Category Archives: Power

Can nuclear power play a large part in getting to net-zero? – Professor Gordon MacKerron

carbon emissions, Economics, energy bills, Energy Systems, integrated energy systems, multi-vector energy systems, Net Zero, Nuclear, Policy, Power

In late 2020, there was a flurry of announcements about climate change and energy – first a ten-point plan for a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’[i] followed a few weeks later by a much–delayed energy White Paper[ii].  Nuclear power figures prominently in both narratives, with three possible ways forward. In this CESI Blog post, Professor MacKerron, CESI Associate Director and Professor of Science and Technology Policy at the Science Policy and Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex discusses these routes.

About the Author

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png
Professor Gordon MacKerron

Gordon is Professor of Science and Technology Policy at the Science Policy and Research Unit (SPRU). He specialises in the economics and policy issues of electricity, especially nuclear power, and more broadly in energy security questions. He currently chairs the Research Committee of UKERC and was deputy director of the Strategy Unit, Cabinet office team that wrote the ‘Energy Review’ in 2003.

He is currently overall PI in the Horizon 2020 project TRANSrisk, a collaboration of 11 partner institutes engaged in assessing the risks attaching to different policy pathways consistent with achievement of European 2050 climate change commitments.

Gordon works on a number of CESI Work Packages and is lead for Work Package 1: Commercial, Regulatory & Policy Aspects

Three possible ways forward.

First, there is a long-term hope that a UK-only commercial fusion design will be ready by 2040.  This is frankly wishful thinking and, even if it could be achieved, involves a new type of compact design that would have no impact on 2050 zero-carbon objectives.  This is because it would be a small prototype 100MW machine with a current price tag of £2bn[iii] – three times more expensive per unit of output than the already very expensive twin reactors being built at Hinkley C.  £400m has been ‘already committed’ to this endeavour by Government,[iv] a sum that could have been spent instead on projects that could genuinely contribute to net zero. 

The second possibility is a push (‘aim’) to have one more large nuclear plant brought to final investment decision by 2024, following the almost-decade-late Hinkley C.  As Government makes clear, achieving this will depend on a radically new funding structure.[v]  This could be a regulated asset base model, in which consumers would take on most construction risk, allowing investors a more or less guaranteed rate of return, and/or  Government putting up some taxpayer cash.  Since the White Paper, it has become clear that developments at two of the only three plausible big-reactor sites – Wylfa (abandoned by Hitachi) and Bradwell (paused for a year by EDF/China General Nuclear) – are now effectively no longer in contention.  Only a further Hinkley replica at Sizewell seems at all possible, and large institutional investors have recently made clear they will not put up any of their own money for this.  Significantly, and credibly, Government makes no mention of any further ventures along the large-nuclear path.

What’s wrong with option 1 or 2?

The problems in these two nuclear avenues inevitably throw a lot of weight on to the third strand, the development of so-called modular reactors, both ‘small’ (SMRs) and ‘advanced’ (AMRs).  The relatively near-term part of this involves Government spending up to £215m to help develop a domestic SMR design by the early 2030s.[vi]  The attraction of SMRs is that they could offer the possibility of relatively rapid factory manufacture of components, followed by fairly simple on-site construction. Their main drawback is that they will be based on cut-down versions of existing light water reactor designs, in the process losing the economies of large-scale current nuclear plants. In practice the only credible SMR involves a consortium already built up over several years by Rolls Royce, using its technical know-how as designer and manufacturer of small reactors for UK nuclear-powered submarines. To be at all competitive many SMRs would need to be built, thus achieving economies scale in production to offset the loss of economies of large reactor size. In this pursuit, Rolls Royce want to build up to 16 of these SMRs at a cost currently estimated by them[vii] (and therefore probably optimistic) of just short of £29bn.  This is a highly inflexible proposition, risking very large sums of public money.

Rolls Royce have also suggested that such reactors might generate at around £60/MWh initially, falling to £40/MWh for later plants.[viii]  By contrast, in terms of real projects, as opposed to very early and potentially optimistic expectations, offshore wind is already committing to deliver in the near-term at auction prices of around £40/MWh.[ix]  According to the White Paper, the global market for modular and advanced reactors might (as ‘estimated by some’ – actually the National Nuclear Laboratory) be worth £250bn to £400bn by 2035.  This is at best heroic, given that the current global market is zero. In any case, the idea that the UK might win a large share of such a market (if it did exist) is made hopelessly implausible by the fact that the UK is well behind several other countries’ SMR development. These include Russia, the USA, Japan and China, with the Rolls Royce planned design only one among over 70 SMR designs currently being pursued around the world.[x]

The second leg of the modular reactor story involves ‘Advanced’ reactors.  The ambition here is to have a demonstrator ready by the early 2030s ‘at the latest’.  For this, the Government may be willing to spend a further £170 m.  Here we are in highly speculative territory.  As the White Paper very briefly explains, AMRs would be reactors that use ’novel cooling systems or fuels and may offer new functionalities (such as industrial process heat).’[xi] Such designs would most likely involve high temperature gas cooling; many such designs have been developed in the past 50 years, none of them proving commercially viable.  It is not clear why work in these challenging technological areas can be expected to do much better in the future.  Even if such technologies eventually prove more commercially tractable, having a demonstrator built by the early 2030s is extremely hopeful. 

Optimism?

The optimism displayed in these plans includes the up-front claim that ‘the UK continues to be a leader in the development of nuclear technologies’[xii] – a proposition, when applied to commercial reactors, that has no basis in fact whatever.  However, Government does qualify its enthusiasm by making clear that its plans, including expenditure, remain conditional. For a large reactor, bringing a project to fruition depends on ‘clear value for money for both consumers and taxpayers’[xiii] and the £385 m apparently to be spent on SMRs and AMRs reactors is ‘subject to future HMT [Treasury] Spending Reviews’.[xiv]  But even if all nuclear plans worked out as the White Paper hopes – in terms of developing new low-carbon capacity on the predicted time-scale – it is far from clear that this would be achieved at anywhere near competitive cost.  Even if nuclear power does well, large reactors will play, at best, a very small part in the move to net zero carbon by 2050. While modular reactors could do more, there is huge uncertainty, probable extended timelines and no guarantee of any kind of success.

[i] HM Government (2020) The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution November

[ii]  HM Government (2020) The Energy White Paper. Powering our Net Zero Future December CP337

[iii]  ‘UK takes step towards world’s first nuclear fusion power station’ New Scientist, 2 December 2020.  Numbers are quoted from the UKAEA, the fusion R&D proponent

[iv]  The Energy White Paper, p. 51.

[v]  Ibid., p. 49

[vi] ibid. p. 50

[vii] World Nuclear News ‘Rolls Royce on track for 2030 delivery of UK SMR’ 11 February 2021

[viii]  ibid.

[ix]  https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-as-u-k-awards-5-5gw-of-offshore-wind

[x] IAEA Advances in SMR technology development 2020 September 2020, in which 72 designs are listed

[xi] The Energy White Paper, p. 51

[xii] ibid. P.50

[xiii] ibid. p.49.

[xiv] ibid. p.50

Achieving ‘Net Zero’ targets under uncertainty: A framework to support decision making in an increasingly integrated energy system

Data Analytics, Energy Storage, Energy Systems, Gas, integrated energy systems, multi-vector energy systems, Net Zero, Power, Uncertainty, ,

Researchers and academics from the EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI) and the Supergen Energy Networks Hub, Dr Hamid Hosseini, Dr Adib Allahham, Dr Sara Walker and Prof Phil Taylor recently published their paper ‘Uncertainty Analysis of The Impact of Increasing Levels of Gas and Electricity Network Integration and Storage on Techno-Economic-Environmental Performance’ in the international, multi-disciplinary journal Energy.

About the author: Dr Hamid Hosseini

Dr Hamid Hosseini

Hamid joined Newcastle University in 2017 as a postdoctoral research associate to the EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI). Since joining the team, Hamid has been actively involved in research looking at planning, optimisation and operational analysis of integrated multi-vector energy networks. He also collaborated with a multi-disciplinary team on the UKRI Research and Innovation Infrastructure (RII) roadmap project, advising UKRI on the current landscape and future roadmap of Energy RIIs. He has supported and collaborated with several CESI Flex Fund projects to investigate further various aspects of Energy Systems Integration (ESI). Moreover, he is working with the Executive Board of Northern Gas Networks to identify the potential energy systems challenges that could be investigated at the Customer Energy Village of the Integrated Transport Electricity Gas Research Laboratory (InTEGReL), through collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team of energy experts in industry and academia. Hamid is author of several papers published in prestigious journals and conferences on the review and techno-economic-environmental operational analysis of integrated multi-vector energy networks.

Contact email: hamid.hosseini@newcastle.ac.uk
Profile details

Like many Governments, the UK has committed to significantly reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, setting a target of ‘Net Zero’ by 2050 [1]. In many regions, the focus has been on the electrification of heat to ensure these targets are achieved. There is a growing interest in exploring and quantifying the impact of integrating energy systems to decarbonise them. This includes the integration of the gas and electric networks and increased use of renewables and energy storage [2], [3], [4].

However, there is great uncertainty associated with forecasted loads, generation of renewables, energy prices and other operational costs, as well as the emissions associated with future networks and energy conversion technologies. To provide a basis for making well-informed and risk-based design choices towards the GHG emission targets, it is essential to consider the impact of different sources of uncertainty on the Techno-Economic-Environmental (TEE) performance of Integrated Energy Networks (IENs). In addition to these uncertainties, the TEE impact of different Energy Storage Systems (ESSs) and different levels of integration of the networks [5] need to be investigated in detail.

In this paper, we present a framework to assess the Techno-Economic-Environmental (TEE) impact of Integrated Gas and Electricity Networks (IGENs). We look at how different levels of networks’ integration and storage devices affect the performance of IGENs. Using Monte Carlo Simulation, we sampled probabilistic distributions to model the sources of uncertainty including loads, RESs, economic and environmental factors. More detailed information of the inputs and outputs of the TEE framework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The algorithm of the TEE evaluation framework considering several sources of uncertainty

The framework carries out a TEE operational analysis of IGENs for possible future energy scenarios to calculate the energy imported from upstream networks, operational costs, and emissions. As the framework considers uncertainties in this analysis, it helps robust decision making in designing an energy system to meet 2050 carbon targets.

In the paper, we give a comprehensive analysis of the results when the framework is applied to a real-world case study. 

The key findings of this analysis include:

  • Efforts to improve the efficiency of coupling components by equipment manufacturers are very important goals in pursuit of lower TEE performance parameters in future integrated networks.
  • Given that demand reduction and decarbonisation of electricity and gas networks is a priority, the coupled configurations are likely to become more attractive between now and 2050.

These findings hold true for all the values considered in the uncertainty analysis.

The full paper will appear in the Elsevier Journal, Energy, and is available to view online [6].

References

[1] Committee on Climate Change. Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming, 2019. Google Scholar

[2] P. Rachakonda, V. Ramnath, V.S. Pandey. Uncertainty evaluation by monte carlo method, MAPAN, 34 (3) (2019), pp. 295-298. CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[3] Han Jie, Chen Huaiyan, and Cao Yun. Uncertainty evaluation using monte carlo method with matlab. In IEEE 2011 10th International Conference on Electronic Measurement & Instruments, volume 2, pages 282–286. IEEE, 2011. Google Scholar

[4] Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini, Adib Allahham, Sara Louise Walker, Phil Taylor. Optimal planning and operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133 (2020), 110216. Google Scholar

[5] Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini, Adib Allahham, and Phil Taylor. “Techno-economic-environmental analysis of integrated operation of gas and electricity networks.” In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), pp. 1-5. IEEE, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2018.8351704

[6] Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini, Adib Allahham, Sara Louise Walker, Phil Taylor. Uncertainty Analysis of The Impact of Increasing Levels of Gas and Electricity Network Integration and Storage on Techno-Economic-Environmental Performance, Energy, 2021, 119968, ISSN 0360-5442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119968

How green is energy storage? Learnings from a CESI-funded case study

carbon emissions, Energy Storage, Energy Systems, integrated energy systems, Net Zero, Power, , , , ,

Academics funded by the EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI) in the Centre’s first Flexible Funding Call, recently published the results of a study on the impacts of energy storage operation on greenhouse gas emissions, in the journal Applied Energy. Their work is summarised here by the lead author, Dr Andrew Pimm, and the full paper [1] is freely available to all on the journal website. The research team was led by Prof Tim Cockerill of the University of Leeds, and also included Dr Jan Palczewski of Leeds and Dr Edward Barbour of Loughborough University.

About the author: Dr Andrew Pimm

Dr Andrew Pimm is a Research Fellow at the University of Leeds investigating the techno-economics of energy storage, energy flexibility, and industrial decarbonisation. Prior to joining Leeds in 2015, he worked on the development of grid-scale energy storage technologies at the University of Nottingham, where he was involved in offshore trials of underwater compressed air energy storage.

Contact details
Email: a.j.pimm@leeds.ac.uk

Energy storage will be a key part of the future energy system, allowing the deployment of higher levels of non-dispatchable low carbon electricity generation and increased electrification of energy demand for heating/cooling, transport, and industry.

Passing energy through storage inevitably results in losses associated with inefficiencies, however previous investigations have found that operation of electricity storage can result in increased CO2 emissions even if the storage has a turnaround efficiency of 100% [2]: if the output from a relatively high carbon source (such as unabated gas or coal) is increased to charge the storage, and the output from a relatively low carbon source is reduced when the storage is discharged, then the result will be a net increase in CO2 emissions.

However, these effects had not been considered recently for Great Britain, and little attention had been given to the extent to which they vary by location. We sought to fill this gap in the knowledge through our study.

We made use of data from National Grid’s regional Carbon Intensity API and ELEXON’s P114 dataset to determine the source of electricity consumed in each of Great Britain’s 14 electricity distribution zones for each half-hour period in 2019 (annual sums shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1: The share of electricity consumption by region and source in Great Britain in 2019.

With these data, we used linear regression techniques [3] to calculate half-hourly “marginal emissions factors” for each distribution zone. These tell us the change in CO2 emissions that occurs as a result of a change to grid electricity demand, disaggregated by time and location. These regional marginal emissions factors were then used to assess the impact of electricity storage operation on grid CO2 emissions in three different storage operating scenarios:

  1. Load levelling, whereby storage is charged at times of low demand and discharged at times of high demand.
  2. Wind balancing, whereby storage is charged at times of high wind output and discharged at times of low wind output.
  3. Reducing wind curtailment, whereby storage is charged using excess wind generation that would otherwise be curtailed and discharged at times of high demand.

The resulting emissions reductions are shown for selected distribution zones and Great Britain as a whole in Figure 2. Wind balancing is the only storage operating mode that leads to increased CO2 emissions, and emissions are reduced the most when storage is operated to reduce wind curtailment in regions with high levels of fossil generation.

Across all regions and operating modes, the difference between the highest reduction in emissions and the highest increase is significant, at 741 gCO2 per kWh discharged, and is roughly equivalent to the reduction in emissions per unit achieved by fitting a coal power plant with carbon capture and storage.

Figure 2: Potential emissions reduction through storage operation for the three operating scenarios, in six selected distribution zones and Great Britain as a whole in 2019.

While electricity storage will be a key component in future low carbon energy systems, our work has shown the importance of storage location and operating mode to its operational emissions and the possible dangers of evaluating emissions using average emissions factors. We are currently using these new techniques to investigate the lifecycle emissions of storage and smart EV charging across the EU.

References

[1] Pimm AJ, Palczewski J, Barbour ER, Cockerill TT. Using electricity storage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Applied Energy. 2021;282:116199.
[2] Denholm P, Kulcinski GL. Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion and Management. 2004;45:2153-72.
[3] Hawkes AD. Estimating marginal CO2 emissions rates for national electricity systems. Energy Policy. 2010;38:5977-87.

Where is the value in cost, carbon and resilience in taking an energy systems integration approach to the UK’s energy future?

Energy Storage, Energy Systems, Gas, Heat, integrated energy systems, multi-vector energy systems, Net Zero, Power, , ,

Researchers and Academics from the EPSRC funded Supergen Energy Networks Hub and the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI), Dr Adib Allahham, Dr Hamid Hosseini, Dr Vahid Vahidinasab, Dr Sara Walker & Professor Phil Taylor, recently published their journal paper in the International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems on Techno-economic-environmental evaluation framework for integrated gas and electricity distribution networks considering impact of different storage configurations.

About the author: Dr Adib Allahham

Adib is a Research Associate within the Power Systems Research Team, School of Engineering, Newcastle University and currently works on several projects including the EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI) and the Supergen Energy Networks Hub.  Adib received his PhD from the University of Joseph Fourier in the field of control engineering. His research involves projects around the electricity distribution and off-grid power sector and multi-vector energy systems. These projects are addressing the need to cost efficiently decarbonise the energy sector over the next thirty years by facilitating innovative network integration of new generation, and the integration of different energy vectors (electricity, gas, and heat). Computer simulation, laboratory investigation and demonstration projects are used together to produce new knowledge that delivers this requirement. He has published more than 25 technical papers in leading journals and conferences.

Contact Details
email: adib.allahham@ncl.ac.uk @adiballhham

About the Paper

Governments around the world are working hard to reduce their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In the UK, the government has set a target of “Net Zero” GHG emissions by 2050 in order to reduce contribution to global warming [1]. This necessitates the integration of more Renewable Energy Sources (RESs) into the energy networks and consequently reduction in the use of fossil fuels while meeting and reducing energy demand.

To achieve this objective flexibly and reliably, it may be necessary to couple the energy networks using several network coupling components such as gas turbine (GT), power-to-gas (P2G) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) [2]. Also, the energy networks may benefit from different types of Energy Storage Systems (ESSs) in order to be able to compensate for any energy carrier deficit or other constraints in energy supply in any of the networks [3].

In order to comprehensively study multi-vector integrated energy systems and analyse ESS potentials, a Techno-Economic-Environmental (TEE) evaluation framework needs to be designed to investigate the mutual impacts of each of the networks on the operational, economic and environmental performance of others. This is the main aim of this study.

The paper divides ESS into two different categories of Single Vector Storage (SVS) and Vector Coupling Storage (VCS).

Figure 1: A conceptual representation of SVS and VCS storage devices in an Integrated Gas and Electricity Distribution Network (IGEDN)

A literature review looked at models which have been used to perform planning of the whole energy system of several countries taking into account all layers of the energy system, as well as different types of energy storage in multi-vector energy networks. As well as using a case study from a rural area in Scotland which is connected to the electricity distribution network only, also benefitting from a small wind farm and roof-top PV’s.

Fig. 2. The schematic of the studied rural area in Scotland including the separate gas and electricity networks (without considering P2G and VCS) and IGEDN (with considering P2G and VCS) [4]

A framework was developed as a result of the literature review carried out and this was tested on the real-world rural area in Scotland.  The evaluation framework provides the ability to perform TEE operational analysis of future scenarios of Integrated Gas and Electricity Distribution Networks (IGEDN).  Several specifications and achievements from this study are identified in the paper which is available to read online and will be published in the November issue of the Journal.

[1] Committee on Climate Change. Net Zero – The UKś contribution to stopping global warming, 2019. Google Scholar
[2] S. Clegg, P. MancarellaIntegrated electrical and gas network flexibility assessment in low-carbon multi-energy systems IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy, 7 (2) (2016), pp. 718-731 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
[3] S.H.R. Hosseini, A. Allahham, P. TaylorTechno-economic-environmental analysis of integrated operation of gas and electricity networks 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) (2018), pp. 1-5 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
[4] EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI). https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cesi/, 2017.