Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

pile-o-stone

When I look on the gridwatch website and see just how much energy is required and how much of that requirement is produced by gas, I despair. The other day we also had coal producing as much as wind.

I can imagine a time when renewables can completely replace coal, which is brilliant as coal is such a dirty source for energy, but I can't imagine renewables replacing coal, nuclear and gas. That's at today's energy usage levels, let alone if there is huge growth in heat pumps for heating and electric vehicles for transport.

While I really dislike nuclear, I think it's preferable compared with gas from an air quality and climate change perspective. and I'm starting to come around to the idea that we need nuclear and renewables to displace gas, rather than having renewables replace nuclear.

Please help me change my mind!!

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Please help me change my mind!!

I'll give it a shot.

Step one, the problem is huge, so 'the solution' needs everything possible to be thrown at it, including nuclear.

Step two, nuclear is low carbon, and far cleaner than coal, so if it's economical, it should be part of the solution.

Step three, having come up with a solution that can handle the scale of the problem, based on RE + nuclear + gas* + storage, we need to look at each part to see if they are needed/viable compared to other parts.

*Gas could be bio-gas, or if used sparingly (~10%) then it's a good way to balance supply.

Step four, if the scale of nuclear and cost of nuclear can be matched by RE + storage, then replace the nuclear part with more RE and storage.

Now, personally I'd be happy to pay a higher price for nuclear to displace coal, and a higher price for RE to displace nuclear. However, there are economic conditions since it's not 'me' that has to be convinced, but the majority of the population within this (or any other) country.

So, I tend to argue the economics of nuclear, rather than just against nuclear.

I believe, quite sincerely that nuclear can not compete against RE + storage going forward, not necessarily today, but today doesn't matter as nuclear deployment 'buys' us 10yrs. It's also extremely important to consider the length of subsidy periods for RE (15yrs) v's nuclear (35yrs) and to dismiss arguments about nuclear generating for longer than RE, since when the RE fails in 20-40yrs time, their replacements will be subsidy free, so the subsidy period can fairly be compared as 15 v's 35.

But, playing devil's advocate, we also have to consider the scale of generation needed, and the capacity factors of RE. It doesn't matter how cheap PV gets in the UK, as it's 11% cf will always be a problem of peaks and troughs. However, storage can mitigate these problems and allow a doubling of deployment to around 20% of demand.

But, the cf of off-shore wind is rising with every iteration of newer WT's being produced, and their physical size allows them to reach up into ever more consistent wind. So the current 40% cf's should become 50% cf's in the future. That will help with demand/supply management. Off-shore wind farms also generate approx 85% of the time, and combined, about 100% of the time, though admittedly generation is very low at those 85 and 100 percentiles.

We also have no shortage, whatsoever of potential off-shore wind generation. If our total leccy demand rises from around 40GW today to 100GW in the future (leccy demand, transport (EV's) and heating), off-shore wind could provide 1,200GW to 9,100GW.

For day to day storage I've seen several estimates that are around 500GWh. This is a huge amount of storage, and will cost a lot, but it's worth noting that as a side effect of switching to EV's we will get about 500GWh of storage for every 10m EV's on the road, so perhaps 1,500GWh in total.

For longer periods of storage, there are already technologies, such as bio-mass and bio-energy. there's compressed or liquid air energy storage (CAES and LAES), and the rather inefficient production of hydrogen and bio-methane from excess leccy, but if RE gen is very cheap, then 'why not'? Also an expansion of the UK's interconnectors will help, and this is happening already.

So the question isn't whether we can do the job without nuclear, it's whether we can do the job for the same cost without nuclear. And I believe we've just about reached that point today, and within the next 10yrs, will 'smash' the cost of nuclear. So HPC will start generating at £100/MWh, at a point in time when we will be rolling out cheaper RE + storage.

Lastly, and as a footnote, I believe the cost of nuclear is being accepted by even the most ardent of supporters, so the latest argument is that nuclear would be far, far cheaper to deploy if the government financed it - and yes that's very true, but RE would be even cheaper too.

NigeWick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I can't imagine renewables replacing coal, nuclear and gas.

Go on, go on, go on, go on, imagine it.

It will only be a few years before home solar generation and battery storage will be cheaper than the cost of grid transmission. I can afford to be an early adopter so will have a Tesla Powerwall 2 installed when one is available in March. Because of the VAT difference between having just the battery at 20% and a battery plus a couple of 300W panels at 5%, I will have 4.6kW of generation and a 13kWh backup. I am also getting a 40kWh Nissan Leaf in March so when we get V2G I would have roughly a week's electricity backup.

I live in a cul de sac of eight bungalows with south facing rooves. With the latest 360W panels, each could produce over 5kW (7.92kW for me) at peak output. A Powerwall in each would make us electricity independent in the summer and close to it in winter. Obviously, if we all had 40kWh battery cars too we would have more options. Then there's the enormous potential of offshore wind that this country has to generate enough electriciy for this country plus a few others when combined with large scale storage.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

...if the scale of nuclear and cost of nuclear can be matched by RE + storage, then replace the nuclear part with more RE and storage...

..Now, personally I'd be happy to pay a higher price for nuclear to displace coal, and a higher price for RE to displace nuclear...

Hi Mart, thanks for such a detailed response. I've pulled the above quotes from your post as I feel they're relevant to my point. I'd agree with displacing nuclear with renewables, but only if gas is better than nuclear when it comes to climate change and air pollution.

I used to think that just about everything was better than nuclear, even coal, but after reviewing lots of information on climate change and air quality, I've changed my mind. Burning coal, oil and biomass increases CO2 levels and also causes pollution. Burning gas increases CO2 levels, but doesn't release as much pollution as the others, especially small particulates that cause serious lung damage. Incidentally, this is why I replaced my wood burning stove with a gas 'wood effect' stove.

If nuclear has less of a climate and air quality impact than gas, then surely the UK should be looking to displace gas with nuclear and Renewables than replacing nuclear with renewables and continuing to use gas at existing or higher levels?

pile-o-stone

NigeWick wrote: »

Go on, go on, go on, go on, imagine it.

It will only be a few years before home solar generation and battery storage will be cheaper than the cost of grid transmission. I can afford to be an early adopter so will have a Tesla Powerwall 2 installed when one is available in March. Because of the VAT difference between having just the battery at 20% and a battery plus a couple of 300W panels at 5%, I will have 4.6kW of generation and a 13kWh backup. I am also getting a 40kWh Nissan Leaf in March so when we get V2G I would have roughly a week's electricity backup.

I live in a cul de sac of eight bungalows with south facing rooves. With the latest 360W panels, each could produce over 5kW (7.92kW for me) at peak output. A Powerwall in each would make us electricity independent in the summer and close to it in winter. Obviously, if we all had 40kWh battery cars too we would have more options. Then there's the enormous potential of offshore wind that this country has to generate enough electriciy for this country plus a few others when combined with large scale storage.

We have 5.3kW of potential solar generation at our home and I'm a big fan of solar, but I know that it's generating next to nothing for me in winter and that even in summer, it would not allow me to be off grid, even with a battery.

A powerwall2 has an output of 5kW steady and 7kW Peak. If we are using the electric cooker, washing machine and turn on a kettle, we will be well over that 7kw peak and will be importing from the grid.

During a sunny day, the combination of panel output and battery output could cover that level of power usage, but then the battery is being drained and so there would be less to use in the evening.

We're also looking at getting an EV, and in preparation I'm looking to install a further 3kW of solar. I want to charge the car as much as possible with my own energy, but even with 8.3kW potential generation, I won't be able to fully charge a 40kW car and run the house except perhaps on the occasional very sunny day. I certainly couldn't run the house, charge an EV and charge a battery for evening use.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

If nuclear has less of a climate and air quality impact than gas, then surely the UK should be looking to displace gas with nuclear and Renewables than replacing nuclear with renewables and continuing to use gas at existing or higher levels?

Yes, but I believe that RE and storage is cheaper and better than nuclear. So it's not RE and nuclear v's RE and gas.

Nuclear advocates like to say it's RE and nuclear v's RE + storage + gas, but the truth is that the full option is RE + nuclear + gas + storage. I believe that the nuclear and gas can be replaced by RE, or at the least gas reduced to a carbon sustainable level, or even better FF gas replaced by bio-gas, making it carbon neutral.

So that's why I strongly suggest splitting the issue in two, accept the RE element, then focus on the nuclear element and decide if that too can be replaced economically by RE + storage, and I think it can, but others will disagree. However, I don't think others will disagree in 10yrs time, as I'm looking at where we are going rather than where we are, and RE/storage costs are tumbling.

Another (yet another) issue is to focus on where the costs come from. For FF's most of the cost is the fuel, about 75% (note I'm not considering externalities such as CO2 and pollution). Nuclear has enormous fixed costs (fuel is relatively cheap), but these fixed costs are very inflexible, such as waste management, security, failsafes etc, so nuclear has defied the norm by simply not getting cheaper over time.

Now, consider RE costs, the fuel is pretty much free, some costs are labour, land etc. But the main costs are the 'kit' and these are technologically based, and as such decrease over time with improvements, but mostly due to scale of production (Swanson's Law - Each doubling of supply leads to approx 20% reduction in cost). So PV and wind, and importantly now, batteries, keep getting cheaper simply because we are building more and benefiting from economies of scale.

I'll stick my neck out here and make a guess, I think that by the time HPC comes on line (2027-2030) and costs us £100/MWh, we will have new RE at £30/MWh on-shore wind, £30-£40/MWh PV, £50/MWh off-shore wind.

Assuming we need to store 25%-33% of RE generation, then (v's HPC) we have a margin of around £50+ / 33% = £150/MWh for storage, that's 15p/kWh, and even a small (domestic scale) battery such as the Tesla Powerwall II is now about 10p/kWh. On the larger scale, I'd suggest it's more like 2p/kWh or £20/MWh.

But wait, there's more, storage is not necessarily a cost, consider arbitrage for say a PV farm. At mid day wholesale prices are low, and they are selling at £20/MWh, but during the evening peak they can sell at £100/MWh, so they store 1MWh and sell 0.8MWh (assume 20% losses) later on.

So the cost of the leccy is £20, they incur £20 in storage costs (life cycles of the battery), and sell 0.8MWh for £80. Overall they have made £40 via storage, not lost money. A bit idealistic, but just pointing out another side to the issue.

I'd also suggest that I'm far more bullish on storage costs because I was wrong on PV and wind, I thought costs would fall, but not as much, and as fast as they have, so on-shore wind was a shocker, then PV, then off-shore wind, so I've learnt my lesson on tech costs and Swanson's Law, and batt prices are very much based on the production process, and its expansion/growth over time ..... (plus some exciting new ideas.)

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

A powerwall2 has an output of 5kW steady and 7kW Peak. If we are using the electric cooker, washing machine and turn on a kettle, we will be well over that 7kw peak and will be importing from the grid.

Sorry, but I've got to do it - don't run the washing machine at the same time as the cooker, and get a lower powered kettle.

I appreciate that life isn't as simple as that, but with some forethought I think 7kW peak and 5kW constant is more than enough for most situations.

Now for the preachy bit, you don't have to generate all your leccy at home, if, like me, you want to take some responsibility for your anytime demand. I've invested a small amount of money (each time) in many RE projects via Abundance. I like to think that any draw I have on the grid is being matched somewhere (if not here) by PV, wind, bio-energy, hydro etc. I'm not suggesting all, or any persons need to do this, for me, it's really just a fun concept and challenge.

Martyn1981

UK leccy demand continues down, and nobody's quite sure why this time!

UK electricity use falls – as rest of EU rises

The UK was the only country in the EU to reduce its electricity consumption last year, with power use growing or stable across the rest of the bloc’s 28 member states.

Britain’s appetite for power has been waning for more than a decade as industrial activity declined and businesses and households opted for more energy efficient lighting and appliances.

But an analysis of official figures by campaign group Sandbag found the fall between 2016 and 2017 was one of the biggest in several years, marking a striking divergence with the rest of Europe.

Overall, electricity demand has fallen by 9% in the UK in the past seven years, the sharpest decline in the union. Meanwhile, Poland chalked up the biggest rise, at 9% over the same period.

Is it too naughty to point out that 9% is more than 7%, 7% being the percentage of our leccy that HPC is to provide eventually?

michaels

So what mix would may sense?

My feeling is that even if gas or coal or oil are extremely dirty there might still be a place for them in a mix that was very RE heavy as 'backup' that is cheaper than long term storage of sufficient quantity.

Ie if we have deployed RE plus storage that can cover 90% of our demand (probably generating about 2-300% of our actual requirement but not at times that make it 100% reliable) then using something 'dirty' for the other 10% would not be the end of the world. This would save us sinking huge amounts of capital into nuke plants that may well end up as stranded assets as storage solutions improve.

Edit: I saw a reference to gas not been as 'clean' as claimed because of ignoring the climate impact of methane released during extraction.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes, but I believe that RE and storage is cheaper and better than nuclear.

I think we're at cross purposes. I'm not debating the costs of each form of energy, I'm concerned about the impact that energy production has on the environment. If one type is more expensive, but a lot cleaner, then I think we should bite the bullet and pay more. That's why I was supporting RE when it was a lot more expensive than all other forms of energy production.

I understand that energy costs are important, but I don't think they'll matter if we make vast areas of the planet unlivable. There are already climate models that show large parts of the middle east will be so hot that people will not be able to live there during summer time. Australia has had record temperatures and this is going to continue to rise.