VOLATILITY OF THE ENERGY MARKET
WITH nuclear making up 20% of Britain’s power supply, the retirement of the Hunterston B nuclear power station is inevitably going to create further volatility in the UK energy market, given the strain it will put on the grid by increasing reliance on gas at a time when prices are rocketing.
This was 1GW of generation the grid could rely upon, and could be given as an example of knocking down the walls before the roof is supported.
To protect the security of the grid, it is essential we build up a safety net of renewable energy capacity and storage well in advance of decommissioning ‘old’ power. To neglect this will risk sending even more people into fuel poverty.
Protecting consumers from rising energy costs must be considered hand-in-hand with decarbonising the grid to ensure affordability of energy and keeping households’ lights on.
We are barely scratching the surface of what is needed to reach a net zero energy system by 2035.
There’s no doubt that we need to replace our power supply with clean and flexible energy, but we need to go much further and much faster to avoid putting consumers at greater mercy of a volatile energy market.
Phil Thompson, CEO and Managing Director, Balance Power, St Helens, Lancashire.
A REALISTIC MIX OF ENERGY SOURCES
IN response to my letter, Alasdair Galloway (January 5) states that his 24% figure, as Scotland’s share of Europe’s renewable energy, includes tidal and wave generation.
There is a small amount of tidal power at present and the prospects for scaling it up are not promising because of the high cost, and challenging technical issues. There is no wave energy generation at present and there seems to be little prospect of effective methods of such generation being devised.
He recognises that a mixed source of energy is needed but the mix has to include generation such as gas and nuclear that is reliable, synchronous and provides inertia. Renewable energy alone does not provide these features that are crucial to the operation of the Grid.
He states that I have a preference for nuclear. In so far as it is the only solution presently available to us for base load, other than gas, we have no other choices if we wish to reduce our carbon emissions to a low level – a position that will prevail for the foreseeable future.
The fact that nuclear is a practical and safe solution just adds emphasis since the only alternative is to continue burning gas in very large quantities.
As for the economics of nuclear versus wind generation, the cost of integrating the wind into the system is high (this cost is not being assessed) and the cost of producing nuclear power need not be as expensive as for Hinkley Point C.
He refers to an offshore strike price of £39.65 in comparison to the £92.50 per MWh for Hinkley Point C, however the strike prices for offshore wind cover a wide range.
It is essential that everyone understands that, although renewable generation methods can make a contribution, they cannot, on their own, provide a climate change remedy for Scotland and an overdose will cause the untold economic harm I noted in my original letter.
I cannot reconcile my concern for Scotland’s future economic health with Alasdair Galloway’s suggestion that I am being short-sighted.
Norman McNab, Killearn.
0 Comments