By Paul Homewood
http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/
The National Grid has just published this year’s Future Energy Scenarios (FES). It is the usual mish mash of wishful thinking and make believe.
As usual there are four scenarios:
In terms of meeting 2050 targets, the “Two Degrees” option is probably most realistic (albeit totally unachievable!):
Let’s look at a few highlights. (Much of this detail is available in the Data Workbook, available here – warning: it is a long download!)
Electricity Supply
Below is the projected generating capacity in 2050, for Two Degrees:
Total capacity is 224 GW, compared to a current peak demand of about 50 GW.
However, dispatchable capacity in this scenario is only 46 GW (thermal and nuclear). Below is the full list:
| Biomass | 3.7 |
| CCS | 12.1 |
| Gas | 9.5 |
| Hydro | 2.1 |
| Interconnectors | 19.8 |
| Marine | 6.1 |
| Nuclear | 18.6 |
| Onshore wind | 22.3 |
| Offshore wind | 43.4 |
| Other renewables | 5.7 |
| Other thermal | 0.2 |
| Solar | 43.7 |
| Storage | 17.3 |
| Vehicle to Grid | 17.9 |
| Waste | 1.9 |
| |
|
| Total capacity | 224.3 |
It is worth noting:
- CCS at 12.1 GW – there appears to be no viable alternative if CCS cannot be made to work.
- Interconnectors at 19.8 GW – the FES reckons that there will be net exports of electricity by 2050, because of all the surplus wind power we will be lumbered with. However, it does not explain why Europe will want it, if they too have similar surpluses.
More importantly, they don’t say how we can rely on importing when we are short of supply, when Europe will also be in the same boat.
- Marine – 6.1 GW – given that Swansea Bay has just gone down the plug hole, this looks to be unrealistic
- Nuclear – 18.6 GW (effectively assumes six Hinkleys will be built)
- Storage – 17.3 GW – this compares to 2.9 GW currently. While storage will have a part to play in smoothing out supply and demand between day and night, it does not address the inherent intermittency of renewable energy, despite claims to the contrary.
- Vehicle to Grid – 17.9 GW – this is the potty idea that drivers will let the grid take power from their EVs at times of peak demand.
Peak demand for electricity will rise to 87 GW by 2050, under the Steady Progression and Consumer Evolution scenarios, which are likely to be more realistic than the Two Degrees, which assumes most cars will be charged off peak, using smart technology:
To meet peak demand, and allowing for de-rating (which recognises the fact that capacity cannot be available 100% of the time), we would need about 100 GW of dispatchable capacity, instead of the 46 GW planned.
Which begs the question – where will the difference be made up?
As noted, while we may get some from interconnectors, particularly the Norway one, it is a very risky strategy to rely on this.
Solar power produces next to nothing in winter, which leaves wind power.
And if the wind does not blow, all of those car and other batteries are unlikely to be charged up in the first place, to be drawn down on later.
I may be estimating on the high side, although that is surely what the National Grid should be doing themselves.
But even under the most optimistic scenario, we are still looking at peak demand of 79 GW. This assumes that most EV charging will take place at night, while V2G also helps to reduce peak period demand. But can you seriously expect a driver to plug in his car when he gets home, just so the Grid can drain it flat?
The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle, around 85 GW, nearly double the amount of dispatchable capacity projected.
It is tempting this plan was written by a sixth former, it is that naive.
Heating
As the above chart shows, electricity only contributes a small amount to CO2 emissions, currently just 10%.
In other words, we seem to be going to great lengths, enormous expense and huge risks in order to save a very small amount of emissions.
“Others” accounts for 17%, and there is apparently little we can do about these emissions.
Heating is the major slice, contributing 54%. Yet both the Grid and the government still seem pretty clueless about tackling the problem.
The FES rehashes the argument for hydrogen and heat pumps. As far as hydrogen is concerned, we already know that the transition will be prohibitively costly, something the FES seems afraid to mention. Moreover the additional running costs of using gas to produce hydrogen, instead of burning the gas in the first place, will add considerable amounts to energy bills.
But, as the FES does acknowledge, producing hydrogen by Steam Reforming still produces large amounts of CO2 anyway:
So you still need CCS , which does not exist as a viable process.
The only alternative process is electrolysis, which does not emit CO2, but is a much more expensive (and small scale) process:
Householders, who already face ever larger green subsidies on their electricity bills, would be horrified if they knew how much more will be loaded on their gas bills, if these plans come to fruition.
As for heat pumps, there is still very little demand for them, and no likelihood of them becoming widespread, despite the FES’s exhortations. Yet FES assumes that there will be about 10m by 2050, up from 30000 now.
Nowhere in their plan though do they appear to recognise how much demand for gas peaks in winter.
The estimated national half hourly heat demand (red) for 2010, and the actual national electricity demand (grey).
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/decarbonising-heating/
Even if only a fraction of this is switched to heat pumps, peak demand in winter would rise well above that forecast by FES:
As I wrote a few years ago, if the government wants us all to switch to low carbon heat, it has few options:
1) Ban existing technology
2) Price existing technology out of existence
3) Subsidise low carbon alternatives.
In this respect, there is one disturbing comment, tucked away in the FES’ Security Framework Document, which details all the assumptions that are used as inputs into their models;
One such assumption is labelled “Residential Gas Tax”, described as:
The level of tax levied on residential gas use to incentivise households to use low carbon heating
Under both the Two Degrees and Community Renewables scenarios, the level of this tax is assumed to be “high”.
It is amply clear that people don’t want heat pumps, but watch out for a swingeing tax on the gas we need for our conventional boilers.
Summary
The whole document is little more than an exercise in make believe, with no acknowledgment of the costs entailed, or the risks involved. (And we have not even got onto road transport yet!)
In other words, it is just the sort of report the government asked for.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 14, 2018 at 08:51AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 