Renew Extra Weekly

As variable renewable expands there are issues in relation to maintaining security of supply, which will add to the cost of a sustainable energy system.  But, as bit of post-Christmas cheer, in this brief post, can I point to a recent Imperial College study that says power grid balancing costs for variable renewables are low at low penetration, and can even be negative. And although they can be higher at over 50% shares, depending on how balancing is done, total system intergration costs need not be excessive-  at most €30/MWh, even at 85% penetration.  Reviewing existing data , Dr Phil Heptonstall and Prof. Rob Gross from Imperial College look at grid balancing costs, focusing on operating reserve costs, the costs of the unpredictability or incorrect forecasting of variable renewable energy (VRE) output over short timescales (seconds to a few hours) and the capacity adequacy costs associated with the extent to which VRE output can be relied upon to meet times of peak demand over the y

Covid may still be with us, but you might hope that the recovery programmes will lead to some positive changes in the energy sector. Sadly that may be slow in coming. ‘The UK is spending 32 times more on fossil fuels than renewables’. So said the headline to a recent Forbes article . It was reporting on a study by Finnish power firm Wärtsilä Energy that found that the UK has allocated $5 bn in Covid 19 recovery stimulus commitments to fossil fuels, while clean energy will receive $158 m, just 3% of the injection intended for hydrocarbons. Wärtsilä said that, if instead, all the fossil fuel stimulus was shifted to renewable energy, $16.5 bn in investments could be leveraged, delivering a 60% renewable energy system, which would mean 58% lower carbon emissions from the power sector, putting the UK on track to meet its 2050 net zero carbon goal. The system would have 60 GW of renewable, supported by 7 GW of battery energy storage and 14 GW of flexible gas-based generation for balancing. 

We are still facing Covid 19 and its impacts, although possibly beginning to see it off. But what’s next? Is there worse to come, as some say, with climate change ramping up and then biosystem collapse following in train?  Can we avoid all of that? Covid19 had major health impacts with more to come. Our responses to it also had major impacts - including a reduction in economic activity and travel, so emissions fell for a while. But not for long- that was only a blip. They went back u p.  Nevertheless, for a while, big lifestyle changes were forced on some of us - flying almost stopped, driving fell back dramatically, so did the use of public transport. Many people stopped working or worked from home. Much of the non-food retail & leisure sector fell silent.  Most of that recovered or will do, though public transport may not. Indeed it may be a long term looser, with car use booming again. Some recovery stimulus measures were ‘green’- renewable energy being a (re) growth area, but l

The various post-Covid recovery plans often talk of rebuilding better- using the need to rebuild as an opportunity for adopting better ideas, including the use of renewable energy. However, most top-down national government programmes focus on fast impact options for hard hit sectors, not usually involving much change in approach.  That may be inevitable: it may often be easier, faster and cheaper to patch, fix and mend than to start something new.  Some environmentalists of course think that we need more and that most industries and sectors are in need of radical change: the whole thing is broken! But although the impact of Covid has been bad, in reality, only a few industries and sector are seriously damaged and a firefighting approach is likely to be adopted- dealing with each independently. Grass-roots bottom-up initiatives may also do the same. They emerge in response to specific problems, and, understandably, usually focus on saving jobs by going back to where they were before in