Last Saturday the power station on my roof (Semington A) generated 22.3 kWh of electrical power. It would have been larger had the temperature been a bit lower, say 21 rather than 35 degrees, and the sun a bit higher in the sky (June rather than August). But 22.3 kWh is not to be sneezed at. I generously exported 18 kWh of this back to the grid for use in the village.
So much for Semington A; what about the UK as a whole?
When I got up the country was generating around 25 gigawatts of electricity. That's about 6 million times more than Semington A's capacity. The source was:
– 64% by gas; 19% by nuclear; 8% by biomass; and 6% by wind.
Around 1200, those figures were:
– 32 GW: 42% by gas; 25% by solar; 15% by nuclear; 4% by biomass; and 3% by wind.
Thus, on a blazing summer day we were burning über-expensive gas to generate ~13.5 GW of electricity.
What a desperate state of affairs this is. And it has been going on for weeks because there has been very little wind power available because there was so little wind.
Going on for years, more like, as the key strategy in the UK's electricity generation policy over many years now has been diversification with an emphasis on renewables. This is understandable, with caveats.
Diversification used to mean ensuring security of supply through a range of sources. This began as different sorts of fuel (coal / nuclear / gas / oil / hydro / storage / renewables), but at some point it turned into nuclear and renewables (on a good day) + gas from different countries (which is where we are now).
Thus divergence of fuels became divergence of sources of gas for which we are paying world-prices which are rocketing.
This shift away from fossil fuels was accelerated by the adoption of net-zero targets which saw a rapid loss of coal-fired power to add to the loss of nuclear power as old capacity was not replaced.
There is hubris in this rush to net-zero. It seems that the UK always has to be the first to set an example, to be a world leader pour encourager les autres, and maybe to atone some more for our industrial revolution sins that we did not know were were committing. All this, even though we only (currently) have 1% of global emissions and maybe 5% historically.
Then there are the promised jobs. Launching the government’s net-zero strategy last October, the PM said: “The UK’s path to ending our contribution to climate change will be paved with well-paid jobs, billions in investment and thriving green industries.” We shall see; but we usually don't.
Meanwhile, ...
– Where is the gas storage capacity we now need? (closed down as "unneeded" of course).
– Where is all the much needed insulation (not in cavity walls, that's for sure).
– Where are the enhanced building standards? (lagging behind that's where).
– Where is the additional nuclear that might have been built? (sacrificed to the cowardice of endless governments that did not stand up to progressive eco-fantasy).
– Where is "our" fracked oil and gas? (safely stranded as a result of scare stories and official funk).
But we are where we are (as they say): with the poor now having to pay £zillions for basic power sources whilst government wrings its hands.
Responses
Thank you for a rational short review of the rush to green energy worldwide - "There is hubris in this rush to net zero" Scott. The big picture requires us to be honest about the problems, and they are not simply technological. We need reliable base-load energy and that always comes with a high cost of some kind.