Hard Choices aheadFor a Secure Low Carbon Future

Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICEEnergy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation Centre

School of Environmental Sciences

CPRE - 28th July 2005

CRed

Meeting our Future Energy Needs

Electricity Statistics: South Norfolk

• Each house in South Norfolk consumes, on average 5797 kWh per year 50% more than a house in Norwich

• South Norfolk consumes a total of 524 million kWh per year (291 million domestic).

• A wind farm the size of Scroby Sands would supply 54% of domestic needs for whole of South Norfolk (or 30% of total demand)

• Would save ~ 80 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year or 45 000 hot air balloons each year.

• The alternative:

• Persuade 32 000 motorists never to drive the car again

• Or 320 000 motorists to drive 1000 miles less each year.

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.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

MT

on

ne

s C

O2

Actual

High Growth

Low Growth

Gas Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

bill

ion

cu

bic

me

tre

s Actual

High Growth

Low Growth

The Gas Scenario

Assumes all new non-renewable generation is from gas.

Replacements for ageing plant

Additions to deal with demand changes

Assumes Renewables Targets are met

10.4% by 2010

20% by 2020

• High Growth – Business as Usual

• Low Growth capped at 420 TWH by 2010

• Rise in emissions 2005 – 2010

• loss of nuclear generating capacity

• Fall in emissions 2010 – 2020

• loss of nuclear and coal capacity

• Little new generating capacity available before 2010 except Wind and small scale

Electricity Options for the Future

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

Electricity Options for the Future

Low Growth Scenario

Capped at 420 TWh

• Represents a cumulative 1.5% per annum per household reduction below historic trend

• 33% CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990

• 62% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990

• 68 % increase in gas consumption ( Gas Scenario) 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

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

MT

on

ne

s C

O2

Actual

Low Growth

High Growth

Electricity Options for the FutureTargets for renewables are achieved

• Diverse Mix of Non-Renewables

40% gas: 20% Nuclear: 40% Coal

• Low Growth: Capped at 420 TWhRepresents a cumulative 1.5% per annum per household reduction below historic trend.

28% reduction in CO2 (cf 1990)10% increase in gas (cf 2002)

• High Growth: Business as UsualRepresents 2.3% growth

10% increase in CO2 (cf 1990)51% increase in gas (cf 2002)

Some New Build Nuclear may be necessary even in most optimistic scenario.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2010 2015 2020 2025

Mix Low Growth Target Renewables

Mix High Growth Target Renewables

Mix Low Growth No more Renewables

Mix HighGrowth No more renewables

No More Renewables up to 20 new nuclear stations may be needed.

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.

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 Generation of Electricity

- Saves 8 – 9% on transmission losses

- Communities should make decision

• Local wind generators, biomass

• Individual microgeneration, photovoltaic, individual wind turbines

• Many residents on island of Burray (Orkney) compaigned for a wind turbine.

• On average they are fully self-sufficient in electricity needs and indeed are a net exporter of electricity

Involve the local Community

The Future• If we continue on the business as usual approach our

electricity consumption will be 35% higher than now and whether we have remote renewables, nuclear or fossil fuel additional transmission lines will be needed.

• Local generation will help significantly. Individual household generation – DC.

• Communities should decide on the approach that is best for them – but a decision is needed soon - leaving things as they are will have attendant security issues.

• Myths need to be dispelled. Nuclear/Wind/Energy Use

• Less radioactivity is emitted from nuclear power stations (including Sellafield) per unit of electricity generated than from equivalent coal fired power stations.

Myths on Wind Power

• NETA has to cope with the loss of Sizewell B through a reactor trip. This loss amounts to around 1.2 times the total installed capacity of wind at present.

• NETA 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

Whilst the wind turbine is considered 'ugly' by some residents of Swaffham, most consider it a unique landmark and see it as an asset to the town. Most of the local population are proud of the turbine and it seems to have had a positive

impact on the town in a number of ways.

I do believe that were it not for the number of visitors to Swaffham, coming to see the turbine for whatever reason, we would not have such a high influx of buyers from out of the area. This has increased house prices, and the prosperity of

the area.

Our Choices: They are difficultAffect House Prices

• Evidence from Estate Agents in the Swaffham Area say they have a positive effect on house prices.

Our Choices: They are difficult - Myths

• Latest some evidence to suggest that a few birds are killed typically 3 per installed MW per year except in a few locations.

• the oldest wind farm in UK on Burgar Hill has an RSPB reserve right next to it.

• in Orkney a party from UEA came across new fewer than 3 dead birds on roads in 2 days in an area remote turbines.

•Currently UK has around 850 MW installed perhaps 2500 killed a year

•Estimates of 1 million killed each year by vehicles

•British Trust for Ornithology estimate 100 million birds collide with fixed objects of whom one third are killed

Wind Energy: The Issues

Wind Turbines kill birds

Our Choices: They are difficult

• Wind Turbines are beautiful!

» Wind Turbines are Ugly!

• What is the consequence of not using wind alongside conservation, biomass and nuclear etc?.

• Insecure supply of Electricity when we import fossil fuels from Russia

• The North Norfolk Coal Field• Increased Famine in many part of the world• Increased flooding• 20 new nuclear power stations in the UK by 2025• Increased incidence of extreme weather events.

Some Media Articles might be counter productive

Saturday 28th May 2005

If this statement were true then a mini would do 16944 miles per litre or 77000 miles per gallon

Conclusions• 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 individual’s response to use of energy as any technical measures the Government may take.

• Wind (and possibly biomass) are the only real alternatives for renewable generation in next 5 – 10 years.

• Otherwise Nuclear? Carbon Sequestration will not be available until at least 2020 to make coal an option. Security of Supply questions wisdom of relying on gas

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

If we don’t make decisions soon:• Dried up river beds in summer/droughts• Increased flooding in winter

• How do we convince people to turn off items on standby?• Not opting for local generation and individuals not facing up to their

responsibilities will mean more centralised generation/more pylons.

• Should we adopt a mix of renewables and one further generation of nuclear – phasing out dependence on fossil fuels?

• Are we happy with wind turbines – the only real issue here is aesthetics?• Are we happy with reduction of biodiversity and related issues that large

scale biomass exploitation might bring? • Are we prepared to pay much more for our energy (Photo-voltaics)?• Do we want to return to nuclear?• Even if Carbon Sequestration becomes a reality and we could use coal again

are we happy with the prospect of a North Norfolk Coal Field?• Are we comfortable with the Energy Security Issues implied by an over-

reliance on gas? Which is the Least Worst Option?

The decision is ours

WEBSITE

www.cred-uk.org/This presentation is available at

www2.env.uea.ac.uk/cred/creduea.htm

• The government has largely ducked the issue about Energy/Climate Change and Energy Security. Decisions are needed very soon to avoid the effects of climate change.

• Inaction or NO decision is NOT a viable option

• Need to act now otherwise we might have to make choice of whether we drive 1.6 miles or heat an old person’s room

Conclusions