Bad planning for UK energy efficiency program

[kristopher]

'Green deal' will fail, government's climate advisers warn
Scheme to make 14m UK homes more energy efficient will only reach 2-3m households, Committee on Climate Change says

The government's flagship programme to transform the energy efficiency of 14m homes in the next decade will fail and only reach only 2-3m households, according to an unprecedented attack from the government's own climate advisers.

The warning comes from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which on Tuesday for the first time published an open letter criticising government policy. It follows soaring energy bills and the news that one in four homes are now in fuel poverty...

Very good article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/20/green-deal-fail?intcmp=122


Energy efficiency measures have a serious negative effect on merchant (market based) nuclear plant's economic viability.

Citigroup 2008 evaluation of investment potential for merchant nuclear in Europe says:

"...There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%*. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

Such a reduction is actually already underway, with load factors for nuclear plants in Europe falling from 85% on average during the beginning of the decade to below 80% as renewables increase their share in the fuel mix. In our opinion a slow down or fall in demand could have an even bigger effect, substantially affecting the economics of new plants.

*refers to new plants.


Less effective efficiency programs equal more money for nuclear plants.

Other notes from Citi docs analyzing UK nuclear:
associated grid upgrades for the new plants expected to be about $2.2 billion plus
an *additional* 260MW of new spinning reserve would be needed for EACH new reactor.

[DCKit]

1. "Less effective efficiency programs equal more money for nuclear plants. "

Really, that's all that needs to be said.

[FBaggins]

2. Hardly.

Simpler put to say that more electricity demand equals more money for people who produce electricity. It's not in any way tied to nuclear power specifically.

Kris has twisted this kind of thing before. The UK recently debated the use of a carbon tax to encourage low-carbon-emission generation. Kris spun this as a government subsidy for nuclear power (even though a wind farm would benefit every bit as much)... because the UK's energy minister had previously said that they were advancing nuclear power but only if it could be done without government subsidy.

[DCKit]

3. I find the statement to be self-evident.

With greater efficiency, there is no need for additional nuclear plants - the money dries up along with the demand.

[kristopher]

5. I'm starting to see a pattern here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271821

[DCKit]

6. Electrifying, ain't it? nt

[Nihil]

7. But the good news is that it hasn't managed to stay under the radar ...

... as the Conservatives (and their puppets) would have liked ...

Vigilance by Friends of the Earth (and, obviously, the companies invested in solar) pays off.

[kristopher]

4. Apparently that isn't all that needs to be said, eh?

The Citigroup quote is what it looks like from a different perspective when people say that large scale thermal generation drives consumption instead of conservation.

A carbon tax would be a great mechanism to promote renewables, but it needs to be accompanied by similar measures that remove subsidies for nuclear (such as shift of liability risk to public) and full accounting of externalized costs such as waste disposal. Since the renewables do not incur similar externalities a carbon tax that benefits nuclear is an additional subsidy to nuclear as it competes against renewables.

I was glad to see a blurb on one of the Citi analysis that I'd forgotten about - the quantification of how much spinning reserve would be required. 260MW is not a trivial amount.