Labour’s Energy Plans Will Lead To Blackouts
By Paul Homewood
https://labour.org.uk/press/ed-miliband-conference-speech/
Ed Miliband announced Labour’s new Energy Policy at the Party Conference last year. Its centrepiece is a commitment to totally decarbonise power generation by 2030, to be achieved by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind.
You may recall the computer modelling work done by John Brown a few weeks ago, which used 2022 generation data to assess how much wind power capacity we would need if electrolysis was employed to provide hydrogen to back up the grid.
John and I have used the same model to plug in Labour’s plans for wind and solar. Unsurprisingly, but frighteningly, it shows that Miliband’s numbers simply don’t stack up.
First, a few basic assumptions:
- Demand in 2030 is 20% higher than now, factoring in EVs and heat pumps. This figure will, of course, rise dramatically in the following years, but for now we are concentrating only on 2030.
- The model is based on BMRS data, which does not include embedded generation, such as small wind and solar farms. Instead these appear as lower demand as far as BMRS is concerned. The model results however are not affected.
- We have assumed that, on top of wind and solar, the UK has 10 GW of dispatchable capacity, such as nuclear, biomass and hydro.
- There is no electricity generated from hydrogen – there seems to be no way that bulk hydrogen infrastructure - electrolysers, steam reformers, distribution networks and a 50GW fleet of new hydrogen burning power stations – could be ready by 2030.
- Equally there is no Carbon Capture power generation available.
- There are no electricity imports. (See discussion below)
- There is no major expansion of battery storage to the scale needed.
A few basic numbers:
- Peak demand is 56.5 GW
- Average demand is 35.8 GW, adding up to 314 TWh
- Wind, Solar and Others generation are 204, 33 and 88 TWh respectively, giving a total of 325 TWh
You can probably see Labour’s thinking, that there is enough generation to meet demand!
But, as we know, the wind does not always blow, and the sun does not always shine. And this is where the model gets interesting, and not a little scary.
Using 2022 data, the model finds that the power deficit peaks at 41 GW, a 5-minute period when demand is 56 GW and generation 15 GW. It is of course possible to smooth the peaks to a small extent with the help of demand side response and battery storage.
But more critical is the fact that there was a 19-day period last December when there was a rising cumulative power deficit of about 7TWh, at an average of 15.7 GW. Although within this period there were short spells when generation exceeded demand, the net balance remained negative. Put simply, even with smoothing and storage there would not have been enough electricity to go round.
This spell unsurprisingly coincided with the cold snap that month. And as we know too well, we could be facing much colder weather, and over a much longer period than 19 days in years to come. Our model shows that we need at least 7 TWh of storage, but a proper safety reserve would need much more than that.
The model also finds that there would be a shortage of power for 48% of the year, and a surplus for 52%.
As well as the deficit side of the equation, we must not forget that over the year a surplus of 531 TWh builds up, peaking at 44 GW. Without hydrogen infrastructure, most of this will either have to be exported or thrown away.
The model does not allow for imports of electricity. Currently we have 7.4 GW of interconnector capacity, excluding the Irish ones – (If we are short of wind power, it is a pretty good bet Ireland will be as well!). According to DESNZ, this could grow to 17 GW by 2030.
According to our model though, the power deficit would be above 17 GW for more than a tenth of the year, so clearly we cannot simply rely on imports, which in any case would be incredibly risky and make a nonsense of claims of energy security.
For instance, during that 19 day spell in December, there was one 9-hour period when the power deficit averaged 22 GW. Other days were similarly bad.
And just as we will still be critically short of power even with interconnectors, they will not have enough capacity to get rid of all of the surplus electricity produced.
Demand will of course carry on increasing in the years after 2030, as more EVs and heat pumps appear on the scene. Power shortages will therefore become more frequent and larger, even if more wind farms are built.
FOOTNOTE
As before, John Brown is happy to answer any queries and provide his modelling data on request.
His email is: jbxcagwnz@gmail.com
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Ed Miliband should have been removed from any influence after his disastrous Climate Change Act 2008. He is just as innumerate now as he was then.
Haven’t you noticed that Sir Keir has banned him from commenting. He is sidelined.
Capacity is only half the problem.We will not be able to afford any of this power anyway. This will be the real demand side reduction.
And don’t forget that the delusional Miliband is going around bragging that “The price of solar and wind energy is nine times less than that of gas.”
https://labourlist.org/2022/09/lets-protect-the-people-and-the-planet-milibands-speech-to-conference/
Which is untrue according to HEPI.
https://www.energypriceindex.com/price-data
Who believe, it’s a tough one.
Surely even Starner won’t be stupid enough to leave Britain’s energy security in the hands of the innunerate, scientifically illiterate and imbecillic Milliband. Surely not?……….
But GordonBrown put him in charge of DECC, so a stupid precedent has already been set.
Starmer is not intelligent enough to realise how ignorant Milliband is.
Is there a legal case that could be brought against the prospective Labour government?
An energy policy which professional analysis suggests could be predicted to cause national blackouts should be challenged on human rights and national security grounds.
It should also be considered exceptional enough in legal terms to allow a pre-emptive challenge, as to wait for a Labour government to rollout this flawed policy could be too late to avoid the consequences.
Net Zero Watch has done some great work highlighting endless eco-nonsense but this could be their most important intervention.
Not if Tony Blair’s Supreme Court has anything to do with it.
Why bring it against a prospective Labour government? I would bring it against the current government after all since 2010 they are the ones who allowed nearly all of the coal & oil power station to be demolished (they should have being mothballed on national security grounds alone due to risk of sabotage of North sea gas pipelines) without a practical replacement, concern to natural security, no increase in natural gas storage (they actually allowed rough storage site to close) or requirement to store oil at CCGT like on the island of Ireland https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CER15213-Review-of-Fuel-Stock-Obligations.pdf (the section 34 of Electricity Act 1989 has always since privatisation given the secretary of State the power to require fuel stocks at generating stations).
We really need an public inquiry lead by chartered electrical engineers to review if the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority have complied with their duties under the Electricity Act 1989 and if any politicians or civil servants make any decisions they financially benefited from (especially if a reasonable person would have made a different decision) for potential misconduct in a public office.
As the EPR was was clearly the worse choice of the available options based on the cost & the delay in Finland alone especially with the UKs history with problematic nuclear designs i.e AGR see Dungeness B when it would have made more sense to instead just continue with the PWR design used for Sizewell B although personally I would choose the CANDU as we don’t appear to have the heavy forging capacity to build a PWR pressure vessel in the UK and if we put the resources into it we could start building a few CANDUs on existing nuclear sites at the same time within a year ( 8 reactors per site * 1GW unit * 5 sites = 40 GWe capacity) and if we copy an existing multiunit CANDU like Darlington with a few changes like uprating to 1000 or 1200 MWe.
The UAE who started their new build at the same time as us as well as creating a nuclear power sector from scratch with a language barrier who looked at the EPR but decided the South Korean PWR was a better bet. They also built more capacity 5.6 GW vs 3.2 GW and in a shorter time.
There are many duties worth investigation from Electricity Act 1989 Section 3A here is a small sample:
Those interests of existing and future consumers are their interests taken as a whole, including— (b) their interests in the security of the supply of electricity
– There is no rational reason why embedded generation isn’t reported in real time and controllable by the electricity system operator to prevent unnecessary low frequency load shedding (see May 2008) & to protect the distribution network especially the underground cables from being overloaded as these are planned based on diversity factor where it presumed that home in the same street would not all demand (let alone generate) large amount of electricity at the same time or use/generate large amounts continuously. We then have the reduction in system inertia requirements to accommodate wind, solar and HVDC interconnectors that makes stopping a collapse harder and god knows how a black start will work but it will take longer than the partial blackstart we had 1987 as most of the generation used then to blackstart has being demolished .
• “the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met” – do we have enough generating capacity to run all those heat pumps? Are there plans to build enough to meet our equivalent instantaneous natural gas & heating oil demand for an unusually cold winter e.g 1947 or 1963 the since heat pump icing up I would plan for a COP of 1 being possible at times.
– https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2018/gas-consumption-during-the-beast-from-the-east-how-the-local-gas-system-kept-us-warm
• “to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply”
Dangerous dependency on just in time natural gas since most of the CCGT in GB unlike the island of Ireland don’t have the onsite fuel – was this reviewed when the coal power stations closed.
– Allowing fuel secure nuclear, coal & oil capacity to close without fuel secure replacement .
– Allowing electricity generation to be dependant on natural gas without increasing storage compared to neighbouring countries .
– Allowing wind and solar to be connected to grid based on yet to be invented storage & no real world example to prove this is feasible. As well as no plan to address their shorter life compare to hydro and thermal power station.
– Dangerous dependency on interconnectors from neighbouring countries who also are likely to be in position where they would be unable to export electricity due to their own reliability issues as dispatchable generating capacity closes or price shocks e.g. Norway (is it really political sustainable for other countries to benefit from Norwegian hydro at the expense of the Norwegian public – don’t forget most Norwegian homes use electricity for heating).
Latest cunning wheeze from British Gas to encourage ‘smart’ meter adoption.
‘And this summer, customers are using their smart meters to get five hours of half – price electricity every Sunday with our PeakSave Summer Sundays.’
Don’t have to be much brighter than Ed Miliband to see where that’s going. Who can forget the ‘Ed Stone’?
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-25/ed-milibands-edstone-helped-land-labour-a-20-000-fine-from-electoral-spending-watchdog
Check out Michael Griffiths cafelockedout on Instagram. Incredible interviews with woman who knows everything about the ‘renewable ‘ scam in Australia!
One of the great myths promulgated by ‘greenies’ is that all this evil uncontrolled usage of fossil fuels started with the industrial revolution. They will be horrified to learn that coal as a resource in this country was exploited by the Romans and by the Middle Ages, was an export of great value. As Salzman reports in a delightful little book (1923, “English Industries of the Middle Ages), ‘Coal is so intimately connected with all that is essentially modern – machinery, steam and the black pall that overhangs our great towns and manufacturing districts – that it comes almost as a surprise to find it in use in Britain at the beginning of the Christian era. ‘
Salzman details the growth of coal exploitation, not just as an export, but in the growth of all aspects of manufacturing and production. What is not addressed, is that the growth of world population is correlated with the rise in increased energy use. In the year 1000, world population is estimated to be 275 million, by 1927, 2 billion! Currently, it is just over 8 billion and the rate of increase falling slightly. So, which came first, increasing population, leading to increase in demand for food and material goods, or did the increase in material comfort, brought about by coal use and increased longevity, lead to the exponential growth in population? A chicken and egg that is very complicated to unravel. An exponential growth in population, leads to an exponential increase in demand for goods and an exponential growth in markets for the same.
The increased use of coal, long before the Industrial Revolution, led to a massive increase in productivity amongst the European nations. It led, due to the increase in working time in the winter months and increased leisure, to the ability to develop the beginnings of a rational approach to the problems of the human condition, and the searching out, via the use of a scientific approach, to finding new solutions. This we now call, ‘The Enlightenment’.
The graph shown in the the attached link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
showns that human population started its exponential growth long before the Industrial Revolution, a combination of real ‘climate change’ after the end of the Ice Age and increased exploitation of material resources. The exponent has taken on a power law growth with the dual demands of increased population and increased demand for labour to service that population growth. We can tackle that problem, not with wild and improbable solutions (The Romans seem to have had a better grasp of the limitations of windmills than we have.) but with a carefully engineered solution using practical technical means. If we do not take the rational approach, then the Four Horseman are waiting in the wings to re-impose their historical but failed approach to the problem
I think that coal was used in Mongolia before the time of the Khans, I can’t find a reference at the moment
The monks of Newbattle Abbey in Midlothian were mining coal in the 14th century. I’m trying to track down a reference to earlier mineworking, also by monks, near the village of Carlops on the border between Midlothian and Peeblesshire.
There is no doubt that coal mining pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by several centuries.
Ben Vorlich and Mike Jackson. Both the Mongolians and the Chinese exploited coal as a resource. Jean Gimpel, in the ‘Medieval Machine’ P210, notes, ‘In Chap 3 stress was put on the condiderable population increase, up to 1300 which paved the way for an increased market. In that declining era ( after the Black Death) the fall in population, narrowed the market. The Cistercians introduced labour saving devices, because of their labor shortage, since the lay brothers as well as the monks had to spend many hours praying. (equivalent to attending a UN Climate Conference?) The rise in the price of timber in the thirteenth century put pressure on the society to find a new fuel. Coal was found.’
“There is no doubt that coal mining pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by several centuries.”
Of course it does when London has had laws trying to control air pollution since the 13th century and interestingly the United States’s EPA of all places comments on this.
https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/londons-historic-pea-soupers.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/10/physicalsciences.research
The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines
Author: William Stanley Jevons
London: Macmillan and Co., 1866. (Second edition, revised)
First published: 1865
https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/The_Coal_Question_(e-book)
“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when and where and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear. Before the era of steam-engines; windmills were tried for draining mines; “but though they were powerful machines, they were very irregular, so that in a long tract of calm weather the mines were drowned, and all the workmen thrown idle. From this cause, the contingent expenses of these machines were very great; besides, they were only applicable in open and elevated situations.”
As the Spanish-American philosopher, Georges Santyana remarks, ‘Those who do not understand their history, are doomed to relive it!’
Sent from my iPhone
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
I believe we will find Labour will have abandoned all this come the manifesto and it will be replaced with more woolly goals to both keep the greenies onside as well show those less bothered that they aren’t going all out for net zero on these ridiculous timescales.
As an aside I’m being pressured to put the heat on as its so cold today!! Yes its August oh wait a minute must be down to climate change.
Funnily he is rarely if ever criticised by the MSM. Then the BBC have another idiot in Rowlatt, appears to be some form of contagion.
The same Rowlatt who flew to Greece to cover the eco warrior arson wild fires?
Milliband is not qualified to present energy facts – he just regurgitates what his left wing activists tell him, but like Greta
We are wasting our time trying to argue against the stupidity of government policy. All powers are in lock-step to bring the total destruction of our way of life. A step at a time – Wilko went today!
“Miliband’s numbers simply don’t stack up”.
The failed son of a marxist spouting twaddle, surprised?