UK energy

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Post Reply
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

UK energy

Post by Biospace »

To relieve those hoping to read about this country's economic failings, the 'Trussed Up' thread, I've started this one.

My last post went as below, but the off topic debate began somewhere around here, viewtopic.php?p=1726772#p1726772
roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 6:28pm Wave power does not have significant potential in the UK.

See for instance https://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml

David McKay wrote a very readable book which reduced the energy debate to a level which, at the time, seemed entirely plausible to most. He was a brilliant academic in subjects quite unrelated to a country's energy policies, but this book was understood and appreciated by civil servants and the government of the time (2008) and he was appointed to advise the UK's energy policy.

I remember hearing multiple critics (from within academia and industry, with a broad range of opinions on how to proceed) of the book at the time, more often than not because he did not factor in changes in human behaviour or advancing technologies, because he assumed CCS was possible to roll out on a massive scale quite rapidly and that nuclear was the sensible long term energy combined with fossil fuel, especially given a UK population "concerned with the cost of their energy". I did agree that renewable energy and nuclear were the poorest of bedfellows.

By 2015 the UK had largely abandoned his advice, an engineer replaced him. The five years we lost following McKay's thinking look even more serious now than a few years ago, given our relations with Russia and post-Covid economics. An atrociously bad deal was made with EDF and the Chinese because we were in a fix, a deal for a nuclear reactor design which has such serious problems the French cannot run at capacity their own (as yet unfinished, delayed by over a decade) EPR reactor at Flamanville.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Thanks! I'll make the same reply:

My point was about the potential of wave power being insignificant. Do you agree with that?
Jdsk
Posts: 24487
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

The best summary that I know for future requirements and possible sources is the National Grid's "Future Energy Scenarios":
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future- ... -scenarios

"Future Energy Scenarios (FES) represent a range of different, credible ways to decarbonise our energy system as we strive towards the 2050 target.
We’re less than 30 years away from the Net Zero deadline, which isn’t long when you consider investment cycles for gas networks, electricity transmission lines and domestic heating systems.
FES has an important role to play in stimulating debate and helping to shape the energy system of the future."


Jonathan
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:32pm My point was about the potential of wave power being insignificant. Do you agree with that?
I agree that it is limited and on a different scale to tidal, but I wouldn't suggest it's insignificant. When there is no wind or sun, when tidal storage is under pressure - for example a high pressure system in February - wave power transfers wind energy thousands of miles to us.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:44pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:32pm My point was about the potential of wave power being insignificant. Do you agree with that?
I agree that it is limited and on a different scale to tidal, but I wouldn't suggest it's insignificant. When there is no wind or sun, when tidal storage is under pressure - for example a high pressure system in February - wave power transfers wind energy thousands of miles to us.
I'll settle for "far less signify than tidal"
Psamathe
Posts: 17618
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Psamathe »

Whilst a lot depends on location, etc. I do worry that wave generation will have a significant impact on the littoral zone. I think tidal turbine generation would not have the same impact (subject to sensible design, location, etc.). Tidal barrage will likely have a big environmental impact.

That said, continuing to extract and burn hydrocarbons will have a even more significant impact on the environment.

I think a mix of different renewable technologies would seem sensible.

Ian
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Jdsk wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:42pm The best summary that I know for future requirements and possible sources is the National Grid's "Future Energy Scenarios":
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future- ... -scenarios

Jonathan
Thanks for the links. Less than 30 years is very little time indeed, we've prevaricated for too long.

Even if you do not believe AGW is the main driver in climate, fossil fuels have a limited life and continuing to rely on them significantly only delays the inevitable. Nuclear energy poses huge national strategic vulnerabilities and the costs are extraordinarily high, but nuclear weapons continue guarantee their continuation.

I read more and more comments across the Internet asking why we're not developing tidal energy in Britain. With many and high tides and a long coastline, we're well placed to become world leaders in the tech, but our government is typically reluactant to support it.

In 1980, the UK had developed the largest wind turbines in the world but we dropped the R&D, handing over the lead to another country who now sells their technology around the world.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:45pm
Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:44pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:32pm My point was about the potential of wave power being insignificant. Do you agree with that?
I agree that it is limited and on a different scale to tidal, but I wouldn't suggest it's insignificant. When there is no wind or sun, when tidal storage is under pressure - for example a high pressure system in February - wave power transfers wind energy thousands of miles to us.
I'll settle for "far less signify than tidal"
At some point there may have to be a discussion regarding what to do in an energy shortage, both in the near future and more distantly. If there is inter-continental grid connectivity, energy storage around the world and our needs are met 99.5% of the time, then additional technologies become far less important.

Our 19th century predecessors took a lot of their energy from rivers, from memory there were 4 mills for every mile of river in England, on average.
Psamathe
Posts: 17618
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Psamathe »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:54pm ...
I read more and more comments across the Internet asking why we're not developing tidal energy in Britain. With many and high tides and a long coastline, we're well placed to become world leaders in the tech, but our government is typically reluactant to support it.
...
Plus tidal flows around the coast occur at different times in different places so none of the "what do you do at night with solar panels" or "what when the wind doesn't blow".

Ian
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:54pm
Jdsk wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:42pm The best summary that I know for future requirements and possible sources is the National Grid's "Future Energy Scenarios":
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future- ... -scenarios

Jonathan
Thanks for the links. Less than 30 years is very little time indeed, we've prevaricated for too long.

Even if you do not believe AGW is the main driver in climate, fossil fuels have a limited life and continuing to rely on them significantly only delays the inevitable. Nuclear energy poses huge national strategic vulnerabilities and the costs are extraordinarily high, but nuclear weapons continue guarantee their continuation.

I read more and more comments across the Internet asking why we're not developing tidal energy in Britain. With many and high tides and a long coastline, we're well placed to become world leaders in the tech, but our government is typically reluactant to support it.

In 1980, the UK had developed the largest wind turbines in the world but we dropped the R&D, handing over the lead to another country who now sells their technology around the world.
Modern civil nuclear stations aren't any good at generating Pu for bombs. See for instance
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... onium.aspx

Other than that, I'm with you. Best way to avoid reliance on Russian or other dodgy fossil fuel extractors is to develop renewables of all types. Diversity is good.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:01pm

Our 19th century predecessors took a lot of their energy from rivers, from memory there were 4 mills for every mile of river in England, on average.
UK rivers are too low in altitude and flow to have any prospect of contributing to overall UK energy supply.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Psamathe wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:02pm
Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:54pm ...
I read more and more comments across the Internet asking why we're not developing tidal energy in Britain. With many and high tides and a long coastline, we're well placed to become world leaders in the tech, but our government is typically reluactant to support it.
...
Plus tidal flows around the coast occur at different times in different places so none of the "what do you do at night with solar panels" or "what when the wind doesn't blow".

Ian

Yes, totally. There are many aspects which need development and it's fairly clear ongoing maintenance in the form of silt-clearing will be needed, for example, but it's a no-brainer in so many regards.

A tidal lagoon can act as massive storage by increasing the walls a little, for example.

But I wonder why the UK chose such an enormous project to start with, rather than experimenting with numerous, smaller designs until lessons are learnt. It's how the Danes took the lead in wind turbine technology.
Last edited by Biospace on 29 Sep 2022, 11:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:06pm
Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:01pm

Our 19th century predecessors took a lot of their energy from rivers, from memory there were 4 mills for every mile of river in England, on average.
UK rivers are too low in altitude and flow to have any prospect of contributing to overall UK energy supply.

This has been an argument which has long been one of many surrounding renewable energy which has been music to the ears of those who back the nuclear and oil industries. As we've grown used to relatively few but enormous hospitals being the answer to healthcare, so we've become used to very few power generating stations serving millions of people. It's not necessarily the only or the best approach, for example from a national security perspective a nation is a sitting duck with highly concentrated power generation.

The size of the changes people were forecasting for this century grow clearer almost every week, at the moment. Being largely self-sufficient in energy is suddenly very important and the smaller the plant, the more quickly it can be operational. Our latest nuclear power plant is several years away at best, decades for the others, if they are built.

One Archimedes screw serving just 120 houses may seem of little consequence compared to Ferrybridge, but it can arrive on the back of an HGV or two and be operational within days.

Grid transmission losses are typically around 9% in the UK, just one percentage point represents several tera-watt hours, which begin to be saved when generation occurs closer to demand.
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: UK energy

Post by Stevek76 »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:54pm Nuclear energy poses huge national strategic vulnerabilities and the costs are extraordinarily high, but nuclear weapons continue guarantee their continuation.
Modern nuclear power has zilch to do with nuclear weapons. Nuclear armed countries have more than enough stockpiles of relevant fissile material to not need to create more and modern reactor designs do not produce the fissile material that goes into nuclear bombs.

As for vulnerabilities, even if you include Chernobyl deaths, nuclear has the same low kWh/death as renewables. And yes, it's not cheap but I think headline energy CfD costs that get chucked about are rather naive. Nuclear runs almost all the time, wind & solar currently depend upon CCGT (or worse) to fill the gaps - what's the true cost and CO2 output of solar/wind once you include the required storage capacity and fossil fuel gap fills?

Any realistic energy future will need both nuclear and renewables and the mix needs to be considered as a whole including demand changes, storage and interconnect, as the national grid has done in the document Jonathan linked to, not as type specific marginal rates.

It's a sailed ship in many respects but irrational fear and reluctance over nuclear generation has been one of the biggest entirely unnecessary contributors to climate change (not to mention the 1000s of mining and pollution related deaths from fossil fuels). While many countries sat around procrastinating, or worse, shutting reactors down in some knee-jerk response to a richter 9.x earthquake & tsunami they are never going to get in their part of the world only to turn tonnes more coal, France has been happily producing electricity at a fraction of the CO2/kWh of the rest of europe.

It probably shouldn't be as slow as it is but that's a lost skills and expertise issue. The Japanese are going from inception to operation reactor in under 5 years in recent times.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:34pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:06pm
Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:01pm

Our 19th century predecessors took a lot of their energy from rivers, from memory there were 4 mills for every mile of river in England, on average.
UK rivers are too low in altitude and flow to have any prospect of contributing to overall UK energy supply.

This has been an argument which has long been one of many surrounding renewable energy which has been music to the ears of those who back the nuclear and oil industries. As we've grown used to relatively few but enormous hospitals being the answer to healthcare, so we've become used to very few power generating stations serving millions of people. It's not necessarily the only or the best approach, for example from a national security perspective a nation is a sitting duck with highly concentrated power generation.

The size of the changes people were forecasting for this century grow clearer almost every week, at the moment. Being largely self-sufficient in energy is suddenly very important and the smaller the plant, the more quickly it can be operational. Our latest nuclear power plant is several years away at best, decades for the others, if they are built.

One Archimedes screw serving just 120 houses may seem of little consequence compared to Ferrybridge, but it can arrive on the back of an HGV or two and be operational within days.

Grid transmission losses are typically around 9% in the UK, just one percentage point represents several tera-watt hours, which begin to be saved when generation occurs closer to demand.
The potential for hydro is (flow rate) x (height difference). For the UK, there is almost no further potential. What there is is in Scotland and requires the flooding of large areas, again for relatively little gain. .

It doesn't matter how quick or easy it is if it can't generate any significant power.
Post Reply