UK energy

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

al_yrpal wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 10:26am ie large real scale tests to clearly demonstrate the concept and gain credibility and political support. Thats where I would be going...

Al

There are tests taking place with all sorts of storage at the moment, scaleability is often the single greatest problem. Storage for use diurnally, monthly or seasonally will require different techniques.

It's possible that a good part of storage for covering diurnal demand spikes (which will be reduced with the Smart Grid) could be
from personal EV battery storage as well as dedicated domestic batteries such as Tesla's 'Powerwall'. Storage to cover monthly supply deficits would be covered well by tidal lagoons with pumped storage, but given the reluctance of the State to invest for the long term perhaps synthetic fuels made with excess RE are more likely to power us through slack days.

These same fuels could be stored for the many winter days when there's no sun or wind, just the relentless flow of rivers and tides. Geothermal energy also solves so many of these times of shortage, it could be locally sourced or via an interconnected supply network.

We have become so greedy for energy, so wasteful of it and so numerous on this island that moving away from fossil fuels will present challenges for years. A couple of centuries ago Britain needed huge amounts of storage to power dock machinery with one central power source rather than having a steam engine for every crane. William Armstrong of Newcastle developed his hydraulic accumulator, then a weighted version which didn't need a hugely tall tower (useful when building on softer ground) to create a steady water pressure, delivered through a large pipe network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_accumulator
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

I'm not expecting major use of synthetic fuels for grid energy storage... except hydrogen. (Although ammonia is intriguing.)

Fuel for aircraft and some niches of surface vehicles is a different matter. As is increased use of ammonia as chemical feedstock.

Jonathan
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: UK energy

Post by Stevek76 »

Psamathe wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 11:24am Government seems very keen on nuclear yet the timescales for a new power station are so long and so uncertain we will have resolved many issues before it helps much.
Timescales should drop as experience and skills are regained in Western Europe on how to do this sort of stuff, as mentioned earlier, Japan is averaging 5 years for new reactors now.

With the issues resolving part, i think there's a bit of a misconception that once we net zero in whatever year we manage it by then we're done. We're not, we need to be net negative to get atmospheric co2 back down again. There's going to be a long term need for quality baseload and right now fission is one of the few proven ways to do so and one with a very low environmental footprint (when considering total material/construction impacts etc)
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Psamathe »

Stevek76 wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:27pm ...
With the issues resolving part, i think there's a bit of a misconception that once we net zero in whatever year we manage it by then we're done. We're not, we need to be net negative to get atmospheric co2 back down again. There's going to be a long term need for quality baseload and right now fission is one of the few proven ways to do so and one with a very low environmental footprint (when considering total material/construction impacts etc)
I agre about going net negative, probably even more important as the existing problems worsen between now and net zero plus the lags in the system.

But I also suspect some of the damage we've done will not be undone by restoring CO2 levels. ne way change where the previous state was through a long and different history.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:46pm
Stevek76 wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:27pm ...
With the issues resolving part, i think there's a bit of a misconception that once we net zero in whatever year we manage it by then we're done. We're not, we need to be net negative to get atmospheric co2 back down again. There's going to be a long term need for quality baseload and right now fission is one of the few proven ways to do so and one with a very low environmental footprint (when considering total material/construction impacts etc)
I agre about going net negative, probably even more important as the existing problems worsen between now and net zero plus the lags in the system.

But I also suspect some of the damage we've done will not be undone by restoring CO2 levels. ne way change where the previous state was through a long and different history.
Yes, we need to go beyond net zero.

And Yes, that won't reverse all of the damage.

Jonathan
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Stevek76 wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:27pm
Psamathe wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 11:24am Government seems very keen on nuclear yet the timescales for a new power station are so long and so uncertain we will have resolved many issues before it helps much.
Timescales should drop as experience and skills are regained in Western Europe on how to do this sort of stuff, as mentioned earlier, Japan is averaging 5 years for new reactors now.

With the issues resolving part, i think there's a bit of a misconception that once we net zero in whatever year we manage it by then we're done. We're not, we need to be net negative to get atmospheric co2 back down again. There's going to be a long term need for quality baseload and right now fission is one of the few proven ways to do so and one with a very low environmental footprint (when considering total material/construction impacts etc)

France is the world capital of nuclear power with ~70% of their energy from their nuclear fleet. EDF runs all 56 of their reactors, and is in charge of all of ours, plus the building of the new EPR.

I'd have thought with so many reactors, their experience and skills would be pretty high? They have huge problems with their nuclear power, EDF has had to be nationalised to stay afloat because of the massive costs.

The environmental footprint of nuclear looks good if you measure it as a simple CO2/kWh figure, but there's a lot of carbon footprint associated with decommissioning and storing nuclear waste. Those genuinely concerned with unnecessary FF use would also insist that a power plant which is a decade late and several billion over budget has a huge effect on carbon emissions.

Here's a conclusion from https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergy ... -research/
if countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritise support for renewables rather than nuclear power. Pursuit of nuclear strategies risks taking up resources that could be used more effectively and suppressing the uptake of renewable energy
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Jdsk wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:48pm
Psamathe wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:46pm
Stevek76 wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 5:27pm ...
With the issues resolving part, i think there's a bit of a misconception that once we net zero in whatever year we manage it by then we're done. We're not, we need to be net negative to get atmospheric co2 back down again. There's going to be a long term need for quality baseload and right now fission is one of the few proven ways to do so and one with a very low environmental footprint (when considering total material/construction impacts etc)
I agre about going net negative, probably even more important as the existing problems worsen between now and net zero plus the lags in the system.

But I also suspect some of the damage we've done will not be undone by restoring CO2 levels. ne way change where the previous state was through a long and different history.
Yes, we need to go beyond net zero.

And Yes, that won't reverse all of the damage.

Jonathan

Are we all agreed that the goal, rather than to bring on the next glaciation (which we would be due for without AGW) is to prolong this interglacial for as long and as in as stable a climatic state as possible?

If so, is there any work which has been done to calculate to what level of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 we should aim for?
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5813
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

irc wrote: 2 Oct 2022, 9:29am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:28pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm

Renewable power generation has been being developed for the last fifty years, it’s come a long way in that time. However crucial bits are still missing and hence the considerable fallback onto fossil fuels.

Power storage is the big issue and the technology isn’t really there yet, let me know when electric cars become cheaper than todays fossil fuelled ones. We also fail to make best use of small storage capacity solutions; as in cumulative marginal gains when added together many small capacity solutions actually could make a useful difference. Some years back a friend told me of their experience in Nuclear France, electricity was cheap and heating (a big user of power in the home) was of the night storage type.

I have for long thought that we could learn a lot from the Isle of Eigg, there they have learnt the value of multiple power sources and the merit of working with what power you have available to you at any point in time: http://isleofeigg.org/eigg-electric/
Fascinating read, the Eigg system, thank you.
Feasible only because the residents only paid 6% of the cost of installation . So perhaps not that relevant to the mainland grid.

http://euanmearns.com/the-eigg-renewabl ... revisited/
I never claimed anything about relevance to the mainland grid - just that it's a fascinating project in and of itself.

The economics have changed radically since that blog was written, and I would, in general, very strongly caution against using Euan Mearns as a source for anything in climate change.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: UK energy

Post by irc »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 10:38am i never claimed anything about relevance to the mainland grid

I would, in general, very strongly caution against using Euan Mearns as a source for anything in climate change.
I assumed when you said "we could learn a lot from the Isle of Eigg," it must be relevant to the mainland.

Euan Mearns Why? His articles look well referenced at accurate. Other than the fact time has moved for example what errors are there in the piece on Eigg?
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5813
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

irc wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 11:31am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 10:38am i never claimed anything about relevance to the mainland grid

I would, in general, very strongly caution against using Euan Mearns as a source for anything in climate change.
I assumed when you said "we could learn a lot from the Isle of Eigg," it must be relevant to the mainland.

Euan Mearns Why? His articles look well referenced at accurate. Other than the fact time has moved for example what errors are there in the piece on Eigg?
I didn't say that on Eigg, you're quoting the wrong person.

The entire extent of my comment was

Fascinating read, the Eigg system, thank you

Euan Mearns is well known on the fringes of climate change denial. I'm not saying that everything he publishes is wrong, and I've no reason to doubt anything on Eigg specifically just that you'd be very well served to check other sources more generally if he's a go-to on matters climate change.
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

irc wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 11:31am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 10:38am I would, in general, very strongly caution against using Euan Mearns as a source for anything in climate change.
Euan Mearns Why? His articles look well referenced at accurate. Other than the fact time has moved for example what errors are there in the piece on Eigg?

Euan Mearns is an Honorary Research Fellow at Aberdeen and has contributed some of the most well-researched and thought-provoking discussion over many years in the field of energy and the planet's energy systems.

There's plenty of what he concludes with which I don't agree, but for anyone wishing to further their understanding of energy, its effect on the world and how governments struggle with the complexities of the subject, he's one of the best people to read to enlighten and to help improve all our thought processes.

He uses real data and interprets it with intelligence, pointing out anomalies in some of the more assumptive and confirmation biased thinking which is intolerant of anything which does not reflect their own views.

He once posted a blog with this YouTube video as the subject for discussion, it's highly recommended viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Carlton green »

For me the big takeaways from the Isle of Eigg were: supply capping into households and businesses; and the planned and complementary diversity of supply. I do think that those principles could be applied on the mainland too, diversity of supply source (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc.) is good and just because you can pay for electricity doesn’t mean that you should be allowed unrestricted supply on demand.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 11:06am As a country we have become used to using power on demand and maybe that has to change. Domestically that might mean heating using storage heaters of several days capacity and using the washing machine when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. So adopting the attitude of using the power when available rather than on demand.

On transport the bicycle / cycle is one of the obvious but will be unused answers.

The solution lies in diversity and adaption of life to suit the available resources

This is the sensible, intelligent route to a sustainable future, but one which Western governments shrink from since unlimited energy is seen as a key driver of prosperity.

In reality, I reckon that we've long since reached the point where limitless, cheap energy was a force for good. We've polluted ourselves so much with unnecessary economic activity and unnecessary consumption of energy-dense, short-lived products that our health and wealth are suffering. Motorised personal transport should be a force for good, yet it has turned into a nightmare as we've followed American levels of light regulation while forgetting our circumstances bear very little resemblance to that country.

We should take a long, hard look at life elsewhere on the planet and ask why those with less are often so much happier and healthier. There may be difficult questions but whatever route we take there should be a concensus on the direction of travel, with facts and discussion made available to all rather than a top-down imposition without a proper debate - which would be seen as a form of tyranny.

I still believe the bicycle and what develops directly from it has yet to have its day, its genius is too great for it to be left unused.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5813
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 2:02pm

Euan Mearns... ...he's one of the best people to read to enlighten and to help improve all our thought processes.
Quote from his website, from an article written by him

In late 2007 the Arctic sea ice area took an unexpected plunge and this event is largely responsible for triggering the Global Warming hysteria of recent years.

Referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change as "Global Warming Hysteria" is not compatible with being "one of the best people to enlighten", in my view.

As I said, not claiming he's always wrong, not saying anything about Eigg, but most definitely not a reliable source on Global Warming science.
Biospace
Posts: 2006
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 3 Oct 2022, 4:22pm
Quote from his website, from an article written by him

In late 2007 the Arctic sea ice area took an unexpected plunge and this event is largely responsible for triggering the Global Warming hysteria of recent years.

Referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change as "Global Warming Hysteria" is not compatible with being "one of the best people to enlighten", in my view.

He's analysing the data and making up his own mind, from a learned perspective, as to what is happening. That you don't agree with him (as I don't on many matters) does not mean that what he writes somehow doesn't enlighten. It's the depth of analysis and his ability to introduce legitimate questions to what may not otherwise be questioned which matters, not personal opinions. Reading material which is written by someone with a different viewpoint is often the best education there is. Surrounding yourself with like-minded people is great socially, not so clever intellectually.

There is a simplistic Government narrative which has developed which is in danger of sending us down a route which isn't necessarily best for people or the planet. I highlighted in another thread how a small petrol engined car has less of an effect on our planet than an EV, for example, but most people now associate EVs with 'Zero Emissions'.

With this approach we appear to be carrying on as before, improving efficiencies by around a third, pushing the pollution further away but encouraging more and more consumption. Which, together with population increases, means that the effects on our planet are no lower than before. Sure, not as bad as it would've been, but I don't think that standing still is really quite what is implied by 'Zero Emission'.
Post Reply