Project Conclusions
The project assessed eight different possible scenarios for a 2050 UK electricity grid, being all of them able to meet the increased demand on the grid.
It is worth mentioning that the expected outcome of the project was not the selection of a unique top-performance scenario from the pack, as they all show both advantages and disadvantages (as the feasibility section of the website describes). Instead, in this section the group decided to maintain a global perspective and provide general hints and tips with towards the completion of the project aim: to investigate integrating the most low carbon energy systems into the UK grid and reduce CO2 emissions.
Taking into account the aforementioned criterion, conclusions are listed below:
It is worth mentioning that the expected outcome of the project was not the selection of a unique top-performance scenario from the pack, as they all show both advantages and disadvantages (as the feasibility section of the website describes). Instead, in this section the group decided to maintain a global perspective and provide general hints and tips with towards the completion of the project aim: to investigate integrating the most low carbon energy systems into the UK grid and reduce CO2 emissions.
Taking into account the aforementioned criterion, conclusions are listed below:
EnergyPLAN proved to be a useful and comprehensive modelling tool for large scale grid system planning.
Despite a 32% increase in electricity demand from 302 TWh (2014) to 400 TWh (est. 2050), all 2050 grid scenarios modelled could meet the higher estimated demand. They even achieve significantly lower emissions, lowering them down to 57 Mt in the worst case, which equates to a 57 % reduction from 2014 level (133 Mt). On the other side, the nuclear only option (Scenario 6) and Scenario 3 showed a 99% CO2 reduction. Undoubtedly, this would significantly contribute to reach the EU 2050 emissions targets, although other sources of emissions also need to be considered (as mentioned below).
According to the scenarios modelled, it will not be necessary to always aim for the most optimistic DECC pathway trajectories (level 4) for all sectors, as the simulations showed that this could increase the occurrence of generation excess and overload the grid. Results showed more-conservative level-2 installed capacities may be sufficient for all sectors with exception of wind.
When solely considering minimising cost, CO2 emissions and land use, the nuclear-only option with increased storage performed best, requiring 4% of UK land mass whilst emissions where 0.7 Mt for the full year. Additionally, levelised costs associated with nuclear power generation are significantly lower than costs related to the other scenarios modelled. Nevertheless, the nuclear-only option is very controversial and will have other issues to contend with, due to the divided opinions based on potential environmental effects associated with accidents and radioactive waste removal, transportation and disposal, as well as plant decommissioning.
The project assessed the implications of no reliance on nuclear and comments on that are presented below.
The project assessed the implications of no reliance on nuclear and comments on that are presented below.
It is commonly questioned whether or not a hypothetical no-nuclear and no-fossil-fuelled future is achievable. Main motivations are environmental concerns and CO2 emissions respectively.
Results showed that no reliance on nuclear or conventional power plants is technically possible (meaning there would be enough renewable back-up power to compensate their absence), but at relevant cost and land use. Renewable energy systems networks proved to require massive areas of land, up to 37 % in the most demanding case (Scenario 8). Bearing in mind that nowadays agriculture takes 71%, government and society should be able to anticipate and tackle down the possible food vs fuel and heat or eat problems associated that could arise from that competitive use of land.
Results showed that no reliance on nuclear or conventional power plants is technically possible (meaning there would be enough renewable back-up power to compensate their absence), but at relevant cost and land use. Renewable energy systems networks proved to require massive areas of land, up to 37 % in the most demanding case (Scenario 8). Bearing in mind that nowadays agriculture takes 71%, government and society should be able to anticipate and tackle down the possible food vs fuel and heat or eat problems associated that could arise from that competitive use of land.
Storage proved to be a key factor (specially for scenarios with a high reliance on baseload-type power plants, such as nuclear). An increase by a factor of around 9 in energy storage capacity was considered for this project, which proved to be achievable by several authors in the literature (see section Storage). This ambitious huge effort will require the construction of new pump hydro power plants (main storage technology considered) as well as the upgrading and refurbishment of existing ones.
Finally, we also noticed that the expansion in electric vehicles we are envisioning for the future could lead to the appearance of additional storage (in the form of batteries), which could also be managed by the grid for an optimal performance..
Finally, we also noticed that the expansion in electric vehicles we are envisioning for the future could lead to the appearance of additional storage (in the form of batteries), which could also be managed by the grid for an optimal performance..
However...
No matter what scenario becomes true in the future, a coherent policy and decision making will be required. For the sake of clarity, a couple of examples of issues that would rely on the aforementioned coherency are demand side management and investor attraction.
|
The potential CO2 reduction in the grid was analysed but, what happens with CO2 from non-electrical heating and transportation (specially international)? Will they also contribute to reach the global emissions goal fixed by the EU?
|
The majority of scenarios were able to produce an excess of energy at some points throughout the year. Should it be considered as an opportunity to develop a hydrogen economy? In case that extra power is to be exported to Europe: is there enough capacity in the existing interconnection cables or is an upgrade needed? Is there a feasible potential for potential expansion of storage?
Future Studies
We feel we have achieved what we set out to do, but this project could of course be taken a lot further. We would have liked to incorporate some of the following additional aspects in order to add further layers to the study. However, time given did not allow for this, so we would like to highlight some ideas for any future project's interest:
The possibilities are vast, and EnergyPLAN is a great tool for the job. Our models can be used as a starting point, with layers being added gradually to incorporate any additional aspects as required.
- To what degree do the results change if the future demand is increased or decreased? Our estimation is just that - an estimation! It would provide a more robust set of conclusions if a range of demands were investigated.
- High penetrations of renewables inevitably cause high peaks in supply at points with low demand which creates excess energy. What effect would increasing the import/export capacity have on the stability of the network? Is there a point at which it appears to be of great benefit?
- Perhaps rather than increasing the import/export capabilities it would be more beneficial to increase the storage further to reduce our dependency on other countries supply. Is there a storage capacity we could aim for to allow this security?
- Could hydrogen storage become financially viable with high levels of excess energy?
- Incorporation of further elements in order to model a 'bigger picture' of the UK (i.e. CHP, fossil fuelled transport etc). Perhaps this could be linked with the previous point – could a hydrogen transport network be foreseeable? Rather than creating hydrogen for the purpose of producing electricity at a later date, it could be used as a fuel for transportation instead.
The possibilities are vast, and EnergyPLAN is a great tool for the job. Our models can be used as a starting point, with layers being added gradually to incorporate any additional aspects as required.