I was hoping that the learned folk on the forum might come forward with their own thoughts rather than I like that, I don't like that, and that it might help me fine tune.
The issue we have on energy is we have gradually moved our grid from almost 100% reliable energy and set it up in a way that prioritises unreliable energy - wind in particular but also solar.
All unreliable energy needs back up options, so even when the wind blows and as at 9:00am this morning wind produces 32% (solar is 0%) that means we don't just pay the wind, but we also pay the gas and coal that are on standby.
In January 2007 OFGEM published a document about reform of the Renewables Obligation scheme. That scheme transferred money from non-renewable generation sources to renewables - at that time almost all wind.
A subsidy for wind generation.
The argument went that:
We need cleaner generation.
Wind is more expensive but will eventually be cheaper as it is scaled up.
So we have to help it scale up by subsidy.
OFGEM in 2007 wrote
"We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn."
£30bn back in 2007!
We are still tied to these RO contracts and the Government didn't close the RO system until 7 years later when they moved to the system call Contracts for Difference.
The UK CfD system was recently analysed by the Canadian Climate Institute.
As a subsidy-based policy, the U.K.’s CfD has a unique financing structure in that it is ultimately paid for by U.K. power consumers
The CfD payments are funded by a statutory levy on all licensed electricity suppliers, with this cost eventually passed on to households and businesses through their power bills.
So these costs paid by us, indirectly have an effect on levels of taxation and borrowing.
The U.K.’s "independent" () Climate Change Committee, the official advisor to the government, has estimated that reaching the net zero commitment will require an investment of £50 billion (C$81 billion) a year by 2030, with much of this investment needed to replace older energy-related infrastructure.
So when Marco critiques the cost of my SMR proposal, what needs to be taken in to account is that we have huge current costs of subsidy impacting the debt, deficit and taxation and expectations of £50 Billion a year by 2030 if we are to effectively reduce the carbon footprint of our electricity grid.
I'm not a climate catastrophist. I accept we are warming. We should be. I think it's plausible that humans have had an impact, but unclear to what extent, but believe it prudent to act as if we have had some impact in as pragmatic way possible.
Because it is unreliable, needs subsidy support, and backup support, I do not believe that expansion of wind is the way forward.
I'm also concerned about the huge footprint on land or at sea that is required to develop a commercial windfarm.
SOLAR is just not productive enough in the UK, there are supply chain concerns, still that need for backup and I also believe that these solar farms are being used as a way to "in the name of green" convert pastureland to semi-commercial land that will get a nice little subsidy supported earner for 20 years or so and then allow the land to be more easily sold for housing development.
Gas is transition as far as electricity generation goes, so should not be demonised, but also shouldn't be expanded.
Nuclear seems the way.
Large scale nuclear is 15 years per project.
So being pragmatic, SMRs are the way forward.
They can be set up on old and existing sites and have a small footprint.
As for nuclear waste. If all the nuclear waste from the USA was piled up on a football field it would be about 25-30ft high.
It's not a huge amount.
Ours is less.
It's also not as dangerous as is often made out. The half life of the the most potent waste is short and those with the extended half lifes such as plutonium are barely radioactive.
Reply With Quote