Bishop Hill Risky renewables
Jun 2, 2014 Energy: grid GWPF A briefing paper published by GWPF today points out the enormous risks that renewables represent to UK energy security. Here's the press release:
London, 2 June: A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that intermittent wind and solar energy pose a serious energy security risk and threaten to undermine the reliability of UK electricity generation.
Many people – including ministers, officials and journalists – believe that renewable energy enhances Britain’s energy security by reducing the dependency on fossil fuel imports. The ongoing crisis over the Ukraine and Crimea between Russia and the West has given much attention to this argument.
Written by Philipp Mueller, the paper (UK Energy Security: Myth and Reality) concludes that domestic and global fossil fuel reserves are growing in abundance while open energy markets, despite the conflict in the Ukraine, are enhancing Britain’s energy security significantly.
In contrast, the ability of the grid to absorb intermittent renewable energy becomes increasingly more hazardous with scale.
Germany provides a warning example of its growing green energy insecurity. Last December, both wind and solar power came to an almost complete halt for more than a week. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still while one million photovoltaic systems failed to generate energy due to a lack of sunshine. For a whole week, conventional power plants had to provide almost all of Germany’s electricity supply.
Germans woke up to the fact that it was the complete failure of renewable energy to deliver that undermined the stability and security of Germany’s electricity system.
“Open energy markets are a much better way to ensure energy security than intermittent generation systems like wind and solar. It would be a huge risk in itself for Britain to go down the same route as Germany and destabilise what is still a reliable UK electricity grid,” said Philipp Mueller.
Full paper (PDF)
Reader Comments (22)
One thing we can be sure of.
The DECC won't listen.
I've just read the complete report and it makes total sense. The final statement "In fact, wind and solar power, because of the intermittent nature of the electricity generated, are the real risk to security of supply" is at total odds with Government statements and beliefs, so Ed Davey and DECC will definitely ignore the report.
The energy "renewals" solution(s) for powering a modern economy reminds one of the line from Wizard of Oz.
Dorothy asks "What would you do with a brain if you HAD one?"
Even if one elevates the logic of renewables to the level of Sophomore Reasoning, it's still hardly a policy a nation renowned for it's problem solving inventiveness would embarck upon without proof of working. Think of Operation Chastise, the dam buster bombs of WWII.
In the case of renewables, even grade school math would should the utter stupidity of renewables for a national grid. It's simple astounding watching nation after nation trundle after the Greens and Prince Charles to virtually assure they will have enormous energy failures spread over years, perhaps decades, given lead times to build proper power generation facilities.
The choice may be - out the nutters or move to Australia (if they'll have you).
The greatest threat to the UK's energy security would appear to be the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and its dependence on unreliable information.
London Calling ............... NO CHANGE THERE, THEN!
As Basil Fawlty would say: 'A statement of the bleedin' obvious...'
Followers (like myself) of Gridwatch will have seen just how close to zero wind power has been these last few days. At one point wind was providing 0.3% (I'll just repeat that - NOUGHT POINT THREE PERCENT) of modest summertime electricity demand. That from an installed capacity of nearly 7000MW...
However, if you ask the DECC, they'll say (as they have to me in the past): 'We have a very good wind resource in the UK...'
You couldn't make it up...
I like the fact that the free market economy puts adverts for Ecotricity on this blog!
Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Why stop at this nobbling of responsibilities by adding the worries of the terminally pessimistic? Loads more opportunities;
Department of Health and Eugenics.
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Animal Rights.
Department of Defence and Sustainability.
Department of Education and Welfare Guidance.
Department of Transport and Bee Conservation.
@sherlock1:
"You couldn't make it up".
But they do. Everyday.
An electricity blackout translates to innocent people dying, and should be approached militarily:
Identify the culprits, eliminate them. Make sure no viable pockets remain from where this sort of attacks can occur.
Simples <<squeaks>>
The recent Scottish trip out appears to have been caused by grid protection relays tripping as designed when the wind failed and grid frequency sagged as a result since there was not enough on line standby dispatchable capacity to take up the slack.
Both major California utilities foresee the same thing for that state by summer 2015 on the current California renewables course. Public hearings, no less. Only good news, it is a fairly isolated grid. So we can keep the consequences reasonably isolated to California. Deservedly so.
It will take a few more of these events to hammer home to voters the inevitable electrical engineering consequences of unreliable renewables. But then the pitchforks will deservedly come out.
There is a rather clever and possible even legal proposal in response to the Obama proposed EPA regulations this date. That is, on the date they become effective in 2015, privately owned utilities take all offending coal power plants off line simultaneously for at least 24 hours, in order to meet the escalating carbon emission mandate without burdening their shareholders with unreasonable costs. A 24 hour blackout US wide would have an interesting effect on the 2016 Presidential election.
I was brought up on a Late Iron Age farm without electricity and looks as if my imminent second childhood will have some things in common with the first. Better order a ton of coal before next winter, just as my mother used to do.
I hope not too O/T but about risky conventional supplies. Interesting comment I caught on Radio 4.
The UK gas supply is based on a string of ships betwen here and Qatar, each 20 hours apart, that supply our gas. Interrupt that chain and we are stuffed.
True energy security was when coal was dug out out of the ground and piled up ready for use in the house's coal cellar (one or two week supply), depots ( four week supply) and power stations (two month's supply). [Guestimates]
It seems quite strange to say that when I was a child each house had a two week energy supply stored on the premises. My current stored energy supply in my house is about 1 second.
My childhood memory is of deliveries of a ton of coal at a time - 20 1-cwt sacks carried on the backs of the lorry driver and his mate. up the side path to the coal bunker. That would have been of the order of 7MWh in GCV. I think we probably had two deliveries a year. We did have some gas (town gas) for the stove and fires and even electric fires to supplement the coal fired boiler and living room grate. Rooms were heated when occupied: an electric fire to undress for bed, or to warm the bathroom in winter, or a gas fire on low where we played. We were converted to North Sea gas early on, and installed full GCH, blocking up chimneys. We did have a gas fire in the main living room to replace the coal grate there. The house was warmer after that.
The tankers from Qatar are 215-260,000 cu metres, holding about 600 times that in gas at s.t.p. Our supply of 13 bcm in 2012 would therefore have taken of the order of 90 voyages from the dedicated fleet of 14 vessels. The vessels are VLCC sized, and therefore would travel Cape laden (about 42 days) and Suez ballast (30 days) - or about 5 round trips per year, less time out for loading, discharge and maintenance.
http://www.southhookgas.com/lng-tankers/
Correction: the Q Max tankers are shallow draft, so they can transit Suez both ways. Of course, if Suez closes the voyage times lengthen.
@ It doesn't add up
I think I am wrong. My source was Admiral Lord West on radio 4 on Monday. I think now that I misheard while driving.
Every 20 days would perhaps make more sense.
Simple answer is to look at AIS and track each ship (which will take me a moment or two).
I don't know why we even bother posting what would seem to be kindergarten logic - but which still manages to go over the heads of the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Davey and his minions at the DECC. Now Obama appears to have had his brain removed.
So - why don't we just sit back, fold our arms, and watch two of the greatest economies on the planet go down the toilet because of green dogma...
Also in Germany, and also not headlined by the BBC, they have been rudely awakened by the impact on investment in industry.
"On average, German industrial companies with large power appetites paid about 0.15 euros ($0.21) per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity last year, according to Eurostat, the European Union's statistics agency.
(whereas) Louisiana now boasts industrial electricity prices of just $0.055 per kWh, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data."
Some examples are provided:
"Huntsman is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to expand in the United States, and rapidly closing plants in Europe. The company estimates that a large, modern petrochemical plant in the United States is $125 million cheaper to run per year than in Europe. That sum includes cheaper power, waste disposal and myriad other factors, and Huntsman said the contrast is similar for Asian plants."
"According to Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, half of the country's industrial companies believe their global competitiveness is threatened by Germany's energy policy, and a quarter of them are either shifting production abroad or considering doing so. The United States is among the top destinations."
See http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-usa-germany-power-specialreport-idUSKBN0ED0CS20140602
Where are the UK examples?
Also in Germany, and also not headlined by the BBC, they have been rudely awakened by the impact on investment in industry.
"On average, German industrial companies with large power appetites paid about 0.15 euros ($0.21) per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity last year, according to Eurostat, the European Union's statistics agency.
(whereas) Louisiana now boasts industrial electricity prices of just $0.055 per kWh, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data."
Some examples are provided:
"Huntsman is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to expand in the United States, and rapidly closing plants in Europe. The company estimates that a large, modern petrochemical plant in the United States is $125 million cheaper to run per year than in Europe. That sum includes cheaper power, waste disposal and myriad other factors, and Huntsman said the contrast is similar for Asian plants."
"According to Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, half of the country's industrial companies believe their global competitiveness is threatened by Germany's energy policy, and a quarter of them are either shifting production abroad or considering doing so. The United States is among the top destinations."
See http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-usa-germany-power-specialreport-idUSKBN0ED0CS20140602
Where are the UK examples?
Nic:
I suspect the reference was to how close we were to running out of gas when we got an unexpected cold snap. Given voyage lead times, and limited ability to speed up the whole system got caught short - not helped by North Sea production problems.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330260/Gas-reserves-close-running-dry-just-SIX-HOURS-supply-left.html
The headline six hours refers only to storage at Rough.