If nuclear power is zero carbon and you need it when renewables are offline – where does the need for renewables come from?
New Nuclear vs. New Renewables - image courtesy of Sustain Europe
At Seacourt we are always interested in news related to climate change and the environment whilst making no pretence of expertise in what are very complex subjects. As a result we pay attention to those who are and a recent Daily Telegraph article pulled us up short and made us think.
It was called “The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed - The necessary miracle doesn't exist” and it was written on 10th May by Bryan Leyland, who has more initials after his name than a dictionary, and has been a power systems engineer working on projects around the world with a cited 60 years’ experience (he must have started young).
The UK government and industry has spent £168 billion since 2010 on renewables projects on- and offshore, a source of national pride, and quoted at COP 26 as an example to Europe and other G7 countries of what could be achieved with serious and continued investment.
Rather like the polite cough at the back of a lecture theatre when someone wishes to ask a speaker an unanswerable question, Bryan’s thought provoking challenges are these:
Wind and solar power generation are by their nature unreliable - a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days.
To cope with unpredictable renewable supply, countries with large amounts of renewably sourced energy like the UK, have to call on fossil fired stations to balance demand.
Inefficient open-cycle gas turbines are frequently deployed because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. However open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines so there is intensified carbon generation from the stand-by source which rather undermines the initial aim.
Bryan’s analysis of storage options based on current technology is that it would not be possible to build adequate storage in a fossil free future for several days’ usage using batteries (80 times more costly per MWh than the wind- or solar farm it backs up) or by hydro pumped storage, which is only available where local topology is helpful.
At this point Bryan then raises the topic of nuclear power generation as being the best current technology to provide reliable low emission energy generation. His final and killer question is that if there is a need for back-ups to be capable of providing up to the full capacity of renewables when these are offline then what is the role of renewables is in the first place?
As a thought-provoking challenge this Daily Telegraph opinion piece is very well backed up by a comprehensive set of cost and power generation calculations but it still gives us pause for thought:
Nuclear power is vastly costly from whatever format of reactor is built and is not a realistic option for countries outside the G20. It is also technology which can be (and mostly is by those who have it) harnessed for harmful purposes.
The UK government is currently trying to enthuse the pension investment institutions in funding the Sizewell C nuclear project by giving it ‘sustainable’ status. Legal & General and Aviva have so far turned the invitation down flat.
At Seacourt we are just one of the 5.6 million SME’s in the UK so our individual voice is very small but our message to UK government is:
UK businesses need energy which is reliable, priced consistently, and in line with other countries so that we are not disadvantaged.
We completely support the government’s 2035 Zero Carbon power generation commitment and want to see joined up policies which will deliver it without bankrupting us or the country.