New gas power plants needed to bolster energy supply, PM says
By Paul Homewood
Have they finally woken up?
By Justin Rowlatt
Climate editor, BBC News
The UK needs to build new, gas-fired power stations to ensure the country’s energy security, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Tuesday.
The new stations would replace existing plants, many of which are aging and will soon be retired.
But the government says the plans do not include measures for climate change-limiting carbon capture.
That could threaten a legally binding commitment to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, critics say.
Mr Sunak, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said new gas power stations were needed to have a reliable and affordable back-up for days when renewables like wind and solar did not deliver.
"It is the insurance policy Britain needs to protect our energy security, while we deliver our net zero transition," the prime minister wrote.
The decision, which Energy Security Secretary Claire Coutinho will outline in a speech at Chatham House in London, is part of a wide-reaching review of how the UK’s energy market works.
But the Green Alliance think tank said it "flies in the face" of the government’s promise to reach zero-carbon electricity by 2035.
The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit said falling North Sea output would leave the UK ever more dependent on foreign gas.
Labour accused the Tories of leaving the UK facing another 10 years of high energy bills, but acknowledged retiring gas-fired stations needed to be replaced.
Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband said: "The reason the Tories cannot deliver the lower bills and energy security we need is that they are specialists in failure when it comes to our clean energy future."
He accused the Conservatives of "persisting with the ludicrous ban on onshore wind, bungling the offshore wind auctions, and failing on energy efficiency".
Liberal Democrat energy and climate change spokesperson Wera Hobhouse said that announcement was "another step backwards on the critical road to net zero".
"We need to wean ourselves off this reliance on expensive fossil fuels by investing in cheap, clean renewable power and insulating every home," she said.
Energy security
The government did not give any details about when or where the new power stations would be built.
The government says the new plants will guarantee energy security, ensure low electricity prices in the future and rid Britain of the need to rely on foreign dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"A nation that is dependent on the whims of dictators for its energy supply can never be truly safe," Mr Sunak wrote in the Daily Telegraph
The government says it expects more and more of the UK’s electricity to come from renewable power in the future but says it cannot be relied on completely.
So, as existing gas power stations are retired, they will need to be replaced with new ones, better suited to the requirements of an increasingly decarbonised energy system.
The new plants will be capable of operating efficiently for just an hour or two at a time to fill in the gaps from other power sources, the government said.
The plan is they will be built by private investors.
The government said it will change the law to ensure the new plants would be capable of being retrofitted to burn hydrogen or to be fitted with carbon capture and storage technologies in the future.
The government says its plans are in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), its independent watchdog on climate.
The CCC has said a "small amount" of gas generation without carbon capture is compatible with a decarbonised power system.
It has estimated that might amount to 2% of annual electricity production.
But Liam Hardy, a senior policy advisor at the Green Alliance think tank, said the decision to build new gas plants without carbon capture "flies in the face" of the government’s promise to reach zero-carbon electricity by 2035".
"Every new gas power plant built in the UK will make bills higher for consumers in the long run while increasing the risks of runaway climate change," he said.
Greenpeace said the government’s plans would "make Britain more dependent on the very fossil fuel that sent our bills rocketing and our planet’s temperature soaring".
"The only route to a low-cost, secure and clean energy system is through attracting massive private investment to develop renewables and upgrade our aging grid," said Doug Parr, policy director at the campaign group.
Meanwhile, Jess Ralston of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warned that the new power plants would not reduce the UK’s dependence on foreign gas.
"The North Sea will continue its inevitable decline with or without new licenses leaving us ever more dependent on foreign gas unless we lower demand," she said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68538951
.
The Government still naively believes they will only need this back up for the odd hour or two:
The new plants will be capable of operating efficiently for just an hour or two at a time to fill in the gaps from other power sources, the government said.
But at least it is a glimmer of recognition that we can never rely on intermittent renewables. Which is more than can be said for the assorted cranks and opposition politicians which the BBC has lined up to criticise the decision. (You will note that I have highlighted all of these critics in red – it is the usual BBC tactic of giving full publicity to critics of Tory policy, but absolutely none to supporters of it; or for that matter an analysis by actual energy experts.)
In particular, why has not the BBC challenged Ed Miliband, to ask him exactly how his plans will provide backup?
They have also effectively supported Miliband’s claims that gas power will keep energy bills high. Why did they not challenge his assertion, and point out that it is renewable subsidies, largely due to his Climate Change Act, which are adding £11.5 billion to bills this year?
.
As for the crooked ECIU’s claim that “falling North Sea output would leave the UK ever more dependent on foreign gas”, I can only assume it is some sort of joke. It is the same ECIU, which has been arguing for years that the UK should end any new development of North Sea oil and gas, as well as demanding a ban on fracking.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Too little, too late, wouldn’t you say?
Yes I would. They will be forced to use tax payers’ money to build them, since commercial concerns wont be able to raise the finance on the market. But the green government services wont let them use tax funding, so we’re all going to suffer domestic power cuts and reduced industrial activity.
No private investor will touch this given that the ROI will just not stack up….unless of course there is a wad of cash courtesy of the taxpayers to bribe them just as there is for unreliable energy.
No. Not too late. It’s a likely outgoing government playing a wild card to put a new government on the spot. Coutinho announces plans for gas and makes it even worse for believers by also saying there are NO plans for CCS on the new plants. Now the new government comes along and has to take the decision to cancel the plants. Which might go down well with millitwits – until the power cuts start. It’s the Tories leaving a ticking bomb behind. Classic. But they won’t get me back in the fold with that….
It couldn’t be more obvious from the comments in this article that people need to stop voting for the Con/Lab/Lib Uniparty.
In the Telegraph version of this story, Sunak seems to suggest that the new, unabated gas power stations he plans to build could be taken out of service by 2035!
“Under the proposals, which will be announced by Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, on Tuesday, the Government will extend the life of existing unabated gas power plants and support the building of new ones to supply power until at least 2035 through a mechanism ultimately paid for by household energy bills”.
I wonder how he would have got on (or how he will get on next year) trying to sell a capital heavy large scale investment project to Goldman Sachs and which has a life of only ten years. Any subsidies will be challenged by the CCC and other greenies and likely judged illegal.
The only possible financial justification might be if investors were to take a chance on screwing the government and people in the early 2030s as electricity cuts become challenging.
This reminds me of Sunak’s supposed backpedalling of six months ago on the mandated dates for heat pumps and EVs. He eased the pressure off the public by a few years but kept it firmly on the industry suppliers.
I have been saying for some time that Sunak (and the Uniparty) will never scrap Net Zero. He is just marking time until he gets the order from above to impose the WEF/UN Great Reset: https://principia-scientific.com/what-rishi-sunaks-recent-net-zero-back-pedalling-really-means/.
Time to open some new pits to mine the most reliable electrical generator.
I don’t think we have suitable uranium to mine in this country!!!!
Ha, ha, ha…
Our coal is: deep, thin, and fractured.
Australian, Canadian, and Indonesian coal is: surface, thick, and uniform.
In short, UK coal would be 10x the cost to produce, compared with surface strip-mines that have seams 15 meter thick.
(The mine I worked in had seams just over 1 m thick, that were some 500 to 700 m underground. It was almost impossible to work.)
R
Time to open some new pits to mine the most reliable electrical generator.
Our coal is: deep, thin, and fractured.
Australian, Canadian, and Indonesian coal is: surface, thick, and uniform.
In short, UK coal would be 10x the cost to produce, compared with surface strip-mines that have seams 15 meter thick.
(The mine I worked in had seams just over 1 m thick, that were some 500 to 700 m underground. It was almost impossible to work.)
R
Any proposal that’s so unanimously opposed by that list of green, virtue-signalling to***ots must be a great idea.
By any logic, his next initiative in this new-found mission to protect our energy security etc (aka ‘saving the Tories at the election’) would surely be to go full-steam ahead with fracking.
Sorry, I was just day-dreaming there!
…. from the nursery rhymes, ‘ he said she said they said ……..’ and then the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all had their say. But in this modern world ( no longer meritocracy ), I said I would and I did, so I came, I did and I Made and took, so I did, and the job was conquered, but we do not live happily ever after - because of those PLONKERS … All they ( in the Uniparty ) can do is raid and pillage. It is a Rape of civilisation
Gas Plants are not the answer, we need basic Fossil Fuels like oil/coal to overcome the problem created by the GREEN TALIBAN, Milliband and all the Socialists that with to destroy the economy really do not know their necks from their elbows. Green & Nett Zero is a fallacy which is impossible to reach unless the Green Taliban destroy all western economies, revert to the old power station syst4em and put DRAX back onto a coal furnace for immediate benefit. One thing that has not been thought of is the Tidal Flow water turbines which will produce on 24/365 and not seen to destroy agricultural land or despoil the oceans. Labour/Socialism are jumping on the likes of the Soros Bandwagon to sell the country to the highest bidder. See Rochdale put a COMMUNIST INTO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, George Galway was always a Communist and now stoking up Muslim against Christian, perhaps he would like us to go back to 646 AD to prevent the spread of Christs teachings, and burn wood and dung, mobile phone wont work George.
Unfortunately tidal flow turbines do not produce 24×7, but only when the tide is flowing. That is dependent on tide times, and the strength of the current varies with the phase of the moon and across a tide too: there is a substantial period either side of slack water at high and low tide where the flow is inadequate to turn the turbines. The end result is that at best you might get around 30% average capacity factor, but in practice rather less, because tidal turbines need frequent maintenance because the sea is a cruel master, and the times of peak output will shift with the orbit of the moon. The size of tidal turbines is limited because the difference in current strength between the top and bottom of the rotor area leads to substantial stresses and oscillating forces on the hub which speed wear, so achieving economies of scale is very hard.
Moreover, the power produced is very flickery because of wave action and eddy currents and differential current flow at different depths. Even the small turbines in operation are effectively required to produce via a battery to smooth their output: that adds cost and reduces efficiency. Tidal stream is the most costly of all the technologies being offered CFDs: the Administrative Strike Price is £261/MWh in 2012 prices, or about £365/MWh today. It shows no sign of being economically viable any time soon, and every sign that it will never be.
Tidal works adequately in France and other places.
Basic engineer can solve all those problems and in combination with dams the flow can be smoothed out.
I take it that you are none scientifically or Engineering trained?
Tidal flow will be a lot more stable than wind/sun and during flow water can be diverted to a power house and constant flow water to generate power, a fraction of the cost of wind/solar
Time to fly in the face of the Green Alliance, methinks.
So the U-turn is starting, far too late, worryingly the costs are going on our bills, I wonder what the ROC is for a gas generator that only runs one or two hours a day. It is about time OFGEM got some balls and protested at the exorbitant costs to the consumers, but that is never going to happen while Brearley is in charge. So SNAFU is still with us.
The ROC will be 8% (or whatever). The question is, what will we have to pay for them to achieve that? We basically have to pay for the capex of the CCGT, which is fine, as we would have to pay that anyway. Opex will be a bit higher as running it off and on is not optimum at all, so our bills go up for that. But then of course we have to pay for the renewables as well. So our bills are higher by the capex of the renewables less any difference in opex between renewables and gas.
You have to pay the full fixed cost for the CCGT, not just the cost of capital.
Including full staffing, as it is unknown when the extra generation will be needed.
Then you have to keep the employees. Imagine a job where you may do DOUBLE-OUGHT NOTHING for days.
The idea gas is at the “whim” of dictators is laughable. We could import large quantities from all over the place, not least the US. And Sunak says that, whilst his government is committed to get huge numbers of solar panels from China! And where does he think the copper we need for Net Zero comes from, let alone the cobalt?
And all the while he makes us more and more dependent on the ultimate, capricious dictator, the wind!
Indeed. We are now at the whim of green loonies. UK was once, and could be again a Net energy exporter. Just got to allow drilling, pumping and digging. but these are banned in the UK by the Green Uniparty. Vote them all out!
The plan is they will be built by private investors.
Not a chance of that happening as investors have this thing called Return On Investment. So, like Germany, it will be the government who will have to fund these but we have the advantage of not having to obey state aid rules set by the EU. Although in saying that, I believe that there will be something about state aid in the agreement with the EU.
It’s perfectly possible. Look at renewables or water or Heathrow. The government simply mandates the return and sets bills accordingly. Water charges are set by the Regulatory Asset Base model – the operator gets to spend capital on agreed things, then gets a return on that plus the operating costs. CCGT could be exactly the same.
Yep. The Govt guaranteed water monopolies get guaranteed bonuses and payments for doing the least work possible. End the Govt support for these monopolies and mandate that a national water grid be built to bring in competition. Its easy to link the rivers and canals and finally (Victorians designed one) let water from the Severn valley be sold to london.
Private investors WOULD invest, if they could guarantee the gas-fired station would run 24/7.
Trouble is, they will still be giving renewables preference, yet again, so the station would sit idle for days on end. Nobody will invest in such a stupid proposal.
Plus – where will the gas come from?
Is Stupid Sunnak going to allow fracking? What is the point in depending upon gas from Algeria and Oman, who can then turn our lights out at will? Just as Russsia did to Ukraine some years back?
And what about storage? It was Mediocre May or Barking Boris who closed our underground gas storage facilities. Are they going to be refurbished and opened again? Will the Tory party pay for their absurd (and expensive) decision to close these facilities?
Will Gordy Brown ever pay back the £billions he lost, when selling our gold? Why is Parliament plagued with brain-dead idiots? Why is Gordy’s pension not being docked by 80% each month?
R
@gezza1298
Not “the Government”! All UK taxpayers and energy consumers will be forced to pay!
But anyway, don’t get me wrong! I am definitely on your side! Best wishes from Denmark where our Government very religiously believes in “net zero” but, at last, may be beginning to see the error of its ways and halting some bizarrely costly plans for the “impossible net zero!” 😂
All fine and dandy but capacity market was suppose to underpin future investment but nobody was interested even when 15 year contracts at £75/MW were available. This will now need a much bigger incentive and in all reality can’t be done before election so won’t happen. Then we will have Milliband who won’t countenance such a policy and by the time the oower crunch comes it will be too late and he will have long gone.
Im not sure we even have a Churchill politician being a lone voice here calling out the folly of all this. Ive declared myself agnostic in climate change but if you are to have a bet zero goal it needs be realistically deliverable without cisting consumers more. No mainstream political party oasses that test.
only the stupid Justin Rowland and the once great BBC could ever have written and published such awful garbage!
Absolutely. Rowpratt by name.
The realisation of the absurdity of Net Zero is slowly gathering pace. It’s been obvious for many years, flagged here and elsewhere, that there will be a need for lots of back up for these renewables.
Another reality is the need for a massive increase in transmission lines if the plans for full electrification of the UK goes ahead. Here residents have hit the reality of what this aspect of NZ means to them and many others up and down the country, and they don’t like it.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/locals-clash-national-grid-plans-build-forest-pylons-countryside#comments
And a massive increase in energy storage facilities, to go renewable.
If Dinorwig could be expanded to hold 30 gwh, then we would need 600 Dinorwigs to guarantee power during non-renewable days.
How long will it take, to build 600 Dinorwigs?
And at what cost?
R
Where would you build 600 Dinorwigs?
Not in any National Park so that counts out the Lake and Peak Districts, Devon and Cornwall. So Wales and Scotland for 595 Dinorwigs. A lot of bribery would be required. Also to put numbers into perspective there are less than 290 Munros and 222 Corbetts. So Scotland would have more pumped storage dams than mountain peaks over 2500 feet.
Once you’ve done all Munros and Corbetts you can go onto Dinorwigs.
Renewables and storage are beyond parody if it wasn’t so serious
Precisely.
There is insufficient space, and the cost would be prohibitive. But renewables will not work without stored backup. And the true cost of renewables is not complete, without this large element.
Dr McKay (Renewable Energy Without Hot Air), suggested that we use low level pumped storage. ie: flooding all the Scottish glens and Welsh valleys. But I think the Scots and Welsh may have something to say about that.
The Royal Society suggested we use hydrogen underground storage, but that is problematic too.
The bottom line, is that renewable will not work without stored backup – and that needs to be included in the final cost and construction time-line.
R
Well covered by Ross Clark: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/who-is-going-to-pay-for-rishis-new-gas-power-stations/#comments-container
Energy bills could be reduced right now by removing the “green” tax that everyone pays through their energy bills.
“We need to wean ourselves off this reliance on expensive fossil fuels by investing in cheap, clean renewable power“. The cheap, clean renewable power which has made the UK Electricity Price the second highest in Europe ? (source – Household Energy Price Index)
Miliband is typical of the champagne socialists in charge, they have accumulated massive wealth thru salary earnings beyond their capabilities, picking up “consultancy” roles where their insider knowledge can be put too use. It matters not a jot to them if Energy costs eat up 20, 30 or 60% of peoples earnings – once Labour get into power, Heating, Lighting or Eating will no longer be a occasional slogan- it will be a daily fact of life.
Eh??
I thought the whole idea of Net Zero was:
all renewable electricity by 2035.
all renewable energy by 2050.
SO they are only a couple of years into the project, and already cannot make it work?? Was anyone thinking?? I said this would not work, in an article back in 2004..!
This is the problem with having dullards in Parliament.
Can you imagine Dianne Abacus as chancellor? (which nearly happened).
R
I can imagine it unfortunately.
That could threaten a legally binding commitment to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, critics say.
So their alternative plan is?
Repeal the legally binding commitment to zero energy security, welfare or quality of life.
Thats the first step to solving the problem.
Only vote for those who will sign a pledge (dont take their lying word for it) to campaign and vote to repeal the insane climate change (sic) Acts.
“That could threaten…critics say.”
“Good!” says this critic. Although I am not quite sure how one threatens a commitment: “If you do not become noncommittal, all your good intentions will be shot!” “Ve ‘ave WAYS of making you flexible!”
Alternative plan?
Greta the Gremlin says you need a mud hut and a hair shirt.
Get used to it – the Dark Ages are comming.
R
“That could threaten a legally binding commitment to cut carbon emissions…”
I wish to God they would STFU about “legally binding”.
It’s only legally binding until the government of the day summons up the backbone to repeal it. Under our constitution<i>nothing</i> is legally binding on a successor government.
The commitment is only there because this bunch of numpties wants it to be.
I suspect it could be stopped or become unenforceable without repealing it as its clear parliament never intended this legally binding commitment to excuse the secretary of state and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority of their duties under the Electricity Act 1989.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/section/3A
We have government policies (electrification of space heating & electric vehicles) that no rational person can believable claim won’t increase electricity demand and the law (Electricity Act 1989 Section 3A) explicitly requires the relevant secretary of state to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met and to consider future consumers.
We then have 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.
“…many of which are ageing…”
ALL of which are ageing – as are we all.
Thx. I was uncomfortable with their ‘aging’ comment, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. You nailed it.
Perhaps Sunak has read this petition by thousands of American scientists urging the US Government to abandon their Net Zero.
http://www.petitionproject.org
My wife (now deceased) and I signed the petition so many years ago about 9 years after it was started. We got a fast connection to the internet in the fall of 2008. The Project was not well monitored so a few “green types” bombed it with false names and information, such as Charles Darwin and the Spice Girls. There are well over 30,000 names and 9000 with Ph. D.s.
I don’t recall the term “Net Zero” being around back then.
The US Government really hasn’t embraced Net Zero. It’s no more than Leftist prattle here.
The little known Heritage Party is on the money with its manifesto. Meanwhile, the Reform Party is owned and run by Richard Tice. I wonder if Lee Anderson has made the right decision joining it.
The BBC is on a roll.
Bananas are set to get more expensive as climate change hits a much-loved fruit, one of the world’s top experts from the industry tells BBC News.
Pascal Liu, senior economist at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, says climate impacts pose an “enormous threat” to supply, compounding the impacts of fast-spreading diseases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68534309
Cavendish is virtually the only species of banana grown globally and replaced Gros Michel which was hit by disease in the 1950s.
Bananas are grown in the warm regions of the world, where “warming” is supposed to be least. A little warming will expand the regions where they can be grown. There are many types other than Cavendish. One can buy the corms (rhizomes) and some produce plants just 4 m. tall with fruit only a little bigger than a large person’s thumb. I grew one in a large container. When it touched the ceiling at home, I took it to the local university and placed it inside the glass doors of the building where my wife taught. A great learning experience.
The Telegraph ran this story as their lead article earlier this morning. Now it has been replaced by some filler about Megan and is nowhere on the online feed. Quality Press.
The article timed at 12.01 am. A limited hang out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-new-gas-power-stations-blackout-risk-net-zero/
This announcement isn’t a serious policy change, it’s electioneering.
The fake Conservative imposters know the election jig is already up and they can’t make this decision and sign it off before the GE.
Ultimately it’ll be a decision for Ed Miliband and his left-wing goons, and we all know how stupid he is.
It’s all about damage limitation for the coming GE.
Anyone with a modicum of energy understanding knows this – the UK’s existing gas & nuclear plants are due closure mid 20’s to late 30’s – renewables cannot power a nation without unsourceable, unaffordable storage, or coal/gas/nuclear/ back up, regardless how much it can get via interconnectors – it’s not rocket science
Is the idea of the small gas powered stations to allow greater/faster expansion of renewable energy stations?
Fast startup plants are required to facilitate the wild output surges of renewables. In pre-frontal situations the wind generators and solar are pumping out KW’s at a high rate. As the front passes, wind momentarily drops and no solar. How does the scheduler fill the sudden shortfall, fast startup gas..Most of the old gas plants don’t have this feature.
Thanks John, I get the idea of the small fast start up gas stations and why we need them but I was thinking that it was really a kind of quick fix to allow a further expansion of renewables until they sort out the problem of storage. It seems like the worst of all worlds. Ideally these gas stations won’t operate at all but we still have to pay for them – so more subsidies. Once again, as with windfarms when the wind is blowing strongly but we don’t need the electricity we are paying generators not to generate. Seems crazy. I worked out once that we have a generation overcapacity of about 75% and all that overcapacity has to be paid for even when it’s not doing anything.
The new stations would replace existing plants, many of which are aging and will soon be retired.
Wut? Run ’em til they seize. The owners will decide if they are aging and/or will soon be retired.
This is stupid. A country in need of generation shouldn’t be replacing any generation. Add WITHOUT replacing.
There are folk on here with knowledge and expertise in the power plant field: would it be practical to “re-engine” an existing gas plant?
This has not been mentioned, afaik, so maybe it’s not feasible but it would be interesting to get some opinions. While the turbine itself may not last much beyond 30 years, it may be that many of the other systems would last much longer: the generator itself; cooling systems; switchgear; buildings; transformers; etc.. Has anyone done a proper engineering study of the possibilities? If feasible, it would be quicker and much cheaper than building a whole new plant, plus a new turbine would offer better efficiency.
You’re spot on Oom….., a small number of “quick-start” stations are always needed for any grid system to counter normal fluctuations. But relying on greater numbers of them to fix bad generation planning is wasteful and where there’s waste there’s cost. Planners have been dreaming about efficient storage methods for a long time but to date…..and a lot more dates I suspect
I presume that these conceptually welcome new power stations will have to be made abroad somewhere since we have closed all the proper factories that could do it?