A thread on nuclear in the UK, in light of the unsurprising, although disappointing, decision by Hitachi to walk away from Wylfa....
Our analysis @EnergySysCat finds that the strategic case for nuclear remains robust. We think it is likely low regrets to commit to 10GW of nuclear beyond HPC (there is a recording of an excellent webinar discussion of the findings at the link).
That case has weakened a bit in recent years, due to the remarkable success of renewables. Offshore wind will likely be the workhorse of the power system in the coming decades, and our ability to manage a 'windier' is improving all the time, although much more needed.
And you CAN get to Net Zero without nuclear. Our landmark Innovating to Net Zero analysis tests some options. If you don't do nuclear, you are likely to need a significant amount of Gas CCS (not exactly straightforward). Chart below shows 100 power sector simulations.
You are also relying on a lot of speculative measures to Get To Net Zero (diet change, reduction in aviation demand, land use, direct air capture etc).... Full report linked below es.catapult.org.uk/reports/innova…
And yes, you can also construct scenarios without either nuclear or CCS, but you are likely to need 100GW of wind and 100GW of solar and a lot of backup (58GW of hydrogen fired power stations, say, up from zero today). Not impossible, but again hard work....
So the central challenge for nuclear now is how do you get the costs down to make it more competitive. There are two broad options:
1. Switch from current developer-led model, you switch to a more programmatic approach to large-scale nuclear projects. You capture learning when you move from project to project. This is the approach that was successful in South Korea. es.catapult.org.uk/reports/nuclea…
We have an opportunity to test this with the upcoming decision on Sizewell. Learn from HPC, and push for significant cost reductions in build (that is before you consider financing, which is also important). This is where Government needs to be closely scrutinising plans.
2. Reducing build costs by making as much of the plant in a factory as possible. Turn nuclear into a product, not a series of bespoke projects. We recommend, over the next 5 years, a new stage-gated programmes for such Small Modular Reactors and advanced Gen IV reactors.
Such a programme should be tailored towards future system needs -- there is also potential that such reactors can help provide heat and hydrogen production, where the Net Zero challenge is even harder than in power. See this @LucidCatalyst report lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report
If I was in Government's shoes, I would pursue both options. It may be that we learn one is not feasible in the coming 10 years and step away. At the same time, we need to pursue significant market reform to test the potential of 'flexibility', inc. whether consumers are keen.
Either approach needs a clear focus on cost reduction AND quality. Not always clear parts of the industry have taken the first bit seriously enough.... The long term aim ought to be to try and get nuclear power built by the market, not through huge Governmental negotiations.
And it may be that renewables plus storage (inc. hydrogen) is the right future power system. But there is significant uncertainty about that right now. And, in my view, the global challenge of Net Zero is too significant to be taking large-scale options off the table now.
The essence of the nuclear debate for Government is the same as it always was, whether they really WANT to do it. You can't be half-in with such a technology....
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Get incentives right between electricity and gas. Right now we are subsidising pollution in domestic heat. Various options out there and government has committed to deliver.
2. Create a longer term tech neutral obligation on building owners or suppliers. This will encourage combination of techs.
That is harder politcally, and not straightforward policy design. Which is why we have subsidies focused on particular tech choices.
A personal thread on retrofit, on a train journey after attending one of the Government energy efficiency taskforce sub-group meetings (for avoidance of doubt, these are my views and no way reflect the discussions that took place)....
I still feel the wider debate is too caught up in technology tussles or pointing at different future scenarios with big numbers.
This is all about people (call them consumer, voters, citizens or whatever).
If people don't accept low carbon heating, it will not happen.
As @Laura_Sandys always says 'Consumers have a veto on net zero', particularly on their homes.
One of the most exciting projects as part of the hugely ambitious Prospering from the Energy Revolution programme was @_Project_LEO in Oxfordshire. Doing the hard yards turning the smart system we all put on a powerpoint into something real....
The team (which include @ssencommunity) has just released their final report. You can find it here (the website is well worth an explore)...
Among the many sensible recommendation around data and market reform, delighted to see a push on Local Area Energy Planning. We @EnergySysCat have done lots of work on this and see it as a key enabler of the transition
Reports today that one idea the Government is considering to deal with the winter energy crisis is allowing GPs to 'prescribe' vulnerable patients help with their energy bills.
Cue universal condemnation. A thread on why I think this is a good idea...
Some context. Even without the current horrific bill rises, fuel poverty is a significant and persistent problem in the UK.
Even with Government directing c.£2.5bn a year on trying to address fuel poverty and some progress since 2010, it still hovered above 13% of households in 2020 (obviously this winter the numbers will be much, much worse).
So, had a chance to smash through the Net Zero Strategy and the Exec Summary of Heat and Buildings Strategy.... Some updated thoughts on what it means for low carbon heat sector.
As I mentioned earlier the regulatory/market edges, if they survive consultation, are potentially game-changing:
✅intention to phase out the installation of new natural gas boilers from 2035
✅Future Homes Standard in new build 2025 (10 years too late, but still welcome)
✅Rebalancing energy prices [between gas and electricity] to ensure that heat pumps are no more expensive to buy and run than gas boilers.
✅Off gas grid 2024/26 no new high carbon installations for non-domestic, domestic properties
What to make of Heat and Buildings Strategy announcements? (will update once the actual strategy has been released)
Three tests for me:
❓will it make it easier for consumers to switch to low carbon heating
❓will it encourage the businesses/heating engineers we @EnergySysCat work with to switch their focus to low carbon installs
❓does it enable local action
The £5k grant really helps with one and two.
The current Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) is a complex mess, where only people who can afford the upfront cost benefit.