Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead

1. Renewable Energy Seminar Breckland 17th January 2006 Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead • Keith Tovey (杜伟贤) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnv • Н.К.Тови М.А., д-р технических наук • Energy Science Director: Low Carbon InnovationCentre • School of Environmental Sciences CRed

2. Future Global Warming Rates

3. Change in precipitation 1961-2001 Source: Tim Osborne, CRU Total summer precipitation Total winter precipitation

4. 2003 1979 Climate ChangeArctic meltdown 1979 - 2003 • Summer ice coverage of Arctic Polar Region • Nasa satellite imagery • 20% reduction in 24 years Source: Nasa http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

5. Difficult Choices Ahead 2003 2004 2005 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods - figures taken from Energy Review 2002

6. Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Biodiesel/Bioethanol

7. Our Choices: They are difficult • Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass. Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for next 20 years. • If our answer is NO • Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power • Are we happy on this and the other attendant risks? • If our answer is NO • Do we want to return to using coal? • then carbon dioxide emissions will rise significantly • unless we can develop carbon sequestration within 10 years which is unlikely If our answer to coal is NO Do we want to leave things are they are and see continued exploitation of gas for both heating and electricity generation? >>>>>>

8. Our Choices: They are difficult • If our answer is YES • By 2020 • we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS • imported from countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria • Are we happy with this prospect? >>>>>> • If not: • We need even more substantial cuts in energy use. • Or are we prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming? - the North Norfolk Coal Field? Do we wish to reconsider our stance on renewables? Inaction or delays in decision making will lead us down the GAS option route and all the attendantSecurity issues that raises.

9. Our Choices: They are difficult A diverse renewable supply will be local, and will be less prone to cascade power cuts such as those recently in US, London, Italy, Denmark. Conventional generation is based on large units: 500 – 660 MW enough to supply over 1 million homes. These do fail from time to time, and require much greater backup than required for the failure of a few wind turbines. A reactor trip at Sizewell B has an even larger effect ~1188 MW. Renewable generation is less prone to major interruption Local Small Scale generation saves 8.5% from losses in transmission An important advantage over conventional generation or far Offshore Wind We must not get drawn into a single issue debate – a rational debate covering all the alternatives is needed. Available Renewables: Nuclear: Conservation

10. Our Choices: They are difficult • BETTA has to cope with the loss of Sizewell B through a reactor trip. This loss amounts to around 1.5 times the total installed capacity of wind at present. • BETTA also has to cope with sudden changes in demand (up to 2.5 times Sizewell B) in a matter of minutes e.g. from TV scheduling. • Experience from Denmark shows that the normal maximum change in any one hour from Wind Output is no more than 18% on one occasion in a year. With a larger country area the figures for diverse wind generation will be less in UK. Renewable Energy: The Issues Isn’t Energy from Renewables unreliable? – we need secure supply • One will not save Carbon Dioxide because power stations are running in case they are needed. • There is very little truth in this. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted is dependant on the output of a fossil fuel power station. If it is running under low load it will emit only a very small amount of extra CO2. • Allowing for this, the effect of standby reserve will amount to a maximum of 15 – 20 gms per kWh of Wind Energy compared to 430 for gas or 1000 for coal. • A substantial saving is made.

11. Historic and Future Demand for Electricity Number of households will rise by 17.5% by 2025 and consumption per household must fall by this amount just to remain static

12. Electricity Options for the Future • Low Growth Scenario • Capped at 420 TWh • 33% CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990 • 62% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990 • 68 % increase in gas consumption • ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002 • Mix option: 6 new nuclear plant by 2025 • Mix option: 11% increase in gas • consumption (cf 2002) • High Growth Scenario • Business as Usual • 0.3 % CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990 • 54% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990 • 257% increase in gas consumption • ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002 • 25% Renewables by 2025 • 20000 MW Wind • 16000 MW Other Renewables inc. Tidal, hydro, biomass etc.

13. Carbon Emissions in Norfolk

14. Points to Consider • Global Warming will affect us all - in next few decades • Energy Security will become increasingly important. Inaction over making difficult decisions now will make Energy Security more likely in future. • Move towards energy conservation and LOCAL generation of energy It is as much about the LOCAL and individual’s response to use of energy as any technical measures Central Government may take. • Even if we are not convinced about Global Warming – Energy Security issues will shortly start to affect us.