The Energy Policy to be discussed by the States of Guernsey on 25th June 2008 includes comments about replacing fossil fuels with electricity. We have serious concerns about such a proposition.

Our concerns focus on 4 areas, each of these are addressed:

There is a view that importing electricity from Europe will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  We wholeheartedly agree that minimising on island electricity generation and maximising imports of electricity will reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.  This is because what is known as the carbon intensity of electricity generated on island is more than that of imported electricity.  We have estimated the carbon intensity, that is the amount of carbon dioxide released per kWh of energy delivered to a customer, to be about 0.60 kg of CO2 per kWh for on island generation.  This is calculated as follows, heating / diesel oil has a carbon intensity of 0.25 kg of CO2 per kWh, this type of fuel (or even worse heavy fuel oil) is used by GEL for on island generation.  The net thermal efficiency of GEL’s power station in their 2006/07 Report & Accounts is quoted at 42.5%, hence one can estimate the carbon intensity of GEL’s on island generation to be 0.25 kg of CO2 per kWh ÷ 0.425 = 0.59 kg of CO2 per kWh.  There is debate going on with regard to the carbon intensity of imported electricity from Europe.  The Energy Policy does not state a figure.  The average carbon intensity for the EU 25 countries is around 0.38 kg of CO2 per kWh (source of information International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2006 Edition, 2002 – 2004 average, note this is the latest information available to us but such figures do not change significantly from year to year).  Hence we agree there would be a significant environmental advantage with regard to global carbon dioxide reduction if electricity generated on island was minimised. 

However the Energy Policy infers that there would be an environmental advantage if gas and heating oil was replaced by imported electricity.  We are not sure that this is true.  One problem is that the Energy Policy does not declare a carbon intensity figure for imported electricity or gas or heating oil.  This does not help the debate.  Carbon intensity figures are available for our gas (LPG), quoted at 0.21 kg of CO2 per kWh and heating / diesel oil quoted at 0.25 kg of CO2 per kWh, these figures have been taken from the UK Carbon Trust Energy and Carbon Conversions document.  As can be seen both of these figures are lower than the average EU 25 generated electricity carbon intensity figure of 0.38 kg of CO2 per kWh quoted above.  So we believe that there is a case to suggest that replacing gas and heating oil on the island with imported electricity could actually increase carbon dioxide emissions. Some people do not agree with this view, however, it is difficult to have a debate with these people if they aren’t prepared to state what they feel the carbon intensity figure is for imported electricity and why they have chosen this value. 

We are aware that some people think that the electricity is from French generation only and therefore should be assigned a carbon intensity figure of around 0.08 kg of CO2 per kWh.  However we believe that this view is too simplistic.  We ask what would actually happen to the electricity generated in the nuclear / low carbon power stations if we didn’t take it?  We believe the answer is that some other country would, and as a result another power station’s output would be reduced.  It is highly likely that the power station whose output would be reduced would be a fossil fuel power station.  This is because fossil fuel power stations are flexible and their generation can be increased and decreased easily (unlike nuclear power stations).  We don’t believe that a wind or wave power station’s generation would be reduced because once built they produce low cost electricity and therefore their operators would ensure an optimum operation to gain maximum economic benefit.  So what then happens if Guernsey wants more energy through the cable?  It would take more from France, who in turn would import more, again using the above concept it is highly likely that the energy displaced from France to provide our increased demand would come from a fossil fuel power station with a high carbon intensity similar to that of the GEL power station.  Many others with knowledge of the European Electricity Market share this view.  Marginal additional load placed upon the European Grid will be met by high carbon intensity generation.  If you agree with this debate then replacing gas and heating oil with imported electricity will increase global carbon dioxide emissions.  If you don’t agree with this view and want to take the very simple, and probably inaccurate, view that imported electricity has a carbon intensity of 0.08 kg of CO2 per kWh, the carbon dioxide reduction gained by replacing gas and heating oil on the island would be only 62,400 tonnes per year.  Calculated as follows:

    (carbon intensity of gas 0.21 – the simplistic view of carbon intensity of imported electricity 0.08) x 140 million kWh = 18,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year if gas is replaced.

    (carbon intensity of heating oil 0.25 - the simplistic view of carbon intensity of imported electricity 0.08) x 260 million kWh = 44,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year if heating oil is replaced.

As stated we do not agree with this simplistic approach to assigning imported electricity a carbon intensity of 0.08 kg of CO2 per kWh.  However, even if one does, the above calculation shows we would only achieve a reduction of circa 62,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year at a cost to the island of £300M (see costs calculated in item 1).  Guernsey would spend circa £5,000 on reducing a tonne of carbon dioxide per year (£300M ÷ 62,4000 tonnes).  This is hugely disproportionate.  If our island’s aim is to show our environmental credentials to the world perhaps we should realise that there is little we can do in terms of reducing carbon dioxide from our island’s position.  Hence we should possibly consider carbon offsetting and / or providing more significant grants to the poor and disadvantaged in our society to assist them with their fuel bills and to insulate their homes.  Such an approach could significantly impact upon world global emissions of carbon dioxide, reduce energy demand (headline policy number 1) and address fuel poverty on the island.  This is one of many approaches that could be considered.  However, we merely make the point that we do not believe there is any environmental advantage in moving gas and heating oil to electricity.  Even if we accept the approach taken by those that do believe there will be an environmental advantage, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are very small compared with the high costs associated.