Skip to main content

The UK Election- key green energy issues

As the public debate unfolded, the basic eco-climate context was clear, at least to some.  Greenpeace UK said ‘We've had the wettest and warmest years on record, but right at the time the government should have been ramping up climate action, they made a series of devastating row backs that have put future generations at risk. We desperately need politicians who prioritise clean cheap energy, warm homes & healthy clean air & water.’

Business Green added that ‘Ministers have repeatedly argued Labour's plan to deliver a clean power system by 2030 is not feasible and risks driving up energy bills, while also highlighting their record of delivering the deepest decarbonisation in the G20 and engineering a huge increase in renewables capacity & green investment. But Labour has hit back by accusing the government of overseeing policy uncertainty and insufficient infrastructure underinvestment that has hampered the clean energy transition, driven up energy bills, and led to a sewage pollution crisis.’ 

Obviously there are political differences with different pathways being offered ahead- although there are uncertainties as to exactly what to expect. The Conservatives were unlikely to abandon their strong commitment nuclear power or the UK climate targets, but their level of new support for green tech was not clear. In terms of energy policy, they could arguably promise more or less anything (or nothing), since (some say!) they are not likely to win....  

Same arguably for the Liberal Democrats. Though they might have some influence on the winners!  They say they will ‘cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045, invest significantly in renewable power so that 80% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030, & provide free retrofits for low-income homes and generous tax incentives for other households to reduce energy consumption, emissions, fuel bills & reliance on gas, & help to end fuel poverty’. They will also ‘restructure national & local government to deliver net zero by creating a Net Zero Delivery Authority & strengthening the powers and resources of local authorities to cut emissions in their area, and promote community energy, including requiring all new homes to be fitted with solar panels’. 

Labour was more constrained. But they say they will set up Great British Energy, ‘a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good & boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil & gas giants’. Headquartered in Scotland, it ‘will ensure jobs & supply chains are built here in the UK, developing our clean energy industries’. Labours Green Prosperity Plan will ‘create 650,000 good jobs, cut bills by £300 on average & deliver real energy security’, the lower bills being since ‘renewables are far cheaper than gas’. But they back new nuclear!  

The Reform party backs fracking and coal mining and wants to expand the production of oil and gas from the North Sea. It also backs new nuclear (SMS especially) but opposes green measures to combat climate change. Under Farage, with his net zero immigration call,  they may do quite well. The Green Party are just about the opposite of Reform. They back renewables and oppose fossil and nuclear. They are fielding a lot of candidates, but only hope to get 4 seats or so 

Nuclear power is unlikely to be a major issue in this election, with both the Tories and Labour backing it, though, like the Greens, the SNP is still anti-new nuclear, though Plaid Cymru seems to be pro. Galloway’s Workers Party seems to be pro, and it wants net zero reviewed. The Lib Dems have sea-sawed anti, pro, anti on nuclear, but seem to have ducked the issue for now- it’s not mentioned in their Manifesto.

A YouGOV poll in April of 107 MPs & 2,153 adult citizens found that 62% of the public felt the UK should reduce fossil fuel use and increase reliance on renewable energy. But only 48% of MPs felt renewables offer more energy security than fossil fuels, with a notable divide along party lines. Among Conservative MPs, 43% supported increasing oil and gas supplies compared to just 28% favouring renewables.

The green tech trade and lobby groups also had their say on the manifestos. And they pressed for their own interests. As I noted in an earlier post, Renewable UK called for offshore wind power manufacturing capacity to be tripled - with more funding being allocated. Otherwise there are signs that the governments 50GW by 20GW target won’t be met.  Not to be out done, the solar lobby called for 50GW of PV and 20GW of storage backup by 2030, the marine energy lobby said that the UK wave and tidal potential was 30GW! But it settled for 1GW tidal and 300MW wave targets for 2035.

As the party campaigns unfolded, some key issues emerged. For example in relation to Labour’s GB Energy, its major green policy commitment, it transpired that it won’t actually generate power itself and, anyway, the Green Party argued that the planned £8.3bn investment over 5 years is ‘nowhere near enough’.  Certainly not if it included new nuclear, as is planned. As the Guardian put it ‘As it stands, the UK’s projects for new reactors at Hinkley Point, Sizewell B and Wylfa in Anglesey are all facing huge problems. The most advanced, Hinkley Point, has had long and costly overruns. New nuclear power, then, will be expensive and the UK’s existing ageing nuclear fleet is running out of steam.’

The bottom line? As noted above nuclear probably won’t figure much directly, but it is in there. In their manifesto, the Tories backed expansion including ‘two new fleets’ of SMRs within the first 100 days!  Labour did too, but perhaps with less conviction, talking about extending the lifetime of old existing plants: indeed if Labour was looking for some expenditure cuts, then the proposed vast new Sizewell project might be worth considering. The GMB union has called on Labour to drop its commitment to zero net emissions for power production by 2030 - but presumably they don’t mean the nuclear commitment! Or maybe they do – new nuclear can’t contribute anything much by then, even if Hinkley is not further delayed. 

Leaving nuclear aside, while Labours commitment to net zero by 2030 could be challenging, for most of the parties (Reform apart) more action on climate is sees as central, with  renewables playing key roles. The Tories want 70 GW of PV solar by 2035, Labour 50GW by 2030. Both parties want offshore wind to continue to grow - the Tories want 50GW more by 2030, Labour 60GW, including 5GW of floating offshore wind. The Lib Dems are also big on renewables, as are the Greens. But baring sudden changes in fortune, it looks likely that we will have Labour in charge soon- committed to doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power, and quadrupling offshore wind by 2030. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av