One lump or two?

Even in the midst of election fever, both here and in France, several news outlets have highlighted the report from the National Grid that from about 11pm on Thursday night (20/4) until midnight on Friday (21/04), the UK generated 'a day's electricity without coal'. (www.ft.com)

The last time coal contributed zero to the UK's power was over 130 years ago, in 1882, the year the fourth (and current) Eddystone lighthouse was first illuminated.  1882 was also the year of the 'Married Women's Property Act' which enabled wives to buy, own and sell property, and keep their own earnings.  Progress indeed.  Surely in these enlightened times, the fact that coal didn't contribute to keeping the lights on demonstrates our achievements in decarbonising electricity right?

Well, as with many things, the answer is 'yes', but with important caveats:

1. The absence of coal power from the daily energy mix does not mean the removal of all fossil fuel generation.  Indeed gas power plants were supplying 47% of the power demand.  Moreover, a wider consideration of the UK's progress towards decarbonisation has, as demonstrated by this blog, been most focused on the electricity component of our power demand, with little focus (or success) on the heat or transport components.  
2. The intermittent nature of solar and wind power sources and the non-alignment of their output to grid requirements demand the existence of an equal but alternative power capacity and management of their excess.  As renewables are given priority in the UK's energy mix, such reserve capacity has to be held ready to react quickly to changes in power output from those renewables to prevent power outages.  Coal may not form part of the government's thinking in terms of reserve capacity, but the implications of such a capacity requirement from some dispatchable form(s) of electricity generation  means the extension of both coping mechanisms by the National Grid (Balancing Mechanisms. Demand Turn Up) and ultimately higher cost to the consumer in providing such.  

It may be considered that the development of solar and wind generation, and their contribution to renewable energy generation and reductions in carbon emissions, are deemed beneficial but that development has occurred without any apparently real consideration of the longer term implications for the performance of the National Grid.  Battery technology is often quoted as the solution to our energy imbalance but their capacity is only applicable over a very short period, and their cost still relatively high.  Interconnectors can only provide a marginal answer.  The timeline for new nuclear development appears to be being pushed further and further out.  Seasonal imbalances in energy generation, especially beyond the electricity sector, remain questions seeking a practical answer.   

Two awkward questions therefore spring to mind:

1. Ultimately, if the UK has to 'back up' solar and wind generating sources, will we see the development of a parallel, or dual, electricity generating system, and how much more expensive will this be?
2. Unless fossil fuel sources can be effectively switched off long term, can we claim to have met our decarbonisation goals?