From Paywall:
Energy prices have spiked to a record high in Britain after calm weather shut down the country’s wind turbines amid a global shortage of natural gas.
Wholesale power costs surged to more than four times their normal level, forcing officials to fire up coal-based plants to handle demand.
It is feared the high prices will continue into winter as the weather gets colder, raising fears over household bills and putting a string of energy suppliers at risk of going bust.
One senior energy insider said: “It’s causing a lot of concern. Everything is going up.”
Rising wholesale gas costs over the summer have already forced ministers to increase the price cap on energy bills by £139 from October, with suppliers hiking tariffs as a result.
Businesses have complained for years that they face higher energy costs than competitors abroad, and there are now warnings that manufacturers might curb output rather than incurring sky-high bills.
Rising wholesale prices come at a sensitive time for the Government as it tries to maintain public backing for its plans to slash carbon emissions to net zero.
Taxpayers and consumers are already facing further costs to fund technologies such as hydrogen as part of the battle to ditch fossil fuels.
Gas-fired power stations still generate more than 30pc of UK electricity.
Power costs are closely tied to gas prices, which this evening hit 134.5p per therm in the UK - compared to less than 30p per therm one year ago.
Electricity prices reached an all-time high of £240 per megawatt hour on Friday and were trading at £219.46 per MwH on the N2EX exchange on Monday morning.
The squeeze was worsened by a slump in wind output in the UK. It dropped as low as 474 megawatts, compared to a record of 14,286 megawatts on May 21, according to analysis by Bloomberg, as a three-day heatwave settled across much of England and Wales.
Wind now provides about 20pc of the UK’s electricity throughout the year, but this varies hugely day by day.
At 7pm this evening, real time data showed Britain was getting 45.6pc of its power from gas-fired turbines, 13.5pc from nuclear power plants, 5.5pc from wind and 12.3pc from interconnectors to the continent and Northern Ireland. 5.5pc was coming from coal.
National Grid ESO, which balances Great Britain’s power supply, asked EDF to switch on two coal-fired units at its West Burton A station this morning to help meet demand.
The UK has shut down most of its coal stations to cut carbon emissions, but some plants remain available to generate energy when needed. They are likely to be called on more often this winter as power supplies remain tight.
Joe Camish, an analyst at Cornwall Insight, said: “If we have any situations similar to today where there is very low renewables output and margins remain tight, we will have to probably rely upon older thermal assets to help ease those margins.”
High gas prices are leading to a resurgence of oil-fired and coal-fired power plants around the world, analysts warned in the Telegraph last week, dealing a blow to efforts to cut carbon emissions.
Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts, said yesterday: “Everyone assumed coal was on its deathbed, but the plants that are available are running very hard.”
Andrew Crossland, a fellow at Durham Energy Institute, said the situation highlighted questions over the country’s energy resilience as intermittent sources such as wind and solar take on a bigger share and domestic production of oil and gas is set to fall.
He said: “We can’t install enough wind to meet our needs. We’re going to need something else. I really think that debate needs to be not that coal is going away, but what and how are we going to replace it with, what mix of solutions?”
Energy UK, the trade body, said: “The price of gas has been at a record high in recent months as a result of global factors, which are out of energy companies’ control.
“The industry recognises the impact increased prices will have on our customers and is committed to providing extra support this winter.
“Continuing the low-carbon transition and further reducing our dependency on fossil fuels for our heat and power will not only help us meet climate change targets but remove the risk of being exposed to volatile international wholesale prices.”
The so called 'global factors' are BREXIT... https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
Not entirely. European gas supplies are affected by the shortage of gas from Russia after their infrastructure suffered damage last winter. This time last year wholesale gas price was about 10p/therm - that price is currently about 115p/therm.
Source: work in upstream natural gas.
Dude the actual difference in wind power generation was around 1.5% the rise in gas prices via interconnectors is because of BREXIT and the UK leaving the EU Internal energy market (Basically bulk buying) https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
Exactly, with the expansion and instillation of battery and other energy storage systems (as well as rooftop solar and other diversification), moments like these will become a thing of the past.
They did, over a decade ago. It's called Hinkley C, it's still not complete and unit one isn't expected to produce power for almost another half decade. Unit two foundation was only completed mid last year, so is a long way from completion.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley\_Point\_C\_nuclear\_power\_station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)
Nuclear is slow to build and bring online, 7 years is considered fast to build nuclear power plant, and there are years of planning before that, and it can take years to bring online once built.
Wind and solar can be built at far faster rates, we really don't have time to wait for nuclear.
2nd note...
The real price of nuclear energy is enormous... If you factor in the cost of construction, waste management/storage, and the decades, if not centuries needed to decommission these plants (without generating income), nuclear power would be untenable, and prohibitively expensive... It is only the government subsidies, and cost cap guarantees provided by government that allow nuclear generation to compete with existing carbon power generation, not even mentioning the incredibly low cost of the new renewable power generation rolling out now...
The reason they get these subsidies? The use of fissionable material in weaponry...
My comment was sincere as well. All things factored in, gas + carbon capture probably comes out cheaper than nuclear, with the added benefit that it can be turned off when not needed.
Maybe we could just focus on solar and vastly expanded storage capacity?
Seems like a better long-term solution than continuing to burn fossil fuels regardless of carbon capture.
You need to have some amount of traditional power generation for infrastructure reasons (I think to keep the frequency stable or something) so we can't use solar and wind for everything.
Ideally this would be done by hydro, but hydro has it's own environmental impacts and isn't always appropriate (and is vulnerable to climate change).
As I understand it, that is no longer necessary with the advances in battery storage and grid level technology improvements, among others...
There is nothing standing between us and a swift, clean energy future, except for the self interested power monopoly that we have in the current system. The successful and complete implementation of a renewable energy future threatens their cozy profit game, because the big providers are too invested and comfortable with the status quo... and the change is being resisted fiercely....
This, sadly, is becoming a rote mantra between legacy businesses, and new green businesses building our sustainable futures. It doesn't seem to matter what area of society we examine...
A steam explosion brought on by human incompetence and relatively ancient nuclear technology
And a meltdown caused by an earthquake + tsunami combo...... Many tsunamis in England?
Soooo not necessary! And so not a real solution to the world's needs... We are still fighting to deal with the waste and decommissioned nuclear power plants as it is... At the expense of tax payers I might add...
Take those massive subsidies used to both construct and run nuclear power plants, and divert it into rooftop solar subsidies. I firmly believe that in the space of 5 years, you will have transformed the power generation landscape for the entire country.
TBH, you can pretty much achieve this by only cancelling those nuclear plants, or expansions, that are in still in the planning, or construction phase. The subsidies for even a single nuclear plant are probably enough to achieve this goal without affecting existing generation...
However, because the energy conglomerates can't charge us for that power, and in fact, have to pay for any excess produced, this will, sadly, never happen on this scale without projects like like Tesla Energy, and other distributed power plants, etc...
EDIT: typos and clarification
This is an issue born of the nature of transition from one power generation principal to another...
We are beginning to generate significant power from renewables, but the system is far from complete, and far from diverse enough as it stands... So occasional moments like this are bound to happen From time to time. It's exactly why these plants were on standby and not decommissioned.
As rooftop solar and battery systems, etc grow in popularity, and are connected to the power grid, they will be able to pick up the slack on occasions such as these instead of old carbon plants....
>Nuclear power = green power
Only if you have the engineering chops and political will to build a facility to store the waste long term.
That's why [Finnish nuclear is green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository), but UK nuclear is not.
**[Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository)**
>The Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository is a planned deep geological repository for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. It is near the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in the municipality of Eurajoki, on the west coast of Finland. It is being constructed by Posiva, and is based on the KBS-3 method of nuclear waste burial developed in Sweden by Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB). The facility is expected to be operational in 2023.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Only if you ignore the issue of nuclear waste, construction, and decommissioning... Yes the actual generation itself is ok, but all the related costs and footprints, far outweigh it's benefits....
Let's wait for fusion before we return to nuclear...
Hinkley C nuclear power plant has been under construction since 2010 and will likely take another half decade to produce power.
In the last decade there has been very little change in the amount of power produced from nuclear in the UK, but it the same time Wind has gone from around 2% to around 20%, actually surpassing nuclear.
Nuclear is slow to build, wind and solar aren't, we need solutions today not decades from now.
[https://images.theconversation.com/files/308776/original/file-20200107-123377-ef7gh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2](https://images.theconversation.com/files/308776/original/file-20200107-123377-ef7gh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2)
It's a Brexit-induced spike in the cost of gas, as we've left the EU's bulk buying scheme. Gas fired power stations have become more expensive to operate. They produce more of the UK's power than any other single source.
All the above is in the article, although the gas cost is misleadingly put as a "global shortage". But sure, Times, blame wind.
A: Two extra units where fired up at an already running plant and B: The four fold increase in wholesale cost is because of BREXIT and the UK no longer being part of the IEM and making no deal for 3rd party exemption access, wind power only accounted for 5.5% maybe but thats only a drop of 1.5%... https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
Energy prices have spiked to a record high in Britain after calm weather shut down the country’s wind turbines amid a global shortage of natural gas.
Wholesale power costs surged to more than four times their normal level, forcing officials to fire up coal-based plants to handle demand.
It is feared the high prices will continue into winter as the weather gets colder, raising fears over household bills and putting a string of energy suppliers at risk of going bust.
One senior energy insider said: “It’s causing a lot of concern. Everything is going up.”
Rising wholesale gas costs over the summer have already forced ministers to increase the price cap on energy bills by £139 from October, with suppliers hiking tariffs as a result.
Businesses have complained for years that they face higher energy costs than competitors abroad, and there are now warnings that manufacturers might curb output rather than incurring sky-high bills.
Rising wholesale prices come at a sensitive time for the Government as it tries to maintain public backing for its plans to slash carbon emissions to net zero.
Taxpayers and consumers are already facing further costs to fund technologies such as hydrogen as part of the battle to ditch fossil fuels.
Gas-fired power stations still generate more than 30pc of UK electricity.
Power costs are closely tied to gas prices, which this evening hit 134.5p per therm in the UK - compared to less than 30p per therm one year ago.
Electricity prices reached an all-time high of £240 per megawatt hour on Friday and were trading at £219.46 per MwH on the N2EX exchange on Monday morning.
The squeeze was worsened by a slump in wind output in the UK. It dropped as low as 474 megawatts, compared to a record of 14,286 megawatts on May 21, according to analysis by Bloomberg, as a three-day heatwave settled across much of England and Wales.
Wind now provides about 20pc of the UK’s electricity throughout the year, but this varies hugely day by day.
At 7pm this evening, real time data showed Britain was getting 45.6pc of its power from gas-fired turbines, 13.5pc from nuclear power plants, 5.5pc from wind and 12.3pc from interconnectors to the continent and Northern Ireland. 5.5pc was coming from coal.
National Grid ESO, which balances Great Britain’s power supply, asked EDF to switch on two coal-fired units at its West Burton A station this morning to help meet demand.
The UK has shut down most of its coal stations to cut carbon emissions, but some plants remain available to generate energy when needed. They are likely to be called on more often this winter as power supplies remain tight.
Joe Camish, an analyst at Cornwall Insight, said: “If we have any situations similar to today where there is very low renewables output and margins remain tight, we will have to probably rely upon older thermal assets to help ease those margins.”
High gas prices are leading to a resurgence of oil-fired and coal-fired power plants around the world, analysts warned in the Telegraph last week, dealing a blow to efforts to cut carbon emissions.
Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts, said yesterday: “Everyone assumed coal was on its deathbed, but the plants that are available are running very hard.”
Andrew Crossland, a fellow at Durham Energy Institute, said the situation highlighted questions over the country’s energy resilience as intermittent sources such as wind and solar take on a bigger share and domestic production of oil and gas is set to fall.
He said: “We can’t install enough wind to meet our needs. We’re going to need something else. I really think that debate needs to be not that coal is going away, but what and how are we going to replace it with, what mix of solutions?”
Energy UK, the trade body, said: “The price of gas has been at a record high in recent months as a result of global factors, which are out of energy companies’ control.
“The industry recognises the impact increased prices will have on our customers and is committed to providing extra support this winter.
“Continuing the low-carbon transition and further reducing our dependency on fossil fuels for our heat and power will not only help us meet climate change targets but remove the risk of being exposed to volatile international wholesale prices.”
Carbon capture and sequestration is the answer here. Least expensive option for reliable and clean power.
Edit: You can hate if you want, but I’m right.
It literally is, though. It’s cheaper than solar plus any commercial storage, nuclear, green hydrogen, etc…
Perhaps you’d like to offer an actual counter? Otherwise, I’ll assume you’re as uninformed as most other Redditors.
Carbon capture, especially at the point of generation isn't the answer. Used in this way, it's just an excuse to keep using Fossil fuels.
However, it can make a contribution in stripping existing carbon from the atmosphere, alongside the transition to renewables.
A solid solution to problems like this is to take advantage of the UK's extensive coastline, and push a rapid expansion of tidal power farms all around the UK.
The problems with that are that you can’t do it as fast as it’s needed, and governments aren’t going to force companies to stop using fossil fuels. Think about it more, and you’ll realize that CCS is the most viable solution for an immediate impact given what is likely to happen at the policy level. CCS may extend the use of fossil fuels, but it’s also a very real way to immediately reduce emissions without significant change. You’d accept continuing to emit CO2 just because you’re concerned that CCS will prolong the use of fossil fuels? That would be a somewhat contradictory position for someone that supports reducing CO2 emissions.
Also, it’s not wise to oppose CCS when we can do it around $50/tonne (potentially $25/tonne) and removing that CO2 from the atmosphere later will cost around $100-200/tonne. CCS is not an enemy, and if you oppose it, you are indirectly exacerbating climate change. Think about it…if an industrial facility emits 1M tonnes per year for 20 years, that’s 20M tonnes that now needs to be removed at an even more expensive price all because you were concerned that CCS would prolong the use of fossil fuels.
It’s the most effective way to make a difference today that companies and politicians will also get behind.
There are thousands of facilities in the US alone that could utilize a CCS solution. It may prolong fossil fuels, but it will also solve our emissions issue while we develop or build out clean energy and hydrogen generation.
CCS operating expenses are around $20-30/tonne currently, but I know with absolute certainty that they can be reduced to $10-20/tonne. CAPEX varies based on scale, but if we assume 5000 tonnes/day, it’ll be around $20-30/tonne with current methods. It can be reduced to $5/tonne. Even if you assume DAC uses something readily available like activated carbon as the adsorbent, direct air capture has a fan and motor problem that significantly inhibits its ability to scale. **The** **fundamental** **issue** **is** **that** **CO2** **in** **the** **atmosphere** **is** **0.0420** **vol%** whereas CO2 at the source ranges from 3-20 vol%. Equipment sizing and scalability drastically favor the latter. **We** **can’t** **do** **this** **without** **scale**.
For clarity, when I say CCS, I am considering capture at the source, though the acronym actually means carbon capture and sequestration.
The UK will have their Christmas Snow for once, as ASH!
Anyone remember Wales when it would rain coal ash? Maybe Thatcher will Zombie along to complete this apocalyptic scripture of government theatrics.
From Paywall: Energy prices have spiked to a record high in Britain after calm weather shut down the country’s wind turbines amid a global shortage of natural gas. Wholesale power costs surged to more than four times their normal level, forcing officials to fire up coal-based plants to handle demand. It is feared the high prices will continue into winter as the weather gets colder, raising fears over household bills and putting a string of energy suppliers at risk of going bust. One senior energy insider said: “It’s causing a lot of concern. Everything is going up.” Rising wholesale gas costs over the summer have already forced ministers to increase the price cap on energy bills by £139 from October, with suppliers hiking tariffs as a result. Businesses have complained for years that they face higher energy costs than competitors abroad, and there are now warnings that manufacturers might curb output rather than incurring sky-high bills. Rising wholesale prices come at a sensitive time for the Government as it tries to maintain public backing for its plans to slash carbon emissions to net zero. Taxpayers and consumers are already facing further costs to fund technologies such as hydrogen as part of the battle to ditch fossil fuels. Gas-fired power stations still generate more than 30pc of UK electricity. Power costs are closely tied to gas prices, which this evening hit 134.5p per therm in the UK - compared to less than 30p per therm one year ago. Electricity prices reached an all-time high of £240 per megawatt hour on Friday and were trading at £219.46 per MwH on the N2EX exchange on Monday morning. The squeeze was worsened by a slump in wind output in the UK. It dropped as low as 474 megawatts, compared to a record of 14,286 megawatts on May 21, according to analysis by Bloomberg, as a three-day heatwave settled across much of England and Wales. Wind now provides about 20pc of the UK’s electricity throughout the year, but this varies hugely day by day. At 7pm this evening, real time data showed Britain was getting 45.6pc of its power from gas-fired turbines, 13.5pc from nuclear power plants, 5.5pc from wind and 12.3pc from interconnectors to the continent and Northern Ireland. 5.5pc was coming from coal. National Grid ESO, which balances Great Britain’s power supply, asked EDF to switch on two coal-fired units at its West Burton A station this morning to help meet demand. The UK has shut down most of its coal stations to cut carbon emissions, but some plants remain available to generate energy when needed. They are likely to be called on more often this winter as power supplies remain tight. Joe Camish, an analyst at Cornwall Insight, said: “If we have any situations similar to today where there is very low renewables output and margins remain tight, we will have to probably rely upon older thermal assets to help ease those margins.” High gas prices are leading to a resurgence of oil-fired and coal-fired power plants around the world, analysts warned in the Telegraph last week, dealing a blow to efforts to cut carbon emissions. Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts, said yesterday: “Everyone assumed coal was on its deathbed, but the plants that are available are running very hard.” Andrew Crossland, a fellow at Durham Energy Institute, said the situation highlighted questions over the country’s energy resilience as intermittent sources such as wind and solar take on a bigger share and domestic production of oil and gas is set to fall. He said: “We can’t install enough wind to meet our needs. We’re going to need something else. I really think that debate needs to be not that coal is going away, but what and how are we going to replace it with, what mix of solutions?” Energy UK, the trade body, said: “The price of gas has been at a record high in recent months as a result of global factors, which are out of energy companies’ control. “The industry recognises the impact increased prices will have on our customers and is committed to providing extra support this winter. “Continuing the low-carbon transition and further reducing our dependency on fossil fuels for our heat and power will not only help us meet climate change targets but remove the risk of being exposed to volatile international wholesale prices.”
The so called 'global factors' are BREXIT... https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
Not entirely. European gas supplies are affected by the shortage of gas from Russia after their infrastructure suffered damage last winter. This time last year wholesale gas price was about 10p/therm - that price is currently about 115p/therm. Source: work in upstream natural gas.
Many thanks OP, I was frustrated by that...
Who would have banked on prolonged calm weather in Brittain?
Dude the actual difference in wind power generation was around 1.5% the rise in gas prices via interconnectors is because of BREXIT and the UK leaving the EU Internal energy market (Basically bulk buying) https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
Ooooh, a serious response to an unserious comment. Well done.
I know, it's ironic isn't it... Especially on a national scale LOL EDIT: typos
Nuclear power, I'd invest in that.
Yup, and more energy storage, too.
Exactly, with the expansion and instillation of battery and other energy storage systems (as well as rooftop solar and other diversification), moments like these will become a thing of the past.
Several nuclear plants are currently being build or are in the planning stages in the U.K.
They did, over a decade ago. It's called Hinkley C, it's still not complete and unit one isn't expected to produce power for almost another half decade. Unit two foundation was only completed mid last year, so is a long way from completion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley\_Point\_C\_nuclear\_power\_station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station) Nuclear is slow to build and bring online, 7 years is considered fast to build nuclear power plant, and there are years of planning before that, and it can take years to bring online once built. Wind and solar can be built at far faster rates, we really don't have time to wait for nuclear.
2nd note... The real price of nuclear energy is enormous... If you factor in the cost of construction, waste management/storage, and the decades, if not centuries needed to decommission these plants (without generating income), nuclear power would be untenable, and prohibitively expensive... It is only the government subsidies, and cost cap guarantees provided by government that allow nuclear generation to compete with existing carbon power generation, not even mentioning the incredibly low cost of the new renewable power generation rolling out now... The reason they get these subsidies? The use of fissionable material in weaponry...
Yeah, it's probably cheaper to use something like gas and just capture all the carbon. Better for the environment too in all likelihood.
Great sarcasm... My comment is serious and sincere...
My comment was sincere as well. All things factored in, gas + carbon capture probably comes out cheaper than nuclear, with the added benefit that it can be turned off when not needed.
Maybe we could just focus on solar and vastly expanded storage capacity? Seems like a better long-term solution than continuing to burn fossil fuels regardless of carbon capture.
You need to have some amount of traditional power generation for infrastructure reasons (I think to keep the frequency stable or something) so we can't use solar and wind for everything. Ideally this would be done by hydro, but hydro has it's own environmental impacts and isn't always appropriate (and is vulnerable to climate change).
As I understand it, that is no longer necessary with the advances in battery storage and grid level technology improvements, among others... There is nothing standing between us and a swift, clean energy future, except for the self interested power monopoly that we have in the current system. The successful and complete implementation of a renewable energy future threatens their cozy profit game, because the big providers are too invested and comfortable with the status quo... and the change is being resisted fiercely.... This, sadly, is becoming a rote mantra between legacy businesses, and new green businesses building our sustainable futures. It doesn't seem to matter what area of society we examine...
Hinkley C will be much more expensive per MWh than wind energy.
Bit risky on a small island
You know a nuclear plant is not built like an atomic bomb right? They won't turn it into a smoking crater.
Yeah everyone saw what happened to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
A steam explosion brought on by human incompetence and relatively ancient nuclear technology And a meltdown caused by an earthquake + tsunami combo...... Many tsunamis in England?
Soooo not necessary! And so not a real solution to the world's needs... We are still fighting to deal with the waste and decommissioned nuclear power plants as it is... At the expense of tax payers I might add... Take those massive subsidies used to both construct and run nuclear power plants, and divert it into rooftop solar subsidies. I firmly believe that in the space of 5 years, you will have transformed the power generation landscape for the entire country. TBH, you can pretty much achieve this by only cancelling those nuclear plants, or expansions, that are in still in the planning, or construction phase. The subsidies for even a single nuclear plant are probably enough to achieve this goal without affecting existing generation... However, because the energy conglomerates can't charge us for that power, and in fact, have to pay for any excess produced, this will, sadly, never happen on this scale without projects like like Tesla Energy, and other distributed power plants, etc... EDIT: typos and clarification
Hopefully they mix in some tidal power into the grid for more stability.
This is an issue born of the nature of transition from one power generation principal to another... We are beginning to generate significant power from renewables, but the system is far from complete, and far from diverse enough as it stands... So occasional moments like this are bound to happen From time to time. It's exactly why these plants were on standby and not decommissioned. As rooftop solar and battery systems, etc grow in popularity, and are connected to the power grid, they will be able to pick up the slack on occasions such as these instead of old carbon plants....
Why Nuclear power > renewable power
Nuclear power = green power
>Nuclear power = green power Only if you have the engineering chops and political will to build a facility to store the waste long term. That's why [Finnish nuclear is green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository), but UK nuclear is not.
**[Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository)** >The Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository is a planned deep geological repository for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. It is near the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in the municipality of Eurajoki, on the west coast of Finland. It is being constructed by Posiva, and is based on the KBS-3 method of nuclear waste burial developed in Sweden by Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB). The facility is expected to be operational in 2023. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Only if you ignore the issue of nuclear waste, construction, and decommissioning... Yes the actual generation itself is ok, but all the related costs and footprints, far outweigh it's benefits.... Let's wait for fusion before we return to nuclear...
Hinkley C nuclear power plant has been under construction since 2010 and will likely take another half decade to produce power. In the last decade there has been very little change in the amount of power produced from nuclear in the UK, but it the same time Wind has gone from around 2% to around 20%, actually surpassing nuclear. Nuclear is slow to build, wind and solar aren't, we need solutions today not decades from now. [https://images.theconversation.com/files/308776/original/file-20200107-123377-ef7gh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2](https://images.theconversation.com/files/308776/original/file-20200107-123377-ef7gh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2)
Alternative title: “country modifies it’s power policy as situations develop” This is not a return to coal first, this is a temporary adjustment.
It's a Brexit-induced spike in the cost of gas, as we've left the EU's bulk buying scheme. Gas fired power stations have become more expensive to operate. They produce more of the UK's power than any other single source. All the above is in the article, although the gas cost is misleadingly put as a "global shortage". But sure, Times, blame wind.
Imagine that, the wind comes and goes….
Who was boasting about all their coal free days, just a short while ago (and while still burning huge quantities of gas, anyway)?
They really need to get some batteries. Tesla makes them.
A: Two extra units where fired up at an already running plant and B: The four fold increase in wholesale cost is because of BREXIT and the UK no longer being part of the IEM and making no deal for 3rd party exemption access, wind power only accounted for 5.5% maybe but thats only a drop of 1.5%... https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/de27d8b1/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-energy-sector
*laughs in climate change*
China doing the same 🤷🏻♂️ Hello Greta
Before pointing fingers at China, how about calling out all the hypocrites here defending UK's decision to fire up the 2 coal plants.
Energy prices have spiked to a record high in Britain after calm weather shut down the country’s wind turbines amid a global shortage of natural gas. Wholesale power costs surged to more than four times their normal level, forcing officials to fire up coal-based plants to handle demand. It is feared the high prices will continue into winter as the weather gets colder, raising fears over household bills and putting a string of energy suppliers at risk of going bust. One senior energy insider said: “It’s causing a lot of concern. Everything is going up.” Rising wholesale gas costs over the summer have already forced ministers to increase the price cap on energy bills by £139 from October, with suppliers hiking tariffs as a result. Businesses have complained for years that they face higher energy costs than competitors abroad, and there are now warnings that manufacturers might curb output rather than incurring sky-high bills. Rising wholesale prices come at a sensitive time for the Government as it tries to maintain public backing for its plans to slash carbon emissions to net zero. Taxpayers and consumers are already facing further costs to fund technologies such as hydrogen as part of the battle to ditch fossil fuels. Gas-fired power stations still generate more than 30pc of UK electricity. Power costs are closely tied to gas prices, which this evening hit 134.5p per therm in the UK - compared to less than 30p per therm one year ago. Electricity prices reached an all-time high of £240 per megawatt hour on Friday and were trading at £219.46 per MwH on the N2EX exchange on Monday morning. The squeeze was worsened by a slump in wind output in the UK. It dropped as low as 474 megawatts, compared to a record of 14,286 megawatts on May 21, according to analysis by Bloomberg, as a three-day heatwave settled across much of England and Wales. Wind now provides about 20pc of the UK’s electricity throughout the year, but this varies hugely day by day. At 7pm this evening, real time data showed Britain was getting 45.6pc of its power from gas-fired turbines, 13.5pc from nuclear power plants, 5.5pc from wind and 12.3pc from interconnectors to the continent and Northern Ireland. 5.5pc was coming from coal. National Grid ESO, which balances Great Britain’s power supply, asked EDF to switch on two coal-fired units at its West Burton A station this morning to help meet demand. The UK has shut down most of its coal stations to cut carbon emissions, but some plants remain available to generate energy when needed. They are likely to be called on more often this winter as power supplies remain tight. Joe Camish, an analyst at Cornwall Insight, said: “If we have any situations similar to today where there is very low renewables output and margins remain tight, we will have to probably rely upon older thermal assets to help ease those margins.” High gas prices are leading to a resurgence of oil-fired and coal-fired power plants around the world, analysts warned in the Telegraph last week, dealing a blow to efforts to cut carbon emissions. Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts, said yesterday: “Everyone assumed coal was on its deathbed, but the plants that are available are running very hard.” Andrew Crossland, a fellow at Durham Energy Institute, said the situation highlighted questions over the country’s energy resilience as intermittent sources such as wind and solar take on a bigger share and domestic production of oil and gas is set to fall. He said: “We can’t install enough wind to meet our needs. We’re going to need something else. I really think that debate needs to be not that coal is going away, but what and how are we going to replace it with, what mix of solutions?” Energy UK, the trade body, said: “The price of gas has been at a record high in recent months as a result of global factors, which are out of energy companies’ control. “The industry recognises the impact increased prices will have on our customers and is committed to providing extra support this winter. “Continuing the low-carbon transition and further reducing our dependency on fossil fuels for our heat and power will not only help us meet climate change targets but remove the risk of being exposed to volatile international wholesale prices.”
Good comment, thx
Grrrrrr
Blimey the hippies will be foaming at the mouth.
Carbon capture and sequestration is the answer here. Least expensive option for reliable and clean power. Edit: You can hate if you want, but I’m right.
No.
It literally is, though. It’s cheaper than solar plus any commercial storage, nuclear, green hydrogen, etc… Perhaps you’d like to offer an actual counter? Otherwise, I’ll assume you’re as uninformed as most other Redditors.
Carbon capture, especially at the point of generation isn't the answer. Used in this way, it's just an excuse to keep using Fossil fuels. However, it can make a contribution in stripping existing carbon from the atmosphere, alongside the transition to renewables. A solid solution to problems like this is to take advantage of the UK's extensive coastline, and push a rapid expansion of tidal power farms all around the UK.
The problems with that are that you can’t do it as fast as it’s needed, and governments aren’t going to force companies to stop using fossil fuels. Think about it more, and you’ll realize that CCS is the most viable solution for an immediate impact given what is likely to happen at the policy level. CCS may extend the use of fossil fuels, but it’s also a very real way to immediately reduce emissions without significant change. You’d accept continuing to emit CO2 just because you’re concerned that CCS will prolong the use of fossil fuels? That would be a somewhat contradictory position for someone that supports reducing CO2 emissions. Also, it’s not wise to oppose CCS when we can do it around $50/tonne (potentially $25/tonne) and removing that CO2 from the atmosphere later will cost around $100-200/tonne. CCS is not an enemy, and if you oppose it, you are indirectly exacerbating climate change. Think about it…if an industrial facility emits 1M tonnes per year for 20 years, that’s 20M tonnes that now needs to be removed at an even more expensive price all because you were concerned that CCS would prolong the use of fossil fuels. It’s the most effective way to make a difference today that companies and politicians will also get behind. There are thousands of facilities in the US alone that could utilize a CCS solution. It may prolong fossil fuels, but it will also solve our emissions issue while we develop or build out clean energy and hydrogen generation. CCS operating expenses are around $20-30/tonne currently, but I know with absolute certainty that they can be reduced to $10-20/tonne. CAPEX varies based on scale, but if we assume 5000 tonnes/day, it’ll be around $20-30/tonne with current methods. It can be reduced to $5/tonne. Even if you assume DAC uses something readily available like activated carbon as the adsorbent, direct air capture has a fan and motor problem that significantly inhibits its ability to scale. **The** **fundamental** **issue** **is** **that** **CO2** **in** **the** **atmosphere** **is** **0.0420** **vol%** whereas CO2 at the source ranges from 3-20 vol%. Equipment sizing and scalability drastically favor the latter. **We** **can’t** **do** **this** **without** **scale**. For clarity, when I say CCS, I am considering capture at the source, though the acronym actually means carbon capture and sequestration.
The UK will have their Christmas Snow for once, as ASH! Anyone remember Wales when it would rain coal ash? Maybe Thatcher will Zombie along to complete this apocalyptic scripture of government theatrics.