Paterson’s plan for CO2 emission reductions

Owen Paterson, who served as the UK’s environment secretary until a cabinet realignment during the summer of 2014, is planning to begin advocating a dramatic course change for his country’s energy policy. Instead of the wind-heavy plan that was developed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) in order to attempt to implement the legally binding goals of the UK’s Climate Change Act of 2008, he believes a combination of additional nuclear energy, natural gas, and demand management would be more affordable and more effective at reducing emissions while maintaining grid reliability.

As reported in an October 11 article in the Telegraph titled Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson, Paterson voted for the Climate Change Act in 2008 and publicly supported its provisions until recently.

Offshore wind farm

100 MWe maximum capacity

During a trip to the British countryside, Paterson saw for himself the massive disruption required by a system that includes a large portion of unreliable, low energy-density wind. He engaged with a number of electricity system and power generation experts to find out that the future grid as currently planned would also be incapable of meeting power demands around the clock.

The Telegraph article points out that achieving 2050 goals based on the current plan would require installation of an average of 2,500 large wind turbines every year for 36 years and is estimated to cost £1,100 billion. That enormous investment would buy a supply system that cannot meet emission targets or provide reliable electricity sufficient to meet the country’s needs.

Paterson’s proposal, as described in more detail in an accompanying October 11 Telegraph comment by Christopher Booker titled Global warming: Can Owen Paterson save us from an unimaginable energy disaster?, will include adding systems to existing natural gas-fired power plants that will capture their waste heat and use it for useful purposes. The usual terms applied to such systems are “combined heat and power” or cogeneration.

It will also include a plan to build numerous small modular reactors (SMR) that can be built close to load centers. Those SMRs will require less dependence on transmission lines and pylons than the capture of diffuse wind by enormous turbines that must be installed where the wind blows, even if that is hundreds of miles from where people live and work. In the article, the SMRs are described as being similar to the machines that have been built by Rolls Royce to power British submarines for the past 50 years, but I suspect that other SMR designs would also be considered.

Paterson will point out that the often touted technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) does not exist and may never exist in a form that enables affordable power production.

Both the existing plan and Paterson’s new plan rely heavily on computer driven grid management to reduce overall capacity requirements by cutting power to appliances at selected times of heavy demand.

Paterson’s plan will be more fully revealed in a speech scheduled to be delivered on Wednesday to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Hat tip to Scott Luft’s Cold Air Currents for pointing out the importance of this development in the UK’s continuing energy and climate discussion.

photo by: andjohan

Antinuclear activists are too modest

Jim Conca has published a couple of recent posts on Forbes.com about the premature closure of nuclear power plants in the United States. One titled Are California’s Carbon Goals Kaput? focuses on some of the environmental aspects of the San Onofre debacle; the other, titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone focuses on the […]

Read more »

Purposeful price pumping by constraining supply

James Conca recently published a commentary on Forbes titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business For Everyone. A major thrust of Conca’s initial post was highlighting the rapidly rising prices of electricity in New England that are being driven by an increasing reliance on natural gas as reliable power generators like the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant […]

Read more »

Helping people understand the power grid

Yesterday, the Institute for Energy Research launched a project to help people gain a better understanding of the electric power grid, a marvel of modern society that most people take for granted — unless its product delivery is interrupted for more than a few minutes. This information project is timely, especially considering all of the […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #220 – Atoms for California

Wind farm land impact is not limited to turbine foundation

Andrew Benson from Atoms For California contacted me last week to find out if I was interested in having a conversation about the history of nuclear energy in California, with a special focus on the history of the antinuclear movement in that trend-setting state. It sounded like a great idea for an Atomic Show so […]

Read more »

Amory Lovins-speak: Three misleading statements in a 15 second sound bite

I had the opportunity to be in the audience during the above talk. You might notice my impolite interjections; I have often been accused of being very poor at hiding my real reactions and feelings. There is a reason why I stopped playing poker during game nights on the USS Stonewall Jackson. I was losing […]

Read more »

Uranium supply concerns associated with EEU

Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to form a Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) on May 29. Uranium market watchers should pay close attention and understand the potential implications of the alliance on the stability of the world’s uranium supply, even though the alliance has been dismissed as unimportant by some media pundits. For example, […]

Read more »

Mark Cooper is wrong about SMRs and nuclear energy

Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School has published another paper in a series critiquing the economics of nuclear energy; this one is titled The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors are Part of the Problem and Not the Solution. It is not […]

Read more »

Existing nuclear plants are valuable and worth saving

Many currently operating nuclear plants are in danger of being permanently shut down due to temporary conditions including low, but volatile natural gas prices, improperly designed markets that fail to recognize the value of reliable generating capacity, quotas and mandates that result in certain types of electrical generators receiving direct monetary payments in addition to […]

Read more »

Vermont Yankee and B&W mPower – Victims of Wall Street Greed

Though it has been a little quiet here on Atomic Insights in the past few days, I have been working on some stories documenting financial maneuvers in the US energy industry — especially as it related to nuclear energy. You might be interested in reading Save Vermont Yankee. If not you, who? If not now, […]

Read more »

Should anti-fossil expansion movement align with pro nuclear movement?

On April 11, 2014, Roger Annis, a member of the Vancouver Ecosocialist Group, gave a talk at the University of California Santa Barbara. The talk was titled Oil, tar sands, coal, natural gas: What’s behind the expansion drive of Canada’s and North America’s fossil fuel industries? It is a fascinating talk with some excellent slides […]

Read more »

SMRs – Why Not Now? Then When?

I have shamelessly borrowed the title of one of the talks given during the first day of the Nuclear Energy Insider 4th Annual Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Conference as being representative of both the rest of the agenda and the conversations that I had in the hallways during the breaks. For the past five years, […]

Read more »