The power of the tube: How a Mayor with ambition can make a big difference
Mike Tuffrey explains how green electricity should power London’s tube:
London’s biggest consumer of electricity is beneath our feet.
Literally.
In fact, London Underground is one of the top ten customers for electricity in the whole of the UK – using over one terawatt hour of electricity a year, enough to power over 250,000 homes.
You would have thought that such purchasing power would make it the obvious place to push the commissioning of new renewable electricity generation. But both current and previous mayors have dismally failed to show the ambition and determination needed.
Today, despite government and Mayoral pledges to make London greener and reduce CO2 emissions, just 16% of London Underground’s electricity supply comes from renewable and low carbon sources via the National Grid.
Most of this energy is used to power trains – although a variety of other operations need power too, such as running the 1030 groundwater pumps which keep a remarkable 30 million litres of water out of the tunnels everyday. Upgrades to the tube system also mean that demand for power keeps increasing – as the rising heat levels in Victoria Line tunnels this week confirm.
This is hardly a new idea. I have been pressing the Mayor on how the tube is powered since at least 2004. London Underground’s Environment Strategy talked about “influencing the supply chain…to improve the carbon profile of our power demands” back in 2008, and they were meant to be working up detailed plans in 2010
What we need to see is a step change to the use of renewables to power the tube. The Mayor’s current aspiration is for London Underground to source 30% of its energy supply from renewables by 2025. I think that’s derisory and we should go as far and as fast towards 100% as security of supply allows.
Can it be done?
The new London Array, out at sea off the coasts of Kent and Essex, will have a total capacity three times the amount the Underground needs. It’s coming on stream next year, six years after initial planning consent was granted. It shows what can be done.
London Underground themselves admit they have “strong market leverage due to the large, secure and long-term nature of demand as well as a very strong credit position, both of which are highly valued by low carbon energy generators and their financiers”.
I say let’s use that powerful position. All the scenarios show energy prices will rise in the decades ahead. It’s time to make a big move now, to secure, cost-effective, low carbon energy for London’s future.
Must find ways to reduce power that causes CO2
This is a fantastic idea! Such a large consumer of renewable electricity would make a significant difference to perception in the market.
I think that London putting resources into large green energy infrastructure projects is a wonderful and inspring idea. I would just be wary of the temptation to earmark the energy as “for running the Tube” and not keeping the focus on the carbon output of the population as a whole. But if the (justified) local pride in the Underground is what it takes to make it convincing to Londoners, so be it.
It’s a relief to hear someone talking like this. It seems so obvious a way to address the CO2 situation, I find it hard to believe there’s any opposition to it at all. The foot-dragging, and lack of imagination and commitment, of most London politicians on these issues drives me demented! Keep plugging away, and I’ll certainly vote for you!
“scenarios show energy prices will rise in the decades ahead” – well, yes because of our insane pursuit of highly expensive “renewable” energy.
Mr. Tuffrey’s absurd suggestion would raise the Tube’s energy costs enormously, and make the service less reliable as wind etc are intermittent.
Imagine “This train will remain in the black tunnel until the wind starts blowing again”.
Serious about London? Clearly not.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting linking the Tube to a single wind farm. The issue is whether TfL should be using its purchasing power to stimulate new low carbon generation capacity.
And no, the scenarios for increased energy prices are not based on additional renewable cost, but on the supply of and demand for fossil fuels. Looking back, the last decade has seen the oil price rising from $25 a barrel to over $110 today. One way of hedging against that and securing cost-effective supply is direct investment.
Just look at what BT has done over the last decade: it has been able to switch 98% of its electricity consumption to low carbon sources including their own windfarms (and they have more than twice the demand of London Underground).
Not easy, but worth a determined effort!
Seems sane and detailed. You’ve got to tackle the big energy users first. I appreciate your depth of knowledge. You should place something in your prospecti. Most people worry about energy/co2. Design economy around energy budget? Hope TfL will export expertise. Now is time to be serious.
Nice to see independent commentators on your proposals.