Brian Catt – Written evidence (UEM0013)
THE ECONOMICS OF SCIENCE DENIAL IN ENERGY POLICY
Planning to Fail? - for Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee
September 2016
Eur Ing Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA
INTRODUCTION: I am an independent Chartered electrical engineer, physicist and businessman, in regular communication with my peers and others in this field internationally, and have studied this technology policy area in depth for 10 years to become expert in it. As with many physicists and engineers, interested in the continuing success of my country, our core concern is that the UK best delivers its energy policy objectives - an adequate, affordable, secure, and decarbonised electrical energy supply, that will sustainably power a successful economy at the level needed to carry us beyond the end of mainstream fossil use.
In particular because the reliable and secure availability of low cost, abundant and affordable energy is the essential underpinning of the prosperity of any technology based economy, energy use fuels the productivity hence wealth to do all the other things that rationed expensive energy cannot.
NB: Note the USA uses twice the UK's 5.4MWh pa per person, at 13MWh/person pa.
The renewable program being pursued by the UK is a plan to fail, on the facts of each of the technical policy measures of adequacy, affordability, sustainability, security, and in particular of minimising CO2 emissions.
This analysis has required considerable research, and exceeds the requested length, but is comprehensive. For those short of time I set out the summary points in under 3,000 words in sections 1-4, including what works best, without subsidy, and what does not, with subsidy. The remaining content provides the evidence and references you may require to validate each of the broader but related subject points for yourself.
I speak on this subject as a professional expert to lay and expert audiences, and would welcome the opportunity to answer questions on the physics and data of energy delivery, from generics to details, and can bring others more eminent in support.
1. SUMMARY: The piecemeal and unselective subsidising of renewable solutions by government, in the name of climate change, is in fact severely and avoidably diverting energy suppliers from the most effective delivery of the stated objectives of our energy policy, in particular CO2 emissions reduction.
Subsidising renewables is delivering large and guaranteed profits from subsidies, without delivering the technical objectives used to justify them.
The policy currently promoted by government is clearly undeliverable in technical fact, and detracts from the much better and sustainable results available on all policy measures from unsubsidised modalities - especially significant CO2 reduction.
If we must have subsidies, why not subsidise what can actually deliver the supposed economic and climate objectives of the supporting policy?
I avoid opinion or consensus, and prefer the absolute facts of the physics and economics enumerated below.
The facts are:
1.1 Renewable Energy Can't Deliver Policy: The weak, diffuse and intermittent "renewable" energy sources, that we abandoned for coal and steam to power the industrial revolution, including wind, water, people and draught animals, remain weak, inadequate and mostly intermittent, so still inadequate to deliver each of our positive energy policy objectives replacing coal then gas, versus the better alternatives of gas then nuclear replacing coal, on the technical facts of delivery. This is easy to self validate at AS Physics levels of technical grasp, and I provide the data and references to enable the reader in this.
1.2 Subsidies Can't Make Renewable energy sources more intense or less intermittent, but their quick and easy guaranteed profits DO divert investment from the gas and nuclear solution that offers far better realisation of each of our policy measurements. These subsidies are mandated by law at the expense of all our stated policy objectives, including emissions, to the economic detriment of the country.
1.3 We have far better approaches to delivering the most sustainable, adequate, affordable, secure, and decarbonising electrical energy supply, in both short and longer term, without subsidy. These are from intense low or zero carbon energy sources, available 24/7. Gas, nuclear, hydro.
As I demonstrate below, for the UK, replacing coal with gas then both with nuclear best meets all our policy objectives - economic, technical and CO2 emissions related.
The UK's most respected expert physicist in the field, Sir David MacKay FRS, has also explained this scientific reality to government many times, and has another last opportunity, in section 10 of this paper and at ref: (iv). I commend him to you. You can go straight there from here.
2. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
2.1 WHAT CAN WORK: Gas replacing Coal, then Nuclear replacing coal and gas can deliver 100% of our goals unsubsidised, indefinitely at any likely level of grid demand with nuclear.
2.1.1 The fastest, lowest cost and most substantial decarbonisation of supply is initially available by replacing open cycle coal generation with closed cycle gas turbine technology (CCGT) on grid connected sites. This is 60% decarbonising of coal per KWh per DECC 2015 figures, and available 24/7 Ref (i).
Coal firing is currently responsible for c.70% of fossil generation CO2 emissions from the grid, coal is roughly 1,000 tonnes /GWh, CCGT Gas 400 tonnes/GWh, per the DECC 2015 (Pg 15, Table 5D). 60% of 70% is 42%
- So this single change can reduce overall grid fossil emissions c.40%, unsubsidised. and with no renewables, which cannot match this. Nuclear takes emissions to zero
Short term we can build CCGT power stations in 2 years at <£1B per GW to replace coal on existing grid connected coal generation sites. As at Didcot A and B fig (i).
CCGT can deliver the short-term clean energy we need, fast, secure and unsubsidised, with maximum CO2 emission reduction 24/7. Cheapest per GW capacity and fastest to build, allowing progressive and permanent clean up and replacement of the oldest coal fired plants on the grid, plus a guaranteed 40% reduction in overall fossil emissions from 2015 generation.
Given our known reserves of shale gas, plus top up from globally burgeoning LNG market, accessible through our established and grid connected LNG terminals, there is even time to replace new CCGT built now with new nuclear at the end of new CCGT plant's economic life - so new CCGT is a wholly viable short term fix for some old nuclear.
2.1.2 Over the next 30-40 years longer lead time nuclear can replace gas with the only adequate and affordable zero carbon energy supply - that also consumes the lowest resources per unit energy in its delivery, and is effectively sustainable at today's prices for "human ever", using all forms of Uranium extraction available, per the IEA 2015 report, which confirms many others. Ref (ii)
2.2 WHAT CANNOT WORK: Renewables, on the joined up 24/7 grid
Duplicating ALL current fossil generation with renewables at 2 or 3 times the price by law cannot deliver a comparable level of decarbonisation of the grid to the simple CCGT switch alone, because of renewables' various weak/diffuse energy sources and unpredictable and substantial intermittencies, resulting in massive resource use per unit energy - and a net duty cycle of only c.30% of rated power delivery on average. 11% Solar PV, 30% on shore wind, 40% offshore
2.2.1 So c.30% is the practical limit to decarbonisation by "Fossil offset" of all our current 176TWh of fossil generation in 2015. And all fossil generation must stay on the grid to be "offset".
2.2.2 The cost of this maximum possible fossil offset in ROCs at today's prices, assuming an average of 1.5 ROCs and 30% duty cycle would be:
176 TWh/yr x 1.5 x £43/MWh x 0.3 = £3.4B pa for 30% net reduction of CO2 emissions from gas and coal. (but not the most emissive bio mass, see below).
2.2.3 This is technically unsustainable after fossil without fossil support, because renewables cannot create enough energy in total to power today's grid 24/7/365 without fossil's 70% contribution to the pairing, and 100% backup when renewables are not producing at all, often. Visit http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Zero carbon nuclear needs no offset from renewables. Hence, when fossil has gone, intermittent and expensive renewables have no place in the mix. If you can get through the winter on nuclear, you don't need any renewables.
2.2.4 Current Decarbonisation, mainly of gas by Renewables: = 10% 'ish.
Offsetting flexible gas with renewables is currently preferred, because of the economic and technical problems of cycling less flexible coal generation. This reduces the c.30% of our grid fossil emissions produce by our 100TWh of gas generation by c.30%, so 10% overall. It is unlikely this 10% will be exceeded until all our gas generation is matched by renewables, so 30GW or so. Currently we have 7GW of wind generation per DECC, so a way to go to 10% CO2 reduction - and this is expensive decarbonisation.
2.2.5 A simple subsidy estimate for this 10% CO2 offset of gas generation, assuming ROCs at 1.5 ROCs @ £43/MWh and 30% duty cycle gives a cost of £2B pa in ROCs alone.
100 TWh/yr fossil gas gen x 1.5 Rocs x £43/MWh x 0.3 = £2B/yr for 10% CO2 reduction.
nb: Note most of the subsidies go to the lowest possible CO2 reduction on the grid.
2.2.6 Offsetting the remaining 20% of fossil emissions from the remaining 76TWh of coal generation is more expensive than just the incremental ROC expense of £1.4B pa to offset all coal. "Offset" is more problematic with coal, due to the variability imposed by the cubic relationship between velocity and wind and water flow energy delivery, and the cost impact on cycling coal generation being more substantial, BUT I have not quantified that effect, as the whole idea is already clearly regressive.
2.2.7 Renewables do not physically displace their subsidy host from the grid, because they are almost 100% dependent on that reliable matching fossil generation being available 24/7 for when they are not. Storage does not solve the overall inadequacy (see 6).
2.2.8 Bio Fuelling of coal fired plants: "Bio fuelled" renewable generation, the waste and wood burning of the pre industrial era, emits more CO2 than coal per unit energy, while also receiving one ROC, 24/7, so farms subsidies 3 times faster per unit rated output than intermittent "renewables" to create more CO2 emissions than the coal it replaces, at twice the price.
Wood burning is unsustainable in fact at large deployment, one major reason we stopped using wood for industrial energy in the late 18th Century. The DRAX plant alone can be 4GW, currently 3GW burns wood as "Renewable energy". A massive waste of money, when gas conversion could > halve DRAX's emissions, without subsidy.
2.2.9 Pointless AND Short Lived: When their capable fossil fuelled hosts have gone, the parasitic renewables, and their new "renewable grid" infrastructure, all become pointlessly obsolete, as only zero carbon nuclear can then deliver the energy we need, unsubsidised, at today's new build prices, indefinitely, at zero carbon. The laws of physics are absolute, only this approach works for the UK, long term. Only pervasive nuclear generation on the grid can deliver the long term energy needs of a developed UK economy after fossil, at zero carbon.
3.0 NECESSARY CHANGE:
3.1 THE SOLUTION IS SELF EVIDENT: The happy co-incidence is that, as above, what works best for the UK grid requires no subsidies, so the objectives of energy policy are best achieved by simply ending subsidies ASAP. Keep the objectives of policy, stop subsidising what can't deliver them, support what can.
However this is done politically, the objectives should be delivered by independent engineers, tasked with powering the grid to meet practical engineering goals, without net lifetime subsidy.
Politicians should agree the rational energy objectives for engineers to deliver, but not decide the means of delivery. That is how we got where we are.
3.2 THE BEST SOLUTION REDUCES EMISSIONS MOST: In particular the optimum technical solution of gas and nuclear that deliver the lowest cost, most adequate, secure and sustainable energy, also delivers by far the best result in terms of CO2 emissions per unit energy, in both the rate and amount of reduction.
nb: In the current context of UK energy law, if climate change from CO2 emissions is a problem, renewable subsidies must make that problem avoidably worse, versus preferring the progressive solutions available in technical fact - but unsubsidised, so less profitable to those promoting them, at the expense of the UK's economic future.
4. ECONOMIC AND OTHER POLICY GOALS:
Progressive solutions can clearly save us several £Bs pa in ROCs alone, while securing the best possible grid energy supply model for centuries to come. Because neither clean low carbon gas, nor zero carbon nuclear generation, are expensive, and nuclear capacity is effectively unlimited - plentiful and affordable zero carbon energy, indefinitely.
4.1 Supporting the wrong solutions is already wasting £3Billion pa, grandfathered for 20 years, on the 71.3 million ROCs paid out by OFGEM in 2015 alone - per OFGEM Ref(iii) - to support a plan that must fail, on the settled science of electrical engineering.
This economically regressive policy can only get worse if pursued, especially with the even greater and unnecessary burden of the "SMART" grid and storage now planned, to store and ration the expensive and inadequate energy supply planned by the DECC, in preference to the plentiful and available solutions available.
4.2 Example of Savings Still Possible:
We can still save £3.4B in new ROCs alone by not "offsetting" all our current remaining 176TWh of fossil energy generation with renewables, see 2.2 above.
4.3 Economic Losers: The only losers from ending subsidies to renewables, are renewable lobbyists, the jobs are easily replaced as part of rolling out the better alternative. A truly win-win solution, for the UK consumer and the climate.
4.4 PROGRESSIVE SUBSIDIES?: The only way subsidies can deliver progressive results would be to subsidise what works best on the policy objectives. Not subsidise what works worst, that we don't need to generate for the best results for the economy, environment and climate.
4.4.1 Subsidise Fracking/ Coal Clean Ups/ new gas grid extensions to convert coal fired grid connected plants - coal plants could also receive environmental clean up grants.
Coal is by far the worst polluter of its immediate environment. The objective should be to deploy the secure gas reserves we have fastest, using our existing gas grid as far as possible, to fuel the low cost quick build of highly decarbonising CCGT generating plants to replace dirty coal fired capacity on the grid, AFAP. That program can last ten years and provide generation for 30 years at least.
Our gas reserves now give UK government ample time to select, test and develop the best proven nuclear mix long term nuclear solutions, while supporting research into the best approaches to new nuclear technologies in generation, spent fuel processing, waste reduction and remediation. We know the science to do all this, but more process development is required, and already in progress in various more technically advanced countries globally - China, S.Korea, India, Russia and the USA.
I only state this to make the point, not support subsidies. But if we use subsidies, why not subsidise the most progressive solutions to the economic and climate objectives? Not the most regressively inefficient and expensive, when we can generate it better ways.
4.4.2 Fiscal Profile Levelling? A State sized asset, deployed over state sized time scales, needs a state sized guarantor. If an investment in ensuring the best long term solution for the nation is delivered by private enterprise and its bankers, they should be made indifferent to the payback periods, risk and cash flow profiles of the various solutions, if the lifetime rate of commercial return is the same.
A level playing field thus requires some fiscal profile smoothing and state comfort to level the 60 year life CAPEX intensive nuclear with the 30 year life and most OPEX intensive cash flow profiles of gas, for example. Recoverable loans, debt guarantees, state debenture funding, but no free money over the full life.
Including ending all grandfathered subsidies that currently guarantee the easiest and fastest profits for the most regressive generation prescriptions.
This is not climate science.
4.5 A Complete Technical and Economic Solution Solutions: We can build what most progressively delivers the much higher level of sustainable electrical energy we will need to drive our developed economy, securely and affordably, into a fossil free future, before gas and CCS coal become rationed by price, unsubsidised.
We can have all the energy we need, when we need it, at an affordable price, both short and long term.
If we prefer to build what works best on policy measures, and abandon what cannot.
5. THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CONSENSUS:
5.1 While climate change cause and extent are debated, the facts of generation are well known and documented. The clear failings of UK government policy were summarised recently by former DECC Chief scientist for 6 years, Sir David MacKay FRS, just before his untimely death. Ref (iv). The optimal approaches are also well described on the fundamental science by Vaclav Smil, Caesare Marchetti, Jesse Ausubel and others in peer reviewed literature (ref (vii) , also H.Douglas Lightfoot of the Canadian Lighfoot Foundation, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee in the USA, and many others, not least Bill Gates, whose top wish for the developing world is plentiful half price energy. With a major new-nuclear element.
5.2 ENGINEERING REALITY: My points are clearly demonstrable in absolute engineering fact, as above. No consensus is appropriate, because only engineering facts can reliably deliver policy objectives. Subsidising beliefs cannot.
5.3 THE ACTUAL NEED: What we need in simple technical fact is a sustainable, secure, and less emissive base load mix of plentiful, reliable and affordable generation technologies, powered by intense energy sources that we can match to actual demand in real time, 24/7. Not weak intermittent "renewable" sources we don't control. Simple.
- Preferring the low carbon clean gas and zero carbon nuclear we have can deliver this ideal, short and long term, on every technical measure. Renewables can't.
5.4. WHAT WE ARE DOING: Under UK climate justified measures we actually pay massive subsidies to support weak, diffuse, hence inadequate, also highly and unpredictably intermittent, "renewable" energy sources, whose energy can't power the UK grid 24/7 at the level we need now, let alone the 2 then 3 times as much energy we will need after fossil, and are causing far more CO2 emissions per unit energy than preferring unsubsidised gas and nuclear generation.
A whole language of alternative reality labels are deployed to distract attention from the factual engineering realities at work, that renewable energy from wind, water, solar PV and bio fuelling are easy money patent medicines, whose consequences are regressive effects on each of the problems they are supposed to cure, and in fact cannot deliver an adequate sustainable energy supply for a developed UK economy.
Preferring this approach by law is simple malfeasance.
5.5 POST FOSSIL REALITY:
- When fossil energy has gone, later than thought, but was assumed to be 2050 and 2100 respectively, the DECC and IPCC concurred we will need 2 then 3 times as much electrical energy - to replace today's level of direct fossil use in heating and transport plus some growth.
Inadequate renewable sources will be catastrophically inadequate to meet such demand - c.1,000 TWh pa. Only nuclear is capable of delivering the energy we will then need, still at relatively low and sustainable cost - and zero CO2 emissions.
I hope the economic impact of the joined up science behind this technical reality is becoming self evident. How not to fix the problem follows.
6. FIX THE INADEQUACIES EXPENSIVELY, OR INVEST IN WHAT WORKS?:
6.1 Fixing What Doesn't Work: Expensive storage and other extreme solutions are now being built to ameliorate the inherent inadequacy and uncontrollable variability of renewables. The proponents claim that storing the inadequate and expensively produced energy that is produced when it isn't wanted, that we currently pay not to use, to deliver it when it is wanted, can make renewables viable, but in fact there clearly isn't enough energy being generated overall, so this is expensive gaffer tape.
Gap filling from offshore sources using interconnects is also proposed.
NOTE: If we do the right thing on our established real time grid in the first place, with gas and nuclear, we will always have enough energy on demand, and no need for such measures and their incremental costs.
6.2 The best way to build and operate an electrical grid:
6.2.1 Real Time: Because pure energy cannot be stored, the grid is "SMART"est In technical fact when it minimises storage and optimises the match of efficient and large-scale generation on the grid to overall demand in real time. Off peak supply is a good way to use base load generation surplus better, BTW, but that just needs a white meter, not a smart grid..
6.2.2 Large Scale controllable generation is necessary to deliver the highest efficiency and lowest cost per KWh (per unit energy), underpinned by over 100 years of development.
6.2.3 Close to Demand: To minimise losses and infrastructure per GWh, and the environmental impact of infrastructure, the generation needs to be close to the actual consumption, or at least to the high voltage grid.
Anything that detracts from these considerations without a rational justification is in technical reality dumb, except to whoever profits from it, of course. The "SMART" grid is an example of such alternative reality. We have much more cost effective and climate friendly solutions.
6.3 THE RENEWABLE "SMART" GRID SOLUTION: Renewable energy source aggregation and re-distribution of many small, remote and unpredictable energy sources is the technical antithesis of the above measurements.
6.3.1 Gas and nuclear can be put where we need them, on the grid. Renewables cannot.
6.3.2 Renewables must go where their energy sources are strong, usually remote locations with high infrastructure costs and difficulty, and maximum environmental impact. And all this investment in infrastructure will be obsolete when we must transition base load fossil to nuclear generation, with no emissions to offset. Bad value.
6.3.3 Expensive Storage Won't Cure Renewable Energy's Handicaps: We can't generate enough renewable energy overall, matched to demand or not. Unwanted renewable energy cannot be stored directly, it must be converted into another form of energy - in batteries or pumped storage - then regenerated. Regeneration adds around another 100% to the base load energy costs per unit, which can raise total subsidies to >300%, now . 4 times base load wholesale price of gas and nuclear, yet delivering only a small improvement in the use of renewable energy overall - and still not enough energy.
Fortunately there is little opportunity for such wasteful hydro/pumped storage schemes in the UK. The EU estimates 6TWh = one 1GW power station more. So a major contribution to grid supply from storage is simply not deliverable. Storage is for expensive, short term, low capacity, load balancing energy only. A sustained 10 GW from hydro/pumped storage when renewables are substantially off-line is simply undeliverable in practice, we have 1GW of hydro and can add perhaps !GW more, and then we have to refill it by expensively pumping water uphill between emptying, etc..
The best/only practical mainstream generation approach is on demand, with minimum storage.
6.4 £/INTERCONNECT CABLE = £/CCGT POWER STATION : Interconnects are effectively expensive underwater extension cords to a foreign grid, that cost as much for the cable as building a similar capacity CCGT power station on our grid. The investment choice should not be hard.
It is clear that the best use of our money is to build secure generation on our grid, not a cable to another country, or an expensive way to save a bit more of not enough renewable energy?
6.5 THE POINT:
Storage mostly makes predictable failure more expensive.
Depending on large scale interconnects makes no technical, strategic or economic sense. We can generate energy better at home, on our grid, with the gas and nuclear we have, unsubsidised. Maybe OK for low cost land based European overhead grid. Not undersea cables.
The inconvenient truth is that substantively powering our grid with renewables and interconnects cannot deliver the objectives of UK electrical energy policy, with or without storage.
7.0 DELIVERY, SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY:
We have some 40 years estimated gas supply as a sovereign reserve, whose extraction is proven risk free, per DEFRA (ref:(v)), with some simple controls based on extensive US experience, and our own 200 fracked oil wells in the UK, including the largest onshore oil well in Europe in Dorset. Environmental impact is minimal. And obviously easier and less risky for the environment on land than North Sea gas and oil extraction was under the sea.
7.1 There is no better answer to ALL our short term energy policy objectives than to get fracking our sovereign reserves of on shore gas, especially for climate change emissions reduction, replacing non CCS coal fired generation on the grid AFAP.
7.2 Nuclear requires the longest build time, but is clearly the safest modality per KWh of all, wholly sustainable indefinitely at close to today’s' prices, using all Uranium sources, if we adopt fast fission and other high burn nuclear technologies going forward. Russia and India have already commissioned fast fission technology commercially, with c.100 times better fuel use. Thorium fuelling can also be deployed when ready, to mitigate irrational weapons concerns.
nb: Nuclear passive safety is far higher now, and radiation risk far lower than science first guessed. e.g. Governments still evacuate at 20mSv pa, while we may holiday at 80mSv pa in France, and some beaches in Brazil deliver up to 800 mSv pa, 400 times the Thames Valley's 2mSv, all with no epidemiological effect to the indigenous inhabitants. Established science, now.
8. CONCLUSION: I have shown how gas and nuclear best deliver policy objectives, and in fact CO2 emissions are made avoidably, expensively and predictably worse by preferring renewables to the gas and nuclear solution that offers us a truly sustainable and the most highly decarbonising solution, on our extant grid, of tripled capacity.
8.1 Renewables are Regressive Impositions: Any renewables we allow onto the grid in preference to gas replacing coal, and nuclear both, will avoidably and expensively create more CO2 per unit energy, and make no net progressive contribution to meeting future demand - short term, or long term - on any policy measure.
UK government currently plan to waste £Billions destroying our visual environment and coastal navigation building these expensive white elephants, that will be obsolete in a few decades without their fossil host on the grid, when gas alone can do a much better job for those decades, after which zero carbon nuclear will be the only capable replacement for fossil.
9. BETTER SCIENCE FACT BASED SOLUTIONS NEED BETTER COMMUNICATION: The public does not understand the facts. To deliver what works best for the UK, government needs to overcome the propaganda of extremist lobbies supporting what cannot - with science facts that build confidence in what works. What this takes is better communication of deliverable science, and clear denial of undeliverable beliefs. Government is currently promoting false populist belief in green propaganda that deny the science of generation, as above.
In particular communicate the technical limitations of renewables, why they cannot deliver what people believe they can, the actual risks of gas extraction and nuclear generation versus the imagined, and the real and far larger negative environmental and economic impacts, and the risks of renewables.
10. LAST WORD: THE SCIENCE FACTS - Sir David MacKay FRS, last Interview:
Sir David MacKay FRS was Chief Scientific Advisor to the DECC from 2008 to 2014. He produced the DECC energy model and wrote one of the World's most admired technical reference works on sustainable energy - "Sustainable Energy - Without Hot Air" Ref (vi). He has reviewed my simplified and more direct approaches to government in the past.
The DECC paid for his understanding, but ignored its inconvenient truths. He endured this with patience and diplomacy, to stay on the inside. But he made the facts very clear when facing his untimely death. The short video and quotes below illuminate most of the points above. A master class in the scientific realities of delivering electrical energy to an Island at 50 degrees North. I hope I have honoured his legacy, and maintained simplicity, logic and technical objectivity.
Thanks for your time.
Regards,
Eur Ing Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA
David MacKay - Last video Links:
http://www.marklynas.org/2016/04/david-mackay-last-interview-tribute/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ
“power the UK with renewable energy is an appalling delusion” min 9.10+
“ pay attention to mathematics, the laws of physics, the realities of engineering” min 9.40
"we need a plan that adds up"
“intermittency is a real problem” min 9.50
“renewable proponents haven’t done the numbers to achieve proposed solutions” min 10.10
On “winter” min 10.30
“batteries are not a realistic solution /the price needs to be 100 times less.” min 11.05
“if you can get through the winter with CCS and nuclear, there is no point in adding wind and solar” min 14 – 15
“DECC always knew that solar was not on the table in the UK” min 16+
“society needs reliability in its electrical system” min 18 +
“CCS is crucial” min 19: nb: nuclear can do the job sustainably, but David's was concerned CCS should be developed.
ENDS
PS: GERMANY: To see the future under green energy dogma, follow Germany to observe politicians' promises for renewables meeting the laws of physics. Now building new and highly emissive lignite fired fossil generation to fill the massive and inherent gaps in intermittently weak renewable generation, and to replace their safest of all zero carbon nuclear generation. More CO2 pa, second highest energy prices in the EU. What happens when politicians engineer infrastructure.
Ref (i) DECC DUKES 2015
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/552059/Chapter_5_web.pdf
Ref (ii): IEA 2015 Energy COsts prediction Sunmmary and Full Report
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7279-proj-costs-electricity-2015-es.pdf
Ref (iii): OFGEM ROC Payments
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/renewables-obligation-ro-annual-report-2014-15
Ref (iv): Sir David MacKay FRS on delivering energy reality in the UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ
Ref (v): DEFRA Fracking Report
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270980/Developing_Onshore_Shale_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_140113.pdf
Ref (vi): Sustainable Energy - Without Hot Air
https://www.withouthotair.com/Synopsis.html
Ref (vii): Selected academic Papers on past and future energy supply
Power Density Primer: Understanding the Spatial Dimension of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part I – Definitions)
by Vaclav Smil May 8, 2010
On Decarbonization: Historically and Perspectively
Cesare Marchetti (marcheti@iiasa.ac.at)
January 2005
Renewable and nuclear heresies
Jesse H. Ausubel Int. J. Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2007 229
Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA E-mail: ausubel@rockefeller.edu
Figure (i)
Didcot B CCGT and Didcot A open cycle coal fired Power stations (before Demolition of Didcot A)
Fig (ii) Sizewell B PWR, For Comparison on Land Use
24 September 2016