In for a surprise
Lord Hunt of Chesterton is the former CEO of the Met Office, and is now professor of climate modeling at University College, London. In other words, a chap who obviously knows his onions.
So when he tabled a written Parliamentary Question in the Lords asking what the relative current costs of electricity delivered to users in the United Kingdom produced respectively by nuclear fusion as opposed to offshore electricity, solar photovoltaic, gas or coal, he clearly anticipated the answer to be a variation on the word “infinity.”
Because, despite regular promises over the past fifty years, and despite continuous R & D expenditure of around 2 billion euros a year, the total amount of useful electricity provided to date by nuclear fusion is precisely zero/zilch/nada. And that is not likely to improve for at least 30 years (the same delayed timespan promised way back in the 1967 energy white paper). But if that was the answer he was expecting, his Lordship was in for a surprise. The junior minister for energy, Baroness Verma, admitted that costs per megawatt for nuclear fusion were – unsurprisingly – currently “unavailable”. But that Her Majesty’s Government could confidently predict by 2020 nuclear fusion would be producing electricity for British consumers at the anticipated cost of between 79 and 102 UK£ per megawatt hour. To which gobsmacking nonsense the correct response is: if the Government believes that, it will believe anything. Or perhaps more prosaically, to wonder whether, halfway through answering the Parliamentary Question, the Minister got confused between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
Lucky that. Otherwise the bonanza due to the solar generating boys would have been an extra bonus worth well over £100m. And there would have been no way that we wouldn’t all have had to meet those extra costs on our electricity bills. To get these sums into proportion, today the wholesale market spot price is just around £35 per megawatt hour.
General rejoicing
Those opposing renewable energy developments frequently complain that these are only of benefit to the direct participants, never to the entire locality where the development takes place. So there has been general rejoicing that local communities throughout the UK will shortly be able to become part-owners in onshore wind, hydro and solar projects costing more than £2.5m, according to a new agreement entered into by the Renewable Energy Association and community group leaders.
Initially, voluntary guidelines will encourage commercial developers to enter into either a joint venture, a revenue sharing or split ownership agreement with local communities. But should these fail, the government has warned it may yet take powers to enforce such arrangements. The level of community ownership could be as little as 5% for large renewable projects and as much as 25% for smaller ventures.
Such Community energy initiatives have already been launched elsewhere in Europe, including in Denmark and Belgium.Developers can also offer communities green bonds or crowd-funded long-term loans, as long as this is not the sole ownership choice on offer. And as long as the development in question is not with one of the 300 companies that are members of the Solar Trade Association.
Amidst all the rejoicing, the STA is proving to be a real damp squib. Sniffily it is warning against the dangers of “government interference” – a bit rich coming from a sector that has developed entirely on the back of government subsidy arrangements. Even so, the STA is briefing MPs who support renewables to “question the appropriateness and potential consequences of the state stipulating who owns renewable energy schemes”.
Next month the STA, currently one of twelve subsidiary trade associations, is to sever its relationship with the REA. I imagine the parent organisation is heaving a large sigh of relief.
Armageddon?
The National Grid has been splendidly robust at slapping down all those silly headlines about imminent blackouts. They are quite confident they can handle winter electricity demand, especially as intensive energy users have been queuing up to offer to shift electricity usage in return for price reductions.
Most people have welcomed this approach – although I see that yet again the headbangers at that gentlemen’s club masquerading as a representative body for business called the Institute of Directors, for some perverse reason think it will cause Armageddon. Fortunately more sensible mouthpieces, who genuinely try to represent their members’ interests like the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation, recognise that not only is this sensible, it is also copying best practice elsewhere in the developed world.
It is quite ludicrous to be alarmed at having a peaktime surplus of only (only?) 4%. In practice such margins are commonplace in countries like South Korea and Japan. Of course the latter had problems when the Fukushima nuclear power station completely malfunctioned. But as we are assured by all officialdom that such accidents could never happen here, that precedent should surely not concern us. Should it?
Crystal ball
National Grid has also taken to publishing regular sets of Future Energy Scenarios. In these, they take upon themselves the role of looking into a crystal ball, trying to project what the wonderful world of electricity might be like 10, 15 even 20 years on.
Unlike the Department of Energy, who still sweetly purport to believe that electricity consumption will somehow double over the next 35 years, the Grid has fully taken on board, so far this century, not only is overall energy use down 14%. But per capita electricity consumption has also already fallen by 10%. This somewhat tempers the Grid’s future assumptions about consumption patterns, which they have regularly been reducing. But, interestingly, by nothing like as much as other parts official bodies might think appropriate. Levels of household insulation are set to increase dramatically, according to the Committee on Climate Change.
Noticeably insulation is set to be installed by 2030 in practically all 8 million homes with solid walls. Not so, say the Grid. According to figure 15 of its most recent set of scenarios, probably only 13% of eligible homes will be fully insulated even by that time. Bearing in mind households remain larger users of energy than business, reversing such pessimism may yet give future Grid scenario planners even more room to project future consumption levels downward. See if I am not right.
