Writes Julian Cusack
How can we keep the lights on without Sizewell C? My short answer is that its 3.2GW capacity is simply not enough to make a significant contribution to energy security, when demand for electricity will at least double on the route to a Net Zero economy. Renewable sources can provide all the electricity we will need, both faster and more cheaply.
We anticipate that electricity supply will need to increase to between 2 and 2.5 times the current level. This is because declining fossil fuel use in other sectors will require electrification, notably in transport and heating systems. This will require a large expansion of low carbon generation capacity. Both the Government and the Labour Party assume we will make major investments in wind and solar power as well as new nuclear. The Green Party believes they are over-optimistic about new nuclear and not ambitious enough about renewable energy sources.
The reality is that the timescales for new nuclear are being pushed out even further and the costs continue to escalate. EDF recently reported that Hinkley Point C may not be on stream until 2031, fifteen years after sign-off, while projected costs have more than doubled. Construction has been green-lighted at Sizewell C, but funding is not yet finalised and the cost and timing overruns at Hinkley are unlikely to reassure investors (although crucially, for them, UK bill payers are exposed to cost overruns at Sizewell C, unlike at Hinkley).
So for the next ten to twenty years we will be dependent on a major expansion of renewable generation capacity. Fortunately it is faster to construct and cheaper in pounds per megawatt hour than fossil fuels or nuclear generation. The lowest cost source is onshore wind at £38 per unit followed by large scale solar PV at £41 and offshore wind at £44. Nuclear and gas come in at £92.50 and well over £114 respectively, and are still increasing
Green Party modelling shows that power can be reliably supplied, even on the increased scale needed, without any new nuclear capacity. We estimate this could be achieved with 80GW of offshore wind, 50GW of onshore wind and 100GW of solar PV, of which 75% would be on rooftops. In addition, we could invest in 24GW of hydrogen peaker plants which would use excess renewable electricity to generate green hydrogen by electrolysis, store it and then burn it in modified gas turbine plants at times of peak demand and low renewable output.
Whatever the make-up of the new capacity, whether nuclear or renewable, we will also need to invest heavily in energy storage and in electricity transmission and distribution networks. In doing so, the Green Party would always seek to avoid environmental and economic damage to sensitive locations and explore viable alternatives. For example, we should construct an offshore grid in the North Sea so that power from offshore wind turbines and interconnectors can come onshore at brownfield sites.
To return to the original question, we don’t need Sizewell C to keep the lights on. What we do need is a comprehensive joined-up plan to encourage investment in renewable energy projects and infrastructure, including developments at a community level. The capacity of Sizewell C at 3.2GW would only account for at most 3-4% of future electricity demand. Why spend what could be upwards of £40bn with uncertain costs and timescales when it could be invested in projects with a more immediate return and less environmental damage?
This article is from the East Anglian Daily Times, 6/3/2024
