Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Sue the World?

World's largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case

The world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillippines.

In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 “carbon majors” including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people’s fundamental rights to “life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self determination”.

Mart.

michaels wrote: »

Obviously the big energy news today is the pause to Hinckley C.

WE know the cost per unit looks high compared to renewables (and especailly where we expect renewables to be from 2025(+++) onwards but could the whole project still make sense to provide a secure base load along with the likely increased demand from carbonizing transport?

Finally is the risk to great - are either of the other two reactors of this design (Finland and France?) online yet?

I could write pages on this, so will go and have lunch instead rather than spoil everyone's fun, but a couple of ickle comments:-

The Finish and French builds are in serious trouble, well behind the delivery dates, just like Hinkley C's promise to cook Xmas lunch in 2017.

Whether you think nuclear is a good or bad idea, try this thought as an idiot check for Hinkley's costs:

In 2016 monies, Hinkley is to receive £99 to displace 1MWh of gas generation from our grid. Though it won't actually do this till 2025/30.

In 2016 monies we can pay UK households £67 to displace 1MWh of gas generation from the grid .... now.

How can Hinkley be cost effective if it can't even match 'ickle' domestic powerstations 1 millionth of its capacity?

Perhaps also worth mentioning balance of payments issues, as we have £99/MWh leaving the UK, or £67/MWh being recycled via UK consumers. [Including 2% inflation on Hinkley and PV export rates, the PV degression to 2019 will mean domestic PV costing £61/MWh v's £105 for Hinkley.]

Mart.

michaels wrote: »

WE know the cost per unit looks high compared to renewables (and especially where we expect renewables to be from 2025(+++) onwards but could the whole project still make sense to provide a secure base load along with the likely increased demand from carbonizing transport?

Some more thoughts to ponder or disagree with, as you please.

Straight cost comparisons.

The cost comparison to renewables is significant, but as you suggest a more important issue is the relative costs when Hinkley might come on line.

I'd guess that large scale PV and on-shore wind will continue to fall in price, before leveling out then starting to rise with inflation. By 2025 I'd suggest (blind guess perhaps?) at £80/MWh, same price as today, but after allowing for inflation about £65 in today's money.

Off-shore contracts by the Dutch recently (to start in 2020) were €73/MWh. They don't include all transmission costs, which could add 30%, but even that is only €95/MWh, or about £80/MWh. So perhaps £70-£80/MWh by 2025.

Hinkley, with inflationary protection will be about £120/MWh.


Storage.

The sun doesn't always shine (especially at night ). The wind doesn't always blow.

Well for Hinkley scale generation, that's not an issue. An equivalent amount of generation (not capacity) from RE would not exhaust gas generation, so we don't yet need storage.

For nuclear as a whole, yes we would need storage, but it's crucial to appreciate that large nuclear also needs storage. At around 16GW nuclear generation bumps up against nightime low demand. Since the vast bulk of nuclear costs are CAPEX not OPEX, reducing output saves next to nothing, instead it simply pushes up the unit cost of generation.

It's also worth noting that the number of storage technologies is expanding and R&D is accelerating, and costs are falling. Also interconnectors are being built.

At present the cost difference between wind/PV and Hinkley is about £20/MWh. Assuming half of RE generation needs storage, that frees up £40/MWh for storage costs. Even large scale batteries are now available at half that cost.


Back up generation.

If we were to build RE generation to match nuclear generation, both (without storage) would require gas generation to meet the difference. Nuclear would need a steadier amount, whereas RE would need peaks and troughs, but if generation matched, then gas generation would also match. The only difference being that RE would need additional capacity equal to the nuclear capacity, for instances where RE generation was zero.

So if we had 16GW of nuclear + gas generation, we would need RE + 16GW more gas generation, an additional build cost of about £8bn.

But, with wind and PV costing £20/MWh less than nuclear, the annual savings would be:-

16,000MWh x £20 x 95% capacity factor x 24hrs x 365 days = £2.67bn pa. Covering the gas capacity in just 3 years.

michaels wrote: »

but could the whole project still make sense to provide a secure base load along with the likely increased demand from carbonizing transport?

De-carbonizing transport (I assume?) 'simply' makes leccy demand greater. It doesn't change any of the economics, it just means the numbers are bigger, and generation also needs to be bigger. It's important to note that wind, off-shore wind and PV simply aren't constrained by scale in the UK, they really don't need as much space as people think. These maps show how much space is needed for all energy (energy not leccy) from PV, or offshore wind.

Add in all of the other forms of RE and whilst the amount of generation is gigantic, the problem isn't.

It's also interesting to note that 1 gallon of petrol/diesel takes 6kWh of energy to refine it, not find it, get it, and ship it, just refine it. 6kWh would move an EV about 25 miles, so simply not 'making' the fuel gets us half of our needs.

Charging of EV's will probably be done during the day, when at work, or during the night when at home, as well as encouraging demand side generation, such as PV. Whilst this will increase overall leccy consumption, it will hopefully result in a levelling out of demand.


We don't have to choose between RE and nuclear, we can do both, but unless nuclear is economical in comparison, why bother with it. I used to think 10 years was a very short time in world energy terms, but if we've learnt anything this last 5-10 years (from PV and wind) it's not to underestimate the potential for change. If storage costs emulate PV costs, then 10yr+ nuclear projects are simply doomed to economic failure, after all, despite being one of the longest and largest subsidy recipients in history, it's also the one technology that has somehow managed to get more expensive!

Apologies for the waffle.

Mart.

Just realised the problem here is simply timing:-

Nuclear has just become questionable on an economic basis.

RE has just become possible on an economic basis.

Fracking has just become possible, but yet to prove practical and economic (or not).

Storage is not really economic today, but is just beginning to suggest that it might be soon.

Coal is now accepted to be simply too expensive (pollution and CO2) to continue with, and is closing. Whilst existing nuclear plants are heading into their last decade.


So the government(s) and us, have to make a decision today, on policies that won't really kick in for 5 to 10 years, on issues that we won't fully have a clear picture on, till 5 to 10 years from now.

My bet is on RE and storage, but governments shouldn't bet!

Mart.