Max Wallis – N.I.C.’s 2050 forward-look to meet ‘zero-carbon’ target – Jul 18

Renewables Okay with high Off-shore Wind and no Tidal-Lagoons. Nuclear Power Programme as costly and inflexible as new technologies come in.

The National Infrastructure Commission was created by Labour to hasten through major schemes deemed to have ‘national importance’. Parliament under Cameron gave it a wider role in strategic planning. This National Infrastructure Assessment — its first piece of work, is unrestricted by government remit. It plans the UK’s future power system, covering both electricity and heat to meet the 2050 zero carbon target. Vehicle fuelling is not covered, though a large addition of electric vehicles is envisaged.

Thumbs down for Nuclear Power; best to go for 80-90% renewables by 2050

It is optimistic about off-shore windpower, both in economic terms and as integrated into the generating and grid-distribution systems. It includes a particular assessment of the proposal for a ‘fleet’ of tidal lagoons, following the rejection of the Swansea Lagoon by Teresa May’s government.

Off-shore wind power is now cheaper than Tidal Lagoon and Nuclear, and will be increasingly economic — 2030s without subsidies — while lagoon power never becomes competitive.  Whilst tidal can be considered a more predictable source of generation than offshore wind, it adds additional constraints to the system as it is only able to generate power at fixed times of the day. This ‘gappy power’ leads to low load factors and 10.2 GW more tidal capacity to generate the same amount of electricity as the displaced offshore wind.

The study considers the UK’s power system as a whole.  Decarbonising heat is taken seriously – replacing natural gas either by hydrogen/green gas or switching to electrical-heating plus heat pumps.

A high fraction of renewable, 80%  or 90% is more cost-effective

• Renewable integration costs tend to be higher in a hybrid system where carbon targets are met by a mixture of renewables and nuclear
• High levels of renewable integration require a high degree of system flexibility
• This flexibility can be provided by:  Interconnectors / Storage / DSR / Fast-ramping thermal generation
• Nuclear is typically not a great source of flexibility due to high ramping costs

It recommends no further nuclear power plants, or not more than one further after Hinkley Point C, saying that investments could prove sub-optimal over the long term, particularly given the potential for rapid decline in costs of renewable sources and battery storage.  It finds that very high levels of renewable penetration (80-90%) allow us to reach carbon targets cost-effectively without new nuclear, providing further interconnector capacity is added and demand-side management used.  They include widespread introduction of electric vehicles, whose batteries may be ‘smart’, used for balancing purposes.

We can’t be satisfied that the capacity and diversity of marine energy devices — wave power, tidal current turbines etc. — are not covered. But this hard-headed report should set the direction of travel. Let’s pressurise MPs and on social media for the government response to endorse it.

Max Wallis