UK energy

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Post Reply
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Carlton green »

Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:20pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm ...
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.
...
"Power storage" for the grid? Or energy storage for car-like objects?

I'm agreeing about the cost (and politics) of EVs. But the technology is out there and working. Sales of BEVs will be something like 10 M, and the world fleet something like 20 M.

Jonathan
Both grid and electric vehicle power storage is lacking. What’s technically possible is also cripplingly expensive. For transport re-charge times and energy density can be important.
Last edited by Carlton green on 1 Oct 2022, 4:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5815
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 2:44pm
I agree that the big problems are now political. A lot needs to change and consistent small nudges will help many who are on the brink of decisions to make them.

Most of the energy-related technology that's needed is already out there somewhere.

And I'd add some national economic aspects. The UK has enormous competitive advantage in many parts of this sector: superb technological education and R & D capacity and a large installed base for eg wind power.

Jonathan
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.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Psamathe »

Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:27pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:20pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm ...
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.
...
"Power storage" for the grid? Or energy storage for car-like objects?

I'm agreeing about the cost (and politics) of EVs. But the technology is out there and working. Sales of BEVs will be something like 10 M, and the world fleet something like 20 M.

Jonathan
Both grid and electric vehicle power storage is lacking. What’s technically possible is also cripplingly expensive.
Without numbers (which probably are not available anywahere) I tend to think that whatever the cost of renewables (incl. storage) the cost of not moving to them is going to be higher. Not only in terms of UK climate changes and extreme weather but as large parts of the world become uninhabitable and the current refugee crisis starts to look like a few people moving between countries.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:27pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:20pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm ...
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.
...
"Power storage" for the grid? Or energy storage for car-like objects?

I'm agreeing about the cost (and politics) of EVs. But the technology is out there and working. Sales of BEVs will be something like 10 M, and the world fleet something like 20 M.
Both grid and electric vehicle power storage is lacking. What’s technically possible is also cripplingly expensive.
Thanks

The best resource on grid storage that I know is Future Energy Scenarios. I'll try and find their numbers, including vehicle-to-grid. And interconnects, which are also relevant to the problem of intermittent supply.

Jonathan

PS: Update on Redbridge Park and Ride in Oxford, complete with numbers on the charging capacity and the two dedicated batteries, now described as "... a 50MW/50MWh lithium-ion unit and a smaller 2 MW/5MWh vanadium flow battery... ".
https://www.alumni.ox.ac.uk/article/oxf ... arging-hub
jois
Posts: 334
Joined: 22 Sep 2022, 12:29pm

Re: UK energy

Post by jois »

Psamathe wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:30pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:27pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:20pm
"Power storage" for the grid? Or energy storage for car-like objects?

I'm agreeing about the cost (and politics) of EVs. But the technology is out there and working. Sales of BEVs will be something like 10 M, and the world fleet something like 20 M.

Jonathan
Both grid and electric vehicle power storage is lacking. What’s technically possible is also cripplingly expensive.
Without numbers (which probably are not available anywahere) I tend to think that whatever the cost of renewables (incl. storage) the cost of not moving to them is going to be higher. Not only in terms of UK climate changes and extreme weather but as large parts of the world become uninhabitable and the current refugee crisis starts to look like a few people moving between countries.

Ian
Large parts of the world will be come more habitable, I'm not sure of the actual Ballance, maybe more habitable area will have the balance. The last time the world warmed significantly it brought the monsoon rains north and the Sahara went green, that's a big chunk of land, this also resulted in no mass extinctions, a lot of rhinos died when it cooled and went back to sand
Last edited by jois on 1 Oct 2022, 4:44pm, edited 4 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:30pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:27pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:20pm
"Power storage" for the grid? Or energy storage for car-like objects?

I'm agreeing about the cost (and politics) of EVs. But the technology is out there and working. Sales of BEVs will be something like 10 M, and the world fleet something like 20 M.
Both grid and electric vehicle power storage is lacking. What’s technically possible is also cripplingly expensive.
Without numbers (which probably are not available anywahere) I tend to think that whatever the cost of renewables (incl. storage) the cost of not moving to them is going to be higher. Not only in terms of UK climate changes and extreme weather but as large parts of the world become uninhabitable and the current refugee crisis starts to look like a few people moving between countries.
Exactly. It all depends on what's included in cost.

Best source of numbers as above.

Jonathan
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: UK energy

Post by Cugel »

Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:13pm
Carlton green wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:08pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 2:44pm
I agree that the big problems are now political. A lot needs to change and consistent small nudges will help many who are on the brink of decisions to make them.

Most of the energy-related technology that's needed is already out there somewhere.

And I'd add some national economic aspects. The UK has enormous competitive advantage in many parts of this sector: superb technological education and R & D capacity and a large installed base for eg wind power.
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.
...
Which bits do you think are missing technologically? Of course there are problems of scale and cost.

Thanks

Jonathan
Over-differentiate the categories if you like but personally I'll avoid that complication to say that the currently missing technology (as in specific technology function/item of a usable scale) is wind-generated power using small appliances in low wind velocity situations - i.e. for domestic use.

A windmill is a good fit with solar panels, as when the sun ain't shining the weather might be of the sort with a fair amount of wind in it. No, not always ... but a wind generator will work all through winter and through the night, whereas solar panels will only work at a lowish level in winter (less sun, less day time) and not at all when its dark.

There seem to be startups here and there trying to generate low velocity small scale wind generators for domestic use. One has an estimate of the ability to generate 11kwh daily, on average over the year in a typical British scenario! That's a lot!!

https://www.intelligentliving.co/powerp ... d-turbine/

But these things are still "in development" with the only currently viable wind generators in the market being fairly large scale vanes-on-a-tower items needing to be situated in locations where the wind is stronger (e.g. on a hill) and costing a lot (tens of thousands for one rather small 11Kw item).

*************
At present we have 3 Solar Edge 10kwh batteries ordered along with an improved inverter to that currently running the conversion of our existing 4K solar panel array. (This array sends all its production to the grid in a long-term FiT arrangement, which used to cover all out electricity bills but no longer, since the price hikes). We hope to have them up and working before Christmas.

The batteries will allow us to buy and store cheaper overnight electricity for day time use. In time, a different inverter currently in the approvals stage will allow us to use the batteries as a UPS as well, if the grid goes down. The older inverter can then be used with an additional 4K array to generate electricity for direct use in the house, whilst the older 4k array will continue with the FiT arrangement ... unless the payback rate becomes less than the rate they charge us for electricity from the grid, in which case we'll redirect the output to the house.

As you can imagine, this all costs a pretty penny. We decided to spend our savings of 30-odd years on this rather than on a "nice new car" or "a lovely foreign holiday" or "a bequest to the $*!?* Party". We will never "get our money back" but we will be greener (apart from the lithium use) and more resilient when the grid goes phut because a neoliberal Prime Monister says it's not profitable enough.

Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

Cugel wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 6:11pm ...
At present we have 3 Solar Edge 10kwh batteries ordered along with an improved inverter to that currently running the conversion of our existing 4K solar panel array. (This array sends all its production to the grid in a long-term FiT arrangement, which used to cover all out electricity bills but no longer, since the price hikes). We hope to have them up and working before Christmas.

The batteries will allow us to buy and store cheaper overnight electricity for day time use. In time, a different inverter currently in the approvals stage will allow us to use the batteries as a UPS as well, if the grid goes down. The older inverter can then be used with an additional 4K array to generate electricity for direct use in the house, whilst the older 4k array will continue with the FiT arrangement ... unless the payback rate becomes less than the rate they charge us for electricity from the grid, in which case we'll redirect the output to the house.

As you can imagine, this all costs a pretty penny. We decided to spend our savings of 30-odd years on this rather than on a "nice new car" or "a lovely foreign holiday" or "a bequest to the $*!?* Party". We will never "get our money back" but we will be greener (apart from the lithium use) and more resilient when the grid goes phut because a neoliberal Prime Monister says it's not profitable enough.
Very interesting: thanks for including the numbers.

Batteries at home are another great example of the technology being available and the problems now being scale and cost.

And they'll have a strong connection (!) to charging BEVs at home and vehicle-to-grid as a means of grid storage.

And implementing that highly granular (financial) charging that will get the incentives lined up.

Jonathan
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 7:54am
Biospace wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:34pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:06pm

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.

We understand how it's head and flow rate which dictate output with today's technology.

But technology changes, world politics change, values (and costs) change. I'd also guess there are more old mills and weir sites which don't generate electricity than those which do. The present financial set-up penalises those who produce over 50MW compared with those under (so many restrict output) and solar and wind technologies have fallen dramatically in price with economies of scale created by countries such as Germany, all creating a climate in which hydro has had less appeal.

As recently as 2005 the Archimedes screw wasn't used for hydro plants in the UK, not so long ago there was a 'dash for gas', further back nuclear power was going to be so clean and cheap the electricity would be nearly free.

I'm not suggesting 20% of our supply can ever be river hydro, but there's going to be a lot more than at present. Even if the extra capacity will replace just one nuclear plant, is anyone arguing that's a bad thing? Others have noted elsewhere in this thread that diversity is important, it also creates more efficiency.

near Oxford on the Thames http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/430kw- ... -3-screws/
1500mm head http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/100kw- ... inverness/
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 5:59pm
jois wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 4:41pm , electric cars are not really scalable, a fact I believe they know but are not making known to the public.
Oh great, an internet conspiracy theorist. Just what we need.

This is part of a letter sent by Richard Herrington and other scientists to the Committee on Climate Change in 2019:
To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, whilst cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/pres ... t-zer.html


Unless other more easily recycled, more readily-available materials are used, then the scaleability of electric cars powered by next-gen battery technology is in some doubt. I wrote about this in another thread, along with the social and environmental consequences of battery vehicles and how they're likely more polluting than a small-engined petrol car.

There are also the domestic batteries Cugel has already ordered, which most may want when the Smart Grid really kicks in and prices change by the hour for energy received and energy supplied. Or grid prices are so high that millions want to go off-grid.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Jdsk »

Biospace wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 8:27pmThis is part of a letter sent by Richard Herrington and other scientists to the Committee on Climate Change in 2019:
To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, whilst cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.
And Herrington in 2021 saying that it's achievable:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00325-9

Jonathan
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5815
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK energy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Biospace wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 7:10pm
Even if the extra capacity will replace just one nuclear plant, is anyone arguing that's a bad thing? Others have noted elsewhere in this thread that diversity is important, it also creates more efficiency.
It's a good thing. I'm all in favour of it.

But river hydro is totally insignificant against a nuclear plant. Starting that it will replace one doesn't make it possible to do so.

Numbers illustrate this: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


Some numbers for the Thames, one of our largest rivers.

Flowrate taken from wiki. Altitude from OS.

Leaving Oxford, the Thames has a flowrate of ~25 m3/s.

Oxford has an altitude of 59m.

The theoretical maximum generation is pressure x flowrate. Pressure is height x density x acceleration due to gravity.

So if we could harness every last watt, that would be:

59 m x 1000 kg/m3 x 10 m/s2 x 25 m3/s ~15,000,000 kgm/s2 = 15MW.

In reality, you'd only be able to harness a small fraction of this, maybe a tenth realistically (you'd need to dam the river at Oxford, then run a pipe to sea level leaving the river dry to get the theoretical number).

It's tiny. A nuclear power station is about 1,000MW.

There's a very good reason river hydro isn't exploited in the UK. Our rivers are small, and our land mass is at low altitude.

Where it makes sense of course we should do it, why not? But it cannot make any significant contribution to overall UK electricity.
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Carlton green »

Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 8:45pm
Biospace wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 8:27pmThis is part of a letter sent by Richard Herrington and other scientists to the Committee on Climate Change in 2019:
To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, whilst cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.
And Herrington in 2021 saying that it's achievable:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00325-9

Jonathan
H’mm what is for sure is that to get the required resources will require a degree of international collaboration and that massive change will be needed to get those resources.

You really don’t need to be someone clever to understand the difficulties ahead, all you need to do is look at the current (rather high) price of electric cars and the fact that no one (as far as I have seen) currently makes a small and affordable electric vehicle - what parts that are available to car manufactures are used on larger and luxury vehicles instead.
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: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 8:45pm
Biospace wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 8:27pmThis is part of a letter sent by Richard Herrington and other scientists to the Committee on Climate Change in 2019:
To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, whilst cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.
And Herrington in 2021 saying that it's achievable:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00325-9

Jonathan

I don't think the Herrington and the other scientists were saying it wasn't acheivable in the 2019 letter, just that the cost to the environment would be so extraordinarily high that unless alternatives were found, achieving global scaleability was in question.

His 2021 paper clearly lays out the possibilities as well as concerns. It sounds to me like he has been reminded/has realised it's not in his power to suggest whether or not such massive and destructive levels of mining should take place, that "The Idea" of the future will happen, anything will happen to reach this "Net Zero" goal.

(my bold)
The green energy revolution is heavily reliant on raw materials, such as cobalt and lithium, which are currently mainly sourced by mining. We must carefully evaluate acceptable supplies for these metals to ensure that green technologies are beneficial for both people and planet.

,,, the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative highlighted the crossroads society faces ... climate and planetary emergencies ... ambitions for a new inclusive social contract ... idea is that the energy industry is transformed and rebuilt in a resilient, equitable and sustainable way ... United Nation’s ‘race to zero’ ... these green technologies carry intensive mineral demands.

... the ambition is a fully circular economy, in which demand can be satisfied by reuse and recycling; however, we are not yet at that point ...

... lithium recycling currently only accounts for 1% of present demand ... Substitution for some of these metals might be possible in alternative technology solutions ... but this is challenging to achieve in such a short timeline ...

... a range of battery technologies ... are unlikely to make major inroads to displace current Li-ion battery technologies until 2030 at the earliest ...

... optimal recycling rates, 30–40% of the USA’s needs for both lithium and cobalt could be met by recycling after 2035 (according to the Union of Concerned Scientists), yet this clearly leaves a shortfall ...

... there are certainly supply challenges for commodities, such as graphite, cobalt and lithium, for which increases in demand of close to 500% are projected ...

... the debate about mining our deep ocean, as alternative to terrestrial sources, needs to be resolved ...

... it remains to be seen if Europe has the appetite for more mining in its backyards to secure our green future ... we must carefully balance the need to mine with the requirement to tackle environmental and social governance issues ... ensuring outcomes are beneficial for both people and planet ...

Based on such a broad analysis, we can then make balanced societal choices about metal and mineral supply to deliver the ‘Great Reset’ with a good deal for people and planet
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: UK energy

Post by Biospace »

Cugel wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 6:11pm
Jdsk wrote: 1 Oct 2022, 4:13pm
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.
...
Which bits do you think are missing technologically? Of course there are problems of scale and cost.

Thanks

Jonathan
Over-differentiate the categories if you like but personally I'll avoid that complication to say that the currently missing technology (as in specific technology function/item of a usable scale) is wind-generated power using small appliances in low wind velocity situations - i.e. for domestic use.

David Cameron tried this I think, but it was pointed out that wind in proximity to buildings doesn't work well, because of low speeds and turbulence. A rough rule of thumb is at 150m distant, 9m elevation above highest point of obstruction is required.

WindTurbineDistance.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/ ... ashsection
Post Reply