Power grid complexity and the role of Higher Education Institutions
Darren Robinson
BY PROF. DARREN ROBINSON, SOL BROWN & COLIN NOLDEN
“National power systems are complex sociotechnical systems that are comprised of generation technology, converting one form of energy into electrical energy; distribution technology, to distribute this electrical energy to the point of end-use; and the end use itself that entails a demand for electricity”.
National power systems are complex sociotechnical systems that are comprised of generation technology, converting one form of energy into electrical energy; distribution technology, to distribute this electrical energy to the point of end-use; and the end use itself that entails a demand for electricity. In non-industrial end uses, this demand is stochastic (meaning that it has time varying randomness) in nature, due to weather and the complex nature of social practices. The capacity of each link in the national distribution network is determined by these end uses as well as allowances for how they’re expected to change, as is the capacity of the generation technology that feeds the network.
The demand for electricity and its upstream implications varies according to short (e.g. within a day) activity-dependent usage variations, as well as upon longer timescale investments (e.g. in electrical appliances and measures such as insulating a house that impact on the use of these appliances, such as a heat pump), both of which are stochastic in nature.
In 2024 the total electricity generation capacity was 72GW with a further 3GW being imported from our neighbouring countries to meet peak demands. Now, the UK government remains committed, through the 2019 amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Act, to becoming Carbon neutral by 2050. Important strategies to achieve this ambition include the electrification of both heating and transport and the simultaneous decarbonisation of the power sector. Naturally, this electrification and increases in demand due, for example, to investments in data centres, means that the total combined power grid capacity will need to increase; by around a factor of 4 by 2050, to some 300GW. This larger and cleaner power sector will require very considerable investments
“Financing through tariffs is falling out of favour as it increases fuel poverty, which some 11% of households are already experiencing, according to the Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) metric, with regional disparities increasing this to more than 20% in the West of England and Wales. This raises some important questions…”
With energy utilities being accountable to their shareholders, the costs of this large scale investment will be borne by consumers either directly through tariff increases or indirectly through taxation. Financing through tariffs is falling out of favour as it increases fuel poverty, which some 11% of households are already experiencing, according to the Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) metric, with regional disparities increasing this to more than 20% in the West of England and Wales. This raises some important questions, such as:
How can the switch to electrification be achieved whilst minimising power demands and thus generation and distribution capacity? In other words, to what extent can energy efficiency and conservation improvements counteract electrical energy demand growth due to increased electrification?
How can capacity increases be achieved whilst minimising electricity tariffs, for example through the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, whereby the trading of Carbon allowances could mitigate the risk of tariff increase?
In a time of unprecedented geopolitical uncertainty, how can the risks of these substantial investments by energy utilities and network operators be best understood and mitigated?
Which approaches to investment prioritisation and policy cost recovery are the most conducive for reducing or even eliminating fuel poverty?
How do these processes play out in time, as we progress towards our 2050 deadline for Carbon neutrality?
To what extent can policy interventions support this transition, whilst mitigating economic risks to both industry and downstream consumers?
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are particularly well suited to answering these deceptively complex questions, but this would require substantial investments in research and something of a switch from short-term-low-risk to long-term-high-risk challenges. This would also require a change in culture, from the analysis of scenarios of the type “if X% of homes switch to heat pumps, or if Y% of vehicles become electric and equipped with vehicle to grid (V2G) technology to enhance load balancing, this would be the implications for grid capacity” to one of “under X energy tariff and Y subsidy, the uptake of heat pumps will be Z1 and of electric vehicles with V2G will be Z2 by 2040 and this will be the implications for grid capacity”. This shift from scenario to probabilistic modelling, with a comprehensive systems focus on the entirety of the power system, would offer powerful support to policy makers whilst helping to mitigate risks to investors.
As a hub of industrial heritage and forward-facing innovation, the University of Sheffield is positioned to support wider society in this shift and the urgent reality of 2050 targets. Through our Energy Institute—one of the largest research bodies of its kind in the UK—we are already developing interdisciplinary approaches to the integrated study of these socioeconomic factors and system-wide impacts, such as energy tariffs, consumer behaviours and capacity evolution, to enable clean energy futures that are both technically resilient and economically viable.
“Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are particularly well suited to answering these deceptively complex questions, but this would require substantial investments in research and something of a switch from short-term-low-risk to long-term-high-risk challenges”.
Beyond academic modelling, HEIs are actively pursuing research and development across the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) spectrum, to ensure that laboratory breakthroughs reach the market in time to impact the 2050 deadline. At Sheffield, we’re utilising world-class facilities like the Translational Energy Research Centre (TERC) and the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC), to develop technologies in the TRL 3–6 range—the often-cited "valley of death" where promising concepts struggle to find industrial footing. Our focus on de-risking investment through pilot-scale testing and the rapid production of high-growth spinouts, such as AmpliSi for battery tech and RunPilot for energy infrastructure planning, allows us to provide industry partners with the evidence-based confidence they need to make decisions and commit capital. This culture of commercialisation ensures that HEIs can act as an engine for a cleaner power sector.
Darren Robinson is Co-Director of the University of Sheffield Energy Institute.