Are new gas-fired power plants the ‘bridge fuel’ to a low carbon future?

By Jon Crooks

Over the course of the next three days, I’m going to produce a series of three blogs examining the prospects for UK energy policy. By this I specifically mean the power sector (how we generate our electricity). In this first one I’m looking at the role of gas power plants


As ever, it’s worth first looking at the longer-term perspective in terms of the UK’s low-carbon transition. In this respect, the good news is that 2015 saw record contributions from low-carbon sources to the electricity generation sector, as Carbon Brief recently concluded, but the UK still relies on fossil fuels for 54% of its power generation needs.

“The UK’s fifth carbon budget, recently passed into law, will require the power sector to be largely decarbonised by 2030. Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement on climate change means the UK has pledged, along with almost 200 other nations, to almost completely decarbonise all energy use soon after mid-century.” – Carbon Brief

With this in mind, Amber Rudd’s announcement last November that power generation in the UK from coal would be phased out by 2025 and the principle replacement would come from new gas-fired power stations, raises some serious questions. A report from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) in February 2016 asked a similar question:

“Can gas, by substituting for coal, act as a ‘bridging fuel’ to a low-carbon UK energy system and, if so, how much gas use does such a bridge entail, and over what period of time?”

The advantages are clear. Natural gas has significantly lower CO2 emissions on combustion per unit of energy delivered than coal or oil. Also, as building  experts at EC Harris point out, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants (CCGT) also combine the benefits of proven technology, flexible load capacity (their output can be adjusted relatively quickly to meet demand) and being relatively predicable in build and cost.

The other key argument is that CCGT can be used to improve security of supply during the period where low carbon technology is being developed and it can be used to meet peaks in demand, even when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Historic trends

Looking back, the substitution of coal by gas in the UK’s energy system has been happening since the 1980’s, as this diagram shows:


Thirty two CCGT plants were given the go ahead between 1990 and 2013.

Current trends

The report by UKERC in February 2016 suggested that there was some scope for this to continue:

These substitutions meant that by 2014 the share of coal in UK primary energy consumption had fallen from 40% in 1970 to 16%, while gas use had increased from 5% to 47%. Of the remaining coal use in 2014, nearly 80% was in the electricity sector. Replacing this immediately with 30 GW of CCGTs, operating at the 40% load factor that was the average for such power stations over 2010-2014 could reduce emissions by over 80 Mt CO2-eq per year. This is a significant reduction, exceeding the emission reductions required under the 3rd carbon budget covering the period 2018 to 2022.

You can see the attraction. However, the report goes on to say:

“After 2025, if the carbon targets are to be cost-effectively met, the use of gas in power stations would need to decline, especially if they were not fitted with CCS… This would raise questions as to the economic viability of investing in these gas-fired stations, rather than low- or zero-carbon power generation, in the first place.”

The UKERC report concluded that gas is unlikely to act as a cost-effective ‘bridge’ to a decarbonised UK energy system. Their analysis showed that gas could only act as a bridge from 2015-20 and is…

…more likely to provide a short-term stop-gap until low- or zero-carbon energy sources can come on stream. 

However, according to recently published figures from the new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), we can see that renewables share of the electricity generation sector was up five percentage points in 2015 while coal-fired power generation continued to plummet.

Chapter_5_web-page-007 (1)

Source: Electricity: Chapter 5, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES)

Electricity generated from coal reduced in market share by a massive 8% from 30% to 22% and gas remained relatively steady. The winners were the renewables sector, increasing its share from 19% to 25% and nuclear increasing from 19% to 21% as some capacity came back on line. The take home message from this is clear. Based on current trends, renewables is successfully filling the gap left by coal, not gas.

Methane leakage

Whilst CO2 emmisions from gas-powered plants may be lower than coal, methane leaks could mean that gas emerges worse than coal in emissions terms overall. Global methane emissions have been rising continuously since 2007.

The Aliso Canyon gas leak in California, which was eventually plugged after nearly four months trying to contain it, brought new attention to methane. The gas is roughly 86 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change over a period of 20 years, or 35 times as potent over the span of a century. The Aliso leak spewed enough methane into the atmosphere to equal the greenhouse gases emitted by more than 440,000 cars in a year.

In fact, an emphasis purely on long-term solutions and mid-century goals can obscure the fact that the worst effects of climate change may become irreversible if we don’t take aggressive action now. Controlling methane emissions is said to be the single most important move we can make to alter the near-term trajectory of climate change. Methane emissions cause one quarter of the increased warming we are currently experiencing. 

New CCGT power stations

As UKERC have pointed out, if new gas-powered stations are to be built, they will need to operate on lower and lower load factors, which is something that investors will doubtless take into account in their decision whether to invest. This means that new gas-fired power stations, like nuclear, needs significant and long term government subsidy in the form of future returns if they are to be built.

GE Power and DF Energy are building a new gas-fired power station in Carrington, Greater Manchester for Carrington Power. The 880MW power plant will enter commercial operation  in 2016 following the three-year construction period and will generate enough electricity to supply the needs of around a million homes. This is new fossil-fuel infrastructure, capable of operating well into the 2030’s, long after we should have decarbonised our power sector.

In contrast, perhaps reflecting the new realities, newer projects may be struggling to get off the ground. Energy firm Carlton Power was awarded a subsidy contract by the Department of Energy and Climate Change last year to build a new 1.9 GW  plant at Trafford in Greater Manchester – big enough to supply power to 2.2 million homes. The £800 million plant was due to start generating in October 2018, but Carlton Power has said it can no longer meet that date and has so far failed to secure financial backers for the project to go ahead at all, and this despite government subsidy.


Why waste taxpayers money on long-term subsidies of this kind when it is proven that renewables are already taking up the majority of the lost coal-powered capacity and we won’t even be able to make use of these new gas power plants beyond 2025-2030?

Yes, we need baseload power to iron out the fluctuations in supply from wind and solar, but this can be achieved in other ways.

Much will depend on other developments in the wider energy system – such as new nuclear, the scale of renewable energy deployment and the availability of key technologies, but these developments are already taking place.

Whilst the debate around what should make up our energy mix in the future will rage on and the UK Government must not back down from its commitment to remove all coal-fired power generation by 2025, equally, policy makers must think very carefully about how best to replace that capacity. A further ‘dash for gas’ may provide some short term gains in reducing CO2 emissions, but it would not be the most cost-effective way of doing so and methane leaks could represent a far worse problem.

In the upcoming second blog of this series, I will begin to consider whether a transition to 100% renewable energy is possible without building any new fossil fuel or nuclear capacity… 


The case for a net zero climate change target

By Jon Crooks

The Paris agreement necessitates an increase in our long term climate target to 100%. Or, in other words, we now need to set a ‘net zero’ emissions target.

“The House of Commons should …set a date by when the UK will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) should then be asked to advise on what the date for the target should be, with that date then set in secondary legislation.” – Sandbag, ‘The case for a net zero climate change target”, 2015

Paris was the first truly global effort to reduce emissions. It lays the foundations for increasing international action and aims to hold the increase in global temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels, to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C and to reach net-zero global emissions of greenhouse gases in the second half of the century.

This is more ambitious than the basis of the UK’s current statutory target for 2050, which is to reduce emissions to 80% and was based on the previous aim to hold the temperature rise close to 2C.

The Climate Change Act 2008

The UK signed up to the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 and The Climate Change Act was passed in 2008 to establish a framework to develop an economically credible emissions reduction path in line with that agreement. In doing so the UK showed leadership internationally by committing into law the action we would take in tackling climate change.

The Climate Change Act included a requirement on the Government to set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’ – a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the UK over a five-year period.

CCC_website_logoThe Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was set up to advise the Government on the carbon budgets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing emissions. 

The first four carbon budgets have been put into legislation and run up to 2027. The proposed fifth carbon budget’s 57% cut in emissions by 2032 was laid out before Paris by the committee, and has yet to be legislated on.

In a letter to energy and climate change secretary, Amber Rudd, the CCC said that:

“…the pledged contributions by the EU and others have not yet changed. On that basis we repeat our recommendation that the fifth carbon budget be legislated at 1,765 MtCO2.”

This is very disappointing as we’re failing to increase the ambition in light of the Paris climate deal. Whilst we could take aim at the CCC for the advice given, as some campaigners have done, the fact of the matter is they are working to legislation that is now, quite frankly, out of date.

What should this mean for the UK?

The former Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, wrote in the Guardian last November, even before the Paris summit had begun, conveying what the science was already telling us; that we would need to go further with our emissions targets to achieve net-zero emissions at some point in the second half of this century. The Paris Agreement subsequently quite rightly acknowledged the very same thing.  

Initially, this means switching to 100% clean energy by 2050 and making our energy system more efficient and productive. It’s also about putting in place the right infrastructure – buildings and transport. Further down the line we will need to make more savings in emissions in more difficult ways and it will mean cancelling out any residual emissions from agriculture and industry by capturing carbon from the atmosphere through new technology and/or biological means – creating carbon sinks through reforestation and sequestration in the soil.

The net-zero emissions goal is crucial and already many cities and companies are adopting this goal. As Ed Miliband pointed out:

“…the right step now would be for Britain to become the first major country to enshrine net zero emissions in law, with the date determined by advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change.

He went on to say that that this:

“…would show our determination to face up to this existential challenge. It will provide an essential framework for business and government so that we make the right decisions now on key energy and infrastructure issues. And it will inspire the inventors, engineers and businesses that can deliver on this challenge.”

From Ed Miliband’s conversations with people across the House of Commons, including the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Caroline Lucas of the Greens and Conservatives such as Nick Hurd and Graham Stuart (chair of Globe, the international parliamentarians group on climate change), it is clear there is cross-party support.

Ed Miliband again:

“Paris must be the start of a journey of the whole world towards this goal. And far from this commitment holding Britain back, we can be a leader again on climate change. Leadership which does not mean harm to our economy, but will put us ahead in the race for the new jobs, businesses and advantages of this new world. I hope the government will support this initiative. We can build an alliance, put aside our party differences as we have before, and seize this moment.”


Now that COP21 in Paris is over, we know the direction of travel, and attention is turning to the hard work of getting there. To use an analogy put forward by Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker at the Hub Eco Series event I attended, it’s like we now have planning permission to build a house, but now we have got to get on and build it.

Before we start laying those foundations and building that house, we need to go back to the architect and make sure everybody’s got a copy of the plans. Paris was an amazing achievement, but it’s a global deal that is underpinned by individual countries all doing their bit to to achieve the same goals. The UK took the lead in producing GHG emissions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Industrial Revolution that began here ultimately transformed society into the fossil fuel dependent society we have become.

It is right therefore that we also led the world in taking action to reduce emissions by becoming the first country to legislate for deep, long-term cuts and it is essential that we continue this leadership and remain on track by introducing updated legislation and making the right decision about the period to 2032, which the government now faces.

Perhaps we need to look to history for how we improve current legislation. The 2008 Climate Change Bill was preceded by a Private Member’s Bill of the same name drafted by Friends of the Earth and brought before Parliament on 7 April 2005. Would FoE be willing to draft an amended 2016 Climate Change Bill based on the Paris Agreement?

A Private Member’s Bill needs a sponsor, who can be any member of parliament (Miliband for example, though it might gain more traction if it came from one of the two Conservatives mentioned – Nick Hurd or Graham Stuart).

Looking back again at the history of the the first Climate Change Act, shortly after the 2005 general election, 412 of the 646 Members of Parliament signed an early day motion calling for a Climate Change Bill to be introduced. Only three other early day motions had ever been signed by more than 400 MPs. On 8 June 2008, following the Second Reading of the Bill, only five members of the House of Commons voted against it.

I think this can be done, we just need to build the political will.

Further Reading:

In January, a report was commissioned by Sandbag to explore why the UK, in the light of the Paris Agreement, could consider an additional ‘net zero emissions’ long-term goal.


Originally posted on on 19 January 2016

The Paris summit was a success because the world is now left in no doubt that a low-carbon planet is an inevitability

By Jon Crooks

It’s not perfect, we know that. It’s built on voluntary pledges, which at present are woefully insufficient to get us anywhere near a limit of 2°C, never mind the aspirational 1.5°C. Also, as George Monbiot points out: “While earlier drafts specified dates and percentages, the final text stated only to ‘reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible’.”

But it’s a solid foundation on which we can build. As Ban Ki Moon said: “The current level of ambition is the floor and not the ceiling”.

The reference to a 1.5°C goal demonstrates the unexpected power and influence of the vulnerable countries in rooting the agreement in the realities they face. Even Monbiot conceded that the “aspirational limit of 1.5°C of global warming, after the rejection of this demand for so many years, can be seen within this frame as a resounding victory. In this respect and others, the final text is stronger than most people anticipated.”


The common transparency and rules that provide trust between countries have been outlined, but need more work. Although this reporting issue – the need to shine a light on what governments are doing – might, to an extent, be taken out of the hands of governments, because private groups like Climate Tracker and the World Resources Institute are doing their own calculations and increasingly governments have nowhere to hide.

John Niles teaches greenhouse gas accounting at the not-for-profit Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. In Paris he launched an international partnership with similar trainers around the world called the Carbon Institute. They’ll educate a generation of greenhouse gas accountants who can do the work in every country the Paris agreement demands. And if countries can’t or don’t report properly, or try to hide what they are really doing, Niles says the same accounting skills can reveal the truth anyway: “Of course we can check on governments,” he says. “Satellites can check CO2 in the atmosphere … they can measure the size of a forest and take multidimensional pictures … they can create a pretty good picture of what a country is doing,” he says.

Climate Finance

In addition, there is a framework for new finance, providing poor countries with access to investment needed to leap-frog dirty energy and accelerate access to renewable energy as well as funding to adapt to the impacts. Rich countries have promised that by 2025 they will set a new goal for climate finance “from a floor of $100bn per year”, the figure first pledged at the Copenhagen climate talks six years ago. However, the commitment was offered as a non-binding decision that accompanied the binding text.

Finally, the agreement includes efforts to address the impacts of climate change and deal with irreversible damages. This was a big concession made by the US in the end and should be applauded. This ought to mark a turning point in how the international community prepares for and responds to extreme weather events.

The Long Term Goal

Crucially, the Paris Agreement contains a clear and science-based long-term goal. This is given teeth by a mechanism that ramps up ambition every 5 years, starting in 2018. These 5-yearly reviews are the only real teeth the agreement has, because the targets themselves have to sit outside the legally binding part of the document (so the deal doesn’t have to go to the US Congress where it would inevitably be scuppered). Also, any failure in terms of the implementation of emissions reductions won’t lead to any sanctions. Instead, the whole idea is that peer pressure holds countries to account and builds the trust that would hopefully lead them to agree to deeper cuts over time.

Far from ideal of course, but there is no doubt that the Agreement sends a strong signal to business and investors that there is only one direction of travel. It makes clear that developed countries should continue to lead, but shows that the world is acting together. There is the sense that we now all share a common direction, but with an acceptance that countries will travel at different speeds.

The long-term goal itself is ‘to reach a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the second half of the century.’  This effectively means net zero GHG emissions, whereby anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions will be reduced to the maximum amount possible until such at time that emissions are low enough to be absorbed by carbon sinks (for example, creating carbon sinks through reforestation programs).

This is way beyond expectations. Personally, I would have liked to have seen an interim goal of net zero carbon emissions by mid-century written into the agreement, but this longer term goal that has been adopted covers all GHG emissions and is consistent with protecting the planet from dangerous global warming.

In any case, by also including an ambitious temperature goal (limiting warming well below 2°C and trying to limit to 1.5°C), we can infer certain other goals. For example, scientists have established the following:

To have a likely chance of limiting warming to below 2°C:

  • Carbon dioxide emissions will have to drop to net zero between 2060 and 2075 (80% clean energy by 2050 compared to the current level of 30%)
  • Total GHG emissions need to decline to net zero between 2080 and 2090

For a likely chance of limiting warming to below 1.5°C:

  • Carbon dioxide emissions have to drop to net zero between 2045 and 2050 (100% clean energy by 2050)
  • Total GHG emissions need to decline to net zero between 2060 and 2080

So fossil-fuel-based electricity generation without CCS will need to be phased out by mid-century if we are to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C. Transformation of other sectors and enhanced carbon storage like that achieved by increased landscape restoration will also be required to offset other emissions, especially if removals are to be maximized.

Keep them in the ground

By way of further criticism, Monbiot claims that the “UN climate process has focused entirely on the consumption of fossil fuels, while ignoring their production.” He alleges that “delegates have solemnly agreed to cut demand (by focusing on reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels, rather than keeping them in the ground in the first place), whilst at home still seeking to “maximise supply.” His prime example of course being the UK government’s legal obligation, put upon itself under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to “maximise economic recovery” of the UK’s oil and gas.

Monbiot’s point being that until governments “undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made.” He’s right of course.

The role of government in the modern economy is to set long-term goals and then put the right policies in place to give the market the steer it needs. Something the UK Government is failing to do with its slashing of support for rooftop solar through the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) and numerous other cuts to green policies.

To my mind, governments will have a choice now. They can either lead the way or be dragged along. But either way, we can now expect a significant shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. As Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever puts it:

“The consequences of this agreement go far beyond the actions of governments. They will be felt in banks, stock exchanges, board rooms and research centres as the world absorbs the fact that we are embarking on an unprecedented project to decarbonise the global economy. This realisation will unlock trillions of dollars and the immense creativity and innovation of the private sector who will rise to the challenge in a way that will avert the worst effects of climate change.”

Even the UK’s main business lobby group, the CBI, is calling on the UK Government to review it’s policies. Director-general, Carolyn Fairbairn, said the agreement “heralds an exciting opportunity for business” and called on the UK Government to do more to back clean technology:

“Businesses will want to see domestic policies that demonstrate commitment to this goal and none more so than in the UK”

As Simon Howard, chief executive of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association said:

“This is a better than expected deal which is really encouraging. It shows the world united, committed to beating climate change. The need now is for Governments and regulators to set consistent long-term policies on which investors can rely.”

Putting a price on carbon

One way in which governments can give businesses and investors the policy certainty they crave, is to put a price on carbon. The World Bank Group, business groups, and investors have called on governments and corporations around the world to support carbon pricing to bring down emissions and drive investment into cleaner options. Euan Munro, CEO at Aviva Investors said:

“The outcome of COP 21 is a significant step forward. There is increasing recognition among policymakers of the huge financial losses that climate change will cause. We now need real action by each country to cut emissions domestically and establish a material price for carbon. The UK government, for example, must move quickly to provide a credible plan for meeting its carbon targets.”

Picking up the pace

Bill Mckibben, writing in the Guardian following the conclusion of the Paris Agreement, believes that ‘pace’ is now the key word:

“Pace – velocity, speed, rate, momentum, tempo. That’s what matters from here on in. We know where we’re going now; no one can doubt that the fossil fuel age has finally begun to wane, and that the sun is now shining on, well, solar. But the question, the only important question, is: how fast.”

For him, that means no more drilling or mining in new areas. The Arctic will now have to be completely off limits, as will the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, the pre-salt formations off Brazil, and the oil off the coasts of north America.

According to McKibben, we’ve got to…

“stop fracking right away (in fact, that may be the greatest imperative of all, since methane gas does its climate damage so fast)….The huge subsidies doled out to fossil fuel have to end yesterday, and the huge subsidies to renewable energy had better begin tomorrow. You have to raise the price of carbon steeply and quickly, so everyone gets a clear signal to get off of it.

“At the moment the world has no real plan to do any of those things. It continues to pretend that merely setting the goal has been work enough for the last two decades….Its governments are still listening mostly to the fossil fuel industry…”

McKibben uses an analogy of governments as novice marathon runners who have now set themselves a goal to run a super-fast marathon and for the next few years, the  job of climate activists will be to act as their personal trainers; to…

“yell and scream at governments everywhere to get up off the couch, to put down the chips, to run faster faster faster.”

Originally posted on on 15 December 2015