A report by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the National Engineering Policy Centre on the ‘Rapid decarbonisation of the GB electricity system’ sees offshore wind as the main way forward for the UK, but also says that ‘onshore wind and solar can be built quickly and help to provide a step change in delivery of renewable generation, especially if built in places where the transmission grid already has capacity to absorb it.’
It notes that ‘hitherto, the constraints have been grid connections and planning and consenting, with the planning system treating wind and solar quite differently’, so Labour’s ‘post-election amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework & announcement of an intention to consult on returning onshore wind to the NSIP regime is therefore a significant step’.
However, offshore wind will continue to lead, although it says ‘the UK needs to significantly accelerate progress towards already stretching plans for 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, from about 14 GW today, on the path to the level of capacity needed by 2050, which could be up to 125 GW. There is a pipeline of projects in train, but even delivering 50 GW - for which the transmission infrastructure is being put in place - would require significant acceleration of projects currently expected to deliver in the period 2031–33. Going even beyond this level would require not only bringing forward the generating capacity much more quickly, but also ensuring that there is sufficient transmission capacity for it to get to market.
Given these challenges, it says ‘there may be a case to prioritise onshore renewables in locations where the grid can absorb the generation in preference to going even harder on offshore wind by 2030. Floating offshore wind is not yet commercialised and will need financial and broader support if it is to scale quickly, including considerations on risk, infrastructure (e.g. ports), technology, and supply chains’. A bit fainthearted on that perhaps- after successful trials there are now significant projects planned at commercial scale, but onshore is clearly also worth pushing given that it’s quite early days for the new wind technologies.
It is also early days in terms of system integration issues. The RAEng notes that given that, in the new system, ‘generation will be dominated by renewables, where supply varies with weather and time of day and cannot be ramped up on demand, alongside nuclear operating largely as baseload,’ there will inevitably be ‘times at which non-dispatchable generation falls short of meeting demand, while at other times there will be an excess’. So it says ‘enhancing system flexibility through demand response management and the use of energy storage and interconnectors will be necessary to deliver energy services when they are needed, while absorbing and using as much of the non- dispatchable generation as possible’. Fair enough- we need to get moving on that.
It also says that ‘dispatchable low-carbon capacity will also be needed, including gas-fired plants with carbon capture and storage’. It adds that ‘The new government has already committed to maintaining a supply of unabated gas to ensure security of supply and system resilience.’ The use of unabated gas turbines is course controversial, though it could be argued that, if they are only run occasionally for balancing, they would not add much to emissions. And going to the expense of adding CCS would not make sense for occasional use. Balancing via better grid links and storage would arguably be better and the RAEng does look to hydrogen gas as storage and balancing option. But it doesn’t take sides on the green versus blue hydrogen issue: it just says ‘while green hydrogen is likely to dominate in the longer term, blue hydrogen has value in the near term in scaling production and in more of a back- up role in the longer term for security of supply’.
Interestingly, it doesn’t see nuclear as playing a role in balancing or indeed much else, at least not for now. Though it notes that ‘EDF is hopeful of further extending the lifetime of the AGRs slightly through constructive regulatory dialogue, and with government support’. But the RAEng seems to think that, otherwise, nuclear is stalled: ‘the nuclear plant at Hinkley Point C has been delayed several times, & EDF now estimates that the first reactor could commence operation between 2029 and 2031’ and it says ‘lead times for further new nuclear plants mean that they will not be delivered until the 2030s.’After that, well, it says small modular reactors might prove to be viable, but then so could tidal barrages - an old RAEng favourite- or tidal lagoons.
Predictably, RAEng wanted a ‘chief engineer’ in charge of the whole energy expansion programme. And also more engineers. And on that they do have a point - there is a skills gap. They say said ‘about an additional 200,000 workers are needed by 2030 to meet expansion demand on top of those required to replace the existing ageing workforce.’ But there were ‘declines in key parts of the workforce and high rates of hard-to-fill vacancies in critical occupations such as engineering project managers, electrical and mechanical engineers, engineering technicians, welding and engineering construction trades (e.g. crane drivers, steel erectors) alongside a wide range of other occupations key to energy transition’. And at the same time, ‘we are seeing stagnation or reduction in the supply of young people into these roles. Apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing have seen a 34% fall over the last decade. Engineering degrees by UK students have remained fairly static at about 28,000 per year over the same period, and while some disciplines such as mechanical engineering have seen growth, electronic and electrical engineering have seena decline.’
Labour is on the case though, with a new government supported agency, Skills England, aimed at developing a nationwide skills strategy and providing levy funds for businesses to spend on training and future-proofing the workforce, with green skills being central, especially for younger people now entering the jobs market. I will be looking again at the green skill issue in a later post. In a way, it’s a good problem to have - demand for more and better jobs. But not if it slows green development.
Comments
Post a Comment