Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

lstar337

pile-o-stone wrote: »

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.

Fun fact: A coal fired power station releases more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. (you know, so long as it isn't melting down or anything) And of course coal releases a lot of other nasties too, so it certainly isn't better than nuclear.

pile-o-stone wrote: »

If nuclear has less of a climate and air quality impact than gas,

It does. In terms of C02/air quality, all you get from nuclear is steam from the water cooling towers.

pile-o-stone wrote: »

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?

Makes sense, for the short to medium term. Long term we should be looking for renewables to displace everything.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

I didn't say you had to generate all your leccy at home, I was saying that you couldn't (at least in a normal suburban home). I do think that it's a little unreasonable to expect people to sit waiting for the washing machine to end its cycle before they can then start cooking Sunday lunch. That's just in summer, in winter you couldn't boil a kettle, let alone have surplus to fill up a battery with solar.

Like you, I also take responsibility for my draw on the grid. I've reduced our energy consumption with A++ white goods, LED lights, solar heated water, etc. We have 5.3kW of solar panels already installed (1.5kW without FIT or export subsidy) and a further 3kW in the pipeline (also subsidy free). As I'm with with Pure Planet for my electricity, 100% of my grid draw is from renewable electricity.

It's important that those of us who are able to do so, do everything we can to reduce consumption, increase generation and help promote cleaner energy.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

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.

Hi

I don't really follow the point you're making ... effectively you seem to be saying that given two forms of generation sources with low carbon emissions, as a consumer you'd be prepared to pay considerably more for one than the other on environmental grounds? ... even if there's effectively no emissions based environmental difference ? ...

The real issue that seems to have been missed is the timescale involved in moving to low-carbon energy generation ... essentially, the question revolves around what's better for the three elements involved in the decision making process - the environment, the economy & the consumer ... taking note that they're substantially intertwined ...

One of the major problems which continually arises in the 'climate debate' is an intolerance of what is effectively the only path for achieving the carbon-reduction goal, progressive reduction .... so many simply see the endpoint and dismiss anything which has 'interim' associated with it ... so what's better, spending money & halving emissions today, thereby 'buying' time to do more, or spending the same amount on replacement capacity designed to do little more than maintain current average emissions in a decade or so, accepting that the solution may ultimately be better on paper when considered in isolation, but fatally flawed when looking at the 'big picture' ? - in a nutshell that's the dilemma ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

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.

Yep, totally agree, I'd happily pay more for nuclear or RE than FF's, but the point I'm trying to make is that I believe RE (+ storage) is now on target to be cheaper than FF's or nuclear.

So we don't have to choose between economics and being ethical, we can have our cake and eat it. Also RE tends to be highly labour intensive compared to other forms of generation, which is good news too.


Another argument that sometimes gets used is that we are in a race and nuclear and RE will be faster than just RE. But I disagree, subsidies for nuclear mean less money is available for RE, so they directly compete, also, as can be seen from RE auctions in the UK and elsewhere, there is no shortage whatsoever of companies and investors willing to build RE today on a vast scale. Last year Germany rolled out 6GW of on-shore wind, taking capacity factors into account that's half the output of HPC in just one year, and from just one technology (plus it's much cheaper, around €40/MWh).

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I do think that it's a little unreasonable to expect people to sit waiting for the washing machine to end its cycle before they can then start cooking Sunday lunch.

Have to say I disagree with you on this. It's just a matter of planning. People don't have to do it, but they could if they wanted to, so the option is there. I'd also say that you have it the wrong way round, people don't have to wait for the washing to finish to have lunch, they should let the washing wait, till they've finished.

It's many years ago now, but a lady on another forum asked how to get the most out of their new PV system. I explained about daisy chaining leccy consumption rather than running it all at the same time.

I gave a tongue-in-cheek example, where I said, right you want to do the washing, and also have breakfast (coffee/tea and toast), so you switch on the kettle, and whilst it's boiling you get the bread and load the toaster by which time the kettle's boiled, and whilst waiting for the toast, you load the washing machine.

She replied that she could hardly expect her husband to go to all that trouble, when all he wants is some breakfast. I was a bit shocked as she'd raised the question, but importantly pointed out that 'he wasn't going to all that trouble', he was doing exactly the same amount of work, just putting it in a PV friendly order, which will quickly become natural - just like turning off a tap whilst brushing your teeth.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

... I do think that it's a little unreasonable to expect people to sit waiting for the washing machine to end its cycle before they can then start cooking Sunday lunch. That's just in summer, in winter you couldn't boil a kettle, let alone have surplus to fill up a battery with solar ...

Hi

To some it may be an 'unreasonable' problem, to others it's simply an opportunity to apply a little common-sense, planning & prioritisation ...

On the washing machine cycle, water heating is very much towards the front-end, apart from that the machine is comparatively low-power, even Sunday lunch can be planned to use self-generated energy more efficiently with a little forethought ....

... on the kettle front, it's winter now & I've managed to have a few cuppa's today without drawing power from the grid ... although that's not the case at the moment (generating a measly 37W!)

HTH
Z

pile-o-stone

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I don't really follow the point you're making ... effectively you seem to be saying that given two forms of generation sources with low carbon emissions, as a consumer you'd be prepared to pay considerably more for one than the other on environmental grounds? ... even if there's effectively no emissions based environmental difference ? ...
Z

Sorry, I'm lost now

If you're saying that there is no emissions difference between gas and nuclear, then I'd be surprised, but then agree that we should replace nuclear with wind/solar as a priority. If you're saying that there is no emissions difference between nuclear and wind/solar, then I'd agree but ask why we would replace one low emissions technology (nuclear) with an equally low emissions technology (wind/solar), while leaving gas as the dominant energy source.

I'd love to see RE replace everything, but I just don't see how it can, especially if we see a huge increase in demand from electric transport. Not in my lifetime anyway.

Perhaps I'm not making myself very clear. Right now on Energy Watch, we are getting 17.3% from clean renewables, 13.9% from nuclear and the remaining 68.8% from gas, coal and overseas generation (France & Holland).

We're at approx 31% from energy sources with zero greenhouse gas and particulate emissions. If we invest as much money again in offshore wind turbines and solar as we have already, then we could either replace nuclear and still be at approx 31% zero emissions, or we could keep nuclear and replace gas and have 62% of our energy from zero emission energy sources.

I guess it all boils down to whether you believe we have a serious problem due to man-made climate change that we need to solve, or if you don't believe that and, like Trump, believe in having the cheapest energy available.

Anyway, that's my tuppence. Only time will tell whether we are able to replace both gas and nuclear with wind and solar or not.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Perhaps I'm not making myself very clear. Right now on Energy Watch, we are getting 17.3% from clean renewables, 13.9% from nuclear and the remaining 68.8% from gas, coal and overseas generation (France & Holland).

I hope this makes sense, as I'm going to type a ton of stuff spinning around my brain.

Firstly, don't worry too much about the RE contribution at any given time, the important news is that RE last year provided nearly 30% of our leccy (I haven't yet seen an exact figure), that's up from 25% in 2016 and 2015, and up from about 5% a decade or so back.

So we can roll out as much RE as necessary, as fast as necessary, and for far less cost than it was (2010-2017).

Now, I'll take back what I said about not worrying about the RE contribution at any given time, as that's the big problem with RE. However, there are many solutions:
1. Range of RE - the more types the better as individual peaks and troughs will vary.
2. Dispatchable RE - such as bio-mass and bio-gas.
3. Storage - from simple batts, to PHS, CAES, LAES and bio-gas.
4. Interconnectors.
5. FF gas - so long as it's only around 10% or less of annual generation.

Nuclear makes the problem easier, but as explained earlier, the cost differential of nuclear v's RE actually means we could afford batteries and have change left over.

The biggest problem I foresee with RE is loss of wind, as that's easily going to be the largest single source. From reading negative comments on other forums from nuclear supporters, anti-RE posters and doom sayers, they refer to an upto 2 week lull. Now that's a far bigger problem than batts to balance each day, but our existing gas fleet can supply 25GW, and I think (not sure?) that 14 days of gas storage, ideally bio-gas, is a perfectly reasonable amount in the long term.

And for balance it's important to note that nuclear will also need gas and storage since it's not flexible*, so whilst it eases the problem it doesn't remove it, and nuclear also needs back up as the loss of a single reactor could cause massive disruption, whereas a single PV panel, single wind turbine, or even a PV/wind farm won't be big enough to cause a problem.

*HPC can ramp down to 60%, but presumably we still have to pay for 100% via curtailments, also I've learned recently that nuclear doesn't ramp back up that easily, you might have to shut it down first and re-start it ...... but I got a bit lost on the techie parts.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

We're at approx 31% from energy sources with zero greenhouse gas and particulate emissions. If we invest as much money again in offshore wind turbines and solar as we have already, then we could either replace nuclear and still be at approx 31% zero emissions, or we could keep nuclear and replace gas and have 62% of our energy from zero emission energy sources.

This is something I said last year, so apologies for repeating, but the rollout of RE or nuclear is pretty much down to the amount of subsidies the government earmarks for them, so ....

HPC is to receive a CfD of £100/MWh for 35yrs, but the latest off-shore wind contract was for £60/MWh for 15yrs.

Towards the end of the 20's when both will be generating, the NAO expect the wholesale leccy price to be about £50/MWh (see page 39).

So HPC will get approx £50/MWh in subsidies, whilst off-shore wind will get approx £10/MWh. So we could have 5 times the generation from off-shore wind, for the same amount of subsidy.

To put that into perspective, HPC is to supply 7% of our leccy, so the alternative, for the same amount of annual subsidy, could provide 35%.

For further perspective, the current aging UK nuclear fleet, which will all have shutdown by around 2030, provides about 21% of our leccy, so just re-directing the HPC annual subsidy would cover all that generation, plus another 14% (2 HPC's) on top.

And I keep saying 'annual' subsidy, as we'd only need 15 of the HPC's 35yrs, so 5x the generation for 3/7ths of the subsidy.

In fact, as I posted recently, we may already be closing in on net subsidy free off-shore wind - the principle here is that any subsidy it receives during low price periods, would be paid back from high price periods, the subsidy is really just an income guarantee to give the investors and industry the assurance they need to build out the fleet.

This is the article:

UK could support 30GW by 2030

Going from 6GW to 30GW, with 24GW of larger WT's that should have capacity factors of 50%, means they would generate on average an extra 12GW, and be equal to about 13GW of new nuclear. The government's plan is to rollout approx 16GW's of new nuclear.

pile-o-stone

I think we should probably leave it there as we seem to be at an en pass. My focus is on emissions and so your solutions like bio-gas aren't my solutions because they release just as much CO2 and pollution as burning FF gas. Your focus seems to be on comparative cost, which I'm finding interesting, but you don't mention emissions. As I said earlier, a person's viewpoint depends on what they are focusing on. I used to focus on the same as yourself - renewability, and displacement of nuclear. After seeing a lot of information about climate change, my focus has shifted to emissions, especially methane and CO2, which means biogas/ff gas is out and nuclear is in. I'd prefer that this was not the case as I am no fan of nuclear.

https://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/environmental-policy/if-young-people-dont-act-climate-change-then-we-are-real-trouble-again/

Here is the gridwatch site, showing emissions from the various power sources:
http://gridwatch.co.uk/co2-emissions

Right now, Biomass provides 5.4% of the UK's energy and accounts for 8% of CO2 emissions.
Natural gas provides 41% of the UK's energy and accounts for 68% of CO2 emissions.

Contrasting that is wind and nuclear:

Wind is providing 25.4% of the UKs energy and accounts for 0.9% of CO2 emissions
Nuclear is providing 18% of the UKs energy and accounts for 1% of CO2 emissions

Solar is not listed as it's currently providing just 1% of the UKs energy.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

My focus is on emissions and so your solutions like bio-gas aren't my solutions because they release just as much CO2 and pollution as burning FF gas.

Hiya, just to be clear bio-gas doesn't release CO2. It can be made from crops, such as Ecotricity farming grass, or in the examples I've given, would probably come from P2G (power to gas) where excess leccy is used to produce hydrogen and the hydrogen used to produce bio-methane by adding CO2.

In both examples the CO2 emissions are net zero as they are part of a very short term cycle.

So CO2 from bio-gas and bio-mass are not treated the same as CO2 emissions from FF's.

BTW, I don't think we are at an en pass, I agree very much with you, in a binary choice nuclear is far better than FF gas, but we are now in the wonderful position where RE is even faster, cheaper and more popular than nuclear for displacing CO2 emitting generation. So it's all good news.

Thanks for the chat, it's been interesting.

Edit - Sorry should have responded to this too:

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I used to focus on the same as yourself - renewability, and displacement of nuclear.

Apologies if I've given that impression, my focus is not on the displacement of nuclear, it's entirely on the displacement of CO2. It's just that I believe that RE displaces FF's faster and cheaper than nuclear. In the last decade new RE has displaced ~20% of FF generation, whilst 'new' nuclear has displaced none, and HPC will displace 7% in 10 or so years. New RE going forward (wind, or PV) is now vastly cheaper than new nuclear. M.