The new Labour government is pressing ahead quite forcefully with its green energy programme and that has led to some conflicts- some of them perhaps rather surprising. For example, the Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Adrian Ramsay MP, recently called for a ‘pause’ in constructing pylons across East, Anglia meant to link offshore wind projects to the national grid. He wanted a review of options. This led to a rebuff by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who saw building new green infrastructure as vital, and, if there was ever a red-green honeymoon period, it’s now over!
RenewableUK’s Policy Manager for Networks & Charging, also pointed out that ‘National Grid ESO has already carried out a detailed study of the options in the East Anglia area, so a new review isn't needed.’ It had looked at the idea of going for predominantly on shore links or via offshore cabling, the latter being double the costs, and there would still be some on shore links. And it would also take at least until 2034, whereas the onshore option could be ready by 2030.
Clearly there are a host of strategic and local environmental issues, with conservationist views being quite widely held. But a recent national opinion poll found that, nevertheless, 59% of those asked felt that new grids were needed. And looking broadly, and adopting a strategic approach, Dr David Toke said he felt that ‘we need to back the onshore pylon proposal & put it in place as soon as possible. Yes, I would have preferred, if, several years ago, there had been sufficient advance planning to allow for (even) more of the transmission to be done offshore now. Indeed, in the future, we should go for as much transmission wiring as possible for the offshore wind programme to be placed offshore. However, we are where we are. The proposal that is ready to go is the onshore pylon scheme. Demands for a ‘pause’ in construction whilst a(nother) review is done seem oddly in contrast to the Green Party’s call to attend to a climate emergency.’
Battles like this, and also disputes over wind and solar project siting, are likely to continue to emerge as renewables expand with new more favourable planning rules being introduced. However, a new study by Carbon Free Europe, which I mentioned in my last post, says maybe we don’t need to push renewables quite so hard. It notes that the UK aims to deploy 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, 70 GW of solar capacity by 2035, and 24 GW of nuclear by 2050. Additionally, it says clean power by 2035 and even 2030 are actively discussed. But it says, while ‘the ambition is commendable, fully clean power by 2035 is not the most cost-effective and the offshore wind target is way ahead of schedule for what is needed. According to our analysis, the UK needs to deploy 1 GW of offshore wind every year through 2030 for a total capacity of 23 GWs by 2030. There is more breathing room in these earlier years... By 2050, the UK will need around 80 GWs of offshore wind capacity, most of which can be prepared for & spread out from 2030 to 2050.’ It adds ‘The UK’s goals are again overestimating when it comes to solar. Instead of 70 GW by 2035, our analysis suggests the UK will need closer to 52 GW.’
So how come? In contrast to the UK’s wind & solar goals, it says ‘the nuclear energy target of 24 GW by 2050 is underestimating the necessary deployment. Our analysis suggests the UK will need around 61 GW of nuclear energy by 2050. That is equivalent to 20 power plants’. Ah, all is revealed. Cheap nuclear power to the rescue. But will it be cheap? And wouldn’t Sizewell C also need grid links across East Anglia? The debate goes on...with ESO now looking to create regional energy plans as it becomes NESO!
...and Materials constraints on clean tech
Another important strategic debate concerns the materials requirements of renewables. A new study looks at the capacity of clean energy technologies forecasted by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) in terms of the requirements for 36 materials. These include critical minerals, rare earth elements, platinum group materials, and structural materials. It found that meeting capacity projections from IAMs ‘requires scaling materials supply chains up at an unprecedented rate’, raising concerns regarding the availability of materials and our capacity to meet climate goals. For example it says that ‘assuming a technological change market trend, rare earth elements such as dysprosium, neodymium, and terbium look prone to material shortages, compromising the manufacture of SG-PM-DD wind turbines. This trend would also put elements such as tellurium, lithium, indium, and selenium at risk and, ultimately, might hamper the development of CdTe PV panels and LiS batteries, among others’.
It notes however that ‘the primary hurdle lies in the rate of materials supply, rather than their scarcity.’ But shortages may still be a key issue. For example it found that, while IAMs foresee a steep surge in the annual deployment rate of clean energy technologies, ‘trying to achieve these projections would exert immense pressure on material supply chains over the next three decades, increasing today's demand from clean energy technologies by up to 571 (for selenium) and current production levels by up to 143 (for iridium).’ This information, which it says is omitted from IAM formulations, is vital since, ‘it is hard to believe that the required mining, refining, and manufacturing levels can be achieved in less than 30 years’.
What about recycling? The study says that can help, but there is an ‘urgent necessity for increasing recycling rates, particularly for lithium (escalating from 1% to 325%), iridium (rising from 17% to 64%), and terbium (elevating from 1% to 12%), but also for silicon, dysprosium, and graphite (all within 0.2–2.2%)’. However it adds ‘for materials like lithium, this would imply recycling more material than produced annually (i.e., the median recycling required in 2050 equals 325% its annual production rate in the same year). Hence, achieving these numbers would require dismantling obsolete devices from several years, a strategy that cannot be maintained forever. In addition, the current recovery of precious metals from electronic waste primarily involves smelting and leaching, resulting in prolonged purification processes and adverse environmental impacts’.
Although you do have to set this all alongside the massive reduction in fossil fuel extraction (and transport) that will occur as renewables expand, the materials extraction issue is pretty serious, with IAMs sometimes lacking detailed considerations of material requirements, leading to optimistic projections, and technical fixes not always being available. Maybe we need to use less stuff and less energy! A ‘sufficiency’ approach could also help reduce the need for pylons...But there’s a way to go on that- even in East Anglia
Comments
Post a Comment