Memorandum by Mr Michael Negus
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
AND ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY STRATEGY
The Committee's task is extremely difficult,
if not almost impossible, because of the continually changing
costs of generating electricity, due to a world energy market
that has never been so unstable and is, at least currently, becoming
more and more expensive such that it impinges upon global politics,
comodity costs and economic stability.
At the moment in the UK "renewable energy"
is synonymous with wind power, hence wind turbines and wind farms.
There are task groups both within and outside of government considering
how to use the sea that surrounds our island as a source of energy
for electricity generation. This has many important advantages
over the use of wind as a renewable source. It is important to
remember that a national energy strategy is long-term and expensive.
It is not as easy as putting up more and more windfarms, but the
long-term returns and benefits for our nation are immensely greater.
I am thinking principally of independence from political influence
by countries that have massive oil and gas resources, such as
Russia and the Middle East, and the urgency of reducing our carbon
dioxide emissions.
I would suggest that the Britain should aim
at generating at least 25% of total electrical energy from the
sea. We should now have a 20 year national project to plan and
implement such a strategy. It will be expensive, the Severn barrage
alone will cost £10-14 billion. The Carbon Trust suggested
(BBC News Channel 24 January 2006) that 20% of our electricity
could come from "wave farms" (50 TWh/year) and "tidal
stream" (18 TWh/year). This together with the 5% coming from
the 100 underwater turbines of the Severn barrage would give the
25% total contribution from the sea. The great advantage of sea
over wind power is the size of the contribution and its relative
lack of variability and unpredictability, these being the main
problems with wind power.
Wind power must be used as a contribution for
our national electricity needs. But it must play a subsidiary
role to power from the sea. There should also be a national survey
to define precisely those areas of Britain where it is really
economically worthwhile to set up windfarms, without government
subsidies or guaranteed electricity prices. Such a study must
take into account the effects of wind turbines on the landscape
and seascape, hence the quality of life in rural Britain, because
the turbine towers are very high and seem to be getting higher.
Imposing them on beautiful, wild landscapes is foolish and shortsighted.
How is it possible to put an economic value
on the complex of factors, political and economic, arising from
global warming? Although I realise that a major task of the Committee
is to do precisely that. There seems to be an obvious axiom: reduce
electricity generation that burns fossil fuels and generates carbon
dioxide. Currently 71% of our electricity comes from burning gas
(37%) and oil (34%). About 22% of our elecricity comes from nuclear,
including 4% imported from France EDF. We could, as I suggested
above, generate up to 25% of our electricity from the sea, and
possibly 10% from wind. Without an expansion in nuclear generation
we would still be emitting far too much carbon dioxide. I would
suggest that our nuclear power should be doubled to provide about
50% of our needs. This would mean that our electricity supply
from carbon sources would drop to about 15%, so reducing our carbon
dioxide emission from electrcity generation to about a quarter
of what it is now, without the expense of carbon capture.
It is instructive to look at the carbon dioxide
emissions from three European states in relation to their GDPs.
France, UK and Germany are not very different in terms of their
GDPs. However Germany already produces more than twice the carbon
dioxide emission of France, and almost one and a half times that
of the UK. Yet Germany generates 11 times more electricty from
wind power than either France or the UK. Moreover, I think foolishly,
it is closing down its nuclear power industry (19 stations) and
in the future will rely on an expansion of wind power, which can
provide only a small percentage of its needs, and must inevitably
burn more and more gas and coal. The gas of course will have to
be bought from Russia. I have seen infra-red satellite pictures
of Europe that show Germany, which has eleven times more wind
turbines than France, as the hottest atmosphere in Europe, because
of its hot gaseous emissions. These will no doubt get worse.
THE 2015 ENERGY
GAP
The strategy outlined above, with its long-term
aim of providing sufficient electricity to "keep the light
on" is only attainable over a period of 20 or more years
in the future ie 2030 and beyond. But it must be started now,
and properly costed and provided for. But what about the problem
of generators, both carbon based and nuclear, that are scheduled
to close down in the near decades? I would draw the Committee's
attention to the House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental
Audit, in particular the written submission by Matsui Babcock.
That submission, after detailed analysis, concludes that, although
nuclear electricity generation is the only way of producing sufficient
base generation and low carbon dioxide emmision, it is in fact
inpossible to achieve this by 2015. Matsui Babcock conclude that
the only option open to us is clean coal generators, because the
other carbon source, gas, is increasingly unreliable, and could
fail during cold winters. They conclude that the contribution
of renewables in the face of the 2015 Energy Gap crisis is almost
irrelevant.
CONCLUSIONS
I would suggest that the Committee does not
fall into the trap of equating renewables with wind turbine farms.
It could be that in the future a quarter or even a third of our
electricity supply comes principally from the sea, with a smaller
amount from wind, preferably off-shore windfarms.
At the moment the cost of generating electricity
from wind, especially off-shore wind, is the most expensive of
the methods available. The rising cost of oil and gas will not
necessarily make wind power cheaper because of the need for carbon
fueled back-up to step in when the wind fails.
In the short term we need to quickly build carbon-capture
coal-fired generating stations.
For the longer term we need to begin now to
build sufficient nuclear generating stations to supply at least
half of our future electricity needs.
8 June 2008
|
