Sourcing the story
Last November the Sunday Times published one of its archetypal shock-horror double page spread stories – about energy prices. Breathlessly, it ‘revealed’ the reason why consumer fuel bills were rocketing upwards was due to government subsidies for renewable power. A couple of days later, BBC TV’s flagship Panorama programme repeated precisely the same ‘revelation’.
Both credited a forthcoming detailed study, “due out later this week”, prepared by the international management consultants KPMG as their source. The week ended: no such report emerged. The month concluded: no sign of it. December went by. Then January. Still nothing was published.
And then in late February a rather sheepish statement appeared on the BBC website. Acknowledging the fundamental conclusion of the Panorama programme was totally inaccurate – as the Committee on Climate Change had told them at the time, but which they had ignored.
The BBC statement admitted energy price rises had far more to do with international gas prices, rather than anything even vaguely ecological. Not of course offering to make another edition of Panorama setting the record straight. But still, at least a grudging apology.
Which is more than emerged from the Sunday Times, which apart from carrying a short letter of remonstration from the renewables industry, have retracted nothing at all of their original story.
What about KMPG? The international consultancy has never issued the much-hyped detailed study, upon which this entire furore was supposed to be based, at all. Instead it is apparently claiming the entire external story had been based upon an inaccurate draft press release, which was “inadvertently” leaked to the Sunday newspaper and the BBC TV team. Oh yeah?
Living in a fantasy
Are you one of those concerned that energy demand in the UK is continuing to grow? So do you agree that we must need lots and lots more supplies of energy to satisfy consumer thirst?
Before succumbing to these siren calls, a quick study of the latest issue of BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy is worth undertaking. It seems, ever since 2005 our crude oil consumption in the UK has fallen by 12%, our gas consumption by 3.7%, and our coal consumption by an extraordinary 23.7%.
Even our electricity generation went down by 4%. Actual figures are: 2005 397.3 TWh, 2010 381.2TWh. It certainly looks as though that decline continued into last year. For instance, Scottish and Southern Electricity was reported by the BBC to have declining household gas sales of 26.6%, of electricity by 8.3% during the first nine months of 2011.
Overall the UK’s primary energy consumption has fallen by 8.4% since 2005, from 1.67gigabarrels a year (Gb/a) to 1.53.
Just occasionally, it really would be helpful if the ‘more and more fuel needed’ merchants, and their rapacious bankers, would give some acknowledgment to what is going on with energy consumption in the real world, rather than some fantasy dreamworld.
Uncovering priceless gems
A number of members of parliament write regular blogs. To the best of my knowledge, the only MP whose blog is predominantly on energy policy is Southampton MP Dr Alan Whitehead who was, for a few months in 2000 and 2001, one of John Prescott’s (very) junior ministers.
In the nicest possible way, Dr. Whitehead is a geek. He reads in minute detail government policy papers. As a result, he sometimes does uncover some priceless gems. For instance, he has just been examining the government’s most recent electricity generation statistics. He draws his reader(s?)’ attention to Table 5.10. This considers “effective” rather than just “theoretical” delivery. He has been doing some detailed calculations based upon the published statistics.
In the UK, wind energy delivers around 25% availability. As the actual wind remains free, the “effective energy delivery” of windpower is therefore about 25%.
By contrast the mean load factor for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine generation in 2010 was 60.6% and the thermal efficiency was 47.6%. So the “effective energy delivery’ is around 29%. Better, but not much superior to wind.
However, coal stations achieved a 40.9% load factor, at an average thermal efficiency of 36%. Giving an “energy delivery factor” of under 15%. Nuclear achieved a load factor in 2010 of just 59.4%. The average thermal efficiency was around 38.3%. Which gives nuclear just a 22.75% energy delivery factor.
So, on a fuel-derived basis, wind is clearly superior to all other conventional forms of electricity generation, apart from CCGTs.
I am most grateful to Dr. Whitehead for this information. And given that before he became an MP he spent so many years as a senior lecturer at Southampton University, I have complete confidence that all his mathematical calculations are absolutely spot on.
