Grid Capacity Issues Threaten Net Zero
By Paul Homewood
A Tory mayor has urged ministers to get a grip of nationwide electricity grid problems that threaten to torpedo a £300m waste-to-power plant.
Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen warned that capacity problems across swathes of the country were putting at risk the Government’s plans to improve Britain’s energy security and cut carbon emissions.
His intervention comes as the issue threatens the viability of the proposed Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility, a massive incinerator which will generate power by burning household waste from across the North East.
The project, backed by a group of seven councils, had been scheduled to come online in 2026.
But the scheme has been thrown into doubt after the National Grid said it cannot connect the facility to the electricity network until 2031 at the earliest, when capacity upgrades will be finished.
It is just one among hundreds of projects across the UK – including a large number of renewable energy schemes – that are stuck in a growing queue due to widespread grid connection delays.
As the problem grows, ministers are being separately warned that rising costs are imperilling proposals for a £10bn wind farm scheme, and face complaints that Britain is falling behind international competitors in developing cutting-edge nuclear plants.
Mr Houchen warned that a failure to grasp red tape issues strangling the energy industry would ultimately translate into higher bills for households.
He said: “It is going to be difficult to deliver energy security – which in the medium to long term could mean lower energy prices – unless the Government gets to grips with the regulation of how the grid operates and the capacity of the grid full-stop.
“That has not just a knock-on impact for our economic prosperity, but also the Government’s targets to reach net zero by 2050.
“If you want everybody to have an electric car, at the moment the grid can’t support that. None of our energy security goals, or the net zero goals, can be achieved unless this problem with the grid is tackled.”
The lead council behind the Tees Valley incinerator scheme last week confirmed that without an agreement to export electricity – to the grid or a private buyer – the project would be unviable.
Denise McGuckin, managing director of Hartlepool Borough Council, said: “The Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility project is a vital piece of infrastructure for the North-East, which more than one and a half million people living and working across the region will rely on every day to safely and sustainably treat their general rubbish, but it will only come to fruition with a viable energy offtake.”
Ben Houchen forgot to tell us how many billions this would cost the country, and who would pay for it! (An awful lot, and electricity users).
But his comments identify a fundamental flaw in the chase for renewable energy. Schemes like Teeside’s should be made to pay for all of the extra network connections and upgrades needed. How many would be viable if that were the case?
Successive governments have simply ignored the massive cost of increasing the capacity of the grid, both at a national and local distribution level, which their policies will require. Kick the can down the road and let someone else have the problem, seems to be the motto.
Meanwhile the article goes on to report about the rising costs of offshore wind power:
Sweden’s Vattenfall plans to build the giant Vanguard and Boreas wind farms off the Norfolk coast, which would be two of the biggest so far in Britain. Analysts expect they will cost more than £10bn.
But project director Rob Anderson said surging costs are damaging the investment case and warned that the price wind developers are set to be paid for electricity under government-backed contracts might not be enough.
He said: “While we’re ready to press the button, these challenges are making it difficult.”
Vattenfall has yet to take a final decision on either project, meaning it is not yet certain to go ahead, with Mr Anderson’s comments likely to set alarm bells ringing in Whitehall.
It is already evident that the low prices agreed under CfDs for wind farms not yet built are simply not viable. Now it would appear that the rising costs of materials and interest rates are making matters worse.
This increases the likelihood that new wind farms coming on stream in the next few years will simply opt out of their CfDs. Worse still, projects like Vattenfall’s may never even get off the ground, unless the government offers a much higher price.
Comments are closed.
I wonder how much CO2 will be emitted from this burning of household waste? …or doesn’t that matter?
It is quite common in the colder parts of the EU – Germany and Denmark for example. Not commonly used as far as I know for electricity generation (lower combustion temperatures) but very useful for hot water heating for urban homes, swimming pools, and deicing roads and sports fields.
And, by EU regulations, it doesn’t need to be included in emissions figures.
The EU allows you to heat your home burning wood, garbage and whatever detritus you find about your plot? That don’t seem right. Do they TAX you somehow?
You are still allowed to heat your home with wood. Obviously they cannot ban that as they allow power stations to burn wood which (by decree) “doesn’t release CO2” (Drax as an example).
What I was referring to was central ‘burner’ stations which generate hot water output. The hot water is circulated into the (basements) of apartment blocks, presumably office blocks (if any are in that area) and other uses where a regular supply of (lower temp) heat stops things freezing. Useful for eliminating household waste and avoids large rubbish dumps (although if wanted these can anaerobically generate methane).
As far as I know Sweden also supplements that fuel with wood.
Obviously this needed thinking about problems and forward planning, something which no-one could reasonably accuse your government as knowing anything about.
What was old is new again. (Ecclesiastes ?) Years ago there were two, very large, steam generating stations located just outside the Chicago Loop–downtown business district. They supplied high pressure steam to many, many building that used it for heat and cooling. Centralized systems enjoy benefits of scale, a concept lost on current design engineers. One wonders if the push to make every home and business a generating station is because the individual is far easier to push around than two, huge, well-connected generating stations.
Back in the 1960s ICI ran a district heating system at Billingham on the waste heat from a power station. I wonder whether it is still running
The grid problem is showing up all over the place. In Germany they are not able to send the windpower from the North Sea, Baltic Sea and other northern parts down south where there is a demand and so have to shut down the windmills. In Switzerland they are not able to use the full output of some hydro plants as the grid can’t let it be used elsewhere. I would not be surprised if the same problem is common anywhere the demand is far from the generation. Remember when we built power stations in the cities or close by.
Talking of building power stations –
Britain’s first new nuclear reactor in 30 years has arrived at Hinkley Point C. The 13-meter long, 500 tonne white ‘reactor pressure vessel’ will be the first nuclear reactor to be installed in the UK since the 1990s.
“Britain’s first new nuclear reactor in 30 years has arrived at Hinkley Point C – Bristol Live” https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/gallery/britains-first-new-nuclear-reactor-8193320
“…and so have to shut down the windmills”
Not only that, they have to install diesel generators – often on barges for the off-shore stuff – to rotate the blades and ancillary mechanisms to prevent the bearings brinelling and to keep the hydraulics warm.
Costly, that…
Finally, someone who knows that of which he speaks. I am fascinated by wind turbine tech, and have read more than one book on the subject. Yes, even just sitting still they need to be powered. Why can’t the green fanatics read a book and have some idea that there no such things as Magic Unicorns?
The ‘red tape’ is actually socialising the costs of connection so the developer can make his fortune.
All grid entry costs used to have to be met by the connecting party so there was no free riding. Now every day we read about pleading from already rich people to get the ordinary consumer/tax payer to give them endless bungs.
At the same time inundated by psyops about how ‘our’ democracies’ should funnel more wealth into our MICs.
We are being ‘had’ and the populace is too thick to realise it.
First, without a reliable grid connection these “waste fuel” plants will be useless. Second, the emissions from burning household garbage are loaded with toxins formed during the burning process. Might just as well go straight for the Magic Unicorns and get it over with. More nonsense from the anti-fossil fuel green freaks. They would burn children for fuel if meant they could shut down another dreaded, yet proven and reliable, fossil fuel plant. If Magic unicorns are not in the budget, try re-commissioning shuttered coal, nat gas and nuke plants.
Re-commissioning shuttered coal plants would be a great idea….except the Govt has had most of the UK ones blown up – and boasted about it.
Would it not have been simpler to just drive a stake through its heart?
Modern incinerators are actually extremely clean, it’s the most sensible use of waste in my opinion.
I am basing my statement of data released when they closed an incinerator in Robins, IL. What is the basis for your claim? Don’t try and tell me you can burn plastics, and plastic bottles with chemical residue and get clean emissions. Controlled, very high temperature incineration is necessary to prevent formation of dioxins, formaldehydes, et al, and you will never get that from a municipal garbage burning plant.
I know the Robbins incinerator, whose huge chimney loomed over the next door Clark refinery which also was a source of local pollution – one of the reasons it got sold and closed, generating a $120m lawsuit.
https://www.mrt.com/news/article/120-1-million-award-in-lawsuit-against-closed-7600489.php
Robbins itself is a black township, and now the incinerator is treated as a historical racial imposition, despite having been promoted by the town’s political leaders for the income it brought and objected to by other nearby communities.
Cool, you know of the Robins garbage power plant. Point of order–It was never sold. The IL pols, reacting to outrage from Robins’ White neighbors, denied the permit. The project was cancelled producing a devastating loss to the good-faith bond holders who financed the project, and ultimately took it in the shorts. This was but one more move by IL pols to destroy the credit worthiness of anything associated with Illinois. The festering hulk is still there, as are the switch yards that connected it to the grid. The Clark refinery is long gone.
I didn’t say the Robbins incinerator was sold. Only the refinery, which was sold to Premcor who shut it. They were in turn absorbed by Valero. The incinerator certainly operated for a number of years. Drove right past it several times to know.
2031?!
Would be quicker to build an undersea cable link to Norway or similar & export the power.
I’m sure the government would love that.
Great idea, but not something to simply rush into. Undersea cables have a myriad of technological problems. Transmitting AC through cables is limited by the capacitive reactance losses, that must be mitigated by expensive AC to DC converters on one end, and a DC to AC converter on the other, all of which have their associated losses. It can be done, but not by simply “running and undersea cable.”
” Undersea cables have a myriad of technological problem”
Some b*****d might blow them up.
All the subsea interconnectors to other countries from GB are HVDC, as is the Western Link. Offshore wind farm connections close to shore are AC, but as we move to deeper water further out these too will become HVDC. The choice is driven by economics and technical factors. Offsetting the converter costs is cheaper cable because DC current uses the whole cross section of the conductor to transmit current, whereas AC suffers from “skin effect” with most of the current flowing at the conductor surface in addition to the need for three phase cables.
Alternating current (AC) technology is mature and is proven for land-based applications and relatively short offshore tiebacks. However, for long tiebacks, due to increased conductor capacitance, large reactive power needs to be supplied, leading to higher cable current rating, losses, and expensive umbilical. Subsea AC cables are limited in their capability to transmit power beyond a certain distance, depending on cable characteristics, installation conditions, and system operating mode.
There is a new nervousness about interconnectors as grid managers and politicians begin to realise that in a crisis you can’t expect to rely on your neighbours. We have seen Ireland, Norway and France acting to restrict exports to protect their own supply. I’ve been pointing this out for years to politicians and regulators.
Thank you for your erudite reply. You know that about which you speak, which is refreshing. In the U.S., with AC they use a hollow conductor filled with a cooling gas to take advantage of said skin effect. DC interconnect for solar make sense, since solar produces DC. But I still question the added expense of AC to DC conversion, and no one speaks of the flimsy, inertia-less waveform of windmill AC output. See ABB Journal re: Shoring up Wind Farms with synchronous Capacitors for Grid Stabilization. But I guess that only refers to AC wind farm direct connection to AC grids. DC is the future, to be sure.
“…A.C. suffers from skin effect…”
No, BENEFITS from skin effect.
NO power is transmitted ever through the body of a conductor along its length. How can it be? By definition, a conductor cannot sustain an electric field.
Power is always LOST in conductors, to Joule resistive heating; for when power penetrates into the conductor* it simply accelerates the electron cloud, which motion is immediately lost by collision with the nuclei.
An A.C. circuit allows for the introduction of reactance which chokes what people normally think of as ‘the current’ with its waste of energy in the ‘conductor’ (which is literally just the GUIDE for the electromagnetism).
ALL A.C. power is transferred in the dielectric (the ether – in the original convenient terminology – in the case of a vacuum) surrounding the conductors of the visible circuit. And with Heaviside’s coaxial cable (invented 1858) all the power goes through the sandwiched dielectric material.
“It was discovered by mathematical reasoning that when an electric current is started in a wire, it begins entirely upon its skin,
in fact upon the outside of its skin; and that, in consequence sufficiently rapidly impressed fluctuations of the current keep to the skin of the wire, and do not sensibly penetrate to its interior.
Now very few (if any) unmathematical electricians can understand this fact; many of them neither understand it nor believe it. Even many of them who do believe it, do so, I believe, simply because they are told so…” Oliver Heaviside, ‘Electromagnetic Theory, 1892.’
What happens inside a wire in a circuit is analogous to the inside being a viscous liquid with a sort of inertia. Which you do not wish to waste energy on, by unnecessary stirring of it.
https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/TheStudyofElectricitybytheDeductiveMethod_10008472
uses an interesting, original, mechanical analogy to electrical power transmission.
* As the ‘Poynting Vector’ becomes perpendicular to the surface of the conductor.
The skin effect
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/skineffect.html
Developer (AKA FlimFlam man): Hi Rishi, I’ve got this £10b power station for you. It just needs connecting.
PM: OK. Is that the only problem?
FF man: Well, it doesn’t work at night – or when it’s cloudy…
PM: Is that all?
FF man: Weeelll…snow is a problem too. But not to worry, it works around 12% of the time. What do you reckon? Deal?
PM: Sounds Good to me. About the amount of time my MPs work. Are you sure £10b is enough? Do you want me to pay for the back-up and grid balancing? OK. No probs.
Thus falls a great country. Without a whimper.
(Sorry. Just feeling really pissed off today)
” Thus falls a great country ”
To add to the gloom: Russia’s sanctioned economy is forecast to perform better than the UK’s economy.
Barrator Biden sanctioned Russia in an attempt to destroy their economy, and the Ruble is stronger than the dollar. All Brandon did was drive Russia into the waiting arms of China, a merger that we have been fighting since the time of Dick Nixon. Well done. LGB
“If you want everybody to have an electric car, at the moment the grid can’t support that”
the future is that they dont want everyone to have a car. ridiculous EV prices and 15 minute cities will see to that
Doh, did not see that coming! Fancy needing more wires to achieve net zero. Maybe national grid and the distribution network operators should get their heads out of the sand and start explaining that they cannot handle the increased capacity requirements of EVs and heat pumps, within the proposed time scale. The costs are going to be high and will all be loaded on domestic bills, good old OFGEM failing yet again to look after consumers.
Councils pretending to be power companies. What could go wrong?
And it’s not Net Zero. It’s Less Than Zero.
<0
Sod grid Capacity Issues – How on Gods green earth is it possible for any government minister to be promoting devices which will increase (peak) electricity demand especially heat pumps without a corresponding plan to build generating capacity (I was excepting at least an unfeasible plan using renewable and interconnector but there does seem to be anything to get anyway near 100GW let alone 400 GW of dispatchable capacity) to cover a windless cold wave that brings much of Southern England let alone the rest of the UK below -10°c? Its a question of when not if a 1947 or 63 style winter happens again.
Without the media calling this out or them worrying they will end up in prison for this gross negligence (people suffering with hypothermia from a lack of heating in their homes or are trapped in a battery powered vehicle on a snow covered motorway) as this is at the very least misconduct in a public office especially as many minister/public servant seem to have financially benefited from awful decisions that I suspect a jury would not thinks would not have happened otherwise.
“Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen warned that capacity problems across swathes of the country were putting at risk the Government’s plans to improve Britain’s energy security and cut carbon emissions.”
When emissions are cut no CO2 is withdrawn from the atmosphere. No CO2 is captured or stored. Energy security is threatened, especially fuels for conventional transportation. It’s not complicated.
We could easily have energy security if we didn’t have to build such a huge grid and network of interconnectors that won’t really work when then are needed most to cover for Europe wide Dunkelflaute. Want it to be lower carbon? Then stop making stupid choices over nuclear.
Why do I get visions of flocks of headless chickens running round and round entirely at random…
This goes unchallenged due to the mayor having the casting vote. Even if he didn’t, the opposition are the Green Party. Unqualified lunatics using public money to go into experimental projects with private business appears a total con job and a recipe for disaster.
Bristol City Council secures £1bn investment plan to help the city reach net-zero – edie
Bristol City Leap was approved by Bristol’s Mayor and Cabinet in December 2022 and contracts to finalise the energy partnership have now been signed by to create a new joint venture between Bristol City Council and Ameresco, with Vattenfall as a sub-contractor.
The overarching aim of the project is to bring in more than £1bn of investment to help Bristol become carbon neutral and climate resilient by 2030 by transforming the energy system and integrating low-carbon infrastructure.
“Bristol City Council secures £1bn investment plan to help the city reach net-zero – edie” https://www.edie.net/bristol-city-council-secures-1bn-investment-plan-to-help-the-city-reach-net-zero/?amp=true
” Why do I get visions of flocks of headless chickens running round and round entirely at random…”
In comparison, CEGB = halcyon days
Protecting the people and fixing potholes just got too boring. So, instead of doing what they were elected to do, they run off on silly tangents.
Governments are no longer fit for purpose.
Unless the purpose of the government is for defenestration of course 👍
I do not understand. Are you referring to destroying windows, or throwing people out of same?
Unless the purpose of the government is for defenestration of course 👍
Hi DD is “Twisted DD” an alter ego?
“Defenestration: Prague’s History of Literally Throwing Authority Out the Window | Britannica” https://www.britannica.com/story/defenestration-pragues-history-of-literally-throwing-authority-out-the-window
Bearing in mind what the public have been put through recently and are continuously having to suffer at the hand of our politicians, I was simply attempting a bit of humour by referring to an historical occasion.
Hussites stormed the building and threw a number of councilors from the windows of the building.
But the councillors landed unhurt, although soiled, in a large dung heap. Parallels with modern politicians are obvious.
Reality check: wind and solar are generating 12.3% of UK electricity at the moment, gas 55%.
I worked in a particular area of Teesside (Port Clarence/Haverton Hill) where the skyline was already dominated by the presence of various waste to energy plants.
My particular favourite was the Air Products “Tees Valley Project” which consisted of two enormously costly ($1.5 billion) Plasma Gasification plants that also promised to take municipal refuse and use it for power generation. The project collapsed after the first of the 2 plants started commissioning and simply didn’t work! My contacts within the waste industry in the North of England had already speculated that there was insufficient municipal waste available to feed the plants, because the various local councils had already committed to long term deals with existing waste to energy plants.
I was left with the distinct impression that a substantial proportion of these glamorous Green projects are never expected to succeed. They exist solely to harvest grant money from gullible public bodies….
“Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.” — Hanlon’s Razor
Excellent point. As with all crimes–follow the $$$
It’s not only the monetary cost of the windfarm etc. grid connections, I mentioned the East Anglia Green project before, an enormous visual impact, at a time when power lines are being buried elsewhere, this will create massive pylon lines across 3 counties, in prime farmland and wildlife habitat.
As an aside, do you follow the developing tech surrounding DC Transmission? There are no capacitive losses that are associated with cable transmission via AC. DC transmission could be the answer, but it necessitates using AC to DC converters on one end, and DC to AC on the other, all of which adds to expense. I would get used to the Pylons in the mean time.
Net Zero is also threatened by a huge shortage of people with the skills needed for its implementation: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/wheres-the-manpower-to-drive-net-zero-nowhere/
Do you mean they cannot re-train all those Lesbian Dance Study majors to work on wind turbines out in the North Sea? Who’d a thunked that.
Not forgetting rocket scientists, brain surgeons and certified engineers by the boatload rocking up on the South coast by the hundred!
Look at the flood of “energy saving” adverts on UK TV channels in the last week or so, yet they don’t mention “don’t buy / use an electric car”. That should be top of the list. It is insane to add these unnecessary electricity consumers when there are _already_ problems with capacity for normal electrical equipment.
Well stated. when you see the adverts, you know it is a grift. In the U.S. they are still ADVERTISING coof shots on the telly.
“Projects like Vattenfall’s may never even get off the ground”
Or the seabed! We can but hope….
As an American, I get the impression that there is a steady stream of hucksters going before councils with GET RICH QUICK SCHEMES.
The councils, failing any fiduciary responsibility for their taxpayers’ money, jump right in.
So not much different to things your side of the Pond basically, eh Gamecock?
How are all those Democrap cities coming along then?
There’s a lot of it about, mate!
U.S. power companies have monopolistic control.
I use the local power company (REA co-op). I have no other choice.
In general, American councils would brush off the hucksters, “We’re a county, not a business.”
The NAO has just released a report into govt plans to decarbonise power sector by 2035 – looks like they have been consulting this blog
Click to access decarbonising-the-power-sector.pdf
17 In developing its delivery plan for power decarbonisation, DESNZ should:
a establish how it will ensure the system is resilient to prolonged periods of
low generation from renewables. This should include considering the potential
costs and benefits of maintaining some carbon-emitting power generation
(such as unabated gas), while still achieving net zero across the economy;
b within 12 months, review plans for achieving its ambitions for offshore
wind and nuclear power expansion. Where DESNZ determines that these
ambitions are unattainable it should develop alternative options that enable
it to achieve its broader power sector ambitions, such as investing in
demand-side flexibility; and
c ensure it has understood the main links between different aspects of
decarbonisation and sets out in advance how these will be managed.
This should include how to determine the best sequencing of changes
and investment, such as ensuring how network capacity keeps pace
with expanding generation.
Thanks for drawing attention to this Nicholas: I wasn’t aware of it and it’s most important. I’ve only read the Summary so far (item 17 to which you refer comes from that) and it contains some most interesting, perceptive and very critical observations. For example, it says that the lack of an estimate of total costs and failure to establish a delivery plan mean that ‘DESNZ cannot be confident its ambition to decarbonise power by 2035 is achievable‘. Paragraph 10 is particularly damning. It would be most interesting to see a comment from Paul.
See also item 11 concerning network capacity.
It doesn’t appear to occurred to the intelligentsia who are perpetrating this idiocy that it one thing to wire up a relatively small number of large, reliable 24/7/365, predictable sources of electricity to create a stable, manageable grid but a completely different matter to wire up a myriad of small, randomly distributed unreliable, unpredictable power sources along with rapidly available generators for backup power over periods that can vary unpredictably both as to time of occurrence and duration from minutes to weeks, to say nothing of producing the necessary inertia to ensure frequency stabilisation without which the grid will collapse – necessitating the dreaded “black start” over some or all of its area.
Unbelievably unbelievable!
The NAO has just released a report into govt plans to decarbonise power sector by 2035 – looks like they have been consulting this blog
Click to access decarbonising-the-power-sector.pdf
17 In developing its delivery plan for power decarbonisation, DESNZ should:
a establish how it will ensure the system is resilient to prolonged periods of
low generation from renewables. This should include considering the potential
costs and benefits of maintaining some carbon-emitting power generation
(such as unabated gas), while still achieving net zero across the economy;
b within 12 months, review plans for achieving its ambitions for offshore
wind and nuclear power expansion. Where DESNZ determines that these
ambitions are unattainable it should develop alternative options that enable
it to achieve its broader power sector ambitions, such as investing in
demand-side flexibility; and
c ensure it has understood the main links between different aspects of
decarbonisation and sets out in advance how these will be managed.
This should include how to determine the best sequencing of changes
and investment, such as ensuring how network capacity keeps pace
with expanding generation.