Renew Extra Weekly

In a paper on the UK’s Net Zero Carbon plan, produced for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Prof. Michael Kelly says that ‘we are certain to have an economic and societal catastrophe if we persist on the projects to deliver the net-zero economy by 2050.’ And, via a tour of the energy sectors, he provides chapter and verse on why he thinks that the planned programme can’t realistically achieve its targets. In terms of heating, he worries about the idea of replacing gas use with electric heat pumps. He notes that ‘in winter, we use three times as much heat as electricity. If this heat was provided by radiant heaters, we would need a grid four times the size of today’s just to keep homes & businesses warm. If we use air-source & ground-source heat pumps, with a coefficient of performance of 3:1 - optimistic given the poor quality of the thermal envelope of UK houses - then the grid would need only to be double the size, for the heat element alone’.  However, combining this re

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)  is sometimes claimed to be able to capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by burning fossil fuels like coal or natural gas, and it has been strongly promoted as a major carbon removal option. Certainly there is a lot of interest in it. However, there are some big issues, not least that it rarely achieves anything like 90% removal- the CCS process needs energy to run and producing that generates CO2. In the case of production of so-called Blue Hydrogen from fossil gas using the Steam Methane Reformation process (SMR) backed up by CCS, flue gasses are also released, which can reduce the overall CO2 saving to 60%. So a review by Pembrina in Canada says that if an SMR facility with CCS  ‘captures 80% of its carbon process stream - but only about 60% of carbon is emitted in the process stream – it captures only 48% of the total carbon produced’. That figure was used in a Global Witness report, which also said that total system CO2 savings fo

Renewables are expanding rapidly, but since some of them have variable power outputs, there is a need for balancing systems, including energy storage.  That may have to cope with occasional long lulls in renewable power availability. The need for long duration electricity storage (LDES) has certainly been recognised by policy makers, but at present, according to a new study by Aurora Energy Research, ‘high upfront costs and long lead times, combined with a lack of revenue certainty and missing market signals, leads to under investment, resulting in higher power sector costs and emissions’. So it is not happening yet.   However, Aurora says the UK will need 24 GW of LDES by 2035 to effectively manage the intermittency of renewable generation, and as part of 46 GW of overall storage.  And it claims that this will be very worth-while, since ‘introducing LDES in large quantities in GB by 2035 can reduce carbon emissions by 10 MtCO2 p.a., reduce system costs by £1.13 bn p.a. (2.5%) & r

Under the heading ‘Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear is a threat to Britain’s energy supply’, Times chief leader writer Simon Nixon said ‘Boris Johnson’s plans to build at least six or seven new nuclear power stations is the wrong strategy for meeting the government’s need to ensure the UK’s energy security, lower public bills and achieve its net-zero target. Britain’s track record on building nuclear power stations is almost as dire as its record in building garden bridges’.  Nevertheless, despite negative views like this, Boris ploughed on. Indeed he managed to turn this criticism around, asking ‘why have the French got 56 nuclear reactors and we’ve got barely six?.’ He said we needed ‘big ticket’ nuclear solutions and also looked to having Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) before 2030 .  Not everyone is convinced that SMR’s can deliver , but Johnson’s confidence in them may have been the result of a meeting with Last Energy , a US nuclear promoter backed by Elon Musk, which is pushin

It seemed clear that something had to be done to protect UK consumers, as energy prices, already high, looked to rise even more due the energy impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Renewables were strongly to the fore in the response- along with nuclear.  Kwasi Kwarteng, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, said : ‘This is no longer about tackling climate change or reaching net-zero targets. Ensuring the UK’s clean energy independence is a matter of national security. Putin can set the price of gas, but he can’t directly control the price of renewables and nuclear we generate in the UK.’ According to the Times , bold action was to be expected: under new government plans ‘people could be given new incentives such as interest-free loans to install solar panels, and higher payments from energy firms for the power generated. The government is also looking to change planning law to provide a presumption in favour of large solar farms and allow smaller farms without