I have looked through the document and as usual the devil is in the details.

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

There are many things that have to happen without enough details of how. This is from the opening summary:

We have to increase the rate of offshore wind installation between 3 and 6 times.

We have to make carbon capture and hydrogen work.

We have to increase the rate of transmission network build by a factor of four.

Even then we will still need gas:

Section 2.3 Page 30

Unabated gas generation

While levels of electricity from gas generation will reduce, as the main source of dispatchable generation at the scale needed today it will still be required for security of supply, filling shortfalls during periods of low renewable output. The portfolio of gas-fired power stations provides less than 5% of Great Britain’s generation in our clean power pathways for 2030, supplying 14-15 TWh of generation (in a typical weather year). Typically, gas would run in winter in periods with low wind and sunshine when renewable output is low. Generation could be concentrated in a few short periods through the year, with most of the fleet running over a few days delivering 1-2 TWh. Electricity from gas generation generally should not be produced for export in a clean power system. Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it. Our analysis meets current security of supply standards. Some stakeholders raised the importance of understanding the challenge of operating and maintaining an aging gas fleet that is running less frequently. This also includes workforce considerations. Reform of current market mechanisms, such as the Capacity Market, could help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply. Some stakeholders also noted the notice periods needed to turn on the gas generation fleet and the importance of ensuring these assets remain fit to run with a very different operational profile. Some stakeholders also spoke of the need to understand the potential suitability for conversion to low carbon dispatchable plants, which influences the way plants are operated and maintained in the near term. We have considered the impact on gas networks in Section 2.5.

This section also notes the need for continuing nuclear power,

“In combination, we assume these see a reduction in Great Britain’s nuclear capacity from 6.1 GW in 2023 to 3.5-4.1 GW in 2030, with scope for more new build beyond 2030. Our baseline assumption includes Sizewell B, one unit at Hinkley Point C and a lifetime extension of one AGR unit.”

The blackout risks are also noted in section 2.9:

• Restoration:

NESO has an obligation, by 31 Dec 2026, to be able to restore 60% of British transmission demand within 24 hours and 100% within 5 days after a shutdown. Clean Power 2030 pathways will not compromise this ability. The restoration strategy will include nontraditional generation for restoration services and an annual assurance framework to ensure compliance with the Electricity System Restoration Standard (ESRS).

Figure 17 shows just how much gas has to take the load in winter and spring.

The report seems to have made Ed Milliband happy but I don’t think he has read it or is capable of understanding it.

Is it realistic, NO.

I have looked through the document and as usual the devil is in the details.

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

There are many things that have to happen without enough details of how. This is from the opening summary:

We have to increase the rate of offshore wind installation between 3 and 6 times.

We have to make carbon capture and hydrogen work.

We have to increase the rate of transmission network build by a factor of four.

Even then we will still need gas:

Section 2.3 Page 30

Unabated gas generation

While levels of electricity from gas generation will reduce, as the main source of dispatchable generation at the scale needed today it will still be required for security of supply, filling shortfalls during periods of low renewable output. The portfolio of gas-fired power stations provides less than 5% of Great Britain’s generation in our clean power pathways for 2030, supplying 14-15 TWh of generation (in a typical weather year). Typically, gas would run in winter in periods with low wind and sunshine when renewable output is low. Generation could be concentrated in a few short periods through the year, with most of the fleet running over a few days delivering 1-2 TWh. Electricity from gas generation generally should not be produced for export in a clean power system. Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it. Our analysis meets current security of supply standards. Some stakeholders raised the importance of understanding the challenge of operating and maintaining an aging gas fleet that is running less frequently. This also includes workforce considerations. Reform of current market mechanisms, such as the Capacity Market, could help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply. Some stakeholders also noted the notice periods needed to turn on the gas generation fleet and the importance of ensuring these assets remain fit to run with a very different operational profile. Some stakeholders also spoke of the need to understand the potential suitability for conversion to low carbon dispatchable plants, which influences the way plants are operated and maintained in the near term. We have considered the impact on gas networks in Section 2.5.

This section also notes the need for continuing nuclear power,

“In combination, we assume these see a reduction in Great Britain’s nuclear capacity from 6.1 GW in 2023 to 3.5-4.1 GW in 2030, with scope for more new build beyond 2030. Our baseline assumption includes Sizewell B, one unit at Hinkley Point C and a lifetime extension of one AGR unit.”

The blackout risks are also noted in section 2.9:

• Restoration:

NESO has an obligation, by 31 Dec 2026, to be able to restore 60% of British transmission demand within 24 hours and 100% within 5 days after a shutdown. Clean Power 2030 pathways will not compromise this ability. The restoration strategy will include nontraditional generation for restoration services and an annual assurance framework to ensure compliance with the Electricity System Restoration Standard (ESRS).

Figure 17 shows just how much gas has to take the load in winter and spring.

The report seems to have made Ed Milliband happy but I don’t think he has read it or is capable of understanding it.

Is it realistic, NO.

Ed Millibrain has no idea what he's doing. Without gas how many black puts would we have had this year. Adding more renewable will make things worse.

Yes, we need to set targets that are practically achievable not the hopeful thinking of theoretical scientists.

We need to green the grid which needs the base load of 25GW to be always 24 hours a day available so nuclear must surely be the answer.  Practically, it must be affordable so revision of the over the top  H&S requirements is essential immediately not waiting to 2030.

World Population expansion is linked directly to CO2 emissions.  If we double our population every 20 years as at present then we will need twice as much energy by 2044.  

Is it realistic

It's surprising what we can achieve when we want to. Send a man to the moon within a decade.  Or the 1944 Normandy landings - not just getting a couple of hundred thousand men across the channel despite determined opposition, but constructing two entire shipping ports (Mulberries), in the UK, out of concrete and steel despite severe wartime material and manpower shortages, and then moving the entire lot to France. Oh, and a cross-channel fuel pipeline. And that was on top of building in effect a new army and most of an air force in the previous few years, not to mention having lots of our facilities (and workforce) being bombed to smithereens by the Luftwaffe. Our ancestors wouldn't be impressed if with access to global resources, and far more advanced technology, we can't sort out a relatively simple power system in less time that it took them to win an entire world war.

   - Andy.