Doubts & Dilemmas, Climate & Energy

My first post in this blog said "I'm starting from the position that I believe my 'home' is about to be spoiled, and I don't like it." and that "...we owe it to ourselves and our (grand)children to make sure the [GNRSP] proposals are challenged, and the 'benefits' evaluated in a balanced way." That's not changed.

Can't thinkers also be deniers?

This 'Doubts & Dilemmas' blog entry - certain to be substantially edited and extended over coming weeks - has been prompted by the SolarComment conversation responding to our MP's 20/12/2023 letter (to see the contents of any SolarComment post you need to have signed up, just email jgray.muskham@gmail.com if you want to be added to the mailing list). 

EDIT 29th March, 2024 

The 'doubts and dilemmas' at national and international level have also been surfacing with great rapidity, and revealing unanticipated threats, since I first posted this item in December 2023. Just yesterday, I came across another - hardly discussed until now, events in Africa that have potential knock-on effects for our UK electricity supply.

As I read (and paraphrase) it, the conversation's central message boils down to the belief that "Climate is an [...] existential threat to all of us." and that politicians at all levels should therefore be encouraging us to fully support the UK's sacrificial net-zero policies. There are undoubtedly MILLIONS who completely support those policies, but I can't. My Earth Science background, and 55-year exposure to 'the science' won't let me, nor will my equally long personal experience of Cold War threats and European politics - and that's before I even begin to factor in net zero's economic impact, most felt by people a lot worse off than we are.

For me, it's the loss of secure and resilient energy supply that dominates, not net zero. In 2024 the most immediately obvious threat to energy security could be expressed "Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to all of us, and his willingness to take advantage of our self-inflicted energy supply vulnerability is a serious risk in the near term rather than in 2050". Alarmist? In recent weeks the Royal Navy and allies have become focused on threats to pipelines, and the interconnectors we depend on increasingly are undoubtedly targets for sabotage.

So, at the strategic level of national energy policy, I am (and have been since the 1980s) simultaneously pro-solar, pro-wind and pro-nuclear. At the same time I'm still shocked by the strategic lunacy of unilaterally destroying our coal industry, and the Trent valley generating capacity that it supported.  I am bemused to see our national energy policy dominated by the dunkleflaute-ignoring belief we can ever have a 100% solar/wind energy mix that gives energy security, whilst failing to access our known onshore frackable gas. 

However, at the 'operational' level, I just don't think it makes a great deal of sense to base our support for, or against, local Solar Park plans on our advocacy of net zero or energy security. That decision has already been taken, national policy calls for 70GW of new solar generating capacity and, even though net zero scepticism is growing, the National Infrastructure Planning process is designed to make it happen. The tramlines set down by The Planning Inspectorate (TPI) process which, with the developers' EIA Scoping Report now accepted by the TPI, will limit what counts as 'relevant' to their ultimate assessment of the Elements Green application

My own mantra of  "'Not 100% for, Not 100% against, More 'OK, some of this but in a way that respects our needs'" is just a pragmatic (though conflicted) response to how I see that process shaping up. My focus remains unashamedly on us achieving consensus-led outcomes that optimises community benefits by being very concerned to understand (and game) those aspects of the situation that 'the process' requires that we are consulted on.

. 

Today's Dunkelflaute, A Reminder

When I started this post, 1st December 2023, I had just done my regular (semi-daily) trip around the Chat Walk, under a leaden sky, with absolutely no wind, a weather condition that quite frequently occurs in mid-winter and, when it does, it tends to linger for an extended period - dead calm, very cold, lots of home heating switched on, lights coming on early. 

At such times, solar and wind energy are at their minimum, at the very time we need them most.

On the morning of 3rd December - to everyone's surprise - quite heavy overnight snow had given us a local view very much like this impression of a Solar Park future, Rick Gill Muskham Facebook post, another cold, overcast, zero wind morning.

The German word for such a condition is dunkelflaute – the power grid engineers’ nightmare. What do you do when it’s cold, there's no sunshine, and no wind … and you’ve given up on coal, gas, etc An excellent Deutsche Welle documentary clip explains. The whole documentary is worth watching, but – on a day of dunkelflaute like today – this bit really makes you think. Stick around till a German engineer gets put on the spot, his reply is ....

Up there in National Grid HQ have to find an alternative source for all the solar and wind energy they might normally count on being available, otherwise there would be disruptions of power supply.

There are two broad types of "alternative":-

1. energy stored from renewables that can be quickly released
2. energy from "conventional" sources like coal, gas and nuclear fission - but, contrary to expectation none of these can be switched off/on instantly

--- More to be added here as the project advances ----

Having checked the weather forecast, I'd arranged to do a second 'Solar Park Walk' for the morning of 3rd December, which was expected to be cold but dry. Given the surprisingly heavy snow, there wasn't really time to make sure everyone would see a cancellation message, I donned Arctic-suitable gear and arrived at the MRCC, not really expecting anyone - but there, just in case. Just as well, I was pleased to see James, one of my grandchildren, turn up.