UK Energy Reset! (GWPF/Net Zero policy bait) – Better with that?

Repost from MasterSource

By Robert Bradley Jr. – March 29, 2022

“Renewables must be placed in the same position as other generators, with no subsidies and no incentive dispatch, and will ultimately be restricted.”

“… The government should be candid with the public and focus relentlessly on replacing older combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) with new models that are more heat efficient (and therefore cheaper and cleaner) ) and on increasing the UK’s onshore and offshore natural gas production. . ”

The UK (and the EU at large) is unfounded as a failed battle against consumer-chosen, consumer-chosen mineral energy. Sustainable energy is affordable, reliable, abundant energy – and wind and solar are not.

Net Zero Watch of Global Warming Policy Fund are doing yeoman’s work in identifying UK/EU energy failures in real time. Their latest is “Taking back control: Solving the UK energy crisis. ” Highlights from the opening by John Constable and Andrew Montford verbatim. (I also have an editorial comment on the kernel.)

Main attractions

• The UK energy system is dysfunctional and on the verge of collapse.
• Further expansion of renewable energy sources will worsen our dependence on gas; Currently only gas can support renewable energy.
• There is no alternative to increasing the efficiency of our gas fleet and diversifying the sources from which we obtain natural gas.
• Radical action is needed to stabilize the system and lower consumer prices.
• Renewable energy must be located in the same position as other generators, with no subsidies and no incentive dispatch, and will eventually be restricted.
• A long-term strategy from gas to nuclear is wise, [1] But given the critical state of the UK power grid, the use of supercritical coal may be necessary to keep the lights on if nuclear falls behind the country’s timetable.

——————————

This paper outlines the policies needed to restore the economic and technical efficiency of the GB power system and the energy sector as a whole. These counter-intuitive measures will cut costs for consumers in the short term.

They will also improve system stability and energy security, and prepare the field for medium and long-term reconstruction to address system failures that are now common, making the system more resilient. acceptable level of reliability, while further reducing prices for consumers. such as reducing carbon emissions.

Measures are practical and difficult; they acknowledge that the UK’s current severe exposure to natural gas is, paradoxically, the result of climate and renewable energy policies over the past two decades. The plan also acknowledges that dependence on gas is irreparable in the short term, as only gas can support the large renewable energy fleets we have built, battery storage is completely uneconomical and is likely to continue to be so. We are too dependent on gas and must address this dependence by improving the efficiency with which we use this fuel and expanding the range of sources we derive from it.

In the short term, there is no alternative to gas, and instead of pretending otherwise, with its distractingly optimistic remarks about nuclear, which is relevant only in the medium to long term, and naive plans poetry on complementary renewable energy, which will only prolong and deepen the current crisis, the government should be candid with the public and focus unceasingly on the replacement of combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) older by new models that are more heat efficient (and therefore cheaper and cleaner) and on increasing the UK’s onshore and offshore natural gas production. .

This will come as a surprise to many, but it is an inevitable conclusion from the engineering and economics of our situation. Indeed, the goal of increasing fuel diversity while cutting consumer costs requires the UK to reduce its renewable energy supply and restore the efficiency of the conventional energy system we have completed. entirely dependent on security, despite large investments in solar and wind power.

Principle Recommendations

• Rapid and proactive development of all domestic fossil fuel supplies, especially North Sea gas and oil, as well as land-based shale gas.
• Quickly upgrade and expand generation fleets, improve thermal efficiency and reduce power generation costs.
• Use UK foreign policy and market power to secure long-term natural gas supply contracts from friendly sources.
• Rapid reduction of subsidies and system balancing costs through the imposition of cost balancing of renewable energy, corporate power contracts and rebates for subsidized benefits. These measures should be supported by clear plans, if other measures fail, for the compulsory discount acquisition of temporary state ownership and subsidy rights in all products. previously subsidized renewable energy.
• Only use renewable energy when saving fuel and gradually reducing renewable energy supplied to the power system when building a new conventional generator, restoring the system’s efficiency, reducing the cost of balancing the system. system and reduce the need to expand the unused network.
• Solid yet sound support for new nuclear power generation in the long term and most importantly for new high temperature modular nuclear reactors for industrial heating, reducing gas demand nature.
• Planning for new supercritical coal production as a medium-term support step if nuclear power is behind schedule. Decisions in this direction are now inevitable and will have to be taken by the UK government at some point in the future, and as soon as possible if economic and national security catastrophe is to be avoided. serious family. Unless the policy is reformed, system reliability and security will begin to plummet and consumer prices will continue to rise rapidly.

The program of measures that we outlined is difficult and difficult; The consequences of timidity in action will be much worse.

Conclusion

One operator acknowledges the need to increase our current use of natural gas, nuclear and coal, and to restore the efficiency of the system, with a medium-term outlook of generating more nuclear more, perhaps with more efficient coal as an insurance policy, would provide truly diversified fuel, security and cost reduction in the short and medium term.

Such a party will survive and be well-deservedly popular. Conversely, a party that fails to take radical action in this fashion will, at best, only delay the calculation date, and ultimately be liable for the consequences.

[1] Note: I disagree with this statement: “A long-term strategy from gas to nuclear is wise….” Ditto for “Strong but wise support for new nuclear power generation in the long term and most importantly for new high-temperature modular nuclear reactors for industrial heat supply, reducing gas demand natural burning.” The nucleus must compete in a free market without subsidies – it should not be given an ideologically free ride.

—————

John Constant, Energy Editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum, has been described as a “strong critic of the Government’s energy policy”, warning that “the transition to renewable energy will cause the economy shrinks”. His testimony against the UK’s Net Zero policy is this.

Andrew Montford is the Deputy Director and board member of the Global Warming Policy Fund and Net Zero Watch.