Didcot generates debate

Lead times for building new power stations are generally about five years (including the planning process) — ten years for nuclear.

So, the question arises: is the looming energy gap, of which we were warned by the regulator earlier this month, particularly acute in Oxfordshire?

Nationally, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has said that the lights will not go out while he is in charge, but successive governments, including the present coalition, hardly seem galvanised with a sense of urgency over questions of how — and when — future energy will be brought on stream.

Locally, Richard Llewellyn manager of RWE npower’s stations A and B at Didcot, told The Oxford Times: “RWE npower has committed to invest billions of pounds in the UK over the next ten years in cleaner generation, including a recent investment of over £60m in upgrading Didcot B Power Station, securing power generation from Didcot into the foreseeable future.”

But that still begs two questions: what will replace the old coal-fired Didcot A station, one of the dirtiest power generation plants in the country, voted by Country Life magazine in 2003 as the nation’s third worst eyesore, and the subject of frequent protests?

And, second, while we wait for a decision about a replacement, how will we keep the lights on?

Mr Llewellyn said: “Didcot A will have to close at the end of 2015 and no decision has been made on the future of the site, however it remains an excellent site for future power generation.”

He added: “As for keeping the lights on, Oxfordshire is in exactly the same position as anyone else because we all obtain power from the grid. RWE npower is pulling its weight in supplying power to the grid. We have invested £900m in two new gas-powered stations at Pembroke and at Staythorpe.

“But we need more clarity from the Government.”

So it seems that while the owners of Didcot’s power stations are ready, and have the money to invest, to supply energy wherever they can, they are forced to wait for the Government to come out with a clear energy initiative with which they can work.

And this Government in turn blames its predecessor for delaying decisions to such an extent that shortages are possible in coming years.

In his first ‘annual energy statement’ Mr Huhne ruled out more than he ruled in.

New coal-fired plants are more or less ruled out by requirements that they be fitted with costly carbon capture devices, and even the nuclear option is becoming less likely to fill the gap because of the long lead times necessary to build nuclear power stations.

Here in Oxfordshire, Mr Llewellyn did not rule out the possibility that Didcot A, workplace for 270 employees, could close long before January 1, 2016.

This is because under the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, which came into force in 2008, it must close either by that date or after 20,000 hours of operation, whichever comes earliest.

The directive gave coal or oil-fired stations the option to fit major new equipment known as flue gas desulphurisation — at a price of more than £100m — or ‘opt out’ of the directive and agree the closure dates stipulated. Didcot chose to opt out.

Mr Llewellyn said the chances of an alternative plant being built before the closure were “nil”. He added: “We are managing the decline in jobs very carefully indeed and arranging redeployment wherever we can. We are also keeping the workforce informed every step of the way.”

In any case, Didcot A has not been working since February because of market conditions, but it will be fired up again in the autumn.

Exactly when will depend largely on the weather.

The company has diluted its dependence on coal at Didcot A by converting three of its 500MW generating units to burn natural gas instead. And the station can also burn enough so-called carbon-neutral fuels, such as biomass sawdust, to power 50,000 homes a year.

Mr Llewellyn ruled out the possibility of a nuclear power plant replacing Didcot A, not only because of the long lead times but also because it was inland — nuclear power plants should ideally be built near the coast.

But he added: “The position in the UK is that the bulk of the demand is in the South East and in London, but most of the supply is in the north, where the coalfields were.

“Power stations being built now are all gas and any new plant at Didcot is likely to be gas. Didcot is strategically well placed because it is near London and on the Thames, from which it takes water.” Places from which gas supplies come include the British North Sea sector (now in decline), Norwegian fields and Russia.

The two plants together are capable of producing enough electricity to meet the needs of three million people — or three counties the size of Oxfordshire. But doomed Didcot A supplies more than half, at 2,000MW.

Didcot B, which employs 80 people, produces 1,360MW. The recent £60m investment boosted production by 80MW, or enough to power an extra 160,000 homes.

But the future of Didcot A remains in doubt until the Government comes up with a clear policy to plug the gap.

Liberal Democrat Mr Huhne would like to see more energy produced from renewable sources, such as microgeneration and wind power — but the UK even now is far from meeting its target, set by the EU, of generating 15 per cent of its power from renewables.

Another statement is expected later this year.

In the meantime, we can all expect higher bills, since more wind power could only be financed by subsidies — which, of course, would in turn be financed through our bills.