Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ProfessorChao5 · 21 March 2016 at 7:10PM

When talking about renewables there seems to be a very narrow minded view that this is just pv and wind. Energy from waste and biomass CHP technologies are coming on well on a small- medium commercial scale, they are very easy to implement and cost effective. Also very little to object to as often no one knows they are even there! Finally unlike solar and wind you can control the outputs if necessary . Small scale localised generation should be incentivised over large centralised nuclear plants as local generation can take advantage of local resources.

Martyn1981 · 24 March 2016 at 6:07PM

No more coal generation in Scotland.

Longannet power station closes ending coal power use in Scotland

Longannet Closure Marks the end of Coal-Fired Electricity Generation in Scotland

Mart.

Martyn1981 · 25 March 2016 at 6:09PM

Seven charts show how renewable investment broke records in 2015

I think the most important one, might get missed, and that's that developing countries invested more money in renewables, than developed countries last year.

I think that reflects that those countries, who have a need for huge energy expansion, were previously unable to invest in renewables. But now that the price has come down, thanks to wealthier countries, and subsidies, the poorer nations are able to take the lead.

Mart.

tunnel · 26 March 2016 at 1:48PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But now that the price has come down, thanks to wealthier countries, and subsidies, the poorer nations are able to take the lead.

Mart.

Hope you don't open up another can of worms with that quote as that runs much the same as with the early adopters here in the UK, shame the anti pv brigade don't see it that way!!

Martyn1981 · 26 March 2016 at 6:44PM

tunnel wrote: »

Hope you don't open up another can of worms with that quote as that runs much the same as with the early adopters here in the UK, shame the anti pv brigade don't see it that way!!

Don't be rude now T, they don't like being called 'anti-PV', they prefer to be called 'anti-FiT'.

Have you forgotten, that we're supposed to forget the dozens of times they stated - "I don't think we should have PV at all, but if we have to have it, it should be large scale in the SW of England".

So long as you forget to remember what they remind us to forget, it's all plain sailing and straightforward.

If in doubt, just remember this handy mental jog:- don't forget to not remember the elephant that's no longer in the room, so long as you remember to forget to look for it. Simples!

Mart.

ed110220 · 26 March 2016 at 10:28PM

They'll probably argue Guatemala shouldn't install solar or wind power today because it's too expensive, based on the price Germany paid ten years ago

Martyn1981 · 1 April 2016 at 6:49PM

Does anyone remember the news that the Chinese financial backers for Hinkley, are investing in PV in France?

Well, it gets better, EDF (majority French govt owned) investors in Hinkley, are investing heavily in wind, in the US.

So whilst the UK govt is restricting PV and wind, and backing nuclear and asking France and China to pay the build costs, those same investors are building PV and wind elsewhere.

EDF shows that wind makes better sense than nuclear

EDF in the UK may be propelled by its disastrous nuclear ambitions, writes Chris Goodall. But across the Atlantic it's another story: the company is the US's biggest wind developer, and selling its power, profitably, for under 40% of the price it has been promised for Hinkley C, including federal tax credits.

It's simple really: renewables are a better and more secure investment

EDF finances many of its US wind projects on the back of power purchase agreements with major companies such as Microsoft, Procter and Gamble and Google. They commit to buy the electricity produced at a fixed price, not the inflation adjusted figure that the UK will pay for Hinkley. The EDF press release said:

"Corporate America is increasingly turning to renewable energy to power its business operations, based both on consumer preferences and because renewable energy simply makes economic sense."

We never hear this line from EDF in the UK.

EDF cannot guarantee the wind will blow or the sun shine. Unlike in Britain, its US business is also investing heavily in energy storage. The US company has announced 100MW of battery systems in the US because "Energy storage is an attractive, cost-effective addition to intermittent energy generation projects." However there's no mention of batteries on EDF's UK web site.

For sensible reasons large international companies often pursue varied market strategies in different countries. EDF in the US has decided to back wind while the UK has gone for nuclear.

But even a quick look shows that the energy and financial returns to the US strategy seem far clearer and better for the company, and its customers, than the tactics of the UK business.

Mart.

Martyn1981 · 28 April 2016 at 8:23PM

Study reveals potential storage capacity of 2,291 GWh in Europe

A new study by eStorage identifies 2,291 GWh of development-ready sites for new pumped hydro energy storage plants in Europe.

The researchers were focusing on water reservoirs that already exist in the countries and can be used for pumped hydro energy storage. By transferring water between two reservoirs at different elevations, these facilities can deliver electricity when the system needs it and store electricity generated by wind and solar plants. Using existing reservoirs, instead of building new ones, developers can lower costs and shorten the time required for a new storage facility to become operational.

Pumped storage combined with two way interconnectors is a great way to share and store excess generation, and deal with short term demand spikes or lulls in renewable generation.

I was trying to put that into context for my own brain, and it works out at 23GWs for 10 hours and for 10 countries.

Total guess, but that sounds broad enough to me to cover shortages and peak demands for most situations?

Mart.

Exiled_Tyke · 28 April 2016 at 11:25PM

I'm aware of two such facilities in the UK (can't remember their names) the more famous and larger one in Wales and a smaller set up in Scotland. I was recently talking to a friend of mine (a director at National Grid) who said the Wales scheme never made economic sense and is certainly a project that won't be repeated. I'm guessing that we don't have many natural reservoirs which could be adapted to this purpose. Do I remember reading that the Wales scheme was about 80% efficient?

Martyn1981 · 29 April 2016 at 8:09AM

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

I'm aware of two such facilities in the UK (can't remember their names) the more famous and larger one in Wales and a smaller set up in Scotland. I was recently talking to a friend of mine (a director at National Grid) who said the Wales scheme never made economic sense and is certainly a project that won't be repeated. I'm guessing that we don't have many natural reservoirs which could be adapted to this purpose. Do I remember reading that the Wales scheme was about 80% efficient?

Hiya ET. I'd guess you are talking about 'Electric Mountain' the Dinorwig Power Station.

This monster can supply 1.7GW and about 9GWh of the UK's approx 30GWh of pumped hydro.

Dinorwig was actually built to support the nuclear build out, just like the creation of 'heat electric' and E7. But nuclear generation never got big enough, which may be where you get the 'not economic' bit from.

There is an application for another pumped hydro plant in Snowdonia at the moment which works out at about £7/MWh (dividing cost by capacity and 120yr life expectancy). That works out well as there is now an approximate £20/MWh difference between Hinkley and on-shore wind/PV.

But the new scheme is relatively small, and there is little potential for much more in the UK, as despite us seeming a bit 'bumpy', we aren't really bumpy enough.

You're right about the efficiencies, typically about 75% for pumped hydro. But as these are businesses, that loss doesn't matter. Imagine buying leccy during excess when the spot price is low, so £30/MWh or less, then selling it back to the grid when demand and prices are high, say £100/MWh:
Buy for £30.
Sell for £100 x 70% = £70.

There have been some very interesting articles on Norway's potential. They have already identified 20GW of additional hydro generation which they could build, if there's a market for it, and another option might be for countries like the UK to finance the construction of an interconnector and a storage lagoon at the bottom of existing hydro dams, to catch the water and then pump it back up. Effectively existing Norwegian hydro, becomes pumped hydro too, and the batteries for the UK (and other countries).

BTW, you probably already know this, but height is crucial to hydro generation. Take the same amount of water, but drop it from 10x the height, and you get 10x the energy, so whilst rate of flow is important, it's height differential that really makes hydro profitable, or not.

Mart.

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free