The National Grid looks likely to come under increasing strain due to the conflicting government policies on nuclear, renewables, zero carbon and funding.  As fossil fuels are phased out, and electricity becomes our only source of power, its sufficiency should be the top priority for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Yet the UK commissions nuclear power plants like Cheshire Cats: Anglesey Wylfa, Moorside and Oldbury have all been cancelled.  Nuclear running costs are competitive with fossil fuels but the capital costs and development time, both exacerbated by overruns (and tendered to an oligopoly), e.g. Hinkley Point C, are not. 

In a net zero scenario, the continuing use of fossil fuels for electricity generation is only really possible with carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) which is mainly done by scrubbing the CO2 out of the coal and gas fired power station emissions and then storing it (usually by injecting it back into the layers of rock that had held oil or gas or into old salt mines). “Around 98 percent of the injected CO2 remains permanently trapped in the sub-surface.”

There are over 40 CCUS plants around the world but none in the UK. Nearly two years ago BEIS announced (28 November 2018) the UK would become “a global leader in CCUS” by following this “Action Plan”: “Commissioning of the first CCUS facility from the mid-2020s would help the UK to meet our ambition of having the option to deploy CCUS at scale during the 2030s, subject to costs coming down sufficiently.”

Despite the progress made in energy production in the last century, fossil fuels (handicapped by sometime CCUS), renewables and nuclear will not be enough: we need new sources.  

BEIS, in its published “Areas of Research Interest 2019 to 2020” mentioned the word “electricity” only eight times in 49 pages. They mostly concern storage, e.g. 16 references to hydrogen. but none have to do with generating the stuff. 

My favourite BEIS hydrogen “research interests” are “What are the costs and barriers to producing and storing large volumes of low-carbon and zero-carbon hydrogen?” (p.33) and “What is the fate of hydrogen in the environment, and its effect on climate and the ozone layer?” (p.36). Of course, hydrogen was the first element in the universe and will probably be the last. We do not need to worry about its fate. And I am pretty sure hydrogen does not contain any carbon. Has anyone in BEIS got a GCSE in chemistry? 

The document acknowledges “BEIS has committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions and ending our contribution to global warming by 2050” but, extraordinarily, gives no estimate of what the demand for green electricity will then be nor how that demand will be met. The latest BEIS “Updated Energy and Emissions Projections 2018” only gives projections to 2035 by source (coal, gas, imported, oil, renewables) but not in total. 

The much vaunted hydrogen can be produced by burning gas (termed “blue”) or splitting H2O molecules by electrolysis (termed “green”). Both are hugely expensive and inefficient because they need more energy to produce the hydrogen than it delivers, i.e. it is a net negative in electricity generation terms. Blue hydrogen would require a massive increase in oil imports, which is why Shell and BP are lobbying for it, and CCUS plants. Electrolysis is not mentioned at all in the BEIS Areas of Research Interest. 

If the UK were to have a major surfeit of electricity generation, hydrogen could be helpful as a non-pollutant fuel for motor vehicles, and therefore an alternative to electricity, and as a way of, in effect, storing electricity. BEIS projects only as far as 2035 but, by then, there will be a continuing deficit of about one quarter, i.e. net imports. In a letter to The Times (24th September 2020), Cambridge’s Professor Cebon concludes “There seems to be no way to reconcile the prime minister’s enthusiasm for hydrogen, except to conclude that he and his advisers have been misled by the fossil fuel lobby.”

Clearly we need new technology and fast. Generating electricity from methane is no more than a gleam in scientists’ eyes. BEIS does not seem to be paying enough attention to molten salt reactors. They were successfully tested in the late 1960s and yet were not even mentioned in the BEIS Areas of Research Interest. They would make electricity cheaper than gas-powered generation. As they operate at low pressures with the risk of explosive dispersal of radioactive material eliminated, they are safer and produce less radioactivity per kWh. Small modular reactors can be factory-built and delivered by road. Because of their size, simple design and low pressure, full regulatory approval should not be a major issue, with construction possible less than four years later.

Ensuring electricity adequacy is the most important role of BEIS and especially as we move toward zero-carbon.  It is irresponsible to commit to zero carbon 2050 without, it would appear, estimating the then demand for green electricity nor how it will be sourced.  The government needs to think more clearly how UK electricity supplies should be secured.