Climate Change,

[kzb]

4 hours ago, crash-and-burn said:

I figured there can't be that many coal powered power plants left. The woodchip biomass plants require vast amounts of trees (in some bio plants, I've heard of them burning rubber tyres to increase temperatures), and generate very little in the way of power.

One of the biggest power plants in the UK (Drax) burns woodchips (biomass).  Yes it is questionable how green this really is, but the majority of our so-called green electricity comes from burning biomass.  Not wind, not solar, not hydroelectric, but burning trees.  So certainly, there is a big misconception in many peoples' minds, but I don't think you can say that it generates little in the way of power.

4 hours ago, crash-and-burn said:

There really doesn't seem to be any alternative apart from trying to pull the wool over people's eyes talking about 'green' energy - most end applications have a bigger carbon footprint, as it's ultimately coming from fossil fuel sources (plus the mining of more minerals/resources).

They do attempt to analyse the EROI for all types of power generation.  This is meant to be a comprehensive calculation of energy costs of mining, production, construction, maintenance and decommissioning energy costs, set against the lifetime electric generation.  Whether this is being fiddled is a good question, but there is at least a calculation being made.

4 hours ago, crash-and-burn said:

Whether a truly innovative alternative will come along remains to be seen

The complete nuclear power fuel cycle was envisaged in the 1950's.  Nothing else needs to be innovated, the answer has been in front of us for decades.  But we chose not to do it.

That's fast breeder reactors, plutonium-fuelled reactors and fuel reprocessing.  If this had been enthusiastically pursued through the years, we would also have the thorium fuel cycle by now.  Together, the uranium and thorium cycles could power civilisation for centuries, by which time maybe even fusion power will finally be a reality.

4 hours ago, crash-and-burn said:

but maybe one day we'll end up living in front of open fires, with candles to light our homes at night.

The only concrete plans in place are around demand management.  There is no concrete plan to generate the vast extra amount of green electricity required for heating and EVs.  It's being left up to the market again, so what you write has a real risk of becoming true.

 

 

[kzb]

4 hours ago, This time said:

Does anyone know anything about this company?

https://www.powerroll.solar/

They claim to have produced a 0.1mm solar film that could power the country if it was applied to all south facing commercial roofs. It needs to be on flat roofs at the moment but they're working on something that can be applied to roof tiles. The only reason we don't have solar panels is our roof is 90 years old - installation is likely to damage it and it probably doesn't have many years left in it. We're hoping for a reasonably priced Tesla roof type solution by the time it needs replacing.

Er...is there any such thing as a flat south-facing roof?  I can't recall seeing a pitched roof that wasn't tiled.

BTW if every roof in the world was painted reflective white it would have a significant cooling effect.

It's great that the UK has invented a cheaper form of solar panel and I wish it success.  But the problem is solar power is mostly generated when we don't need it (and when the electricity price is cheap).  So the problem then is, how to store the energy rather than generate it.

[This time]

11 minutes ago, kzb said:

Er...is there any such thing as a flat south-facing roof?  I can't recall seeing a pitched roof that wasn't tiled.

BTW if every roof in the world was painted reflective white it would have a significant cooling effect.

It's great that the UK has invented a cheaper form of solar panel and I wish it success.  But the problem is solar power is mostly generated when we don't need it (and when the electricity price is cheap).  So the problem then is, how to store the energy rather than generate it.

The fairly low tech solution would be to pump water up hill during daylight hours and use it to produce hydroelectric power at night or at times of high demand.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

51 minutes ago, kzb said:

One of the biggest power plants in the UK (Drax) burns woodchips (biomass).  Yes it is questionable how green this really is, but the majority of our so-called green electricity comes from burning biomass.  Not wind, not solar, not hydroelectric, but burning trees.  So certainly, there is a big misconception in many peoples' minds, but I don't think you can say that it generates little in the way of power.

They do attempt to analyse the EROI for all types of power generation.  This is meant to be a comprehensive calculation of energy costs of mining, production, construction, maintenance and decommissioning energy costs, set against the lifetime electric generation.  Whether this is being fiddled is a good question, but there is at least a calculation being made.

The complete nuclear power fuel cycle was envisaged in the 1950's.  Nothing else needs to be innovated, the answer has been in front of us for decades.  But we chose not to do it.

That's fast breeder reactors, plutonium-fuelled reactors and fuel reprocessing.  If this had been enthusiastically pursued through the years, we would also have the thorium fuel cycle by now.  Together, the uranium and thorium cycles could power civilisation for centuries, by which time maybe even fusion power will finally be a reality.

The only concrete plans in place are around demand management.  There is no concrete plan to generate the vast extra amount of green electricity required for heating and EVs.  It's being left up to the market again, so what you write has a real risk of becoming true.

 

 

I don't think that is true.

We generate far more from wind than biomass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

[debtlessmanc]

The only realistic solution on the horizon and british made too

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/03/rolls-royce-lines-funding-mini-nuclear-reactor-revolution/

 

[kzb]

52 minutes ago, This time said:

The fairly low tech solution would be to pump water up hill during daylight hours and use it to produce hydroelectric power at night or at times of high demand.

They do this already to some extent but it would need expanding hugely.   How many sites would be needed in our hills and mountains?  How much natural habitat would be destroyed?

From an economic perspective, solar has a big problem.  Imagine if we had huge capacity for solar generation and the investors need a return on their investment aside from subsidies.  Also imagine the system is purely market-driven, with Smart meters charging consumers more at times of high demand/low supplies, and vice-versa.

The solar power is generated at times of low demand, hence it's price will be low.  What's more this problem increases as the share of solar power in our energy mix increases.  You could end up with a situation where solar power generators literally can't give it away in summer days like today.

[kzb]

33 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I don't think that is true.

We generate far more from wind than biomass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

OK it seems my brain was a few years behind on that one.

Still, I've just looked at Gridwatch, and as I write, wind is 4.15% and biomass is 8.27%.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

OK it seems my brain was a few years behind on that one.

Still, I've just looked at Gridwatch, and as I write, wind is 4.15% and biomass is 8.27%.

Depends where you look on Gridwatch. That is probably the instantaneous generation. Wind varies quite a bit, like solar. Wind generation during the summer months is pretty poor, but during the winter months it ramps up considerably. Solar of course is the opposite which is why the lag of solar installtion vs. wind currently is concerning.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

5 hours ago, Locke said:

So what does that say about what the CCP thinks about the validity of these predictions?

Nothing, that debate is over. They, are moving faster on renewables than anyone else but their short term priority is overtaking the US as the worlds clear number one economy. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

15 minutes ago, kzb said:

They do this already to some extent but it would need expanding hugely.   How many sites would be needed in our hills and mountains?  How much natural habitat would be destroyed?

From an economic perspective, solar has a big problem.  Imagine if we had huge capacity for solar generation and the investors need a return on their investment aside from subsidies.  Also imagine the system is purely market-driven, with Smart meters charging consumers more at times of high demand/low supplies, and vice-versa.

The solar power is generated at times of low demand, hence it's price will be low.  What's more this problem increases as the share of solar power in our energy mix increases.  You could end up with a situation where solar power generators literally can't give it away in summer days like today.

While CCGT is such a large % of the energy mix and can be pretty much ramped on and off at will, this is not a consideration.

It could be a problem in a few years time if the % solar gets a lot larger. But the installation of solar has stalled considerably over the past couple of years :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Confusion of VIs]

17 minutes ago, kzb said:

OK it seems my brain was a few years behind on that one.

Still, I've just looked at Gridwatch, and as I write, wind is 4.15% and biomass is 8.27%.

August is the annual low point for wind generation, the annual figures give a much better picture

Wind  Wind power production as a percentage (gridwatch.co.uk)

Bio   Biomass power production as a percentage (gridwatch.co.uk)

[Confusion of VIs]

1 minute ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

While CCGT is such a large % of the energy mix and can be pretty much ramped on and off at will, this is not a consideration.

It could be a problem in a few years time if the % solar gets a lot larger. But the installation of solar has stalled considerably over the past couple of years :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Solar stalled because the government withdrew support for it, happily the prices have now fallen so far that it makes sense even without any incentives. We recently fitted a 5k system for under £5k, half what it would have cost a few years ago.

NB Are the stats still accurate?  We are not getting any feed in payments and unless the installers have registered it somewhere I doubt the government is even aware of its existence 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Solar stalled because the government withdrew support for it, happily the prices have now fallen so far that it makes sense even without any incentives. We recently fitted a 5k system for under £5k, half what it would have cost a few years ago.

NB Are the stats still accurate?  We are not getting any feed in payments and unless the installers have registered it somewhere I doubt the government is even aware of its existence 

I have no idea on the stats. I feel irritated by solar and you're right it's the governments fault. After a strong start in 2013 removing the support killed it.

I think we could double our installed capacity without it having too much of a problem in terms of the energy mix.

I suppose the good news is that approx. 20% of our energy at this instant in time is being generated by solar.

 

 

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

August is the annual low point for wind generation, the annual figures give a much better picture

Wind  Wind power production as a percentage (gridwatch.co.uk)

Bio   Biomass power production as a percentage (gridwatch.co.uk)

You can't really say much about annual production from those very hairy plots.

Apparently wind was 24.8% of electricity generation in 2020.

So that is 24.8% of the 11-15% of energy consumption that is electricity, or 2.7 to 3.7% of total energy use.

Wind can generate only 1.4 (land) to 2.0 (offshore) watts per square metre of Earth's surface.  (I bet most of this forum have items that use more than that on standby.)

You might say build bigger turbines, but as a first approximation that does not help because the turbine spacing is a fixed multiple of the turbine radius.  Going a little deeper into it, wind speed increases with altitude so there is a small gain, but not much.

The problem is mitigated by EVs and heat pumps being more efficient than the items they are replacing, but I've yet to see an official calculation of what huge area needs to be covered with wind turbines.  On top of that, energy storage is possibly an even bigger problem.

 

[simon99]

19 hours ago, Si1 said:

The Western middle classes just can't get their head around the fact that to have a lower carbon footprint you have to consume less. Less trips on carbon fiber racing yachts (Greta), less enormous houses taking land that should have plant cover absorbing co2 (Tony Blair) or additionally in the countryside necessitating more energy use for everyday tasks (George Monbiot), less use of hugely inefficient always-on range cookers (Sting, Prince Charles). Less use of private jets or even private Jumbos (Al Gore, and for smaller jets probably most of the above, Will I Am who took a helicopter to Oxford to speak about climate change, Leo DiCaprio who did something similar)

These are all people who have preached on climate change. Yet a working class family with a single car, living in a terraced house, taking domestic holidays, is actually the example we can look to for a low carbon lifestyle. I don't think there's much alternative to simply using less. But 'green' consumerism has such a middle class cachet to it and yet in most cases it's just a brand.

Yet think it's all offset by buying a new Tesla every couple of years.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I have no idea on the stats. I feel irritated by solar and you're right it's the governments fault. After a strong start in 2013 removing the support killed it.

I think we could double our installed capacity without it having too much of a problem in terms of the energy mix.

I suppose the good news is that approx. 20% of our energy at this instant in time is being generated by solar.

Gridwatch itself says solar is estimated.  

It's not 20% of energy, it's 20% of electricity.

[kzb]

1 minute ago, simon99 said:

Yet think it's all offset by buying a new Tesla every couple of years.

I've read somewhere there is a new marketing demographic called "Tesla Class".

[kzb]

Every speed bump, every 20mph speed limit, every cycle lane, every street closed to traffic, every new traffic light, has an increased carbon emission associated with it.

Why don't we see these calculations?

[kzb]

24 minutes ago, simon99 said:

Yet think it's all offset by buying a new Tesla every couple of years.

It's a very old idea, that resources saved in one area means you will spend more money elsewhere, thereby using resources another area.

Simply put, if your cost per mile goes down, people can and do drive further to compensate.  If I save on groceries, I will likely fly further on holiday.  Etc.

In fact money probably is a measure of energy.

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

11 minutes ago, kzb said:

Gridwatch itself says solar is estimated.  

It's not 20% of energy, it's 20% of electricity.

Fine.

Where are the better figures then ? In the absence of them those are the ones you have to go with. I would guess the estimate is not too bad, unless you can provide some error bars.

We can double our installed solar capacity and cause no issues at all re the electricity supply mix. So best to get on with it.

I don't see the fact that electricity only makes up some % of the total energy consumed as a reason for not doing something about trying to improve the overall nature of our energy supplies.

 

 

[Si1]

41 minutes ago, simon99 said:

Yet think it's all offset by buying a new Tesla every couple of years.

Yeah. I have to say though that what Tesla have done to promote electric vehicles , which in the grand scheme have lower C footprints then petrol, is spectacular.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

9 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Yeah. I have to say though that what Tesla have done to promote electric vehicles , which in the grand scheme have lower C footprints then petrol, is spectacular.

I can imagine Elon Musk in his office at some point being told that electric vehicles only had a small chance of replacing ICE cars and it wasn't worth building one because they would never be able to make or sell them in enough volume to make a difference.

 

[Si1]

27 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I can imagine Elon Musk in his office at some point being told that electric vehicles only had a small chance of replacing ICE cars and it wasn't worth building one because they would never be able to make or sell them in enough volume to make a difference.

 

You know he wasn't the original founder of Tesla? He was brought in admittedly at an early stage as the original founder had put together this concept electric car with ludicrous performance and both he and Musk concluded that this was sellable as BETTER than a ICE car, which it is. He also had a lot of cash he could invest. He took over the company owing to his brilliance and stubbornness as far as I can tell. I think I'd hate to work for him but he is amazing.

And early Teslas were manufactured in Cambridgeshire essentially as an electric car based on the Lotus Elise platform. The Tesla roadster, which was supposed to be somewhat unreliable....

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Fine.

Where are the better figures then ? In the absence of them those are the ones you have to go with. I would guess the estimate is not too bad, unless you can provide some error bars.  (1)

We can double our installed solar capacity and cause no issues at all re the electricity supply mix (2). So best to get on with it.

I don't see the fact that electricity only makes up some % of the total energy consumed as a reason for not doing something about trying to improve the overall nature of our energy supplies. (3)

 

 

The figures are probably good as far as they go.  I'm not disputing the 20% of electricity figure and it's not a case of error bars.

I am highlighting a common misconception, and that is all we have to do is decarbonise our current electricity generation.  Whereas the fact is, we have to do far more than that, because electricity is only a small fraction of the energy we use.  Depending on what source you read it is 11 or 15%.

All those millions of buildings currently heating and cooking on gas, you have to heat with electricity.  All those millions of petrol and diesel vehicles on the roads you have to run on electricity.  As for air transport, let's not go there.

(2) It depends if investors want a return on their money.  Subsidies won't continue for ever.  Solar produces most energy at times of low demand and that is an economic problem for it.  People will plug their EVs in for charging when they get home from work, i.e the evening.

(3)  The big question though is what?  What is the best way forward?

[PeanutButter]