Energy SecurityHard Choices Ahead

Keith Tovey ( 杜伟贤 ) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnvН.К.Тови М.А., д-р технических наук

Energy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation CentreSchool of Environmental Sciences

Renewable Energy SeminarBreckland

17th January 2006

CRed

Future Global Warming Rates

Total winter precipitation Total summer precipitation

Source: Tim

Osborne, C

RU

Change in precipitation 1961-2001

19792003

Climate ChangeArctic meltdown 1979 - 2003

• Summer ice coverage of Arctic Polar Region– Nasa satellite

imagery

Source: Nasa http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

•20% reduction in 24 years

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods - figures taken from Energy Review 2002

Gas CCGT0 - 80% (currently 40% and rising)

available now, but UK gas will run out within current decade

~ 2p + but recent trends put figure

much higher

nuclear fission (long term)

0 - 60% (France 80%) - (currently 20 - 25% and falling)

new inherently safe designs - some practical development needed

2.5 - 3.5p

nuclear fusion unavailablenot available until 2040 at earliest

"Clean Coal"

Traditional Coal falling rapidly -

coal could supply 40 - 50% by 2020

Basic components available - not viable without Carbon Sequestration

2.5 - 3.5p - but will EU - ETS affect

this

potential contribution to

Electricity Supply in 2020

costs in 2020

Difficult Choices Ahead

Nuclear Generating Capacity

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035

Ins

talle

d C

ap

ac

ity

(M

W)

Projection

ActualWholesale Price of Electricity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 13 25

(p p

er k

Wh)

Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct

2003 2004 2005

Photovoltaic 50% available, but much research neededto bring down costs significantly

10+ p

Energy Crops 100% + available, but research needed insome areas

2.5 - 4

Wave/TidalStream

100% + techology limited - extensivedevelopment unlikely before 2020

4 - 8p

Tidal Barrages 10 - 20% technology available but unlikelywithout Government intervention

notcosted

Geothermal unlikely for electricity generationbefore 2050 if then

On Shore Wind ~25% available now for commercialexploitation

~ 2p

Hydro 5% technically mature, but limitedpotential

2.5 - 3p

Resource Potential contribution to electricity supply in2020 and drivers/barriers

Cost in2020

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable

Biodiesel/Bioethanol

Our Choices: They are difficult

If our answer is NO

Do we want to return to using coal? • then carbon dioxide emissions will rise significantly• unless we can develop carbon sequestration within 10 years which is unlikely

If our answer to coal is NO

Do we want to leave things are they are and see continued exploitation of gas for both heating and electricity generation? >>>>>>

Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass. Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for next 20 years.

If our answer is NO

Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power

• Are we happy on this and the other attendant risks?

Our Choices: They are difficult

If our answer is YES

By 2020

• we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS

• imported from countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, AlgeriaAre we happy with this prospect? >>>>>>

If not:

We need even more substantial cuts in energy use.

Or are we prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming? - the North Norfolk Coal Field?

Do we wish to reconsider our stance on renewables?

Inaction or delays in decision making will lead us down the GAS option route

and all the attendant Security issues that raises.

Our Choices: They are difficult

A diverse renewable supply will be local, and will be less prone to cascade power cuts such as those recently in US, London, Italy, Denmark.

Conventional generation is based on large units: 500 – 660 MW enough to supply over 1 million homes. These do fail from time to time, and require much greater backup than required for the failure of a few wind turbines. A reactor trip at Sizewell B has an even larger effect ~1188 MW.

Renewable generation is less prone to major interruption

We must not get drawn into a single issue debate

– a rational debate covering all the alternatives is needed.

Available Renewables: Nuclear: Conservation

Local Small Scale generation saves 8.5% from losses in transmission

An important advantage over conventional generation or far Offshore Wind

Our Choices: They are difficult

• BETTA has to cope with the loss of Sizewell B through a reactor trip. This loss amounts to around 1.5 times the total installed capacity of wind at present.

• BETTA also has to cope with sudden changes in demand (up to 2.5 times Sizewell B) in a matter of minutes e.g. from TV scheduling.

• Experience from Denmark shows that the normal maximum change in any one hour from Wind Output is no more than 18% on one occasion in a year. With a larger country area the figures for diverse wind generation will be less in UK.

One will not save Carbon Dioxide because power stations are running in case they are needed.

• There is very little truth in this. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted is dependant on the output of a fossil fuel power station. If it is running under low load it will emit only a very small amount of extra CO2.

• Allowing for this, the effect of standby reserve will amount to a maximum of 15 – 20 gms per kWh of Wind Energy compared to 430 for gas or 1000 for coal.

• A substantial saving is made.

Renewable Energy: The Issues

Isn’t Energy from Renewables unreliable? – we need secure supply

Historic and Future Demand for Electricity

Number of households will rise by 17.5% by 2025 and consumption per household must fall by this amount just to remain static

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Ele

ctri

city

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

TW

h)

Electricity Options for the FutureLow Growth Scenario

Capped at 420 TWh• 33% CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990

• 62% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990

• 68 % increase in gas consumption

( Gas Scenario) cf 2002• Mix option: 6 new nuclear plant by 2025• Mix option: 11% increase in gas

consumption (cf 2002)

High Growth Scenario

Business as Usual• 0.3 % CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990

• 54% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990

• 257% increase in gas consumption

( Gas Scenario) cf 2002

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

MT

on

ne

s C

O2

ActualGasNuclearCoal40:20:40 Mix

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Mto

nn

es C

O2

ActualGasNuclearCoal40:20:40 Mix

25% Renewables by 2025

• 20000 MW Wind

• 16000 MW Other Renewables inc. Tidal, hydro, biomass etc.

Carbon Emissions in Norfolk

Points to Consider• Global Warming will affect us all - in next few decades

• Energy Security will become increasingly important. Inaction over making difficult decisions now will make Energy Security more likely in future.

• Move towards energy conservation and LOCAL generation of energy

It is as much about the LOCAL and individual’s response to use of energy as any technical measures Central Government may take.

• Even if we are not convinced about Global Warming – Energy Security issues will shortly start to affect us.