NESO’s new Clean Power 2030 plan is quite ambitious. In what it says is advice to the government, the National Energy System Operator looks at how ‘it is possible to build, connect and operate a clean power system for Great Britain by 2030, while maintaining security of supply.’ Though it does warn that ‘several elements must deliver at the limit of what is feasible, with a key challenge being to make sure all deliver simultaneously, in full and at maximum pace, in a way that does not overheat supply chains, is sustainable and sets Great Britain on the right path beyond 2030’.
It does this by expanding renewables and flexibility options beyond was is currently planned. e.g. it wants to ‘contract as much offshore wind capacity in the coming one to two years as in the last six combined’. It says that ‘Offshore wind must be the bedrock of that system, providing over half of Great Britain’s generation, with onshore wind and solar providing another 29%.’ So it also backs on shore wind – 27GW. And solar PV- 47 GW by 2030. Although some said not enough! Though it also says, maybe hedging its bets a bit, ‘new dispatchable low carbon technologies, such as using carbon capture and storage (CCS) or hydrogen, add significant value to the system, with even relatively small levels of operational capacity materially reducing the overall challenge for the rest of the programme’.
Well we will see. Dispatchable (i.e firm) power can also be provided by energy storage systems. NESO looks to 27.4GW of battery energy storage in its ‘Further Flex and Renewables’ pathway, but, as renewables expand, more balancing options will be needed. Certainly it’s true that ‘flexibility from both demand and supply will be vital to managing the system and keeping costs down, while offering an opportunity for consumers to engage with the energy system and unlock lower costs for their energy.’ And as it adds ‘data and digital will be key enablers across the whole energy system, but particularly for more efficient use of greater levels of flexibility, to the benefit of consumers.’
NESO, has only recently been hived off as state owned body from the National Grid ESO, but as can be seen, it is already beginning to sound quite radical, although not that radical- it still backs nuclear. Maybe even 4GW by 2030. A bit like the new government. And like Labour, it gives fair warning that the way ahead will be hard: ‘Clean power will require doing things differently. It will only be achieved with bold action and sustained momentum, across every area and every step of the way between now and 2030’. For example it says we will have to ‘reform electricity markets while ensuring a stable and attractive investment environment, to secure over £40 billion of investment annually to 2030’.
NESO offers two options for the way ahead - with different risks. One pathway, ‘Further Flex and Renewables’, has 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, but no new dispatchable power from hydrogen or gas with CCS. The other pathway, ‘New Dispatch’, has 43 GW of offshore wind and new dispatchable plants, totalling 2.7 GW, using ‘either hydrogen from low carbon sources or carbon capture and storage’. That, it claims, might be cheaper and might avoid some risks- although arguably not if the low carbon choice is nuclear! But NESO says that, although the ‘Further Flex & Renewables’ pathway has lower fuel costs, it has to produce ‘more power overall to compensate for curtailment, constraints, higher exports and storage losses given the greater share of generation from variable sources’. These side effects it says result in higher aggregate annual system costs (£133/MWh) compared to the ‘New Dispatch’ pathway (£126/MWh), even though the per MWh costs of offshore wind are lower than for CCS. But emissions are slightly higher. So a bit of a choice...Basically more wind or more CCS?
NESO says that either route would need ‘dramatic acceleration in progress compared to anything achieved historically and can only be achieved with a determined focus on pace and a huge collective effort.’ And there could be problems:‘the pathways involve different risks and challenges, both at the portfolio & project levels. For example NESO says the UK would have to add more grid networks to the system ‘twice as much in the next five years as was built in total over the last decade’. It would involve ‘ nearly 1,000 km of onshore and over 4,500 km of offshore network and accompanying enabling work’. NESO is to issue new grid location plans soon. Judging by recent experience, there could obviously be local objections to some of this. We may see soon.
There are also uncertainties about some of the new supply technology, CCS/CCUS especially, with, as yet, no full scale system yet operating with there already being opposition to reliance on it and blue hydrogen production. But NESO is optimistic: ‘Delivering new dispatchable power would reduce supply chain pressures for renewables and bring lower system costs in our analysis’. However it does admit that ‘new technologies may need more government support initially & would leave some exposure to volatile international gas prices, albeit significantly reduced from today.’
Fascinating stuff! Which way to go? 143GW of renewables by 2030 seems a good aim! However, some people, worried about energy security, want keep some of the UK’s 35 GW of fossil gas-fired power plants going longer, and NESO looks to retaining some unabated gas plants, though only enough to provide 5% or so of generation, supplying 14-15 TWh of power in their 2030 clean power scenario. Typically they would be run in winter in periods with low wind and sunshine when renewable output was low. But as we have seen, NESO also looks to building gas-fired low carbon dispatchable CCUS power or hydrogen plants, with that being seen as an option in case renewables could not deliver fully in time, but also, longer term, with these plants replacing the need for unabated gas generation after 2030. Biomass powered CCUS plants might also do that longer term, so, in theory could new nuclear plants. But so also could more renewables, and possibly earlier, which, in effect, is what the NESO’s first pathway is all about.
Although NESO's emphasis in that is mainly on offshore wind, it is possible that on shore wind, solar PV, tidal and biomass and other sources could play more of an expanding role - as can energy saving. So there are some real choices – though with the costs of all these options still be a bit uncertain. But clearly, whichever route is taken, NESO is looking to rapid change: ‘higher levels of both offshore wind and dispatchable power will be needed soon after 2030.’
Comments
Post a Comment