Campaign against Climate Change

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee is calling for the forecast energy gap mostly to be filled by a new wave of gas-fired power stations.

The EAC's Sixth Report has concluded that a quarter of the UK's power generating capacity will need to be replaced by 2016 but new nuclear build could not begin to contribute before this date, and therefore "The potential generating gap will need to be filled, largely by an extensive programme of new gas-fired power stations, supplemented by a significant growth in renewables. Contrary to popular belief, a further ‘dash for gas’ would result in significant carbon savings." Tim Yeo MP, the Chairman of the Committee, commented: “The reality is that many more gas-fired power stations will be needed by 2016 to keep the lights on – whether we like it or not." (1)

The report itself specifies: "we will inevitably be dependent on new CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] plants for most of the 15GW to 20GW of new generating plant we will need by 2016." (2)

Is this fossil fuel appeasement? Can we tell any other country not to build large-scale open-flue fossil fuel plants if we go on building them ourselves?

The EAC's assessment is based on energy companies' assertions that older coal-fired as well as nuclear capacity will need retiring by 2016, and that the CO2 per kWh of UK's gas-fired stations is around 40% that of existing coal-fired (3).

Behind this headline assessment it should be noted that the additional demand created by a new generation of CCGT stations is likely mostly to be met by imports of liquified natural gas (LNG), which have higher life cycle emissions than that piped from source, and require new infrastructure, with terrorist hazards as well as enviro implications (4,5). An LNG terminal at Milford Haven and new pipeline are already being built.

The EAC appears to have been influenced by:

(i) The British Wind Energy Association's submission stating that wind and wave/tidal could achieve around 20% of UK output by 2020, and 8% is likely by 2010.

However the BWEA has previously stated that the UK's electricity needs could be supplied 3x over from offshore wind and 5x from onshore, while Greenpeace has said that 80 square miles of offshore wind and wave would be sufficient (6). The slowness is blamed on capital, infrastructure and planning difficulties. But hey, the UK invested huge sums in equipment, infrastructure and supplies over 6 years to defeat the Nazis, so what is really so insurmountable about getting those wind turbines up over 10 years?

Are the BWEA now pulling their punches because of the vested interests of major energy companies among their members?

An oft-cited problem with wholesale wind energy is the expected supply shortfall during winter anticyclones (foggy weather). But why not keep our coal-fired capacity online to make up at such occurrences using biomass?

(ii) FoE's submission advocating an 'interim' shift from coal to new CCGT stations (7) as a step down the road to reducing emissions. But since we are still in the realms of setting examples on how to reduce emissions, what would happen if many other countries did the same? What would happen to those gas prices? And won't we see a rebound back to coal as gas sources are depleted faster?

The only way to show true leadership is to make massive investment in wind and wave as the most salient feature of our energy policy.

Sources:

(1) www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvaud.htm
(2) www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee..., Sixth Report, parag. 123.
(3) ibid, parag. 127.
(4) www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congr..., tables 1-3
(5) www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/ page on natural gas.
(6) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1651496.stm
(7) www.foe.co.uk/resource/consultation_responses/evidence_to_house_of_commo....