Power Scenarios For 2028-32

By Paul Homewood

  

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/power-sector-scenarios-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget/

 

Returning to the CCC’s fifth carbon budget, let’s take a closer look at the electricity sector scenarios they have dreamt up. As usual with these plans, they offer various scenarios, on a pick + mix basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They define the scenarios thus:

 

 

First of all, we must ignore any option with CCS. As the CCC readily admit, there is massive uncertainty over the prospect of CCS making any significant contribution on these timescales. In any event, even if CCS was up and running and commercially viable by the late 2020’s, we would already be stuck with all of the other low carbon alternatives.

Quite simply, we cannot set energy policy for 15 years time on the basis of a wish and a hope.

So we’ll concentrate on the “No CCS option”, and then tweak it into a “High Nuclear option”.

 

As the Box notes, “No CCS” would entail a contribution instead from tidal. (The graph is not clear, but tidal produces 2 TWh, and bio 24 TWh under this option).

It should also be noted that gas-fired still contributes 131 TWh in 2030, much more than the 100 TWh produced last year. As a result, emissions are estimated at 114 gCO2/KWh, against the CCC’s target range of 50 to 100 g. Hence their desperation to save on CO2 in other areas.

The main factor in reducing emissions from the current level of 450 gCO2/KWh is the elimination of coal from the mix.

Of course, it is not clear what is supposed to happen after 2030, when gas is due to be phased out rapidly!

 

But this is only part of the story, as we need to consider capacity.

According to the CCC, we currently have 68 GW of de-rated capacity, which as we already know is exceedingly tight. Given the forecast growth in demand to 380 TWh/year by 2030 we certainly need at least 80 GW, ideally 90 GW. This is how the CCC break it down:

 

 

Note that no figure is given for gas. Now look more closely and see how much capacity is shown for wind and solar – 65 GW, to be precise from the Excel file they provide.

When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we will need proper dispatchable capacity around, and under this scenario this can only be gas. According to DECC, we currently have 32 GW of CCGT, plus 20 GW of coal capacity. We would therefore need to double current gas capacity.

In fact, we would need to build even more new gas capacity, because, as the CCC explain, they expect 9GW of existing gas-fired capacity to close during the 2020’s.

This will only be built if compensation under the Capacity Market Mechanism is sufficient, particularly since the CCC figures show that the gas-fired plants will only be running at 23% of capacity.

On top of that is another problem. Who in their right mind is going to build a new gas power plant, when it is likely to be redundant in the 2030’s? The economics of building one would normally depend on a lifetime of at least 30 years.

I will be going into these issues of costs tomorrow. But there is one further problem.

 

The CCC graphs seem to assume that demand is constant. The numbers provided give load factors of 27%, 42% and 10% for onshore, offshore and solar respectively. These are, if anything, better than they are currently achieving, under low capacity situations where all their output can usually be readily taken up by the grid.

However, with wind and solar capacity dominating the grid with 65 GW, there will be many occasions when supply comfortably exceeds demand.

What happens then? Will wind farms be paid to switch off? Will Hinkley Point be expected to run on a stop and start basis to match the vagaries of the wind and demand? In other words, what will happen to all of this surplus electricity?

There may be opportunity to ship some off down the inter-connectors to the continent, but will they want it, and if so at what price?

What is certain is that if wind and solar farms have to operate at much lower load factors, their unit costs will soar.

 

  

 

 

 

High Nuclear Option.

The current situation re nuclear is:

 

 

With the Chinese now seemingly on board, there is a possibility that we will get the three reactors suggested under the High Nuclear scenario, at Hinkley, Sizewell and Bradwell.

However, on the CCC models, this would make little difference to gas-fired power, which would still produce 127 TWh. Effectively, the extra nuclear would simply replace renewables in the mix. (This seems to be an admission that you can’t avoid the need for a large chunk of gas-fired to give the flexibility to balance the grid).

We find the same situation with the High Renewables scenario, which reduces nuclear capacity in favour of more wind/solar, but still demands 125 TWh of gas-fired.

 

 

The bottom line with all these options is that the National Grid is going to be wholly reliant on around 65 GW of gas capacity, plus whatever nuclear we can come up with. All of the rest is just an expensive, inefficient and unreliable extra.