Balancing power
November 1st 2003 Tim McManan-Smith, editor of Water, Energy and Environment Journal summarises current energy issues and how those in industrial environments can cope with the changing face of this market
The energy industry is not in the best of health at the moment. For many companies it is simply not worth switching the power stations on. Producing energy at a loss doesnt seem to appeal to them for some reason. Power blackouts in the US, Canada, UK, Sweden, Denmark and Italy have all highlighted the fragility of certain aspects of infrastructure such as interconnector reliability for importation of power and cascade effects with internal systems. This is all pointing to the need for further investment and a more stable operating platform and this will only occur through higher prices.
Higher prices will of course be a problem for many businesses and especially the manufacturing sector and the best answer to higher energy prices is to use less of it in the first place. There are many technologies available to reduce energy use, many of which are regularly highlighted in this magazine and its sister magazine Water, Energy & Environment Journal. Also, Action Energy is able to offer both free energy surveys and interest-free loans for the upgrade of existing facilities or equipment.
How to respond to possible power shortages is another matter and worry over the security of supply may lead to a resurgence in the use of combined heat and power (CHP). We have gone in a relatively short space of time from low prices and over-supply to rising prices and under-supply. The inability to make money from generating electricity has led to a number of failures such as TXU withdrawing from the UK market and British Energy unable to operate effectively without Government aid. The price of generation is not worth the cost that the market is prepared to pay for it, obviously an unsustainable situation. CHP would give businesses a method of on-site generation and utilisation of the heat makes it economic in many situations. However, CHP is not experiencing growth, it is in fact doing very badly and the Government will undoubtedly miss its target of 10 000MWe by 2010. The introduction of NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements), has made it difficult to sell excess generation back to the grid and having had prices for electricity so low, the market has encouraged the use of more polluting forms of electricity generation. It is better to use coal-fired generated electricity which is exactly what Government policy wishes to reduce.
With so many problems in so many areas it would seem that industry needs direction, and following the Energy White Paper earlier this year it certainly has not had any help from the Government. The paper was a nonsense that lacked any coherent strategy or direction. This opportunity to solve many of the problems within the energy sector was not grabbed and will inevitably come back to haunt us. The paper made all the right noises and set many aspirations, not targets you understand just aspirations. Yes, we all want a world that is peaceful and prosperous and environmentally sound but achieving it is a little more complicated. The targets already set and the aspirations will not be met unless the Government has a clearer, better idea of how to get there. White Papers do not have to give all of the solutions, details may be added and firmed up later but they do need to indicate what is intended. It is no good saying the the nuclear option has been left open and not do anything other than that. That is not a policy, it is sticking your head into the sand. Are we going to be using it or not? If not, then show how the fall in non-carbon generating capacity can be plugged by renewable forms. If it is to be used then construction of state-of-the-art power stations should be planned as soon as possible because of the long consultation period required prior to construction.
We have contrary policies created by years of hotchpotch pressure groups swinging energy policy one way and then the other. California, for example, has an energy policy that wants increased electricity supply, lower prices and a refusal to build any new power stations. Is there any wonder that blackouts occurred? In the UK both the 1997 and 2001 Labour Party Manifestoes committed the Government to cut the UKs carbon dioxide emissions by doubling the use of CHP systems by 2010. Yet CHP generation has fallen by at least 17% since 2000 and additional new CHP capacity has fallen by 95%. The Governments own Whitehall CHP system is running for just four hours a day - its opening in 1999 having been promoted by the Prime Minister. UK emissions of carbon dioxide from the power sector have risen by 13%. So the nice words really are meaningless without any actual new measures.
As to renewable support mechanisms to encourage increased use, the Government again appears absurd to say the least. One example is that solar power through photovoltaic systems are strongly supported by Government policy while small wind generation is three times cheaper per installed kilowatt, and provides double the output and yet receives almost nothing.
The only thing for many energy and facility managers to do is to do what they have always done and employ new techniques and technology to save energy, getting advice and help where they can. The only thing for the Government to do is to realise that they produced an interesting brochure and go away and fill in the details.
If you would like to regularly receive Water, Energy & Environment Journal please respond via the reader enquiry card. More articles from Western Business Exhibitions: | 
