A new report commissioned by WWF and Greenpeace argues that the achievement of the UK’s renewable energy targets, requiring 52GW of installed renewable energy capacity by 2020, will fully meet the expected shortfall from existing power sources and will not require the building of major new conventional power stations in order to keep Britain’s lights on during the next decade.

Produced by consultants Poyry, the report appears to have been commissioned to help stop the proposed new Kingsnorth coal power station in Kent and the other six coal powered plants currently seeking planning approval within the UK.

The report makes some sweeping assumptions regarding the removal of existing barriers to renewable development such as planning delays, grid connection issues and supply chain shortages.  It also assumes that work on improving the UK’s energy efficiency is carried out so that the total amount of electricity required by 2020 is significantly reduced and that carbon capture technology and CHP systems are more widely used.

It does, however, raise an interesting question as to whether, with significant focus on biomass fuelled power stations, the renewable energy industry can fill the electricity gap that appears to be opening up as a number of our existing conventional power stations close down between now and 2017.  The report suggests that the delivery of 52GW of installed capacity of renewable energy will be sufficient to keep the UK’s lights on.  However, it assumes that the major part of this will be delivered by wind farms, both on and off shore which will significantly cut down on the overall delivered capacity.  Perhaps with a greater emphasis on biomass delivery they might actually have a point?

The Institute for Public Policy Research has raised the issue that if Europe was to go ahead with current plans to build some 75 new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture technology it would seriously undermine the target of reducing the EU’s emissions from the power sector by 21% by 2020 and cause its carbon trading scheme to collapse.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious the issue is will the EU permit 75 new coal-fired power plants to be built?  If it does, then the whole issue of the EU carbon reduction strategy comes under attack.  In the UK there are currently proposals to build seven new coal-fired power stations of which EON’s proposed new Kingsnorth plant in Kent is already receiving significant opposition from green activists.  With carbon capture technology built into the plans opposition would fall away but such technology is not currently available.  Whether it will be by the time any plant is built and whether, with sensible planning it can be retro-fitted when available, are currently just interesting questions without finite answers.  However, if the government gives the green light to these plans without such caveats one must presume it will be on the basis of some light is better than no light?. 

Newspapers reported that the UK Government was “disappointed” that the proposed £12 billion takeover of British Energy by EDF had stalled.  That must be the understatement of the week!  Apart from the £4.2 billion that Alistair Darling would have received for the government’s 35% stake in BE the UK’s future energy strategy that Gordon Brown has linked to nuclear power appears to be in tatters.

Two shareholders with 22% of BE between them and holding out for a higher price seem to have derailed the UK’s nuclear timetable and we now appear to be in the hands of the City to decide whether the lights will stay on in the second half of the next decade or whether the government of the day will be in the embarrassing position of facing on-going power cuts that could last for years. 

If EDF, the world’s leading operator of nuclear plants, in which the French Government has a stake, is prepared to offer a higher price for BE and begins at once with a programme of building the new nuclear power stations that Britain desperately needs, it will take until 2017 at the earliest for the first plant to be commissioned.  Before that date, current estimates suggest that at least four of BE’s existing nuclear plants will be decommissioned; Hunterston B, Heysham 1, Hartlepool and Hinkley Point B.

While the failure of last weeks’ takeover will not necessarily prevent the delivery of the government’s timetable for delivering new nuclear plants by 2017, it needs prompt action by the government to remove legislative and regulatory hurdles to the construction of new plants to encourage individual contractors to come forward with bids.  EDF, whether or not its bid for BE is successful is reported to be interested in building four plants and Centrica, the owner of British Gas, is considering its own bid for BE that would result in further plants being built.

For a clear indication of government response to the BE debacle we will just have to wait till MP’s come back from their summer holidays and get back to the business of running the country.

But don’t hold your breath!

As we enter 2008 we still have no idea how UK Limited plans to keep Britain’s lights on in twelve years time. By 2020, the mix of coal fired and nuclear power stations that currently produce the majority of our power will be well past their sell-by dates and the plan for their replacements is still being written.
The government has begun the process of decision making but will they be in time to prevent a major energy crisis? It has asked the public for their views on building new nuclear power stations and hopes to report on the conclusions in January. Assuming there is a positive response, it will be interesting to discover whether the plan and build programme they propose can be completed before the current stations are due to close.
EDF Energy, the French power giant has recently announced a partnership with the UK’s Amec Group (who has helped build nuclear power facilities in Russia, Eastern Europe, Canada, America and South Africa) in anticipation of securing a contract to build four new nuclear reactors at a cost of £10 billion capable of replacing two thirds of our current nuclear output. Funding for these reactors will come from the private sector. No government money will be needed. EDF was quoted recently as saying that these new technology stations could be operational by 2017.
The second unknown is how we plan to replace the coal-fired power stations that need to close if we are to conform to current EU regulations concerning pollution. Clean coal is still in the development stage. The government has just reached the stage of asking for tenders to build the UK’s first clean coal station. Private sector players are moving in this direction, but slowly. RWE npower is in the process of building its first carbon dioxide capture plant at a coal fired power station at Aberthaw in South Wales and is also looking at ways to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired plants under the North Sea in depleted gas reservoirs.
Renewable sources are supposed to produce 20% o0f the UK’s total electricity needs by 2020. Today they produce as little as 2%. Wind Power is currently receiving support from government quarters with the announcement of proposals to build new offshore turbines capable of generating up to 25GW of electricity by 2020, enough, together with existing wind power installations, to power 19 million homes in the UK. Such a major new source of wind power will, however, bring its own challenges. The first will be to find a way to integrate this new source, when operating at full power, into the grid without causing power disruption. The second will be to identify and fund a second source of new power to compensate for the lack of delivery when there is no wind.
In the next few weeks we are told we will learn more of UK Limited’s plans. Let’s hope they are in time.

In the private sector and under normal economic circumstances the technology that delivers a commodity at the lowest price is likely to be commercially successful. In the case of UK renewable energy this rule does not seem to apply.
The cost of building wind turbines on land is significantly cheaper than building them off-shore. Yet, planners and government alike are choosing the off-shore option.
The reason would seem to be that while the public claims to be concerned about global warming it has little interest in living next to what it perceives to be ugly, noisy machines. They want renewable energy but they want it out of sight and out of mind. Has anyone actually told them what this decision is going to cost?
This off-shore decision will add at least a third to the build cost of the planned 25GW wind farm currently being proposed by John Hutton with the enthusiastic backing of the wind energy association. To say nothing of the practical issues it raises.
Backing wind energy on this scale creates serious issues on how best to integrate it into the grid without causing the system to crash. It also means an alternative back-up power system needs to be built and maintained for those times when the wind doesn’t blow.
This same issue is currently facing the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy has always been cost effective and the latest, more efficient technology even more so. Yet the government has postponed a decision on approving the next generation of nuclear plants because it claims to be concerned about public opinion. Nuclear may be cost effective but unless the public is behind it we end up building more expensive alternatives.

For climate change to become a reality the world has to accept it as a truly international affair. While the latest talks in Bali seemed to move in the right direction, we still have to wait and see if the USA, China and India will actually reduce their carbon emissions. Otherwise, any advances made by the EU, Africa and South America will end up being null and void.
Investment in renewable energy is also an international business. As renewable companies grow, the technology they develop should be encouraged to cross national boundaries. Yet, until the financial world can see an international vision for the commercialisation of renewable energy it will remain difficult to raise money for major new projects.
The EU has led the way in trying to ensure all member states follow the same path towards achieving its goal of securing 20% of Europe’s energy from renewable sources by 2020. Yet even here the incentives offered by member states are different making it financially more beneficial to build in one EU country rather than another.
Splash and Dash is perhaps the most public example of how an incentive intended to build the renewable energy market has actually had the opposite effect. While this anomaly will hopefully be resolved during 2008, it demonstrates only too clearly the need for incentives to be determined within an international context.
As we all come together to find long term solutions to tackling climate change, let us hope the international community puts the issue of incentive commonality on the agenda. Then we will see an increasing enthusiasm from the financial sector to put its money where our mouth is.

President Sarkozy has come out to ensure France is seen to be responding to climate change. The plans announced at the end of October, that he hopes will become law, include all new buildings becoming energy positive by 2020. Meanwhile, by 2010, all incandescent light bulbs will be banned and double-glazing will be mandatory..

Regarding transport, the purchase of low polluting and low fuel consuming vehicles will be encouraged by discounts, and high polluting vehicles will be discouraged via higher taxes. Road construction will be cut back and high speed trains services will be expanded.

Re energy, the position is less clear. Biofuels are neither backed nor discouraged. Little seems to have been said about renewables in general. The only positive statement appears to relate to nuclear energy. This remains a major part of France’s future energy plans.