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.
As Wärtsilä showed in its energy policy tracker, the current allocation pattern is similarly biased for the USA. But, it said, that meant that ‘if the current stimulus pledged to support legacy fossil fuel sectors ($72 bn) was allocated to advance modern, flexible, high-renewable power systems, over 100 GW of new renewable energy capacity could be achieved’. It added ‘This would result in over 500,000 new jobs in renewable energy, 175%more new jobs than if stimulus was focused on legacy, inflexible energy systems.;
Wärtsilä Energy Business President, said, it was urgent to realise that ‘across the G20 countries, the stimulus ‘scales’ are strongly weighted to support legacy inflexible power systems, despite the agenda for rapid decarbonisation that’s underway worldwide. In our modelling of two world-leading energy markets: the US and the UK - it’s clear that both countries stand at the brink of a clean energy revolution, that could provide a blueprint for other economies to follow. Refocusing stimulus towards renewable and flexible energy would accelerate this shift, create jobs and cut emissions.’
100% Renewables?
Wärtsilä has also been looking longer term, in conjunction with Finland’s LUT University, at 100% renewables systems. For the USA it says that a cost-optimal carbon neutral power system could be achieved with 1,700 GW of new wind & solar, backed by 400GW of battery energy storage and 100GW of flexible gas-fired power capacity operating on renewable bio- or synthetic fuels, made with over 150GW of P2X electrolysers. In its expositions of longer term 100% renewables country by country scenarios, it makes clear that is is vital to have flexible Power-to-Gas conversion of surplus renewables to storable hydrogen to balance longer lulls in variable renewable supply, along with batteries for short term balancing.
They are not alone in thinking that we could get started on a full transition to renewables. Over 40 such scenarios have been mapped out, a recent one being a technology led scenario from Stanford University futurist Tony Seba. His RethinkX group says ‘Our analysis shows that 100% clean electricity from the combination of solar, wind, & batteries (SWB) is both physically possible and economically affordable across the entire continental United States as well as the overwhelming majority of other populated regions of the world by 2030’.
That may be overstating what possible just by technology, and not everyone is quite so optimistic about the scale and pace of expansion. In its New Energy Outlook Bloomberg New Energy Finance, says that, together, wind and solar will account for 56% of global electricity generation by 2050, with batteries, flexible demand and gas peakers in support, but it does expect ‘leading countries go as high as 70-80% before hitting economic limits’. That scale of expansion would, it says, require $78-130 trillion of new investment between now and 2050- around $64 trillion on power generation and the electricity grid for direct electricity provision, and $14-66 trillion on hydrogen manufacturing, transport & storage.
What is likely to happen?
Although the global financial backing is not yet on anything like that scale, there are commitments emerging for high renewable contributions as part of climate change responses. The EU’s aim to get to zero net carbon by 2050 is now shared by South Korea and Japan, while China has set a 2060 zero net carbon target- though some say it could get there by 2050. Several other countries already have net zero targets- including the UK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, France, Germany and New Zealand. That leaves the USA out in cold – still recovering from Trump, but with Biden committing to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. A review by Vivid Energy suggested that that the US could in fact take the lead under Biden, overtaking the EU, given his ambitious recovery plans, although China has made similar claims!
Sadly, rhetoric aside, it could be that Biden’s watered-down version of the Green New Deal promoted by Bernie Sanders may not be able to go ahead given a Senate still dominated by Republicans. And although it is trying to improve, China is still a major carbon emitter, while Russia has even further to go – there is talk of only a 48% emission cut by 2050 and of not getting to carbon neutrality until closer to the end of the 21st century.
For the UK, the long awaited White Paper on Energy has at last emerged. It confirmed and provided more detail on the recent UK 10 point plan to get to net zero emissions by 2050, with renewables supplying the majority of power, including from 40GW of offshore wind, but with some nuclear still in there. Can it do it? The White Paper notes that the decision to electrify cars and vans and use ‘clean electricity’ to replace gas for heating could double electricity demand and require ‘a four-fold increase in clean electricity generation’. However, it says that ‘We are not targeting a particular generation mix for 2050, nor would it be advisable to do so… The electricity market should determine the best solutions for very low emissions and reliable supply, at a low cost to consumers’.
To that end, it will continue with the competitive CfD system, with 12 GW of renewables set for the next round. Oddly though it will support new nuclear outside of that system. In parallel with the White Paper, the government announced that it was to restart negotiations with EDF over Sizewell C. Given the hyper-messy and sometimes bitter Brexit negotiations, maybe it is not the best time for the UK to enter into new ones….although France may be keen for British consumers and/or taxpayers to pay EDF to build a vast new EPR plant!
Comments
Post a Comment