Skip to content

Capell Aris: Should we abandon electricity generation using gas?

March 6, 2024
tags:

By Paul Homewood

A recent article (Are Labour sleepwalking to energy disaster?) showed that the UK’s capacity of combined-cycle gas turbine generators (CCGTs) is declining, and that by 2030 will have fallen to 12 GW; it will disappear in the next decade.

We are reliant on CCGTs to cover times when intermittent, renewable output is low, and to ensure grid stability. We will therefore need to build more CCGTs, but this is an attractive option, since CCGT plants are cheap and quick to build.
There was one noteworthy addition to the CCGT fleet in 2023: Keadby 2. Its performance is remarkable, boasting an efficiency of 63% – compared to the 46% of the retiring CCGTs. It was cheap and quick to build (see Table 1). The carbon dioxide emissions of the old CCGT fleet was 365 g/kWh but ‘Keadby’ CCGTs could decrease that to 260 g/kWh – 30% lower. Keadby 2 has great flexibility in the fuel it can burn. There will be changes in output power and efficiency between different fuels, but it can burn gas from offshore gas fields or fracked gas. It can also burn syngas which can be extracted from UK coal, increasing our fuel security.

Replacing old CCGTs with higher efficiency ones has other advantages. The existing site can be reused, including the operational, secure connection to the electricity grid. Building 30 GW of CCGTs on existing sites would cost less than £15bn. There are further benefits of reusing the CCGT sites. The cooling water system will be in place and only has to be reworked for the new plant. The small team that managed and operated the old CCGT can move across to the new. There will already be road access to the site capable of handling heavy loads.
The photographs  below show how much simpler construction of the power station was compared to an offshore wind turbine. Contrast the delivery of the single Siemens SGT5-9000 590 MW gas-turbine for Keadby 2 with the installation methods  of one wind-turbine (perhaps 8–10 MW) offshore.

Cut our carbon dioxide emissions by improving efficiency?
The last hundred years has seen a remarkable change in the way electrical energy is produced and distributed. Most generation was coal-fired up to 1960, but the stations increased in size and the operating temperature, to a point where the standard installation was a 660-MW steam turbine. By the same year, electricity was delivered over a UK-wide transmission and distribution grid designed to reduce transmission losses and to create multiple paths to secure supply. The world’s first nuclear generator opened in 1956. Our first CCGT power station opened in 1996, opening the way to large-scale generation from gas plants with higher efficiencies than coal-fired station.
This progression produced two important benefits: by 2000 the price of electricity had fallen from 25p/kWh in 1921 to 2.2p kWh – a ratio of nearly 12:1. Carbon dioxide emissions from generation fell from 3,500g/kWh to 520g/kWh – a ratio of nearly 7:1.

The benefits of improved generation efficiency. Emissions of CO2 decrease and prices fall…until renewables arrive.
From 2005 there has been a steady addition of renewable generation: 15 GW onshore wind turbines, 15 GW offshore, and 13 GW solar, and even 2.6 GW of wood-burning.
The introduction of renewables from 2005 to 2023 reduced carbon dioxide emissions to 200g/kWh – halving the 2005 level. Over the same period, however, electricity prices rose to 32p/kWh – a factor of nearly nine. Domestic electricity prices have never been this high before. This is almost the highest price for electricity in Europe. The price rise tracks declining coal and gas generation and increasing solar and wind  generation between 2015 and 2024 (bar the intervention of the Ukraine war in the last few years) .
Most renewable generation is from wind. Its production is variable: over the last four years it has has varied from 29 to 32.5% of nameplate capacity. It is very intermittent: in 2021 the production for May to August was only 19% of nameplate capacity; over that same period, most of Europe was also experiencing low wind speeds. Solar generation is only significant between April and October.
We have relied on our CCGT generators to cover these shortcomings and to ensure the security of our grid, but it is now reaching the point where most of the remaining capacity will be retired by 2035, and all of it by 2040.
The surge of renewable generation construction has trebled household electricity bills treble since 2010. There is no cheap, emission-free  solution that will mitigate the intermittency of this generation. 
A 10–15-year programme of building modern CCGTs would do much to reduce costs to all consumers, and at the same time make meaningful reductions in the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions (Table 2). This could reduce costs and provide a low-emissions solution to the intermittency of our renewable generators. This proposal would make no call to expand the national grid, saving ~£50 billion to 2030, per-unit emissions would continue to fall (by 60g/kWh), and prices would fall.

Capell Aris is a retired power systems engineer, and the author of several papers for Net Zero Watch and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

82 Comments
  1. Gamecock permalink
    March 6, 2024 4:12 pm

    Capell Aris: Should we abandon electricity generation

    Fixed it.

    • Hivemind permalink
      March 7, 2024 8:55 am

      Precisely.

  2. March 6, 2024 4:17 pm

    It’s obvious to anybody but the greenblob and politicians that we need lots of new CCGTs (and we need to get rid of windfarms, solar farms and ADs).

    • gezza1298 permalink
      March 7, 2024 3:55 pm

      SMRs would help given they will be far quicker and cheaper to build than the massive nuclear plants but the idiot Tories rather than telling Rolls Royce to get on with it are holding a bidding process.

      • Chris Phillips permalink
        March 9, 2024 8:14 am

        Unfortunately the even more idiot Labour lot would probably ban any more nuclear completely.

  3. william birch permalink
    March 6, 2024 4:20 pm

    The continued investment in off shore wind is a total folly. This intermittent source of electricity is prohibitively expensive and when taking in to account security of supply is totally open to a clandestine enemy cutting the supply line as shown by the cutting of the gas pipelines in the Baltic sea and the cutting of the internet cables in the Red sea. It is simply impossible to patrol these underwater cables 24-7. Thus making it possible for an enemy to proclaim plausible deniability where as an onshore attack would be plain to see.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 7, 2024 12:16 pm

      Frankly any enemy would look at offshore wind and conclude cutting it off would be a benefit to the UK, not harm!

      • March 7, 2024 1:58 pm

        Which is why China are selling wind and solar very cheaply.

  4. Gamecock permalink
    March 6, 2024 4:29 pm

    Capell’s middle name is surely Richard.

    We will therefore need to build more CCGTs, but this is an attractive option, since CCGT plants are cheap and quick to build.

    What’s this ‘we’ stuff? Your government has said – and you just said – they will be banned soon. NO ONE is going to invest.

    Replacing old CCGTs with higher efficiency ones has other advantages.

    Who said anything about replacing them?

    The existing site can be reused, including the operational, secure connection to the electricity grid. Building 30 GW of CCGTs on existing sites would cost less than £15bn. There are further benefits of reusing the CCGT sites.

    Dude, the current site is someone else’s property. They haven’t agreed to give it up. The current generators are someone else’s capital equipment, which they are using to generate electricity. They have no reason to give it up or stop using it. Your efficiency ratings have FA to do with it.

    You wax esoteric about someone else’s property.

    Aris is a dick.

  5. pfgenergy permalink
    March 6, 2024 4:44 pm

    Many years ago, I suggested via both the Institute of Physics and the Energy Institute that anyone wishing to erect a windfarm should also erect and own sufficient back-up generation (probably CCGTs) so that a certain output could be very largely be relied on. Sadly, most politicians simply don’t understand the consequences of the unreliability of so-called renewable sources. The suggestion was ignored. With current rules there is little or no incentive for anyone to invest in building new gas fuelled generation, manning it up and be happy running it in spinning reserve until the wind drops or solar generation is not working.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 6, 2024 4:58 pm

      Good point. It’s hard to build a business case for being someone else’s backup. Even if it is only £15bn.

    • In The Real World permalink
      March 6, 2024 5:22 pm

      Article from a few years ago .https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/uk-must-use-diesel-generators-to-back-up-wind-turbines/

      At that time the wind/solar farms had 1500 GWh of diesel generators registered for subsidies , which amounts to several thousand of them around the country .The media and propaganda people seem to ignore the fact that a lot of the Wind / Solar generation actually comes from diesel engines .

      Who knows how many of them there are now keeping the grid going and making it much more expensive for everybody with all of the subsidies .

      • March 6, 2024 6:48 pm

        Could this be why embedded generation still isn’t reported in real time? As I would have thought that would have changed to avoid a repeat of the May 2008 low frequency load shedding incident & to protect the distribution network especially the underground cables as these were planned based on diversity factor where it presumed that properties in the same street would not all demand (let alone generate) large amount of electricity at the same time.

        Although it would be easier to see this diesel generation and I’m sure there are many who wouldn’t like that bubble burst.

        Maybe it has the same logic as pretending all the electricity imports are zero carbon and discouraging local CCGT generation.

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 6, 2024 7:19 pm

        Yes successive governments have done well to hide the diesel generators story. Without them brownouts and blackouts would have quickly become an issue. Not of course a success, just delaying the inevitable.

      • March 7, 2024 3:14 pm

        More crass stupidity units…well done.

      • In The Real World permalink
        March 7, 2024 3:57 pm

        R S seems determined to show his ignorance of energy / power differences .

        What a generator produces is energy KWh.https://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com/stories/1485-How-Generators-Work.html

        And no power KW is produced until that energy is used .

        So , just like MPH is the rate of travel at any moment in time , and after 1 hour is the total distance travelled , KWh is the amount of energy being produced at any moment , and after 1 hour is the total mount that has been put out .

        If all of the energy being produced was used to charge up batteries , then no power at all has been produced , which is why the correct term for generator output is in KWh .

      • March 7, 2024 7:38 pm

        Do lying idiots like you even bother to read the links you post?

        “The country has 1,500 megawatts of diesel turbines”

        Does that read 1.500MWh? No it does not does it you idiot.

        Please do not come out with this BS that you are qualified – you are a complete charlatan. Grow up and learn some basics and please stop posting complete bollocks.

  6. March 6, 2024 4:48 pm

    We have to face the facts that generation is a mess with multiple conflicting objectives and low consumer price is not one of them.

    Your suggestions make perfect sense if you look at the holistic picture of the UK but as generation is managed by multiple operators, these are the guys, along with UK Gov to implement an upgrade plan.

    • pfgenergy permalink
      March 6, 2024 4:59 pm

      Yes the opportunities were lost long ago. Only excessive prices, brownouts and blackouts and their consequences will probably force change. With UK politicians being inevitably involved the usual knee jerk reactions can be expected. Some folk may ask why with all this competition electricity is so expensive in the UK? We know here but the general public don’t.

  7. March 6, 2024 5:08 pm

    The emissions due to mining, manufacturing, transportation, repair, replacement, recycling or disposal of old equipment and batteries has not been included.

    The cost of buying necessary stuff from countries that are possible future enemies has not been considered.

  8. Mikehig permalink
    March 6, 2024 5:23 pm

    The article quotes an efficiency of 64% but that is probably when running steadily at full load. It also says that existing CCGTs only achieve 46% which is surprisingly low – not much better than old coal plants. That begs the question whether it’s the result of constant ramping up and down, even stopping and starting, to compensate for fluctuating wind output? So the comparison could be rather apples & pears. How would this new Siemens unit perform under a typical UK operating pattern?

    Then there’s the claim: “Keadby 2 has great flexibility in the fuel it can burn. There will be changes in output power and efficiency between different fuels, but it can burn gas from offshore gas fields or fracked gas. It can also burn syngas which can be extracted from UK coal, increasing our fuel security.” Happy to be corrected but a bit of web-searching did not find any mention of that capability. However, while the Siemens site does state that these units can run on a variety of fuels, it doesn’t say that they can be multi-fuel. As for running on syngas, that’s fine but requires a substantial chemical plant and a supply of coal.

    • March 7, 2024 3:39 pm

      Mike do you have the faintest idea of the efficiency of power plants? Do you really believe that 46% is surprisingly low and  “not much better than old coal plants.”? The very best ever brand spanking new coal plants struggle to make 46% – the US average coal plant is under 32%  and old ones are way lower.

      Secondly CCGT are Combined Cycle gas turbines. Of course you can run gas turbines on diesel (after modest adjustment) – what do you think the gas turbines on aircraft run on? Sure as hell ain’t methane is it?

      • March 7, 2024 5:43 pm

        The very best ever brand spanking new coal plants struggle to make 46%

        Would be interesting to read how much local district heating increases % efficiency i.e. a coal-fired CHP

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 7, 2024 7:17 pm

        Any idea on the efficiency of a FBC based coal plant, pressurised or not?

      • Mikehig permalink
        March 7, 2024 6:00 pm

        Ray: thanks for the correction re coal plant efficiency. Not sure what I was thinking of, maybe the claims for modern HELE units.

        The point that I was trying to make is that the Aris article uses the difference between the efficiency of the latest Siemens unit and that of the existing fleet as a reason to replace the old plants. The existing fleet have been running at 45 – 49% for years according to Statista but that is the performance across a year with all the variations in load, etc.. When new, those units were claiming 60% efficiency according to old press releases. The 64% claimed for the new plant is, aiui, its best possible performance while running steadily at design load and conditions.

        It would be interesting to see the figures for K2 after a year of operation.

      • March 7, 2024 7:43 pm

        To MickyR, yes CHP increases overall usable efficiency in terms of energy conversion but here we are talking solely about electricity generation. Using the low grade waste heat for things such as district heating or other commercial uses is desirable but does not affect the overall electricity production percentage.

      • March 7, 2024 7:45 pm

        Any idea on the efficiency of a FBC based coal plant, pressurised or not?

        I can’t answer that “off the top of my head”, but there is probably more than one poster here who can.

    • Vernon E permalink
      March 7, 2024 4:10 pm

      Mike Hig: the efficiency improvements are great but we are still too reliant on gas to generate electricity. Gas turbines will burn almost any gas or distillate fuel especially, for example, kerosene which they were first developed on as aero engines. Lets adopt the Ireland Alternative Fuel Obligation and make it mandatory to provide storage facilities etc to run on distillate.

      • Mikehig permalink
        March 7, 2024 5:45 pm

        Vernon E: quite agree that it would be good to have the option of alternative fuels. The point I was trying to make – badly it would seem – is that the specific Siemens unit mentioned in the article does not come with multi-fuel capability, afaics from the Siemens website. It can be specified to run on one of a range of fuels whereas the article implies it is multi-fuel.

  9. March 6, 2024 5:37 pm

    Another attempt at a reply 😦

    Gas should not be used for baseload, although gas is suitable for peak lopping and – possibly – for some intermediate load.

    Gas should preferably burnt at the end of the “energy chain” e.g. homes, factories, hospitals etc.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 6, 2024 7:14 pm

        It would in my view be preferable to continue to use NG as MIcky has mentioned but we have sadly moved along way from that. Propaganda has worked very well on the majority of the public wrt AGW/ACC. For people who don’t understand much science decarbonisation may seem a reasonable answer but for those of us who have studied the subject a little, the flaws in this argument are rather obvious and the economic jusification for such activities is wholly absent. As I have said elsewhere full persecution of the Climate Change Act of 2008 would be an act of economic Hari Kari.

      • March 12, 2024 12:56 am

        It would in my view be preferable to continue to use NG as MIcky has mentioned but we have sadly moved along way from that.

        Even without the net zero stuff  we are a net importer of natural gas and have negligible storage. So are dependance on natural gas is an energy, economic and national security risk – even so called allies have played politics with exports e.g. United States to lower prices in an election year  and we have the problem of what is going on with the Red sea / Suez canal route which could complicate Qatar as a source. so unless the UK and the rest of Western Europe become a major natural gas producer to cover their own demand for at leat the next 50 years. We really need to phaseout the use of natural gas to generate electricity; I personally think nuclear fission is the best alternative on energy security grounds with a mass rollout of a existing tested design – I personally like the CANDU.

        Propaganda has worked very well on the majority of the public wrt AGW/ACC. For people who don’t understand much science decarbonisation may seem a reasonable answer but for those of us who have studied the subject a little, the flaws in this argument are rather obvious and the economic jusification for such activities is wholly absent. 

        Most people are actually indifferent in reality to AGW and have not given the subject much though seeing it being dealt with by the experts and are instead dealing with more pressing issues like the cost of living, housing, crime etc. 

        You don’t have to become a so called climate sceptic as even for people who belief in AGW (for context I was in the green party for a time) many see the whole climate political apparatus as farcical and full of grifters who have no real interest in solving (seem to oppose anything that is actually feasible) or even acknowledging potential problems.

        A good point I came across was the view that being dependant on the weather for an essential product i.e. water was  reckless if we don’t know what the weather will be like in the future with any reasonable certainty but it will likely be more extreme according to climate scientist predictions so a safer bet is more advanced water recycling from waste water (see Singapore) and the ability to use desalination, the use on an island nation of salt water for toilets (see Hong Kong) or even vacuum sewers to reduce the amount of water we need. 

        So a good question from this is who is pushing the use of wind power when looking at the predictions there would be less wind that would be suitable and the wind turbines last a considerably shorter time than thermal & hydro power stations and require a vast amount of resources for just the increase in transmission lines – it look like a way to siphon money from the public

        We then have the logical fallacy that biomass is okay even when its a more co2 intensive fuel because we allegedly plant new tree although they will take decades to grow but we can’t burn fossil fuels particularly gas and plant trees or find some other way to remove the Co2.

        I think a consensus will be formed  were we focus on what we we do know –  humanity is more vulnerable to extreme weather/climate events than what we can reasonably mitigate with our engineering capability so why all the focus changing Co2 levels at this point when there is little evidence this will protect us from extreme weather vs engineering.  

        As I have said elsewhere full persecution of the Climate Change Act of 2008 would be an act of economic Hari Kari.

         I think the Climate Change Act may be the way to put a stop to this madness as I would argue what is being used in a way not intended by parliament and the government’s plan for net zero are  unlawful.

        No one honestly believes parliament intended to reduce peoples living standards include making air travel & car use the preserve of the rich & connected), ignore the duties in the electricity act – “the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met”
        – I do wonder when someone will address the fact we don’t have enough generating capacity even in the planning to run all those heat pumps proposed. 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 – https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2018/gas-consumption-during-the-beast-from-the-east-how-the-local-gas-system-kept-us-warm ? I doubt it.

        Using the common law understand of negligence I would argue the government’s plan for meeting targets under the Climate Change Act have to be technically feasible at scale and they can’t also contain legal fictions like pretending all the imported electricity is zero carbon & Renewable Energy Certificates.  

        This isn’t the case from intermittent renewables in 2024 as TW/h scale storage does not yet exist or for that matter carbon capture and storage.

        But there were things there were thing that were technically feasible in 2008 at scale as far as I’m aware have not even being look at: 

        1 –  a large scale (40GW+) replacement of coal and natural gas generating capacity with nuclear fission using existing reactor designs which France clearly demonstrated what is possible  

        2 – I would have prohibited the demolition of all the old coal, oil and gas power station as they could clearly be repowered like many old coal power station in the post war period were to oil with small modular heat reactors based on what we use for nuclear submarines in the short term (as we have clear operating experience with them) but with an long term aim to make liquid fluoride thorium reactors work. 

        3 – looking at ways to for new building to affordably meet the passivhaus standard 

        4 – natural gas heat pumps   

        5 – quadricycles

        6 – reintroducing trolleybuses 

        7 – nuclear marine propulsion

        Why do we have 28+ GWe wind capacity & are the direct and indirect subsidies for renewables value for money or unnecessarily regressive to people on low incomes compared to the alternatives? Why are subsidise linked to generation when helping with the capital cost would be a more rational approach for the tax payer (if we must build them). Also if the computer models are accurate in future there would likely be less wind at speeds suitable for wind turbines and our winters may get colder.

        We already know about the Renewable Heat Incentive or Cash for Ash scandal in Northern Ireland – I want to know if the people who set up net metering & the solar PV feed in tariff personally benefited from it especially as we have people who have done well from subsidy payments who are now donating to probably all the main political parties which feels like Racketeering – we have organisations getting public funds (I include subsidies) then making donations to political parties to influence not saying charities should not be allowed to lobby e.g a charity like citizens advice to keep or increase its funding but it should not feel like politicians scratching their mates back especially if it increases the donor’s personal wealth.

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 12, 2024 9:08 am

        There are lots of problems with the alternative solutions offered from the position in which we find ourselves. As regards nuclear, yes we need more for base load but in the UK it seems to take decades to bring such projects to fruition. To suggest a nuclear solution beyond base load is very problematic unless we go for small modules, which have their own special problems. Given the loss of expertise, sadly in this area it is probably best to wait for other countries to do it first. UK coal cannot be a short term solution because it takes 10 years plus to open each new coal mine and of course it would require a complete change of direction away from the nonsense of decarbonisation. For a similar reason imported coal is not on the cards either. If a leading political party suddenly realised the folly of the last 30 years or so the first move should be to convert Drax back to coal pf. The above and for other reasons is why for the moment we will have to rely on imported NG & LNG and of course expensive and unpublicised diesel generators to backup wind.

      • March 13, 2024 1:50 am

        As regards nuclear, yes we need more for base load but in the UK it seems to take decades to bring such projects to fruition … Given the loss of expertise, sadly in this area it is probably best to wait for other countries to do it first.

        Yes but the delays are mainly artificially orchestrated by politicians and civil servants who oppose nuclear (& fracking for that matter) but can’t get away with outright stopping it so sabotage it by making nonsensical regulation (seismic limits if we look at fracking) & choosing the worse possible project AGR and EPR of the available options if these people were working for a business and decided lets go with the produce with the faulty possibly unbuildable prototype (e.g. Dungeness B) that would at best be sacked and possible sued especially if there was clear financial conflicts of interest.

        Although we have small modular reactors already as nuclear submarines I fear there are many people who have a lot to lose if they work so there is a good risk of the project being sabotage in some way.

        So I think we need to do something with an established design were the bugs have being worked out and attempts to sabotage the project are obvious thats why I think working with the Canadians to build 50hz replicas of a multi unit CANDU site e.g. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station but with 8 units like Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. We could fast track the design being approved by our nuclear regulator as I believe the British public would accept a reciprocal agreement regarding a fellow Commonwealth country Canadian nuclear regulations.

        The skills needed in refurbishments in Canada are similar to what a new build project would need and there are British engineers (I would look at bruce power) who are involved & I suspect would come back to help train people I also suspect we could work with Romania as they already have CANDUs and want to build more units.

        So of the options the UK has I think this its likely to be built on time and budget.

        To suggest a nuclear solution beyond base load is very problematic unless we go for small modules, which have their own special problems.

        Not really the French load follow their nuclear and the Canadians do too we could easily build to enough nuclear capacity to cover the average daily maximum and learning from the French experience instead of reducing the output of the nuclear power station since it doesn’t save in money in practice I would design the system to maximise output and would look at ways to use the excess e.g. inter seasonal thermal storage.

        If a leading political party suddenly realised the folly of the last 30 years or so the first move should be to convert Drax back to coal

        Couldn’t agree more convert drax and any remain thermal power station which can be back to coal (which we will stockpile at least 6 months worth) and run them as baseload generators (by this, as there are many activist types who like to redefine the meaning of words they don’t like, I mean it helps to cover the minimum demand on the system which is about 22 GW in GB and runs 24/7 at the same stable load for month at a time) All CO2 matters after all if tree burning is okay even when its a more co2 intensive fuel because we allegedly plant new tree although it will take decades to grow and remove an equivalent amount of CO2 then there is no rational reason why you can’t burn coal and plant trees find some other way to remove the Co2 (I sure some politicians looking for a way out of a corner could see this)

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 12, 2024 1:23 am

        small modular heat reactors based on what we use for nuclear submarines in the short term (as we have clear operating experience with them)

        but with an long term aim to make liquid fluoride thorium reactors work.

        Two seriously bad ideas.

      • March 13, 2024 1:41 am

        2 – I would have prohibited the demolition of all the old coal, oil and gas power station as they could clearly be repowered like many old coal power station in the post war period were to oil with

        small modular heat reactors based on what we use for nuclear submarines in the short term (as we have clear operating experience with them)

        but with an long term aim to make liquid fluoride thorium reactors work.

        Two seriously bad ideas.

        To design a small modular heat reactor to repower old coal, oil and gas steam power station? If this was done or even considered a possibility it would have being hard to justify the demolishing of over 25 GW+ of generating capacity in the UK which included many lightly used oil fired power station built/ordered before the oil shock e.g. Inverkip in Scotland (2 GW) or Grain (3.3 GW) in Kent.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 5:48 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • March 6, 2024 6:27 pm

      That’s wield can someone delete all those duplicates.

      Couldn’t agree more natural gas is a valuable raw material that shouldn’t never have being be wasted on electricity generation but replacing old CCGTs with higher efficiency is not going to work without a comprehensive energy plan as what private investor would trust the government to not leave them out of pocket – how would how the capital cost be repaid especially if they are closed before the end of their useful life and if they have to run at low capacity factors would there be some kind of payment to cost running costs like staff and maintenance.  Then most importantly were is the natural gas is going to come from?

      Personally I would work with the Canadians to build 50hz replica of a multi unit CANDU site e.g Darlington Nuclear Generating Station but with 8 units like Bruce Nuclear Generating Station as we don’t seem to have the heavy forging capacity for pressure vessels for PWR or BWR in the UK (sorting that may slow things).  It an established design where the bugs have being worked out and the skills needed in refurbishments in Canada are similar to what a new build project would need so of the options the UK has its likely to be built on time and budget.

      As 1 thing that has never made sense about the activists regarding the Climate Change Act if its point was to replace fossil fuel energy with like for like non co2 emitting alternatives (No one honestly believes parliament intended to reduce peoples living standards include making air travel & car use the preserve of the rich & connected), ignore the duties in the electricity act (“the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met” why wasn’t a large scale (40GW+) replacement of the coal & gas capacity using nuclear fission using existing reactor designs considered even if it was proceed with especially looking at our neighbour France although they did it for energy security reasons it is a real world example I’m yet to see a 100% renewable (wind & solar – I exclude hydro & tree burning) grid anywhere it doesn’t even appear to be technically feasible an small island grid more a way to reduce diesel use.

      No one honestly believes parliament intended to reduce peoples living standards include making air travel & car use the preserve of the rich & connected), ignore the duties in the electricity act (“the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met”
      – I do wonder when someone will address the fact we don’t have enough generating capacity even in the planning to run all those heat pumps proposed. 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 – https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2018/gas-consumption-during-the-beast-from-the-east-how-the-local-gas-system-kept-us-warm ? I doubt it.

      • Mikehig permalink
        March 7, 2024 12:50 pm

        Are the existing CCGTs really that inefficient or is it the way they are forced to operate?

        Aiui, CCGT efficiencies have been up around 60% for a long time. Press releases for a couple of stations coming into service around 2010 claimed that level.

        Secondly, why replace the whole plant? Maybe the main turbines are getting to the end of their lives but the balance of plant is probably good for another few decades: cooling systems; switchgear; fuel system; transformers; buildings; etc.. It would be far cheaper to just replace the end-of-life and obsolete kit – mainly the turbine and probably the control systems.

        You raise the issue of the underlying financial structure. Kathryn Porter has just written an excellent article on the looming problems, due to a complete lack of foresight/planning by TPTB:

        https://watt-logic.com/2024/03/04/gas-network-decommissioning/

        Unless these issues are addressed, there’s not going to be much investment to keep the existing system running, let alone to modernise or upgrade it.

      • March 14, 2024 12:01 am

        Are the existing CCGTs really that inefficient or is it the way they are forced to operate?

        Aiui, CCGT efficiencies have been up around 60% for a long time. Press releases for a couple of stations coming into service around 2010 claimed that level.

        I suspect is it the way they are forced to operate as well as the age of the CCGT and the output level they are required to operate at for example see what has happened in Ireland.

        https://irishenergyblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/dublin-electricity-generation-analysis_27.html

        A good question is if anyone has factored in renewables can actually increase Co2 emissions.

        Secondly, why replace the whole plant? Maybe the main turbines are getting to the end of their lives but the balance of plant is probably good for another few decades: cooling systems; switchgear; fuel system; transformers; buildings; etc.. It would be far cheaper to just replace the end-of-life and obsolete kit – mainly the turbine and probably the control systems.

        Yes that what I thought my presumption is they mean refurbish rather than replace the whole plant  

        You raise the issue of the underlying financial structure. Kathryn Porter has just written an excellent article on the looming problems, due to a complete lack of foresight/planning by TPTB:

        https://watt-logic.com/2024/03/04/gas-network-decommissioning/

        Couldn’t agree more, I like Kathryn’s blog and she is on podcasts too.

        Unless these issues are addressed, there’s not going to be much investment to keep the existing system running, let alone to modernise or upgrade it.

        Exactly I suspect we are not even addressing the additional maintenance from backing up renewables so will get to the point were forced outages cause a Enron style crisis like 2000s California and with all the large amount of electricity now being imported clearly reducing the capacity factor of the gas generation further I wonder how easy it would be for the owners to disassemble and sale some of the CCGTs abroad. I fear its going to take extended rolling blackout due to unplanned breakdowns before the TPTB address the issue. If that is the case I just hope it happens in the summer and not a 1947/63 style winter.

      • MikeH permalink
        March 14, 2024 12:05 pm

        PlatformZed: thanks for the link to the article about gas plant efficiencies. That does make it likely that much of the inefficiency of our existing fleet is down to the operating pattern forced on them by the growing penetration of renewables.

        The key question is how much better would this latest Siemens unit be under similar conditions? Being a state-of-the-art design it may well handle partial loads and rapid ramping much better.

    • pfgenergy permalink
      March 6, 2024 7:04 pm

      For a time is was illegal to use NG for large scale electricity Generation. Then when Politicians worried about the strength of coal unions NG became allowed and having our own source in the North Sea was a little helpful. Once the decision was made that we should switch to renewables (i.e unreliables) the need for back-up became essential. Tell us in non- Disney terms if not gas what should be used? Base load should of course be nuclear but we are now way off the say 40% or so nuclear that is required. So the answer for the rest of the base load requirement is clearly pulverised coal with SOX, NOX and particulate clean up. No COX that’s only for the delusional.

      • Joe Public permalink
        March 7, 2024 7:02 am

        ”For a time is was illegal to use NG for large scale electricity Generation.”

        Nearly correct. 😉

        The benign monopsony that was British Gas deemed that using the prime energy that it sold – natural gas – to generate *public* electricity was energy-wasteful, and banned its sale for that purpose.

        London Transport owned Lots Road power station to power the Tube. When natural gas arrived, Lots Road was oil-fired but was then fitted with dual-fuel burners and (as a private electricity generator) supplied with natural gas under an Interruptible-supply gas contract.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lots_Road_Power_Station

        It was OFGAS that deemed BG had no right to impose conditions on how Nat Gas could be used by consumers. Hence the early 1990s scramble for clean Nat Gas for (public) electricity generation.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        March 7, 2024 12:20 pm

        But nuclear is far more expensive. Why would you use that for baseload, it simply embeds high cost.

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 7, 2024 12:52 pm

        There are choices for baseload but the government has effectively ignored/banned the main contenders one way or another. So nuclear as baseload is more expensive than what?

      • March 7, 2024 2:03 pm

        But nuclear is far more expensive.

        My limited understanding is that – on a worldwide basis – nuclear is the cheapest form of large scale, dispatchable electricity generation, but this doesn’t apply in the UK. My guess is that the capital cost of the AGR construction programme increases UK price for electricity generated by nuclear, also the relatively short lifespan of AGR stations will be a factor.

        The cost of electricity generated by Sizewell B (PWR, not AGR) would be interesting reading.

        There are other posters here who will have detailed info re international costs for nuclear.

  10. Devoncamel permalink
    March 6, 2024 5:49 pm

    When ideology and sinister agendas trump reason. The powerful elites don’t care about the planet or us. They hunger for power itself ( no pun intended).

    • pfgenergy permalink
      March 6, 2024 7:23 pm

      True!

  11. John smith permalink
    March 6, 2024 8:41 pm

    We should never have got rid of all the coal generation
    Gas is better piped into a house for direct heating.
    It wiped electric heating out in the 1970/80’s

  12. catweazle666 permalink
    March 6, 2024 9:01 pm

    “It was cheap and quick to build”

    Four years, only a year longer than it took to build Calder Hall, the World’s first grid scale nuclear power station in the early 1950s, commenced in 1953 and officially opened on 17 October 1956…

    That’s progress…

    • March 7, 2024 3:51 pm

      Exactly. Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit 6 took just 39 months from construction start to first generation back nearly 40 years ago. It’s been downhill since then. The public enquiry into Sizewell B was actually longer to complete than the goddamn plant took to build!

      How on earth have we unlearnt and incapacitated ourselves so much over the intervening years is beyond me.

  13. Jack Broughton permalink
    March 6, 2024 9:44 pm

    The ideal approach is to use a set of aero-derivative OCGTs and a number of Heavy duty, high efficiency CCGTs as the back-up to the undependables. If we got fracking the CCGTs would massively reduce generation costs. Ah, but CO2 is worse than black-outs to the eco-freaks who control policy.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 7, 2024 12:21 pm

      Just do away with the renewables. They are all expensive and make the Grid far harder to manage.

    • March 7, 2024 3:56 pm

      Jack, I have been making your very point for several years now.

      Daft but this is what we have come to.

  14. glen cullen permalink
    March 7, 2024 4:34 pm

    Return to coal

    • March 7, 2024 5:49 pm

      Return to coal

      There are a lot of advantages, although the biggest issue is – probably – the lack of a UK coal industry i.e. we would need to rely on coal imports, with the associated risks to supply, although coal can be stockpiled at the power station.

      • glen cullen permalink
        March 7, 2024 6:18 pm

        Best we start digging then

      • pfgenergy permalink
        March 7, 2024 7:20 pm

        What about doing a joint scheme with Botswana. After all that country has a lot of unexploited coal and fewer useful idiots.

  15. March 7, 2024 6:15 pm

    Stop Press! We STILL have our own coal just waiting to be mined. The problem is not lack of coal, the problem are the hordes of useful idiots egged on by the marxists pushing the living in a cave “good idea”.

    • Vernon E permalink
      March 8, 2024 12:10 pm

      pardonme: Ever been down a UK super pit? I have, my son was British Coal’s youngest recorded Stsutary Undermanager and, believe me, you wouldn’t wish it on your worst enemy. That coal was hard won and getting harder. There won’t be another generation of miners.

  16. Gamecock permalink
    March 7, 2024 10:28 pm

    Y’all get out of design mode.

    • March 7, 2024 11:04 pm

      Okay GC you got me with that one. “Design mode” is, to me, a chrome editing feature – what’s the relevance? Or am I barking up the wrong tree (or just barking mad!).

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 7, 2024 11:59 pm

        Many people (and one bot) are sharing their wonderful ideas of how electricity should be generated, and what fuels should be used, designing how it should be done.

        It contributes nothing to the conversation.

  17. energywise permalink
    March 8, 2024 6:38 pm

    No, we need more CCGT to transition to nuclear

Comments are closed.