Published below is a memorandum from the 'Red Lion Group' of 12 academics, to the Labour Party Shadow Energy Secretary, which sets out how Labour's support for new nuclear power prevents the achievement of its plans for renewable energy. This means that Labour's plans to give many £billions of state support for new nuclear power will merely replace cheaper renewable energy. The analysis was based on projections for energy demand used by the Committee on Climate Change.
Review of the CCC's projections of energy supply
and demand
Letter to Shadow Energy
Secretary from 12 academics and policy analysts
Dr Ian
Fairlie, consultant, former Government advisor (for correspondence)
Emeritus
Professor Andrew Blowers, Open University
Emeritus
Professor Dr Godfrey Boyle, Open University
Dr Tom
Burke, Visiting Professor, Imperial College and University College
Emeritus
Professor Dr David Elliott, Open University
Dr Philip
Johnstone, SPRU, University of Sussex
Dr David
Lowry, senior research fellow, IRSS, Cambridge, MA, US
Ms
Samantha Mason, policy advisor, PCS Union
Mr Peter
Roche, editor, UK Nuclear News
Professor
Andrew Stirling, FAcSS, SPRU, University of Sussex
Emeritus
Professor Steve Thomas, University of Greenwich
Dr David
Toke, Reader in energy policy, University of Aberdeen
Carbon
Reduction Targets
Labour has recently
announced plans to expand both renewable energy (RE) and nuclear power[1] to reduce carbon
emissions. But our projection below, based on key parameters set out recently by
the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)[2], demonstrates that Labour’s
targets for carbon reduction would be achieved more quickly and cheaply by
focussing solely on renewable energy (RE) and excluding new nuclear power. If a
Labour Government were to back more nuclear, this would mean less renewable
energy would be used. As discussed below, there is more than enough planned RE
available to meet CCC (and Labour) carbon reduction targets by 2030. Giving
nuclear power financial advantages over renewable energy through direct state
investment, Treasury loan guarantees, insurance indemnities and R&D support
will mean that taxpayers and electricity consumers will be paying more than if renewable
energy sources alone were used. According to the CCC’s recent report, using RE
to reduce carbon emissions reduces costs to consumers, whereas nuclear power
adds to them[3].
Renewable
energy potential
The CCC’s report says: ‘...
updated resource estimates, in line with other assessments, suggest potentials
for 29-96 GW of onshore wind, 145-615 GW of solar power and 95-245 GW of
offshore wind in the UK’[4]. (Other RE sources, such
as wave, tidal and biomass, were omitted by the CCC.) We can convert the CCC’s cited
potentials into annual power generation by applying the most recent available capacity
factors[5] as a guide to future
generation capacities. This is done by us in Table 1.
Table
1 – Our analysis of CCC’s estimates for potential UK renewable energy
generation
(for justification of
capacity factors -see endnote 4)
Offshore
wind
|
Onshore
wind
|
Solar
PV
|
Total
|
|
CCC’s “Low Capacity”
estimate (GWe)
|
95
|
29
|
145
|
269
|
Our assumed capacity
factors[6]
|
63%
|
30%
|
14%
|
-
|
Our Low generation
estimate (TWh/year)
|
524
|
76
|
178
|
778
|
Projected electricity demand
In
2018, the UK’s annual electricity generation was 335 TWh. Under its carbon
reduction plan, the CCC estimates UK annual electricity demand will be 365 TWh
in 2030 and 645 TWh in 2050[7]. These
figures take account of the increasing trend for energy in transport and
building heating sectors to be incorporated into the electrical power sector, where
it is more efficient[8].
Hence even using the CCC’s“Low Capacity” for wind and solar power, our key RE estimate
of 778 TWh/year from table 1 shows there would be considerably more electricity
generating capacity than that required to meet demand in both 2030 and 2050 –
even when other renewable energy sources (biomass, tidal, wave, etc) are excluded,
and even using the CCC’s lowest estimates for RE.
% Generation from RE: Labour’s Plan
for 2030
According
to the CCC: ‘Our power sector scenarios for 2030 include 75-85% of electricity
generation being met through low-carbon sources’ [9]. In fact,
Labour’s plans for RE already more than meet this, as Labour has projected 52
GWe of new offshore wind for 2030[10]. Taking
into account the increased capacity factors for the latest wind turbines, a new
52 GWe offshore wind fleet would deliver around 70% of the 365 TWh of
electricity demand projected by the CCC in 2030[11]. Added
to the 24% from existing renewable energy would amount to 94% of electricity
supply in 2030. Add Sizewell B’s contribution (2%) and there is not even enough
room for Hinkley C’s output (were it to ever overcome its manifest problems),
never mind onshore wind, solar PV and the other renewables.
More nuclear power would mean less
renewable energy
The
reality is that Labour’s renewable energy and nuclear plans are in conflict. Labour’s
plan to support more (highly subsidised) nuclear power would mean less (much
cheaper) RE being used, not less gas generation.Such is the potential for quick
and cheap deployment of renewable energy (whose costs are still falling) that Labour’s
targets would be easily achieved, even if the mooted Hinkley C were cancelled. Indeed,
in order to make space for Labour’s published RE plans, Hinkley C would have to
be cancelled. In our view, this would be a sensible step for other reasons,
including its spiralling construction costs, EDF’s poor finances, ever-lengthening
construction timetable, state security questions, its high electricity prices,
legal obstacles, and serious technical flaws yet to be resolved in its French prototype
under construction.
System
costs for renewable energy
According to the CCC report
which drew on work by Imperial College, the costs of integrating high levels of
penetration of fluctuating renewable energy sources could be reduced to ‘to
£20/MWh or below’ by measures of system flexibility[12]. The report adds ‘It is
worth installing wind up to the cost of alternative forms of generation (e.g. nuclear
or CCS at £70-80/MWh). Various analyses differ as to what this limit is,
although some studies have shown that overall system costs continue to decline
until penetrations reach over 80%’.[13]
Lower
RE costs
Offshore
wind contracts for £57.50 per MWh in 2012 were considerably lower than the (much
longer) contracts offered for Hinkley C at £92.50 per MWh (its 2012 price: in
2019, over £106). This nuclear contract was further supported by several £billions
of loan guarantees unavailable to wind or solar projects. In recent years, wind
and solar PV projects have been built for around £50 per MWh without government-backed
long-term contracts. Many more onshore wind and solar PV projects would be
forthcoming if offered long-term CfDs, and these would be for less than £50 per
MWh. Clearly, offshore and onshore wind and solar power are more cost-effective
than nuclear power. In addition, they can be added online more reliably and quickly
compared to nuclear plants.
[1]https://labour.org.uk/press/tory-energy-cancellations-risk-power-20-million-homes-rebecca-long-bailey/
[2] Committee on Climate Change(CCC) (2019) ‘Net Zero
Technical Report’
[3] ibid Table 2.3 page 43
[4] ibid, page 26
[5] That is, the percentage of potential power output
actually realised on an annual basis
[6] The latest 12MW GE wind turbine boasts a capacity
factor of 63%, bi-facial solar PV installed by Gridserve
will increase production
by 20% and new systems such as LiDAR are boosting onshore wind performance
[7] See CCC (2019) endnote 2
[8] see CCC report, endnote 2, for more details
[10]See David McPhee, 26/09/2018 ‘Labour pledge ‘seven-fold’ increase in offshore wind at
conference’
[11] This assumes an average capacity factor for the
offshore wind fleet of 56% - less than current ‘best’ of 63% (see endnote 6)
[12] CCC Net Zero Technical Annex (2019) , page 10 https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-Technical-Annex-Integrating-variable-renewables.pdf
[13]See CCC (2019) in previous endnote
