[Energy-topia] Why Don't UK Officials Talk About RE100?

UK Prioritizes Not Only Wind Power, but Also CCS, Hydrogen, and Nuclear
Government Policy Must Be Based on Reality, Not Ideals

Not far from Tower Bridge, one of London's most famous tourist attractions along the Thames River, stands a building called the Clove Building. The Climate Group, a UK-based non-profit organization widely known in Korea for its RE100 (100% renewable energy use) campaign, occupies the fourth floor of this building. When I visited London last month for offshore wind power training, I had the opportunity to stop by the Climate Group headquarters and meet with their representatives.

The Climate Group representatives were well aware that President Lee Jaemyung mentioned RE100 in his inaugural address and spoke highly of it. They emphasized that Korea has significant renewable energy potential and that political will is crucial for expanding renewable energy. They also pointed out that the share of renewables in Korea's overall power generation mix is only 10%, which is low compared to other advanced countries.

Regarding the use of nuclear power, the Climate Group representatives stated, "Companies that have nearly achieved RE100 may use some nuclear energy to fill the gap," but added, "Korea does not qualify as 24/7 carbon-free." The term "24/7 carbon-free" refers to using electricity produced 100% from carbon-free energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power, around the clock, seven days a week.

So, what is the situation in the UK, where the Climate Group headquarters is located? With abundant offshore wind resources, the UK generated 30% of its electricity from wind power last year. Of this, 17% came from offshore wind. In September of last year, the UK completely shut down its coal-fired power plants. However, this did not mean that the UK had completely eliminated fossil fuels. Gas-fired power still accounted for 26.3% of the total power generation mix. Although the share of gas power has decreased since the Russia-Ukraine war due to the increased importance of energy security, it still plays a major role in the energy mix.

During my training in the UK, I was also able to visit Tees Valley in the northeast and Liverpool in the northwest, in addition to London. Both cities share a history of heavy industry development. The local officials there did not talk only about offshore wind. They also discussed a range of low-carbon technologies in depth, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and tidal power generation.

Tees Valley highlighted that BP, a major oil company, has decided to invest in CCS facilities on land that was once home to steel companies. Liverpool, which has a developed petrochemical industry, presented its vision for the HyNet project, which aims to produce low-carbon hydrogen using CCS technology.

Liverpool has established an organization called Glass Futures, which is researching technologies to produce sustainable glass using carbon capture. It was also interesting to learn that Liverpool is benchmarking Korea's Siwha Tidal Power Plant.

While expanding renewables, the UK is also continuing with nuclear power generation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party decided in June to invest a total of 34 trillion won in the Sizewell C nuclear power plant and is also promoting the construction of small modular reactors (SMRs).

Last year, nuclear power accounted for 14% of the UK's electricity generation. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for nuclear power in the UK is higher than that of offshore wind. Nevertheless, the UK is not giving up on nuclear power due to the need for a stable baseload power source.

Since the launch of the Lee Jaemyung administration, numerous government policies regarding RE100 have been introduced. The UK is more committed to climate change response and carbon neutrality than any other country. The headquarters of the Climate Group, which leads the RE100 campaign, is also located in the UK. However, none of the local government officials I met during my visit mentioned RE100. This is because ideals and reality are different.

Private environmental organizations or NGOs can fully pursue ideals, but government policy must be grounded in reality. We, too, should develop climate and energy policies that are appropriate for our own circumstances.