATION: Nuclear power stations
are expensive to build, their fixed charges constituting 90% of
the price of the electricity produced. The uranium costs about
1.5%, while processing and final dismantling and disposal make
up the remaining 8.5%. Thus nuclear electricity is not sensitive
to the price of uranium, which comes from stable parts of the
world, Canada and Australia.
9.2 Sir David King, previously Government
Chief Scientist, said, "We can bury nuclear waste or use
it as free fuel for life. We have 6 tonnes of plutonium and 60
tonnes of uranium "waste" left over from the 50s and
60s which could provide 60% of our electricity needs until 2060.
Burnt in modern reactors, it will last to 2100", Observer,
23 December 2007.
9.3 The Scientific American, December
2005, published an article by Hannum, Marsh and Stanford, describing
fast reactors, which, combined with electrolytic high temperature
processing, would enable over 95% of uranium's energy to be utilised,
compared with the 5% of existing thermal reactors. They say that
means we would "not need to mine any more uranium for hundreds
of years". On-site re-processing avoids the enrichment stage,
the first step towards nuclear weapons. Among other advantages
is the reduction of the waste problem.
9.4 NUCLEAR DELAYS: The Greens dragged out
the Sizewell B inquiry far beyond the two years it should have
taken. When it was finally approved, it was built "in the
public sector within budget to program", using direct placement
of contracts. No third party had overall project management, against
the government policy laid down in December 1979. The contract
and industrial relations strategies used had been developed at
Drax and Heysham II, per Dr Lomer, CBE, formerly board member
and director, CEGB. Thirty years later, with EDF experience, the
build time, under eight years, should be easy to beat.
9.5 NUCLEAR GENERATION POTENTIAL: The UK
winter maximum demand is around 63,000 MW, including about 12,000
is nuclear. I pay EDF 12.64p/KWh, for daytime electricity. As
demand diminishes after evening peak, the most expensive generators
are shut down successively, until only the cheapest are running,
to supply a night-time 30,000 MW.
9.6 That includes all UK carbon-free nuclear
stations, supplying nearly half the night-time demand, with the
best fossil stations supplying the rest. EDF supplies this electricity
for my storage radiators and hot water. It costs me 4.1p/KWh.
9.7 Retro-fitting a storage radiator system
costs little more than a replacement gas boiler. Premises far
from gas mains, currently burning fossil oil or coal, could do
it now. In new houses the concrete floor slab can be used for
heat storage, freeing up living space, wall space.
9.8 Thus a substantial part of our gas demand
for heating can also be eliminated, transferred to nuclear power.
There are no additional costs of transmission or distribution,
as the system is being under-used at off-peak times, by definition.
Indeed, switching blocks on and off by radio enhances the Control
Engineer's opportunities to optimise system loadings.
9.9 If fuel cell powered transport can be
successfully developed, nuclear powered electrolysis could produce
the hydrogen. It is probably wishful thinking to imagine a domestic
hydrogen generator to fill up your car. Probably.
10.1 OTHER NATIONS: Nuclear stations are
being planned or built in Algeria, America, Brazil, Bulgaria,
China, Egypt, Finland, France, India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Morocco,
Myanmar, Namibia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Thailand, United Arab
Emirates and Yemen, according to press reports. All are potential
competitors for inward investment and trade.
10.2 ADVERTISING THAT MIGHT MISLEAD: The
statement that a wind-farm will supply enough "to power some
thousands of homes" is an extremely common example of ignorance.
Clearly, renewables can produce any amount of electrical energy
you want, just keep building until you get there. But no amount
will ensure that the power is there—when you want it. If
it isn't the lights go out.
10.3 EUROPE: Germany has 50% bigger population
than France, and burns more than three times the gas. Germany
has the most generous renewable subsidies in the developed world,
and thus more renewable generation installations, although a poorer
wind regime, and hence a worse capacity factor, under 20%.
10.4 France has over 85% nuclear generation,
and emits 6 tonnes of CO2 per citizen, although exporting 2,000
MW to the UK most days. The UK has under 20% nuclear and emits
11 tonnes of carbon per citizen, in spite of French nuclear imports,
2,000 MW most days.
11.1 AMENITY: Which would you prefer in
your county, a nuclear power station on or beside the old one
being dismantled; or a fossil station plus some hundreds of wind
turbines on 300 ft towers, with a rotor diameter of 250 ft, with
tip speeds up to 160 mph. If turning.
11.2 RESPONSIBILITY: Who will you hold responsible
if we find ourselves in South Africa's position, expecting regular
power cuts for the next five years? A: the Government, B: the
Greens, C: the private companies for not risking their shareholders
money?
12.1 ECONOMICS: The low outputs from wind
and waves are a consequence of the fundamental physics of hydrodynamics,
not amenable to development. Solar and tidal generation is limited
by the structure of our Solar system, equally immutable. ROCs
constitute a tax which increases fuel poverty, to subsidise renewables
which will never be able to stand on their own financial feet.
Feed in tariffs will force suppliers to buy uncertain supplies
at retail prices, increasing fuel poverty. Is there a strategy
for the day when reality arrives, and subsidies have to be withdrawn?
12.2 All renewables suffer from the economies
of scale. A 600 MW generator will deliver more energy per tonne
of copper than 200 generators of 3MW, even if they could run 2417
at full power. Actually, the typical wind power capacity factor
is 25%, requiring 2,400 MW of those small generators to match
the energy output of one 600 MW machine. Even then, power cannot
be guaranteed—wind might be light, or below cut-in speed.
12.3 The private sector will build Nuclear
to produce C02-free electricity, with no subsidy. It competes
with renewables, which the private sector will NOT build without
subsidies. Indeed, they want bigger ones.
13.1 However much we spend on renewables,
we still must have conventional generation to avoid blackouts.
If that generation is nuclear, we do not need renewables. They
will never be financially competitive, and there will be ructions
when the subsidies are withdrawn.
13.2 Some strident supporters of renewables
have a near-religious objection to nuclear power. It reminds me
of their campaign against Shell's proposal to dispose of the elderly
Brent Spar oil rig in the deep ocean. Shell had listed the unpleasant
substances contained in the rig, and said their studies showed
that dismantlement on land was environmentally worse than their
proposal. Greenpeace refused to accept Shell's statements, and
threatened action. Shell conceded in the face of the threat, and
it was dismantled on land. That enabled accurate measurement—Shell
was right, and Greenpeace admitted they were wrong.
13.3 The nuclear v renewables argument is
more serious, as people will realise, perhaps when darkness descends
on houses, hospitals, City screens, supermarkets, bakeries, dairies,
and those establishments that make chemicals for water purification.
13.4 James Lovelock has wondered who will
pay for removing windmills' 1,000 tonne concrete foundation blocks.
Me too.
6 May 2008
|
