Today the UK National Grid provided some additional insight on this issue when it issued a press release on expected renewable energy by 2020:
A new report published by National Grid today shows that 31,950 MW of existing and proposed renewable generation have agreements in place to connect to the high voltage transmission system by 2020, placing the UK on track to meet 2020 renewable targets.So 27 GW of new capacity from renewables works out to 9 GW of supply at a 33% efficiency (and the word on the London street, literally, is that 33% is overly generous).
National Grid analysis identifies that about 29,000 MW of renewable transmission connected generation capacity is needed to meet the UK government’s target of 15 per cent of energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.
National Grid’s Transmission Networks Quarterly Connections Update, published today, shows:
Current transmission connected renewable generation: 4,950 MW
Proposed renewables projects with connection agreements up to 2020 as at 26 October 2010: 27,000 MW
Using the simple math of energy and decarbonization from The Climate Fix, 9 GW works out to the equivalent amount of carbon-free energy as produced by 12 nuclear power plants. In The Climate Fix, I argue that the UK needs 40 nuclear power plants worth of carbon free energy by 2015 (at the latest) to be on track to meeting its emissions reduction goal for 2020. (See also this paper.) So the UK is 5 years and at least 28 nuclear power plants worth of carbon free energy short (to get from 2015 to 2020 it would need dozens more). So I'll stand by my judgment.
If that voice from the back of the room wishes to contest these numbers, he is welcome to do so here, but somehow I doubt he will;-)
27 comments:
I don’t get it. As Pielke points out, the math on emissions reduction rates is quite simple and the conclusions are straight forward. So why do so many experts believe achieving targeted reductions is realistic? My experience at the community level, admittedly perhaps not representative, is that those pushing hardest for emissions reductions refuse or are unable to quantify their strategies and are happy to surrender to wishful thinking. I’ve taken to calling this Harry Potter Planning; we’ll struggle with the forces of evil and then when it appears all is lost, magic will save the day. Such an approach seems entirely at odds with the scientific approach that led to the establishment of the objectives and strategies.
It also seems odd that those pushing the hardest for emissions reductions seem to worry more about the consequences of informing their supporters today that the current strategies don’t put us on track to achieve targets than the reaction of stakeholders down the road when the targets aren’t achieved. It appears that strategies have become somewhat divorced from emission reduction goals. Getting the strategies adopted, regardless how ineffective the strategies may be, is more highly valued than achieving the emissions objectives the strategies were intended to accomplish. Of course the strategies do directly help accomplish someone’s goals, the goals just happen to be those of the wind and solar companies, the electric car companies, and so on. I wonder how the environmentalists who have invested so heavily their time, money, political capital and credibility in these strategies will react when it becomes apparent that most of the returns on their investments have been captured by “green” companies and that their own goals remain unachieved?
The 10 trillion dollar question is why esteemed British statesmen like Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Cameron are staking their reputations on what looks like a great big FIB.
Could it be that the greater the 'planned' reduction in CO2, the more likely investors are to take a chance on carbon credits ?
Perhaps Lord Stern can answer this. After all, his employer Jeremy Grantham has said that "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future".
He's not just an observer now, he's been given his very own agency to play with. We all know the critical importance of credit ratings for say mortgage backed securities and countries. We can assume that he plans to do exactly the same for carbon credits. For example, the bigger the fib about reductions, the higher the future value of carbon credits.
Matt Taibbi reckons carbon credits and their associated derivatives will be a direct replacement for mortgages, and we know what happened to mortgages.
**
Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK’s Stern report on climate change, will launch a new carbon credit ratings agency on Wednesday, the first to score carbon credits on a similar basis to that used to rate debt.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/897fc1b4-4219-11dd-a5e8-0000779fd2ac.html
Roger Hudson,
You are making the fallacy of believing that AGW is about science or facts. AGW *uses* science and fact to impose faith-based claims. AGW does not make claims that hold up when scrutinized factually or scientifically. One tell of this is that those who claim to understand how CO2 is going to cause a global climate disruption also claim to understand power plants, river flooding, farming, shore erosion, and also know the only alternative energy sources to be used.
As if a genetics researcher could also do the pharma research and clinical research to cure cancer.
The sad truth is we are caught up in a social madness that is worse than tulip mania. It is climate science that has been over valued, not innocent flowers.
The national grid is 'waffling' on the nuclear requirement.
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/A54F1220-7BAA-43C5-B2F7-C45C54409089/35114/FactSheet2020SO1.pdf
The report is very specific on 32GW of wind and an addition 12GW of gas generating capacity
Then we have this waffle statement
"Under a scenario with much more wind and larger nuclear generating units than is currently connected to the transmission system"
So the national grid has concluded some unspecified amount of new nuclear will be built.
Apparently, the timeline of new nuclear builds in the UK is now in doubt.
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6904380822/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/11/decc_-uk_faces__monumental.html
"The UK is facing a "monumental challenge" to generate power from the first of a planned fleet of nuclear power stations by 2018, according to the head of new nuclear at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
French utility EDF, owner of former state-owned nuclear utility British Energy, wants to build four of Areva's EPRs (European Pressurized Reactors), with the first due online at Hinkley Point C in 2018. But issues over planning, financing, licensing and construction delays have put that deadline in doubt, said Hergen Haye."
What I find incredible is that many of those who accept the renewable energy targets are also well-known scientists. If they can't get their heads around a pretty straightforward calculation for energy generation, how can anyone trust their ability to tackle a wicked problem like climate change?
Roger - ref the speech we corresponded on earlier, it is not guaranteed is it that the 27gw will be built? It's only proposed.
read the whole National Grid press release:
But National Grid has warned that this is only a step in the right direction. For proposed projects to become reality, there must be energy market reform to create the right conditions for financial investment; and reform of the planning system must be completed to ensure that infrastructure build – both generation and the associated transmission connections – is undertaken with proper public consultation, but not delayed with unnecessarily slow planning decisions. Currently only 20 per cent of the proposed renewable projects with connection agreements have planning permission.
I am curious what shape these "reforms" of energy market will take? Price hikes, most likely.
“Harry Potter Planning”?
Funnily enough, the Ministry of Magic (see: http://www.the-magician.co.uk/harry-potter-walking-tour.htm) seems to be DECC (UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change) - see map here: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/contact_us/contact_us.aspx.
So, no need to worry then...
What would a 'climate expert' know about power generation? The two are entirely different fields.
OK Roger, let’s examine the robustness of the analysis that leads you to reach the conclusion that the UK is “doomed to failure” when it comes to its 2020 target.
Let's start with a clarification to aid transparency and understanding.
In your paper, you state "In practical terms this could be achieved, for example, with about 30 new nuclear power plants to be built and in operation by 2015, displacing coal and gas fired electrical generation." And you add a note that states: "Author's calculation based on 2005 electricity generation data from http://www.defra.gov.uk.”.
However, in your book (page 87), you state: “In practical terms this level of decarbonization of the UK economy could be achieved, for example, with a level of effort equivalent to building and operating about forty new nuclear power stations by 2015, displacing coal- and gas-fired electrical generation.” You offer a note which refers to a table indicating that 10 per cent of UK energy consumption in 2006 could be met by 14.4 1-GW nuclear power stations.
So please indicate whether you mean 30 or 40 nuclear power stations, and how exactly you arrive at the 30/40 figure.
Sort of like what happened in Canada yesterday . . . Opposition parties in the Minority Parliament passed a ridiculous bill that called for a 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.
That would be about a 50% reduction from current levels. Not hard to figure out what level of destruction that would mean for the Canadian economy . . . would they close down all their schools or hospitals ?
Fortunately for Canadians, the Bill was defeated in the Canadian Senate.
-10-Bob Ward
You proved my supposition wrong;-)
Answer to your question: The paper uses a hypothetical 1 GW nuclear plant, of which 30 are needed, the book uses a real-world example in the Kent Dungeness B Plant at ~750 MW (that is, 1 GW at 75% efficiency -- see footnote 7 in Chapter 4), of which 40 are needed.
Roger,
You use "efficiency" in a way that is completely non-standard, e.g., "So 27 GW of new capacity from renewables works out to 9 GW of supply at a 33% efficiency (and the word on the London street, literally, is that 33% is overly generous)."
No engineer or expert in power generation would use "efficiency" that way. They'd use the word "capacity factor." From wonderful Wikipedia:
•The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
P.S. Back in 1980, the average capacity factor for a *nuclear* power plant in the U.S. was only 56%. But today it's over 90 percent:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html
So today, in the U.S., it's reasonable to use the nameplate capacity for nuclear plants. (Although it's even more accurate multiply by the capacity factor.)
markbahner said... 13
"So today, in the U.S., it's reasonable to use the nameplate capacity for nuclear plants."
Only because our nuclear power plant generating capacity is less then minimum load. The french have lousy load/capacity factors because they have to turn down their nukes at night for lack of demand.
The English are going to have similar problems if the wind blows at 3 A.M. with 30 GW of wind and no one to use it.
Average UK electricity consumption is 40 GW/hr. Minimum load is in the 25GW range and peak load is in the 60 GW range.
Hence the national grids plan is dependent on 'smart appliances' and 'smart meters' and some segment of the transportation sector converting to battery power and being charged by 'smart chargers' that only work when their is excess wind or nuclear power available.
Roger Hudson -1-,
"Getting the strategies adopted, regardless how ineffective the strategies may be, is more highly valued than achieving the emissions objectives the strategies were intended to accomplish."
This is not exactly news, or don't you remember the Kyoto Accords. We knew they wouldn't accomplish anything but we were told we needed to do it anyway.
Sorry Roger you will have to be more transparent about your method. In table 4.4 in your book you claim that 1 quad consumed in 2006 would be equivalent to 10.8 GW. By my calculation, 1 quad is about 293 terawatt hours, so 1 quad per year is 33.4 GW, not 10.8 as your table claims.
And the 14.4 1-GW nuclear plants in Table 5 operating at 75% efficiency for 365 days would generate 94.6 Terawatt hours in a year ie about 0.32 of a quad, not 1 quad as your table implies.
And I haven't even checked yet your figures for UK energy consumption.
-16-Bob Ward
You should follow the footnotes for the transparency.
As I explain in the book and the peer reviewed papers: 1 quad equals (about) 11 GW (per year), See:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm
These values are from the American Physical Society, where these numbers are clearly explained.
11 GW = about 15 x 750 MW power plants
To understand why your numbers appear to be different, see the difference between primary and final energy. It is good to see the Grantham Institute spokesman getting up to speed on energy! ;-)
After you confirm the APS numbers, please do double check the UK consumption numbers. Then let's do discuss the Climate Change Act targets.
Thanks!
Bob Ward said... 16
"And the 14.4 1-GW nuclear plants in Table 5 operating at 75% efficiency for 365 days would generate 94.6 Terawatt hours in a year ie about 0.32 of a quad, not 1 quad as your table implies."
From a Westinghouse AP100 brochure -
"With a gross power rating of 3,415 megawatt thermal (MWt) and a nominal
net electrical output of 1,117 megawatt electric(MWe)
You are both correct. The nuclear plants would generate about 1 quad thermal and .32 quad electrical.
Please agree units in advance for the benefit of the rest of us ;)
Roger - you're obviously not knowledgeable enough about the ways of the British governments re:targets. Let me explain. 8-)
Many years ago somebody had the bright idea to declare a target for UK train punctuality by a certain date. Scrambling for a solution in the face of certain failure, shortly before the deadline the rail companies agreed on artificially lengthening their schedules, thereby guaranteeing they could reach the target even if in practice they had done nothing of the sort.
Then it was Mr Blair's government's turn to declare a target on waiting list at the NHS by a certain date. Scrambling for a solution in the face of certain failure, shortly before the deadline the NHS structures decided to operate a double waiting list system, with the "official" one designed to consistently reach the target, and the "unofficial" one a parking area for patients that were simply not counted by the target system. Everybody had therefore guaranteed they could reach the target even if in practice they had done nothing of the sort.
This practice, i.e. an extension of "creative accounting", has permeated the whole public system in the country. Even during the Dec 31, 1999 celebrations in London, the expected "river of fire" with 60ft+ tall flames was declared a success despite having been mostly invisible to the crowds, by redefining the meaning of "river of fire".
And yes!, this may all sound familiar to people that have read about attempts to "redefine what the peer reviewed literature is". Of course.
Please do not be surprised therefore if, come 2020, we will be talked into believing that the "34% target for emissions reductions below a 1990 baseline by 2020" will have been achieved, regardless of what the true figures will tell.
-8– Ruth
OMG, it’s worse than we thought. I’ve already been labeled locally as a HP Magic Planning Denier, so after your revelation about the location where robust climate policy magic is brewed, I guess I’ll have to consider apostasy to atone for my sins. ;-)
-15- DeWitt
In the business world we are taught to evaluate objectives on whether they are specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and timely (SMART). Roger Peilke (and I at a much more modest level) challenge plans based on achievability while you’re challenging based on relevance it appears. It sounds like you may be challenging the science but I've also read a relevance challenge that accepts the science but questions whether achieving the emissions objective would have a material affect on temperature. Isn’t it interesting that these challenges, while not addressing climate science directly, are enough to get one nominated for the D List? It seems like some people want to turn climate science and policy into a challenge free zone.
-10- Omniclimate:
I once worked at a place that rarely set specific objectives. Instead, they would shoot an arrow, run to where it landed and paint a target with the arrow centered in the bull's eye. Businesses also shift targets but those pesky investors always catch on eventually, often with dramatic consequences for those involved. Do voters not catch on because they aren't paying close enough attention or because their stakes are so much lower than those of investors that they can afford to be forgiving or because the plans deal with messy issues voters don't really expect policy makers to fix?
Roger Hudson (20): "Do voters not catch on"
Unfortunately, it's not a Tory or Labour thing, so there's no choice really.
The interesting discussion of nuclear quad raises the question of what happens if that same standard is applied to wind mill power?
Roger,
Do you agree with Omniclimate's observations? I do too, from personal experience with a bureaucracy similar to the British.
In the mid-late 90s, Blair declared that he would increase the NHS doctors' roll by "10,000" - this simply meant recruiting fresh blood coming out of Eastern Europe and the subcontinent - who have subsequently been chased away from the country with nothing to show for their services.
One aspect of your 'decarbonization analysis' being right depends on relying on the UK being serious about their 'targets'.
Please tell me - why on earth do you expect the UK political masters to be serious about unachievable targets, Bob Ward notwithstanding? Energy policy is backwaters - anyone can say anything and get away, and get away they will. The Soames speech you posted has the clues.
Roger #17: I can't seem to find the unit "GW (per year)" in the APS link you provide.
Not that I would actually expect to find it there anyway. I'm sure you can figure out why.
-24-Alcoacoce
Right -- try GW-year
Roger #24: I know what you thought you were typing, just mildly amused that in a comment where you say...
"It is good to see the Grantham Institute spokesman getting up to speed on energy! ;-)"
...You didn't seem to be up to speed on energy yourself. :P
-26-Alcoacoce
Indeed;-) Thanks, I welcome all the peer reviewers I can get!
Post a Comment