Presentation on theme: "Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey ( ) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnv Н.К.Тови М.А., д-р технических наук Energy Science Director: Low Carbon."— Presentation transcript:
Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey ( ) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnv Н.К.Тови М.А., д-р технических наук Energy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation Centre School of Environmental Sciences Renewable Energy Seminar Breckland 17 th January 2006 CRed
Total winter precipitation Total summer precipitation Source: Tim Osborne, CRU Change in precipitation 1961-2001
1979 2003 Climate Change Arctic meltdown 1979 - 2003 Summer ice coverage of Arctic Polar Region –Nasa satellite imagery Source: Nasa http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html 20% reduction in 24 years
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods - figures taken from Energy Review 2002 Difficult Choices Ahead Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct 2003 2004 2005
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Biodiesel/Bioethanol
Our Choices: They are difficult 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? >>>>>> 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?
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 attendant Security issues that raises.
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 We must not get drawn into a single issue debate – a rational debate covering all the alternatives is needed. Available Renewables: Nuclear: Conservation Local Small Scale generation saves 8.5% from losses in transmission An important advantage over conventional generation or far Offshore Wind
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. 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 CO 2. 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. Renewable Energy: The Issues Isnt Energy from Renewables unreliable? – we need secure supply
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
Electricity Options for the Future Low Growth Scenario Capped at 420 TWh 33% CO 2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990 62% CO 2 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 % CO 2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990 54% CO 2 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.
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 individuals 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.