What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Most likely and would have the added benefit of keeping the money in the UK as it could be built by UK engineering firms. And not having to worry about that nasty radioactive waste would be an added bonus...

Instead lets just bung a whole load of taxpayer cash at the French state owned EDF for the next 30 years :doh:

Well, what's your explanation of why the government seem to be considering that route? Perhaps if you, or anyone else, would attempt an answer to the question I have posed, (i.e. what mix would you have to generate 60GW when the windmills which we have spent tens of billions on and subsidise to a very high level, generate nothing, and ditto for solar?), then, with a few more directed questions once I have your response, you may begin to appreciate the reasons. Do you - or anyone else - really want to know about what's happening with our electricity supply, and why, or are you happy just to pointlessly criticise all remaining methods of generation based on total ignorance? I mean, what good does just saying you and others dislike everything do? Wouldn't you like to form opinions on a more informed basis? A genuine question.

Let me take a step back. Do you understand that we have to have the ability to generate about 60GW of electricity, excluding any intermittent generation? Is that point interesting to anyone here? Or would most prefer to pretend we don't?

zeupater

Hi All

I can't sit back and resist posting .....

Microgeneration and localised generation is the key. Leave aside the requirements for large centralised plant for the moment and consider what this approach can actually provide.

.... Firstly, there are approximately 25million households in the UK, so why not provide each and every one with a free (100% subsidised) CHP system. Okay, it costs a lot, but with decent planning possibly only around £50billion, you'd even be able to make a pretty decent dent in the looming energy gap well before bringing a single nuclear plant on-line. For an additional £150billion you could likely provide heatpump based heating for the majority of the UK's suitable properties which would take advantage of the locally produced electricity.

.... Secondly, community generation utilising CHP/District heating. Again this doesn't really require massive changes to the national grid. I would consider it quite likely that there would be a considerable number of large substations which could incorporate generation facilities within a few hundred metres.

Of course, there would likely be the need for considerable improvements to parts of the national gas network, but no-one said it would be easy ....

.... Then there's the renewables ... Severn barrage, well, cancel HS2, reallocate the funds, and just build it - it'd provide a much greater boost for the economy in a much quicker timescale and will provide much larger benefit for much longer (ie, it's a no brainer!) ... Wind, build loads, then build more ... we've got around 5GW of nameplate capacity in the UK at the moment, so why not take it up to a large multiple, say 50GW, then encourage at least as much solar as Germany currently has (~30GWp) and make the primary task of unschedulable resources as being to power vast amounts of new pumped storage in order to create a schedulable generation 'system', unfortunately this would bring the NIMBYs, Scottish and Welsh sheep farmers, along with the fish & bird lovers out, but just ignore them, they've already cost us too much .... it might take an early referendum to prove the point, but it would be one which would actually make sense.

.... Coal CCS, well forget it completely for the moment and use the funding to massively expand renewables. In the long run it would be better to not produce the CO2 in the first place than spend vast sums disposing of it ....

.... Now comes smartmetering which provides the ability to control appliances and allowing HHM & HHB .... this is where the payback comes into play .... at times when there is excess renewables generation, provide the energy for free - people will make use of it's availability in some way or other,baking, additional heating etc ....

Linked to the above, with a possible excess of free/low cost energy overnight, just think of the effect on industry, shift pattern changes etc ... the UK would also become quite an interesting proposition for re-industrialisation ....

Nuclear and all other centralised generation .... make the sector sweat it out for a while, they may just discover that when operating in a competitive market there are ways to reduce costs and prices without compromising safety or the environment ...

Now to housing stock .... The really big issue here is heatloss, so simply provide funding and make the local authorities responsible for improving the situation on a proactive basis ... if it takes a street-by-street, house-by-house approach to survey and insulate ... let's just do it, what's the cost? - another £125billion ?

Massive numbers, massive engineering effort, massive political effort - but all achieveable and all affordable over time in comparison to overall government spending (~£700billion/year).

Discuss ......

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well, what's your explanation of why the government seem to be considering that route? Perhaps if you, or anyone else, would attempt an answer to the question I have posed, (i.e. what mix would you have to generate 60GW when the windmills which we have spent tens of billions on and subsidise to a very high level, generate nothing, and ditto for solar?), then, with a few more directed questions once I have your response, you may begin to appreciate the reasons. Do you - or anyone else - really want to know about what's happening with our electricity supply, and why, or are you happy just to pointlessly criticise all remaining methods of generation based on total ignorance? I mean, what good does just saying you and others dislike everything do? Wouldn't you like to form opinions on a more informed basis? A genuine question.

Let me take a step back. Do you understand that we have to have the ability to generate about 60GW of electricity, excluding any intermittent generation? Is that point interesting to anyone here? Or would most prefer to pretend we don't?

Have I just traveled through the looking glass, and entered back-to-front world?

So, for over a year Graham has been saying, 'just nuclear', and Cardew has been criticising ...... well ...... pretty much everything, without either ever offering a suggestion of actual future mix. Now Graham wants to flip the whole situation on its head?

Oh, and again:

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It's Ok saying all the technologies you don't want, how about some you do want, which satisfy the 60GW generation (remember wind, which I suppose everyone here loves but unfortunately gives no contribution in the scenario posed however many hundreds of billions have been spent, ditto solar).

Maybe he just got confused and addressed them to Peter instead of Cardew? Yeah, that's probably it.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All

I can't sit back and resist posting .....

Microgeneration and localised generation is the key. Leave aside the requirements for large centralised plant for the moment and consider what this approach can actually provide.

Discuss ......

HTH
Z

Hiya, so looking for problems (and solutions):

1. Storage, this is going to be key, but is being looked at in many ways, and if large scale projects are needed, then the scale isn't unimaginable given the amounts and timescales being discussed for nuclear.

2. Changing attitudes, real big headache but certainly do-able and increased prices will only encourage.

3. Wind expansion, with on-shore so much cheaper than off-shore the NIMBY's have to give way. Nothing wrong with being scared of a wind turbine 400m away. But moaning about being able to see them, when visiting a park once a year has got to stop.

4. Home efficiency, especially heat insulation is crucial, but apathy seems to reign. The Green Deal is an interesting approach, but is let down by early payback penalties, and the failure to subsidise interest costs.

I reckon it's all do-able, but not until our political leaders bite the bullet, join together, and simply explain to the public just how messed up we are, and why such a large scale project is needed. I'm not hopeful about this bit.

Another approach to add, is to force all FF and nuclear generators to invest in a similar amount of renewables. You can bet that once they've got some, they'll quickly find ways to integrate them.

Mart.

albyota

I think you've got it Ze, the mix, local generation.

http://www.gizmag.com/ene-farm-home-fuel-cell-panasonic/25856/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2011/11/29/clearedge-designs-fuel-cells-to-replace-power-from-the-grid/

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/04/residential-use-of-fuel-cells-on-the-rise/

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/national-renewables-statistics/#Electricity

albyota

Mart, Damn predictive text on my 'Time Machine' just sent me in to the FUrniTURE....!!!


http://www.cerespower.com/Technology/TypesofFuelCell/

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

Looks like it might be 35 years:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/edf-subsidy-to-put-uk-on-nuclear-path-8527606.html

"On 19 March, the day before the Budget, the Environment Secretary, Ed Davey, will grant planning permission for EDF's power plant in Hinkley Point, Somerset"

Bear in mind, this is just for one site.

Looking on the bright side, EDF are hoping that if they're paid enough for Hinckley, then they should be able to build some more a little cheaper - having learnt how to do it right (next time):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21654697

"Now EDF would argue that it is not being greedy, but it can't put its own shareholders at risk at a price - that IRR again - that doesn't properly capture market evaluations of the proper reward for this initial ground-breaking project.

And it has told the Treasury to see Hinckley as part of a long-running programme, so that if Hinkley goes ahead, it would be followed by a new nuclear plant at Sizewell, for which - having learned from Hinkley - EDF would charge a lower IRR."

Well that sounds very promising (for EDF).

Mart.

albyota

Looks like they heard us......

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/carmarthenshire-wind-farm-given-go-ahead

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-at-forefront-of-european-nuclear-expansion

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya, so looking for problems (and solutions):

1. Storage, this is going to be key, but is being looked at in many ways, and if large scale projects are needed, then the scale isn't unimaginable given the amounts and timescales being discussed for nuclear.

2. Changing attitudes, real big headache but certainly do-able and increased prices will only encourage.

3. Wind expansion, with on-shore so much cheaper than off-shore the NIMBY's have to give way. Nothing wrong with being scared of a wind turbine 400m away. But moaning about being able to see them, when visiting a park once a year has got to stop.

4. Home efficiency, especially heat insulation is crucial, but apathy seems to reign. The Green Deal is an interesting approach, but is let down by early payback penalties, and the failure to subsidise interest costs.

I reckon it's all do-able, but not until our political leaders bite the bullet, join together, and simply explain to the public just how messed up we are, and why such a large scale project is needed. I'm not hopeful about this bit.

Another approach to add, is to force all FF and nuclear generators to invest in a similar amount of renewables. You can bet that once they've got some, they'll quickly find ways to integrate them.

Mart.

Hi

Storage solutions are important, but the key issue is the delivery of additional generating capacity in both a timescale which closes the energy gap and doesn't have such a major impact on the national grid that it needs a complete overhaul. That's why I believe that natural (/bio) gas-based microgeneration solutions are more important.

I agree on the NIMBY front, just put the questions to the masses and ignore the vocal minorities .... alternatively give everyone within a specified radius of an onshore windfarm free electricity and the remaining NIMBYs (if any!) would be kept really busy by all of the other locals anyway ...

On the home efficiency front I agree. There's far too much apathy, both from individuals, central government and local authorities alike no matter what level of self-congratulatory propaganda is used, that's why a proactive approach is needed ... don't wait for someone to call a helpline and have a set of complex and expensive procedures to follow, simply run a centralised information campaign (TV etc) then get the local planning departments up off their posteriors and get them to plan, then walk the streets and get things done, street-by-street, house-by-house ... if someone decides to not take up the offers of free insulation with no complexity, simply double their council-tax each year until they change their minds .... as for local authority conservation departments, reduce their annual budget by the value of the energy loss for each project they refuse ....

I agree, it's all do-able and it's probably not as complex as it first looks, it's just that the numbers involved are huge, but not unaffordable in the long-run. If a considerable amount of the work involved takes place in households then much of the 'anti' is removed anyway ... who's going to require a public enquiry over the next-door-neighbour effectively changing their central heating boiler for a CHP system?

Regarding the centralised generators and renewables, this is effectively already done as they currently have obligations to meet renewables targets. Simply forcing them to invest in renewables results in them controlling the renewables and therefore the market pricing of the renewables energy too .... this brings no more competition to the market. Centralised generation is capital intensive and extremely expensive, therefore restricting the number of potential players, whereas moving to a distributed generating model could see tens, or even hundreds of new entrants to the market, bringing much needed competition ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

....
http://www.cerespower.com/Technology/TypesofFuelCell/

Hi

I've been following that particular company's technology with a great deal of interest for some years now as it should be a relatively low-cost fuel cell solution. Simply integrating their natural-gas powered fuel cell with a heatpump would provide a gas heating system with well over 100% efficiency ....

HTH
Z