Hard Choices ahead

1
Meeting our Future Energy Needs
CPRE - 28th July 2005

Hard Choices ahead For a Secure Low Carbon Future
Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy
Science Director Low Carbon Innovation
Centre School of Environmental Sciences
CRed
2
Electricity Statistics South Norfolk

• Each house in South Norfolk consumes, on average
  5797 kWh per year 50 more than a house in
  Norwich
• South Norfolk consumes a total of 524 million kWh
  per year (291 million domestic).
• A wind farm the size of Scroby Sands would supply
  54 of domestic needs for whole of South Norfolk
  (or 30 of total demand)
• Would save 80 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a
  year or 45 000 hot air balloons each year.
• The alternative
• Persuade 32 000 motorists never to drive the car
  again
• Or 320 000 motorists to drive 1000 miles less
  each year.

3
Our Choices They are difficult

• Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e
  onshore/offshore wind and biomass.
  Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for
  next 20 years.
• If our answer is NO
• Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power
• Are we happy on this and the
  other attendant risks?

• If our answer is NO
• Do we want to return to using coal?
• then carbon dioxide emissions will rise
  significantly
• unless we can develop carbon sequestration
  within 10 years which is unlikely

If our answer to coal is NO Do we want to leave
things are they are and see continued
exploitation of gas for both heating and
electricity generation? gtgtgtgtgtgt
4
Our Choices They are difficult

• If our answer is YES
• By 2020
• we will be dependent on around 70 of our
  heating and electricity from GAS
• imported from countries like Russia, Iran,
  Iraq, Libya, Algeria
• Are we happy with this prospect? gtgtgtgtgtgt

If not We need even more substantial cuts in
energy use. Or are we prepared to sacrifice our
future to effects of Global Warming? - the
North Norfolk Coal Field?
Do we wish to reconsider our stance on
renewables? Inaction or delays in decision making
will lead us down the GAS option route and all
the attendant Security issues that raises.
5
Electricity Options for the Future
The Gas Scenario Assumes all new non-renewable
generation is from gas. Replacements for ageing
plant Additions to deal with demand
changes Assumes Renewables Targets are met
10.4 by 2010
20 by 2020

• High Growth Business as Usual
• Low Growth capped at 420 TWH by 2010

• Rise in emissions 2005 2010
• loss of nuclear generating capacity
• Fall in emissions 2010 2020
• loss of nuclear and coal capacity
• Little new generating capacity available before
  2010 except Wind and small scale

6
Electricity Options for the Future

• Low Growth Scenario
• Capped at 420 TWh
• Represents a cumulative 1.5 per annum per
  household reduction below historic trend
• 33 CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990
• 62 CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990
• 68 increase in gas consumption
• ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002

• High Growth Scenario
• Business as Usual
• 0.3 CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990
• 54 CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990
• 257 increase in gas consumption
• ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002

7
Electricity Options for the Future

• Targets for renewables are achieved
• Diverse Mix of Non-Renewables
• 40 gas 20 Nuclear 40 Coal
• Low Growth Capped at 420 TWh
• Represents a cumulative 1.5 per annum per
  household reduction below historic trend.
• 28 reduction in CO2 (cf 1990)
• 10 increase in gas (cf 2002)
• High Growth Business as Usual
• Represents 2.3 growth
• 10 increase in CO2 (cf 1990)
• 51 increase in gas (cf 2002)
• Some New Build Nuclear may be necessary even in
  most optimistic scenario.

No More Renewables up to 20 new nuclear
stations may be needed.
8
Our Choices They are difficult
A diverse renewable supply will be local, and
will be less prone to cascade power cuts such as
those recently in US, London, Italy,
Denmark. Conventional generation is based on
large units 500 660 MW enough to supply over
1 million homes. These do fail from time to
time, and require much greater backup than
required for the failure of a few wind
turbines. Renewable generation is less prone to
major interruption
We must not get drawn into a single issue debate
a rational debate covering all the
alternatives is needed. Available Renewables
Nuclear Conservation

• Local Generation of Electricity
• - Saves 8 9 on transmission losses
• - Communities should make decision
• Local wind generators, biomass
• Individual microgeneration, photovoltaic,
  individual wind turbines

9
Involve the local Community

• Many residents on island of Burray (Orkney)
  compaigned for a wind turbine.
• On average they are fully self-sufficient in
  electricity needs and indeed are a net exporter
  of electricity

10
The Future

• If we continue on the business as usual approach
  our electricity consumption will be 35 higher
  than now and whether we have remote renewables,
  nuclear or fossil fuel additional transmission
  lines will be needed.
• Local generation will help significantly.
  Individual household generation DC.
• Communities should decide on the approach that is
  best for them but a decision is needed soon -
  leaving things as they are will have attendant
  security issues.
• Myths need to be dispelled. Nuclear/Wind/Energy
  Use
• Less radioactivity is emitted from nuclear power
  stations (including Sellafield) per unit of
  electricity generated than from equivalent coal
  fired power stations.

11
Myths on Wind Power

• NETA has to cope with the loss of Sizewell B
  through a reactor trip. This loss amounts to
  around 1.2 times the total installed capacity of
  wind at present.
• NETA also has to cope with sudden changes in
  demand (up to 2.5 times Sizewell B) in a matter
  of minutes e.g. from TV scheduling.
• Experience from Denmark shows that the normal
  maximum change in any one hour from Wind Output
  is no more than 18 on one occasion in a year.
  With a larger country area the figures for
  diverse wind generation will be less in UK.

Renewable Energy The Issues Isnt Energy from
Renewables unreliable? we need secure supply

• One will not save Carbon Dioxide because power
  stations are running in case they are needed.
• There is very little truth in this. The
  amount of carbon dioxide emitted is dependant on
  the output of a fossil fuel power station. If
  it is running under low load it will emit only a
  very small amount of extra CO2.
• Allowing for this, the effect of standby
  reserve will amount to a maximum of 15 20 gms
  per kWh of Wind Energy compared to 430 for gas or
  1000 for coal.
• A substantial saving is made.

12
Our Choices They are difficult

• Affect House Prices
• Evidence from Estate Agents in the Swaffham
  Area say they have a positive effect on house
  prices.

Whilst the wind turbine is considered 'ugly' by
some residents of Swaffham, most consider it a
unique landmark and see it as an asset to the
town. Most of the local population are proud of
the turbine and it seems to have had a positive
impact on the town in a number of ways.
I do believe that were it not for the number of
visitors to Swaffham, coming to see the turbine
for whatever reason, we would not have such a
high influx of buyers from out of the area. This
has increased house prices, and the prosperity of
the area.
13
Our Choices They are difficult - Myths

• Latest some evidence to suggest that a few
  birds are killed typically 3 per installed MW
  per year except in a few locations.
• the oldest wind farm in UK on Burgar Hill
  has an RSPB reserve right next to it.
• in Orkney a party from UEA came across new
  fewer than 3 dead birds on roads in 2 days in an
  area remote turbines.
• Currently UK has around 850 MW installed
  perhaps 2500 killed a year
• Estimates of 1 million killed each year by
  vehicles
• British Trust for Ornithology estimate 100
  million birds collide with fixed objects of whom
  one third are killed

Wind Energy The Issues Wind Turbines kill birds
14
Our Choices They are difficult

• Wind Turbines are beautiful!
• Wind Turbines are Ugly!
• What is the consequence of not using wind
  alongside conservation, biomass and nuclear etc?.
• Insecure supply of Electricity when we import
  fossil fuels from Russia
• The North Norfolk Coal Field
• Increased Famine in many part of the world
• Increased flooding
• 20 new nuclear power stations in the UK by 2025
• Increased incidence of extreme weather events.

15
Some Media Articles might be counter productive
Saturday 28th May 2005
If this statement were true then a mini would do
16944 miles per litre or 77000 miles per gallon
16
Conclusions

• Global Warming will affect us all - in next few
  decades
• Energy Security will become increasingly
  important. Inaction over making difficult
  decisions now will make Energy Security more
  likely in future.
• Move towards energy conservation and LOCAL
  generation of energy
• It is as much about the individuals response
  to use of energy as any technical measures the
  Government may take.
• Wind (and possibly biomass) are the only real
  alternatives for renewable generation in next 5
  10 years.
• Otherwise Nuclear? Carbon Sequestration will
  not be available until at least 2020 to make coal
  an option. Security of Supply questions wisdom
  of relying on gas
• Even if we are not convinced about Global Warming
  Energy Security issues will shortly start to
  affect us.

17
If we dont make decisions soon

• Dried up river beds in summer/droughts
• Increased flooding in winter
• How do we convince people to turn off items on
  standby?
• Not opting for local generation and individuals
  not facing up to their responsibilities will mean
  more centralised generation/more pylons.
• Should we adopt a mix of renewables and one
  further generation of nuclear phasing out
  dependence on fossil fuels?
• Are we happy with wind turbines the only real
  issue here is aesthetics?
• Are we happy with reduction of biodiversity and
  related issues that large scale biomass
  exploitation might bring?
• Are we prepared to pay much more for our energy
  (Photo-voltaics)?
• Do we want to return to nuclear?
• Even if Carbon Sequestration becomes a reality
  and we could use coal again are we happy with the
  prospect of a North Norfolk Coal Field?
• Are we comfortable with the Energy Security
  Issues implied by an over-reliance on gas?

Which is the Least Worst Option? The decision is
ours
18
Conclusions

• The government has largely ducked the issue about
  Energy/Climate Change and Energy Security.
  Decisions are needed very soon to avoid the
  effects of climate change.
• Inaction or NO decision is NOT a viable option
• Need to act now otherwise we might have to make
  choice of whether we drive 1.6 miles or heat an
  old persons room

WEBSITE www.cred-uk.org/ This presentation is
available at www2.env.uea.ac.uk/cred/cre
duea.htm