Academics tell Labour that its support for nuclear power prevents it from achieving its own plans for renewable energy

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’

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-Technical-report-CCC.pdf

[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

[9]See CCC (2019) endnote 2, page 43

[10]See David McPhee, 26/09/2018 ‘Labour pledge ‘seven-fold’ increase in offshore wind at conference’

https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/182463/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