Skip to main content

Wind futures - the USA misses out, China wins?

Wind power is winning out most places, and the use of offshore wind sites is also now spreading fast. The UK is currently still in the lead on offshore wind, with 16GW installed, but that may change soon. Germany, despite having a limited coast line, has a target of 30GW by 2030 and has already installed over 9GW in the Baltic. Other EU countries, with more extensive coasts, are also pushing ahead.  And Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK have now signed up to the Hamburg Declaration, a commitment to deliver 100GW of joint offshore wind projects across shared North Sea waters by 2050. The €9.5 billion pact aims to turn the North Sea into the world’s ‘largest clean energy reservoir’ and mobilise €1 trillion of capital in Europe. 

The Hamburg Declaration came just days after Donald Trump denigrated the uses of wind power. He has been very outspoken on the horrors of offshore wind, especially the UK programme. And at the Davos World Economic Forum he also said ‘I haven’t been able to find any windfarms in China.’ He can’t have looked very hard. China is generating more than 13.6% of its power from wind, with one project in Gansu, the largest so far, already having more than 7,000 turbines. In all 600GW of wind power capacity is in use, more than any other country, with 159GW more also now under construction, increasingly offshore. And much more is planned: wind is seen as key part of China’s energy future.  

Whereas Trump has been trying to block wind energy in the USA, offshore especially, in preference to supporting fossil gas, oil and coal. There is an ancient Chinese proverb attributed to Sun Tzu (but also to Napoleon): ‘Never interrupt your opponent while he is in the middle of making a mistake.’ Well maybe, but the USA stance under Trump means the global ecosystem has to carry more of a load. It’s arguably the same in relation to the rest of Trumps anti-green policies: they will cost the USA but also hurt the world.

Although the US may be seeking to resist new green energy technologies, it is very keen on new AI technologies. It will be interesting to see how it powers them. It’s hard to see coal-fired AI catching on, but fossil gas use for this does seem to have risen in the US (and elsewhere) and the US does also seem to see nuclear, old (like the revamped TMI PWR) and new (SMRs and AMRs), playing key AI powering roles. There are some big uncertainties though about restarting old plants, and also about SMRs. Nevertheless, the UK government also now sees AI being powered by nuclear SMRs at some point, although that may be some way off, and, arguably, green energy technology, backed by storage, is currently more available and cheaper. Some do say that the UK could pioneer sustainable AI powered by local renewables. 

Certainly, AI can have many uses, and we do need to explore and assess them. However, not everyone sees AI as a clean option- there are big social and environmental issues.  For example, can the huge amount of power it needs really be condoned if the waste heat produced can be fed to local communities? Even if it’s supplied from green sources, would that be the best use of green power? And, as for using nuclear for AI, although technology consultants IDTechex thinks some of the nuclear options may be ‘promising’, it warns that ‘even if fission SMRs or fusion reactors can overcome their technical & regulatory challenges, they will ultimately be competing with improving renewables & energy storage technologies’. 

The debate on AI continues, although some say that, for good or ill, it’s all now rather academic- AI is going to boom, with China likely be the winner in this race, especially since it is spoilt for choice with fast growing new green energy sources to power it. Well maybe. China is good on new tech, as indicated by its rapid EV adoption and its stunning green energy progress. Although it is politically autocratic and has an unsavoury human rights record, and it is still using a lot of coal. But it’s green energy prospects do look very good and its sustainable development rhetoric does sound very positive: SCMP says that ‘its rise in renewable renewable energy is not just a tale of emissions, geopolitical power & economic security; it is a shift towards sustainable development, clean transition and inclusion. As the global energy order expands, China’s role as an architect of green technology will only become more central.’   

So will the future be Chinese? With most of us using Chinese green energy technology? Leaving the USA (and Russia) behind as fossil outliers? Fossil fuel use is already being  phased out in much of  Europe, as renewables spread, and it does also seem to happening now in China, led by its even larger up-take of renewables, with a small contribution from nuclear on  the side.  That certainly is how global consultants DNV see it, with China being powered increasingly by renewables, including solar as well as wind 

We shall see. It may, tragically, in China, as elsewhere, depend on what happens to fossil fuel prices globally- and locally. That perversely seem to be what has been behind some of the recent problems renewables have been facing in the UK. They have been blamed for high power prices, but a very timely UKERC energy report claims that costly fossil gas is still the main driver of power prices in the UK, with 66% of electricity bill increases between 2021 and 2025 for a typical household being caused by wholesale gas prices. As Carbon Brief reports, despite only supplying a third of the country’s electricity, the UKERC says that gas-fired generators set the wholesale price of power around 90% of the time in 2025. That’s not how things are done in China!

* Interestingly, enterprising UK green power company Octopus Energy is now trading in China. So it’s not just Scottish whisky the UK can sell them!  But the joker in the pack is AI. Will that be Chinese led, or US led? And, either way, will it be used safely and wisely?  Some big unknowns… 

 







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
44 comments
Read more

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...
2 comments
Read more

A golden nuclear age

 Nuclear power will help take us into a ‘golden age of clean energy abundance’. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, in the run up to the public spending review. He announced an extra £14.2 billion in state support for EdFs proposed 3.2GW Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) and also £2.5bn for small modular reactor support, with Rolls Royce having won the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. There would also be £2.5bn to support fusion.  Whereas there has been a lot a concern about the cost of Sizewell, given the delays and over-runs with its sister EPR plant at Hinkley, it was argued that the second plant would benefit from the lessons learnt, and certainly Miliband was very single-minded about it: ‘all of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.’  Not everyone agreed with that, and, in any case, as t...
Post a Comment
Read more