No Dash For Gas: campaigning slogans trump engineering realities

If you were serious in your desire to decarbonise electricity the first thing you ought to do is get some at least rudimentary understanding of electricity grids actually work. Such efforts however appear to be too much for campaigning groups such as No Dash For Gas. Consider this recent tweet from them:

A novel idea indeed. Of course what No Dash for Gas fail to realise, or will not admit, is that the choice is not between renewable energy and new gas or coal, it is between renewable energy and new gas, or new gas. (Naturally, No Dash for Gas are not particularly keen on nuclear power either.) Now, you could say this is just a limitation of Twitter, 140 characters and all that. However, I have looked through their website and they appear to be opposed to all new gas plants. A position that is well meaning, but foolish in almost every respect.

As I wrote the question is not whether we build new gas plants, but how many we build. It is a simple problem: wind farms do not provide reliable round the clock electricity, often total UK wind farm output goes down to around 1% of total capacity. If we go a few days in winter with very low wind speeds where does No Dash for Gas expect we get our electricity from? Energy storage is almost certainly not going to help us, while interconnectors appear to off some, but not much help. There can be occasions when there are very low wind speeds everywhere in Northern Europe, and in these circumstances who exactly will be able to export excess wind power?

So, this leaves us with a clear need to build new gas plants. How many do we need? A recent report published by Greenpeace and WWF can give us some idea.

This report intended to show that electricity from offshore wind was better for the UK economy than natural gas, instead it seemed to only demonstrate the flaws and inconsistencies in Greenpeace’s and WWF’s policy positions. First consider that the report’s scenarios involved building new nuclear power plants. This fact was not mentioned once, and you can draw an obvious conclusion: Greenpeace and WWF did not expect excluding nuclear would have given them the results they wanted. Otherwise why did they not have scenarios without nuclear power?

And what does the report say about gas plants? Well, there are two scenarios that can be called High Gas and Low Gas. These scenarios involve exactly the same number of gas plants on the grid, for the simple reason that you will still need the gas plants for when the wind is not blowing. In fact, as I calculated here, the total number of gas plants you would probably need in a “No Nuclear & Low Gas” scenario are almost identical to the total number of gas plants to be built in George Osborne’s much feared dash for gas.

So, simple engineering realities. If you say no to nuclear power you will need a dash for renewables and a dash for gas plants. Sadly, engineering realities never make for snappy campaign slogans.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “No Dash For Gas: campaigning slogans trump engineering realities”

    1. Here’s the UK’s total wind power from Jan 2010 through October 2012:

      http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html

      As you can see, even if you multiplied wind tenfold there would still be multiday periods when wind isn’t covering more than a small fraction of demand. And even adding enough PV panels to pave the island wouldn’t change that at night. As far as I know, the UK doesn’t have any geothermal worth mentioning.
      So, unless you’re going to also add a vast amount of electricity storage, there’s no such thing as “ENOUGH renewables”.

    2. The CEO of Florida Light and Power was saying that intermittency is not much of a problem at the current scale of solar and wind, which is small, and remaining so for some time to come even with current high growth. Perhaps it may be a problem when they are at a huge scale. But he doesn’t even have to think seriously about that scenario, because it’s not going to occur for awhile, if ever.

      There is nothing in the post to justify the idea of dispensing with nuclear. It was posted at Climate Progress, which is usually good for a regular hit of Getting Rid of Nuclear, for those hooked on that drug. I guess Bill just assumed that “clear exposition” directly from his prior expections right into the article.

  1. Hey, Bill (Linton), i have a [London] bridge that i can sell ya’……ye intrestit ???!

    One of the loonies on ‘Think Progress’ says that with Indian society being able to function even though they have loss of electricity supply for a couple of hours a day makes a mockery of the argument that renewables can’t supply (electrical) energy for all due to it’s intermittency……oh well, there’s thinking and there’s progress for ye – back to the stone age (in reality).
    Anyone would think they have an agenda (21).

    JS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s