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

albyota

zeupater wrote: »

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

Well my Mitsubishi Ecodan heat pump is already over 300% efficient, but no mains gas here, but yes I know what you mean.

So with a fuel cell powering it .........wow....!

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Hamish Lal, a partner specialising in nuclear at lawyer Jones Day, said: "EDF has played a clever, strategically commercial set of negotiations"

I wonder who the winner is, EDF? the Government?

I wonder what potentially enormous subsidies are hidden in secret clauses for if/when costs over-run, waste has to dealt with, etc.

I wonder who will pay for it, grahamc2003 should be able to answer that.

grahamc2003

spgsc531 wrote: »

Hamish Lal, a partner specialising in nuclear at lawyer Jones Day, said: "EDF has played a clever, strategically commercial set of negotiations"

I wonder who the winner is, EDF? the Government?

I wonder what potentially enormous subsidies are hidden in secret clauses for if/when costs over-run, waste has to dealt with, etc.

I wonder who will pay for it, grahamc2003 should be able to answer that.

Yes, I think I can answer, and I'm very pleased to help. I think it's the same people who ultimately pay for everything in the esi - a mix of taxpayer and customer, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly via private companies. There's also a mix between current taxpayers/customers and future taxpayers/customers, with a great deal of effort expending to put the costs to on those in the future rather than those current.

My own views on whether that strategy is right or wrong really doesn't enter into it, the fact still stands whether I like it or not.

So bearing the above in mind, to carry on with the trivial questioning in the referred post, would anyone like to answer why the government appear to be considering such a contract with edf? In what I've read on here, the reality of what seems to be happening seems to be the polar opposite of what everyone here thinks should happen.

Rather spookily, for those who have been reading these threads long enough, it appears to be what I have said countless time will eventually happen whether we like it or not, and also whether we spend all our gdp and more on windmills. Sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it? Along with steam from your ears and nose no doubt.

So anyone care to have a stab as why this edf situation is being considered?

And if anyone is in an answering mood (not that I'm a believer in miracles), the other question which someone somewhere has to answer at some stage, what is the mix of generation, excluding intermittent, which together produces 60GW (or 60000MW if that makes more sense, ditto 60000000KW) when required?

While there's an obvious option on a bulletin board to ignore such very basic requirement, that luxury isn't extended to those responsible for getting the electricity to your plugs to power your laptop in order for you to have that option. They can't dismiss everything apart from wind and solar (in fact, those are just mild and currently insignificant irritations in their job).

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

My own views on whether that strategy is right or wrong really doesn't enter into it, the fact still stands whether I like it or not.

If a few more people in this forum could bear that 'trivial point' in mind, we might have less speculative nonsense on these pages leaving much more room for "money saving tips" (which I always thought was the raison d'etre of the website.

spgsc531

PeterZ wrote: »

The subsidiy (and hidden subsidiy) for nuclear are a major concern, along with the obvious safety concerns. This will push up future energy costs.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Could you tell us what these subsidies are for Nuclear? If they are hidden, how can you know?

How strange. Yesterday you were questioning another member, implying there are no subsidies. Yet today you are very pleased to help and answer:

spgsc531 wrote: »

I wonder what potentially enormous subsidies are hidden in secret clauses for if/when costs over-run, waste has to dealt with, etc.

I wonder who will pay for it, grahamc2003 should be able to answer that.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yes, I think I can answer, and I'm very pleased to help. I think it's the same people who ultimately pay for everything in the esi - a mix of taxpayer and customer, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly via private companies. There's also a mix between current taxpayers/customers and future taxpayers/customers, with a great deal of effort expending to put the costs to on those in the future rather than those current.

How very strange.

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

Well my Mitsubishi Ecodan heat pump is already over 300% efficient, but no mains gas here, but yes I know what you mean.

So with a fuel cell powering it .........wow....!

Hi

What would need to be considered is that the energy which is powering your Ecodan is probably somewhere close to 50% of potential efficiency at point of use. I posted this a couple of years ago based on a GSHP runnining at a COP of 4 ....

zeupater wrote: »

..... Roughly, for each 2kW potential of gas input 900W of heat & 900W of electricity .... for each 900W of electricity produced to run the heat pump you get around 3.6kW of heat drawn from the ground, the temperature of which is boosted by the 900W of reaction heat giving 4.5kW of heat from 2kW of fuel .... confirming 250% efficiency if the system is designed and balanced correctly.

This would be an almost perfect fit for an 'off grid' solution, whether the term 'off grid' refers to gas, electricity, or both, and would be seen as a natural replacement for LPG or oil heating systems as well as being suitable as a high efficiency heating system for those have a mains gas supply .....

Linking to an ASHP with a COP of 3.0 the overall fuel efficiency would be 180%, thus providing twice the heat output per cubic meter of gas as a standard 90% high efficiency condensing boiler. Looking at comparing running costs, if the ratio of electricity/gas pricing is typically somewhere around 4:1, then the comparative cost would be ASHP 1:0.42 (£1/3)x3)) : (£0.25/1.8)x3), a staggering reduction of over half on your ASHP's running cost ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

.... So anyone care to have a stab as why this edf situation is being considered? ....

Hi

As no-one else has responded, then I'll have a stab at the point which I believe you're raising ....

The grid frequency needs to be controlled and this is sub-contracted by National Grid to operators who have plant with frequency-control capabilities in return for a premium service-based payment. Current UK nuclear plant has the ability to control frequency, as will the planned next generation. Smaller plant and large plant which is not contracted to control frequency operates on a load & frequency following basis .... this is effectively what microgeneration also does, however, the combination of decentralised & distributed generation from renewables, which by nature is both unschedulable and potentially intermittent, creates an additional burden to the control process ...

.... is this fair so far ?? ...

Okay then, if the above describes the issue at hand which is driving a pro-centralised/anti-distributed generation stance, then the following report from National Grid becomes pretty interesting ... http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/59119DD3-1A8D-4130-9FED-0A2E4B68C2D2/43089/pp_10_21FutureFrequencyResponseServices.pdf ... describing a framework to address this very issue ...

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

I think you've misunderstood the very basic question I'm asking. I'm simply asking, why the government appear to be discussing with edf the provision, at great expense, of at least one Nuclear power station, when it seems to be the polar opposite of what people think is necessary for our electricity supply. It appears they are close to signing, which seems to be against your view that the government should make Nuclear providers 'sweat it out', but my point is most here appear far more negative (to the point of obsessively negative) than that.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong - just that there appears to be a massive discrepancy between the views here and what is happening in the real world. Just seeing if anyone can explain that discrepancy.

Just for the avoidance of doubt again, I'll restate my question again ..

Most here say we need to do A, and definitely don't do B

The government appear to be doing B.

The question is - what explains that situation?


As to the ng report - you can rest assured that the very able people tasked with maintaining the security of the grid will investigate and ameliorate any current or future issue they can foresee in order to ensure as far as possible that whatever is thrown at them, the lights will stay on as long as possible. Gone are the days when they can influence policy to a large extent, they just have to manage what is thrown at them as best as possible.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

there appears to be a massive discrepancy between the views here and what is happening in the real world. Just seeing if anyone can explain that discrepancy.

Like the UK Government investing in Wind and Solar power, and you constantly saying they don't work and are a waste of money?

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood the very basic question I'm asking. I'm simply asking, why the government appear to be discussing with edf the provision, at great expense, of at least one Nuclear power station, when it seems to be the polar opposite of what people think is necessary for our electricity supply. It appears they are close to signing, which seems to be against your view that the government should make Nuclear providers 'sweat it out', but my point is most here appear far more negative (to the point of obsessively negative) than that.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong - just that there appears to be a massive discrepancy between the views here and what is happening in the real world. Just seeing if anyone can explain that discrepancy.

Just for the avoidance of doubt again, I'll restate my question again ..

Most here say we need to do A, and definitely don't do B

The government appear to be doing B.

The question is - what explains that situation?


As to the ng report - you can rest assured that the very able people tasked with maintaining the security of the grid will investigate and ameliorate any current or future issue they can foresee in order to ensure as far as possible that whatever is thrown at them, the lights will stay on as long as possible. Gone are the days when they can influence policy to a large extent, they just have to manage what is thrown at them as best as possible.

Hi

Then the answer is simply to keep an industrial/political finger in the French nuclear pie .... at some stage nuclear fusion will become a reality and the countries with a pre-existant nuclear research and industrial base will have a pretty large advantage over the global competition ....

Add to this the UK's intent to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent and it becomes quite a basic premise that negotiations for the renewal/replacement of a developed delivery system wouldn't get very far if the country had abandoned the ability to process/reprocess and develop the warheads ....

One question, two answers ....

HTH
Z