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

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Or is it not believed that MrsZ is having a new hybrid delivered soon ? .... well she is, and it's pretty relevant to having posted, you see, as part of the selection process we didn't only google, we've had all of the cars on our shortlist to test-drive for between 1/2 day and a couple of days each ..

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup, if it's not too rude, what car did you and Mrs Z settle on in the end?

I've been following the Volt for a very long time now, through a couple of American car mags. The idea sounded sensible at the time, and little more than sticking a petrol gennie in the boot of an all electric vehicle (ok maybe I jest a little!), but it ended up so complicated and expensive. Oh well, someone had to start somewhere I suppose.

Mart.

Martyn1981

This is pretty big news!

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/02/denmark-puts-the-brakes-on-heating-costs-with-new-legislation

"As of the 1st of January 2013, the installation of oil-fired boilers and natural gas heating is banned in new buildings in Denmark."

As targets go, this bit seems truly incredible! (impossible?)

"The agreement was an important step towards delivering on the political goal that Denmark’s entire energy supply (electricity, heating, industry and transport) is covered by renewable energy by 2050."

Good luck to them.

Mart.

grahamc2003

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

I'd like to slightly rephrase the posed question to 'What requirements should our energy policy satisfy for the next 25 years'.

I'll start with the first requirement.

The reliability of our electricity supply should be at least as reliable as it has been over the last 25 years.

Quite an earth shattering requirement which seems to be brushed over by our current energy policy, and virtually all proposed energy policies you read about. For those who have a basic understanding of how the grid works, (which is as nigh as makes no odds, zero politicians. almost zero bloggers, and zero 'greens') it rules out anything above a low penetration of intermittent generation.

Dave_Fowler

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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

I'd like to slightly rephrase the posed question to 'What requirements should our energy policy satisfy for the next 25 years'.

I'll start with the first requirement.

The reliability of our electricity supply should be at least as reliable as it has been over the last 25 years.

Quite an earth shattering requirement which seems to be brushed over by our current energy policy, and virtually all proposed energy policies you read about. For those who have a basic understanding of how the grid works, (which is as nigh as makes no odds, zero politicians. almost zero bloggers, and zero 'greens') it rules out anything above a low penetration of intermittent generation.

I entirely agree with your first requirement. And to meet this we could build more coal and gas fired power stations using the safe and proven technology which already exists.

Unfortunately the government (and world pressure) have thrown in a further requirement which is to drastically reduce our CO2 production. As power production is deemed to be one of the producers of CO2 they are putting great pressure on the public to 'become green' and allow wind farms to be built and install solar panels - on farms or on roofs.

This may well be to the detriment of the Grid. But there's no point in finding reasons why the existing system can't cope. Modifications will have to be made. The cost of not upgrading the Grid may well be far greater than the cost of the modifications required to cope with the renewables' input. I don't think the renewable generation was ever expected to replace the power plants; it is being asked to reduce our CO2 emissions - which surely it must be doing to some extent.

Dave F

Martyn1981

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I don't think the renewable generation was ever expected to replace the power plants; it is being asked to reduce our CO2 emissions - which surely it must be doing to some extent.

Dave F

Hiya Dave, there was (possibly still is) a large number of people claiming that ramping gas (and to a lesser extent coal) plants up and down to meet varying renewables supply, could actually lead to increased CO2 consumption, due to operating these plants less efficiently.

However, there were a lot of real-life reports/articles that started to come out last year, that seemed to show a direct reduction in gas consumption in line with wind generation. Off the top of my head, the reports were German, British and Irish (I think). Can probably track some down if you like?

Mart.

zeupater

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I entirely agree with your first requirement. And to meet this we could build more coal and gas fired power stations using the safe and proven technology which already exists.

Unfortunately the government (and world pressure) have thrown in a further requirement which is to drastically reduce our CO2 production. As power production is deemed to be one of the producers of CO2 they are putting great pressure on the public to 'become green' and allow wind farms to be built and install solar panels - on farms or on roofs.

This may well be to the detriment of the Grid. But there's no point in finding reasons why the existing system can't cope. Modifications will have to be made. The cost of not upgrading the Grid may well be far greater than the cost of the modifications required to cope with the renewables' input. I don't think the renewable generation was ever expected to replace the power plants; it is being asked to reduce our CO2 emissions - which surely it must be doing to some extent.

Dave F

Hi

I'd simply predict that the eventual stop-gap solution will be to build distributed natural gas generating plant, most of which would have between an 18month and 3year lead time ....

Distributed natural gas plant, if suitably placed, would reduce the requirement for major electricity-grid infrastructure upgrades and could pretty easily be specified for future transition to biogas, however, initial use of shalegas would provide a strategic fit which would be carried over to periods where biofuels were in shorter supply ...

Whatever the future strategy, it would be favourable to concentrate on considerably smaller generating facilities than those which currently provide the majority of demand as this will open the market up to new entrants and introduce new competition, something which is urgently required ....

A simple question which really never seems to get asked is "why do we really need two national fully independent and robust energy grids which effectively operate as competitors ?" .... surely, if the gas grid was sufficiently robust, then energy can be stored and delivered in the national infrastructure and electricity generated on a more localised basis, potentially bringing a degree of enhanced resilience to electricity generation ....

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I entirely agree with your first requirement. And to meet this we could build more coal and gas fired power stations using the safe and proven technology which already exists.

Unfortunately the government (and world pressure) have thrown in a further requirement which is to drastically reduce our CO2 production. As power production is deemed to be one of the producers of CO2 they are putting great pressure on the public to 'become green' and allow wind farms to be built and install solar panels - on farms or on roofs.


Dave F

But the point about developing systems via a set of requirements is that the requirements drive everything. You can't state one requirement (i.e. same level of reliability) and then state another which is in conflict. All requirement have to be satisfied, otherwise it's pointless having a strategy based upon them.

At the moment, there's a sort of implied requirement as to reliability. We sort of hope the lights keep on. But currently, the co2 driven 'solutions', being generally intermittent, are at odds with the primary (implied) requirement, which, for the last 20 years, has simply been forgotten in terms of planning.

If we want a reliable electricity supply, then we can't have deep penetration of intermittent generation. (other countries with lots of cheap primary reserve such as hydro can have much higher penetration). Even the government now accepts that, and even with an unprecedented (and actually stupid imv) massive and expensive gas building program (which isn't generally reported, due to the co2 angle), the penetration will be too deep for the same level of reliability (even after additional very expensive compensatory measures such as additional primary reserve).

On Radio 4 half an hour ago three was someone who's name I didn't catch trying to do a pr job on Nuclear, in a very green friendly way so as not to upset too many listeners. Worth listening to, although she was very reserved and I'm not sure she fully stated the mess we are heading towards.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, if it's not too rude, what car did you and Mrs Z settle on in the end?

I've been following the Volt for a very long time now, through a couple of American car mags. The idea sounded sensible at the time, and little more than sticking a petrol gennie in the boot of an all electric vehicle (ok maybe I jest a little!), but it ended up so complicated and expensive. Oh well, someone had to start somewhere I suppose.

Mart.

Hi

We tried absolutely everything (almost) and quite enjoyed the process ....

The majority of hybrids and EVs are absolute rubbish in one way or another .... range, efficiency over petroleum based fuels, cost of spares, longevity, comfort, manufacturer's committment ....

Ended up weighing up the pro's and cons and went for something that would suit everyday use and still be able to cover the entire country (removing the need for a second vehicle or car-hire), wasn't likely to be dropped by the manufacturer, uses a drivetrain which is fully debugged and proven in mass production, the cost of spares/repairs is comparitively reasonable and there is a committed distribution network .... guess which is the only marque to meet all of the criteria ? ....

It's great for all of these magazines, journalists and armchair experts to make comment, but how many actually support their views with their own hard-cash ? ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

guess which is the only marque to meet all of the criteria ? ....

HTH
Z

Hiya, assuming we're still talking hybrids, then the 'debugged' bit makes me think Prius?

Our little Meriva is nearly 9 years old. We've been talking about a replacement for a few years, but the ugly little compromise has totally won us over. She can carry so much! Disliked it at first due to the extra complexity and weight of a clever seating system that can go from 5 seats to 4!!! But seating aside, very much function over form.

Really fancy something like the plug in Prius, as Wifey works about 4 miles away, in stop and go traffic, so the 12 mile range would suit well .... but will need to be 4 or 5 years old before it gets anywhere near our price range (spent all our cash on PV ).

Ohhh, could be a Honda, but I've lost track of the UK hybrid market, so will stick with Toyota, and zero down to a Prius if pushed?

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

We tried absolutely everything (almost) and quite enjoyed the process ....


Z

How about the Hummer hybrid?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/hummer-produce-hybrid-h3-company-100-miles-gallon-article-1.195966