My leader last week on our ailing energy infrastructure elicited a number of comments from readers, including these responses from independent writer and commentator on energy matters, John Houston and technology analyst, Nick Cook. I have pleasure in reproducing them in full:
From Mr John Houston:
First, I should make it plain that I not only welcome the creative engineering that the quest for energy is provoking, but I also wholeheartedly support the concept of developing apparently environmentally friendly solutions, such as tidal lagoons.
There is one overarching factor, however, that could scupper seaboard schemes and take the wind out of the sails of more established green energy installations, and that is time. As you very accurately stated in your editorial leader on the topic, planning alone takes an age, while some experts have predicted that it will be impossible to deliver even on established nuclear generation technology before 2020.
Output from wind farms is notoriously inefficient, there remain many technical impediments still to be properly resolved and while onshore farms - such as the new one currently being commissioned near Dungeness on the Romney Marsh - are relatively quick to build, the more effective offshore plant is expensive and much more time consuming to install. This is but one reason why certain projects are on hold - notably the Thames estuary scheme with its £1.5bn London Array wind farm (originally proposed to have 270 turbines spread over 245 sq km).
Fascinatingly, however, where once planning consent for wind farms was approved at a rate of perhaps a dozen schemes a year, there are currently tens of schemes, not only rushed through to approval, but also in build. Only a cynic would suggest that there are votes in wind generation and a neat posture for our Kyoto partners too.
The concept of offshore tidal lagoons is captivating, but I very much doubt we will see potential delivery before 2020 and I would also want to understand the impact of such developments from both an efficiency/output prediction and environmentally from a shoreline erosion perspective.
The fact remains that nuclear power probably remains the key to future generation in the medium term. It is greener than gas or coal fired stations, more efficient than most deliverable water powered systems and offers far greater output than wind generation. On the premise that "needs must where the devil drives", nuclear power seems still to represent the pragmatic answer given that we have so little time to consider or develop other means before the lights start to go out.
Even if we accept the strength of the nuclear lobby's arguments, there remains the question of locating the wherewithal to deliver new stations. The thorny topic of sites for stations was raised in the editorial and certainly even existing sites, such as Dungeness for example where there is both infrastructure and environmental precedent, are not foregone conclusions for new build. At the same time, since it is decades since UK engineers were last involved in the construction of a nuclear station, it looks likely that the expertise and technology (and probably also the manpower) will come from France or Germany.
Some parts of Britain are already net importers of energy - almost entirely from France - so it is no surprise that country's and the world's largest energy company Edf has taken such a commercial interest in UK energy provision. Without wishing to appear cynical, one has to suppose that since Edf is a key player in the discussions about the UK's future energy generation, that French technology, French equipment and French engineering labour will enjoy a potential bonanza once the practically inevitable decision to invest in nuclear power is made.
This is not sour grapes on my part, rather it is yet another lament for Britain's greatest lost cause - the recognition and development of its engineering talent. Anyone with an iota of knowledge of the energy scene - rising consumption through huge growth in both domestic and commercial electrical goods, rising costs in terms of fossil fuels, diminishing fossil fuel resources - has been able for decades to see that we need more power. Against the backdrop of greater environmental awareness and our apparent commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we once again are acting too late.
So, before the lights dim too much to see ahead, let those in Government's corridors of power find a fast track route to increasing energy output before the short term necessity closes other avenues to power.
John Houston
John Houston is an independent writer and commentator on energy matters and has published numerous white papers and articles on all aspects of energy. He can be contacted by email to john@houston-associates.com
From Mr Nick Cook:
Firstly, I am not a great fan of nuclear because I believe that if we integrate the available RE (renewable energy) sources, energy use and energy saving technologies in the right way we should not need nuclear power.
Secondly, on the subject of the Severn Barrage, the 8.6GW refers to the peak output, the average is given as 1.95 -2.17GW (which is where the 5% of UK power - at ~45GW average - is derived) and for the lagoon implementation it is 2.75GW. However the 4+GW of Drax represents its nominal average (base load) output, i.e. about double the barrage.
The other point I think is worth considering is that the cost of the barrage is currently estimated at about £21bn, about £10 per Watt (average) which is pretty high by any standard. Personally, I think the lagoon system may have another possible advantage. I haven’t examined the technology in any detail but I think it would be more adaptable than the barrage to hybrid operation, i.e. combining both tidal and pumped hydro storage technology. If we are to expand our RE from intermittent sources such as wind, wave and solar then we are likely to need significant amounts of energy storage and long term pumped hydro can be very cost effective.
One quick point referring to “cleaner fossil fuel burning plant”, I believe the way forward here is the use of DCFC technology. And judging by the time scales required for nuclear, let alone the lack of resources, DCFC may well be a quicker option. Converting Drax to DCFC would probably increase its output about 2.5 times for the same coal input. Also, provisional figures I’ve come across regarding capital plant cost makes it one of the cheapest at significantly less than $1/W, which would probably make it economically worthwhile scrapping the current plant at coal fired powered stations.
A final point about nuclear. I saw an ad in my local paper jobs page a few months ago advertising for engineers to help in the decommissioning of our existing nuclear power stations and proudly announcing that they had over £60bn allocated for the task. When you consider the amount of nuclear power this adds quite a few pounds extra to the effective capital cost/W, I think this highlights my point.
Nick Cook
Nick cook is a technology analyst and electronics engineer. He can be contacted by email to nikpcook@yahoo.co.uk