Business

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

It's time for a grown-up conversation on energy

Paul Golby, E.on's UK chief executive, says society's relationship with energy must change.

By Sarah Arnott

Paul Golby is frustrated. He doesn't actually say so, but the measured tones of E.on's UK chief executive have a note of exasperation. "We are a 'no' society: 'no' to coal, 'no' to nuclear, 'no' to wind turbines. But then how do we keep the lights on?" the 58-year-old former engineer asks. "Most people just don't connect the fact that the TV runs or the fridge works with how the stuff is produced."

Such sentiments may be no surprise from the man whose plans for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent are a long-standing bête-noire of green activists. Not to mention E.on's keen interest in the burgeoning nuclear renaissance. But straight-talking Dr Golby is nothing if not fair. "Our industry is not trusted," he admits. "And we have not done well in explaining things. Somehow we have to get better at explaining that people can't have low-carbon, cheap electricity and no power stations or wind farms within sight."

It is not going to be easy, not least because the PR challenge has as its backdrop the biggest reshaping of the UK energy market for a generation. The industry faces a dizzying array of competing priorities, none of which can be sacrificed for another. First is the looming energy gap. Notwithstanding a slight recessionary dip, demand is inexorably rising. But within 15 years, a third of Britain's electricity generation will be turned off, as EU environmental regulations bite and ageing nuclear reactors are retired. Then there's climate change. Again the timetable is tight. National emissions need to come down by 34 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050, according to government targets.

Part of the answer is nuclear. Eon has teamed up with RWE to build 6 gigawatts of capacity, with the first two plants expected by 2020. But to scale the nuclear sector up from state-owned dirty secret to shiny commercial mainstay of the green future requires a series of tightly choreographed steps from both government and industry, with little room to manoeuvre. "It is possible, but there isn't much slack," Dr Golby says.

The renewables sector is equally pressed for time. The UK share of the Brussels target is for 15 per cent of energy, which means around 35 per cent of electricity, to come from renewables by 2020. But ramping up to industrial scale requires massive investments in wind farms, particularly in technologically inhospitable offshore regions, as well as a reorganisation of the grid infrastructure, and significant growth for the sector's supply chain.

With help from the newly boosted government incentive scheme, the business case for E.on's vast London Array project is finally made. But industry-wide, planning delays, supply chain bottlenecks and a weak carbon price all put pressure on timescales.

The biggest challenge is planning. Although the Infrastructure Planning Commission is due this year with the aim of cutting delays, there is a lot of ground to make up."We've got a lot to do in 10 years," Dr Golby says.

Then there is coal. Notwithstanding repeated protests over Kingsnorth, concerns about security of supply have put coal firmly back on the agenda. But all new plants will need carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, and so far CCS is largely theoretical and hugely expensive. Unless Kingsnorth wins the government-run competition to fund trials of CCS, the new power station will have to wait.

"The biggest demonstration of CCS so far would probably fit in this room, but to equip Kingsnorth it would have to be on the scale of Wembley stadium," Dr Golby says, indicating his fairly modest office. "We can't fit CCS unless we get some money from government. So if we don't win the competition, there will be a gap between the current power station closing and our being able to build new one." He does not make an explicit link with the looming energy gap, but he doesn't need to.

The energy sector has already undergone a transformation. In the wake of privatisation, only the biggest can command the scale of investment needed, initiating a wave of global acquisitions. Dr Golby has seen it first hand. He moved into the power industry 10 years ago, and by 2001 was a director at Powergen, becoming chief executive when it was taken over by E.on the following year. "The electricity industry is going the same way the oil industry did 30 years ago," he says.

But the deepest pockets in the world are nothing without clarity from government. "At the moment the Government puts sticking plasters over individual problems as they arise, rather than standing back and putting together a master plan," Dr Golby says. It is a matter of deciding on what is needed to deliver the 2050 targets and working backwards.

"We aren't looking for a detailed, Moscow-style plan," Dr Golby says. "The Government has always intervened in energy markets to try to force outcomes, in this case for much lower carbon. Let's have grown-up conversation and work out how."

The other grown-up conversation is the one with customers. When the Queen opened the first nuclear power station 50 years ago, the promise was of power so cheap it would not even be metered. But the future turned out quite different. Energy companies are already deeply unpopular after last year's sky-high prices coincided with unprecedented profits (albeit from different parts of the business). But bills are going to keep rising – ratcheted up by expensive carbon-busting technologies and the scarcity of fossil fuels.

For the public, there must be a cultural change. "People moan about energy prices but we waste a third of the energy that's produced," Dr Golby says. "Drivers know how many miles their cars do to the gallon, but I doubt anybody has a clue about the kilowatt/hours of their house."

But the industry must also do its bit to change the terms of debate. "We need to be more direct and honest," Dr Golby says. "Politics is based on benefits today that somebody pays for tomorrow. But with energy we have to pay today so our descendents have a planet worth living on. But it is difficult to sell."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

CCS
[info]afteroil wrote:
Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 06:36 pm (UTC)
CCS is a no go. It would mean the burning of 50% more coal for the same generation and the plant would cost twice as much to build. E.On's original plan to build a super-critical pulverised fuel boiler/generator with the highest efficiency is the best option.

If the proposed network of pipes to stuff the CO2 under the North Sea were deployed insted to bring water from the wet North to the dry and warm South it would absorb more carbon from plants, trees and crops that will ever be buried by CCS.

The idea that we have hundreds of years of coal is nonsense. The UK production peak was in 1923 and it has gone down ever since. To use a third more than necessary is utterly stupid. Please Ed Miliband read MIT's "The Future of Coal" and get an engineer to explain that retrofitting CCS to existing power plants would drop generation by 33% and bankrupt the owners.
CCS
[info]mfflower wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
Dr. Golby is pretty much smack on with everything here - except the scale of CCS plant.
RWE have a test rig in swindon, half of which doesn't fit inside a modest warehouse whilst scottish power have a facility up in longannet. That is, apparently, currently switched on and captureing carbon. It'll probably be about the same size, maybe a bit bigger.

Afteroil - I'm not quite sure where you get your figures for CCS from. The reduction in efficiency is about 9% [DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE661].
CCS is also the only economic option I am aware of which can take CO2 out of both the atmosphere and the topsoil, burying it deep underground. This is ofcourse done with co-firing biomass with coal and then capturing the emissions.
Nuclear offensive
[info]davemart wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 10:55 pm (UTC)
Dr Golby should take the battle to the enemy.
The nuclear industry does not fight back against the exaggerations and outright lies pedalled by opponents.
The WWF and Allianz recently produced a report comparing lCO2 emissions between countries.
For some obscure reason France was shown as having similar emissions to Germany,although it gets most of it's electricity from nuclear power and Germany, all they hype and vast cost of wind and solar aside, overwhelmingly from coal.
The obscure reason became clear in a footnote.
They don't approve of nuclear power, and so adjusted it's CO2 emissions to the same as natural gas!
So they based their 'report' purporting to compare actual CO2 on entirely imaginary emissions.
Greenpeace has consistently based it's claims for fatalities from the old, no longer built type of reactor at Chernobyl on assuming that even a very small dose of radiation scales down from massive exposure and is still harmful, causing fatalities over the years.
It is now, and has been for years, perfectly clear from all studies done and results published in the scientific journals that this view is entirely unsupported, and that the consequences of very low doses of radiation are orders of magnitude lower.
These organisations continue to grossly mislead the public, and effectively lie to them.

The nuclear industry wants to get the guts together to take the authors of these malicious slanders to court, and to challenge the charitable status of the WWF.
Calumny must be challenged.
The costs in excess CO2 emissions and global warming from these unprincipled misrepresentations are already great, and actual shortages and vast costs may shortly be a consequence in the UK

Get a grip, Dr Golby!
Fight!