Sanjoy Sen is a chemical engineer. He contested Alyn and Deeside in the 2019 general election.
Much has happened in the two months since Sir Keir Starmer took office. So much so that it’s easy to forget that some pretty fundamental energy decisions were taken early on: solar (yes), onshore wind (yes), oil & gas (no but also yes). Whilst it’s worth looking into the implications of these, let’s also reflect on what didn’t make the headlines – and why that matters.
What are the implications of recent changes?
Ten years ago, you couldn’t find a less likely adopter of solar power than me. That wasn’t due to some deep-rooted, ideological stance: I just happened to own Britain’s least suitable roof. Small, badly shaped, and located in Aberdeen, I was never going to be picking up many rays. But fast forward to last year and I’m living further south. And with post-Ukraine utility bills spiking, I took advantage of plummeting solar prices to finally get some panels on the roof.
So, am I an eco-convert here to preach to the ConHome congregation? Well, my bills are certainly down and my investment will pay back – eventually. But there are only so many times I need to run the dishwasher on a summer’s day.
That means a large chunk of my self-generated watts gets sold back to the grid for pennies along with everyone else’s rooftop surplus. And, of course, there’s no free power to be had on those long winter evenings when households need it most. The battery pack, a pricey optional extra, would have balanced up consumption between day and night but it can’t store up months of energy.
The inescapable reality is that irrespective of how many panels we install, thanks to Britain’s northerly latitude, our solar power will always have a very low annual load factor. Barely 10 per cent, in fact. So, whilst Ed Miliband has just signed-off on three major solar farms and declared a rooftop revolution, their overall impact might yet prove pretty minimal.
It’s a similar story with wind. It’s intermittent everywhere but UK load factors are noticeably higher offshore (40 per cent) than onshore (26 per cent). And whilst the UK has tremendous offshore wind resources (some of the best in the world), many of our hilliest, windiest land sites are already home to turbines. Despite a lifting of the de facto ban, we might struggle to generate significantly more power from onshore wind.
But it’s oil & gas that might yet prove to be Miliband’s biggest headache. The ban on new licences has already infuriated unions. And reduced domestic output leaves Keir Starmer (who boycotted the 2022 World Cup over Qatar’s human rights record) ever more dependent on imports from the little petro-state. Conversely, the approval of controversial, outstanding projects (Cambo, Rosebank) risks incurring the wrath of the green lobby.
What do we need to be getting on with?
Government surveys show the British public remains concerned about climate change. There’s also strong support for renewables. The trouble often starts when the question shifts from the abstract to reality: many folks still don’t want the stuff built near them. Solar farms, onshore wind, and the associated pylons look likely to run into considerable opposition. And if that starts to eat up a sizeable chunk of political bandwidth, there’s a danger that the critical, big-ticket energy items get overlooked.
It’s hard to exaggerate the challenge facing the power generation sector. Population growth and a shift towards electrification (of transport and heating) look set to double national power demand by 2050.
But we’ve been losing, not gaining, baseload capability in recent years with our last coal-fired power station set to close this September. (Luckily, we still had a few left back in winter 2022 otherwise things could have got extremely challenging). And nuclear has declined to such an extent that when the much-delayed Hinkley Point C finally comes on line, it will essentially substitute the reactor capacity lost since construction began.
Governments of all stripes have all made the worst energy decision of all: not decide at all. The UK has been avoiding the inevitable for decades and if we are to avoid a crunch, we need to start taking decisive action pretty swiftly. That’s likely to involve nuclear, be that much-delayed mega-projects or the potential growth area of Small Modular Reactors where Rolls-Royce sees significant export opportunities. Worryingly, however, the Sizewell C funding decision looks set to get pushed out yet again. Great British Energy (their idea) and Great British Nuclear (our idea) need to get working together.
None of this is to overlook renewables. We just need to recognise we’re not Spain where solar panels have an annual yield twice ours. Or Texas where vast tracts of land have been given over to onshore wind turbines. All our aces are offshore, chiefly in wind but also with a significant wave and tidal potential. And that’s where our focus needs to remain if we are going to deliver the giga-watts of capacity required.
As more renewables pile on to the grid, power output (and frequency) becomes increasingly unstable. In response, we’re beginning to see proposals emerge for new, subsidised gas-fired power stations to kick-in when it’s neither sunny nor windy. That’s not the cheapest nor even the greenest way of doing things. Better therefore to start taking energy storage seriously.
Hydro-electric pumped storage is the leader in this field but there are other technologies out there that could be worked up, including mechanical (compressed air, flywheels) and thermal (‘liquid air’, sand) solutions. Batteries can be effective at tackling short-term (in-day) imbalances especially if the ever-growing army of electric cars can balance supply and demand via vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G).
But the major concern is seasonal storage. There’s much debate as to what (if anything) hydrogen should be used for but one option could be to convert excess renewable power into hydrogen that can be stored in salt caverns and consumed months later.
For years, we have heard that tackling emissions is our key priority. In reality, we need to constantly balance a complex energy trilemma of emissions, energy security, and consumer bills. After all, were it all about fixing global warming, the answer would be easy: we’d be purchasing solar panels for Africa and using their blazing sunshine to clean up their coal-heavy power grids.
Sanjoy Sen is a chemical engineer. He contested Alyn and Deeside in the 2019 general election.
Much has happened in the two months since Sir Keir Starmer took office. So much so that it’s easy to forget that some pretty fundamental energy decisions were taken early on: solar (yes), onshore wind (yes), oil & gas (no but also yes). Whilst it’s worth looking into the implications of these, let’s also reflect on what didn’t make the headlines – and why that matters.
What are the implications of recent changes?
Ten years ago, you couldn’t find a less likely adopter of solar power than me. That wasn’t due to some deep-rooted, ideological stance: I just happened to own Britain’s least suitable roof. Small, badly shaped, and located in Aberdeen, I was never going to be picking up many rays. But fast forward to last year and I’m living further south. And with post-Ukraine utility bills spiking, I took advantage of plummeting solar prices to finally get some panels on the roof.
So, am I an eco-convert here to preach to the ConHome congregation? Well, my bills are certainly down and my investment will pay back – eventually. But there are only so many times I need to run the dishwasher on a summer’s day.
That means a large chunk of my self-generated watts gets sold back to the grid for pennies along with everyone else’s rooftop surplus. And, of course, there’s no free power to be had on those long winter evenings when households need it most. The battery pack, a pricey optional extra, would have balanced up consumption between day and night but it can’t store up months of energy.
The inescapable reality is that irrespective of how many panels we install, thanks to Britain’s northerly latitude, our solar power will always have a very low annual load factor. Barely 10 per cent, in fact. So, whilst Ed Miliband has just signed-off on three major solar farms and declared a rooftop revolution, their overall impact might yet prove pretty minimal.
It’s a similar story with wind. It’s intermittent everywhere but UK load factors are noticeably higher offshore (40 per cent) than onshore (26 per cent). And whilst the UK has tremendous offshore wind resources (some of the best in the world), many of our hilliest, windiest land sites are already home to turbines. Despite a lifting of the de facto ban, we might struggle to generate significantly more power from onshore wind.
But it’s oil & gas that might yet prove to be Miliband’s biggest headache. The ban on new licences has already infuriated unions. And reduced domestic output leaves Keir Starmer (who boycotted the 2022 World Cup over Qatar’s human rights record) ever more dependent on imports from the little petro-state. Conversely, the approval of controversial, outstanding projects (Cambo, Rosebank) risks incurring the wrath of the green lobby.
What do we need to be getting on with?
Government surveys show the British public remains concerned about climate change. There’s also strong support for renewables. The trouble often starts when the question shifts from the abstract to reality: many folks still don’t want the stuff built near them. Solar farms, onshore wind, and the associated pylons look likely to run into considerable opposition. And if that starts to eat up a sizeable chunk of political bandwidth, there’s a danger that the critical, big-ticket energy items get overlooked.
It’s hard to exaggerate the challenge facing the power generation sector. Population growth and a shift towards electrification (of transport and heating) look set to double national power demand by 2050.
But we’ve been losing, not gaining, baseload capability in recent years with our last coal-fired power station set to close this September. (Luckily, we still had a few left back in winter 2022 otherwise things could have got extremely challenging). And nuclear has declined to such an extent that when the much-delayed Hinkley Point C finally comes on line, it will essentially substitute the reactor capacity lost since construction began.
Governments of all stripes have all made the worst energy decision of all: not decide at all. The UK has been avoiding the inevitable for decades and if we are to avoid a crunch, we need to start taking decisive action pretty swiftly. That’s likely to involve nuclear, be that much-delayed mega-projects or the potential growth area of Small Modular Reactors where Rolls-Royce sees significant export opportunities. Worryingly, however, the Sizewell C funding decision looks set to get pushed out yet again. Great British Energy (their idea) and Great British Nuclear (our idea) need to get working together.
None of this is to overlook renewables. We just need to recognise we’re not Spain where solar panels have an annual yield twice ours. Or Texas where vast tracts of land have been given over to onshore wind turbines. All our aces are offshore, chiefly in wind but also with a significant wave and tidal potential. And that’s where our focus needs to remain if we are going to deliver the giga-watts of capacity required.
As more renewables pile on to the grid, power output (and frequency) becomes increasingly unstable. In response, we’re beginning to see proposals emerge for new, subsidised gas-fired power stations to kick-in when it’s neither sunny nor windy. That’s not the cheapest nor even the greenest way of doing things. Better therefore to start taking energy storage seriously.
Hydro-electric pumped storage is the leader in this field but there are other technologies out there that could be worked up, including mechanical (compressed air, flywheels) and thermal (‘liquid air’, sand) solutions. Batteries can be effective at tackling short-term (in-day) imbalances especially if the ever-growing army of electric cars can balance supply and demand via vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G).
But the major concern is seasonal storage. There’s much debate as to what (if anything) hydrogen should be used for but one option could be to convert excess renewable power into hydrogen that can be stored in salt caverns and consumed months later.
For years, we have heard that tackling emissions is our key priority. In reality, we need to constantly balance a complex energy trilemma of emissions, energy security, and consumer bills. After all, were it all about fixing global warming, the answer would be easy: we’d be purchasing solar panels for Africa and using their blazing sunshine to clean up their coal-heavy power grids.