Thursday, 14 March 2019

The 100% UK Low-Carbon Electricity Gold Medal Goes to Nuclear - £71 Billion for 60 Years.

But what about 100% low-carbon electricity from wind and solar power with backup?

The UK uses 340 TWh of electricity every year. It is unthinkable that the German-ification of our landscape and near-shore seascape, from wind and solar farms, could be forced upon us here in the UK.

A reasonably 'sensible' choice of wind and solar might be:
Solar PV 10%; Onshore Wind 30%; Offshore wind 60%

Solar PV would cost £86 billion to generate for 60 years:

Onshore Wind would cost £115 billion to generate for 60 years:

Offshore Wind would cost £276 billion to generate for 60 years:

Fossil-fuelled CCGTs are used to backup renewables. At peak times of demand, regular periods of low wind and solar conditions need some 60 GW of CCGT capacity to guarantee supply. CCGTs would cost £50 billion to generate for 60 years:

100% UK Low[ish]-Carbon electricity generated from wind & solar + backup for 60 years, tots up to:
£527 billion

That is 7.4X the cost of 100% Low-Carbon electricity generated from nuclear power for 60 years:

7.4X the cost for renewables! Why? 

18X to 30X the use of precious materials and resources; massive use of fossil-fuelled energy every step of the way, from mining/quarrying, through transport, processing, manufacture and installation.

For those of us who love our countryside and seashores, we risk the horrors of a sorry reality: 1000X the scenic desecration, ecosystem destruction, species wipe-out and landfilled polluting/toxic waste-mountains.

Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, has mandated the Committee for Climate Change [CCC], chaired by Lord Deben, to dictate the technological path to meet a ‘Zero Emissions by 2050’ target. Beyond Hinkley Point C, 'New Nuclear' virtually disappears from the mix.

Proof, if proof were needed, that the CCC is manifestly pro-renewables/anti-nuclear. Its Chair, Lord Deben, tainted by his family links to financial income from bio-fuelled [i.e. renewable technology] Drax Power Station.

Philip Hammond' £1 trillion is well short of the cost of 100% decarbonisation via the CCC route. That £527 billion to decarbonise electricity can be increase threefold to decarbonise heating and hot water to buildings and decarbonise much of the transport sector.

Under £200 billion to do all of that using advanced nuclear - over £1.5 trillion using renewables:£1,500,000,000,000. 
Who pays? Every year, over the 30 years to 2050, that would be £2,000 per household.

Ignoring passively-safe, advanced nuclear power plants to get our nation 100% decarbonised by 2050 will drain family finances, crush our lifestyle choices and shrink business and industry with enormous job losses.

It will degrade the environment out of all recognition.
And it's the young members of all of our families who will pay the price.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Excellent work: I agree wholeheartedly with these comments
I think the energy break down should be 85% nuclear, 15% solar and wind
... give renewables 15% which is the maximum allowed