Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

silverwhistle

michaels wrote: »

Suppose my kettle that I have had for years breaks - presumably it used to use 'average mix' electricity. Then I take a week to get a replacement, this is now a new use and therefore uses only peak fossil fuel energy?!

To be honest michaels, I tend to ignore Great Ape's posts as they are never enlightening, but I could add an example to yours.


I buy a tumble dryer which I don't currently have. Except that I use it when the sun is shining on my solar panels, or I could have a green tariff so my usage aggregates towards more demand and hence investment in RE.



Or like EricMears I could buy an EV and use a combination of solar or spare overnight wind produced electricity at a lower rate. Those low rates used to be based on using base load nuclear, but that's being replaced by wind, where the same principle applies.



It's going to be one complicated calculation when I do get an EV as I'm currently on a zero standing charge tariff. Unit rates/spare solar/standing charges/cheap overnight rates/car usage pattern/etc. etc. What is the case is that I'll be maximising the use of RE energy whatever I do.

Martyn1981

There's no point in denying it, this article and the quotes/comments contained in it, is a total hit piece on nuclear.

But the quotes and comments come from the latest report by the nuclear industry. The UK and HPC get a special mention.

I'm reminded of the Chinese saying that the best time to plant a tree is 20yrs ago, the second best time is today. I'd suggest the best time to build out nuclear was 20yrs ago, and the second best time was 21yrs ago. I think the game is now over.

Nuclear power is being left behind, nuclear industry experts say

ASavvyBuyer

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Article I posted on an EV motoring thread, but thought it deserves to be on here too, as it is really big news ticking green, ethical, energy and moneysaving boxes.

Dirty Reality Catching Up With Fossil Fuel Vehicles

Thanks for posting that Mart. Helps confirm our decision to get an EV rather than a battery.

Collected ours today from the dealer after getting info and advice from SpeakEV forum and other sources. :T
As we have Solar PV and are on a 100% green electric tariff, no extra fossil fuel generation for us.

JKenH

ASavvyBuyer wrote: »

Collected ours today from the dealer after getting info and advice from SpeakEV forum and other sources. :T

Which one did you go for?

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

Which one did you go for?

... Probably the one that's appeared in the signature! ... :cool:


Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

... Probably the one that's appeared in the signature! ... :cool:


Z

Doh! I missed that too.:doh:

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nuclear power is being left behind, nuclear industry experts say

Thanks for posting this article, Mart. An interesting paragraph from the article:

"The share of nuclear in global power production has dropped significantly, from 17.5% in 1996 to 10.3% in 2017. “It is instructive to note that the construction of new nuclear power plants is mostly driven and backed by states, and not by the private sector,” the report further notes. On top of this, most state proponents of nuclear power programs are nuclear weapon states."

What I really find heartening about this statement is the way cheap energy could help prevent nuclear proliferation. If the financial numbers don't add up then states, such as Iran, will find it increasingly difficult to claim that they are building nuclear power stations only for peaceful, energy generation reasons. At the same time, workers who are experienced in nuclear will retire and new employees will be reluctant to join a dying industry, negatively impacting the ability to build new nuclear power and weapons programs due to a skills shortage.

We are hopefully seeing the death spiral not only for nuclear power stations, but also the proliferation and retention of nuclear weapons.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

By your logic every new thing that is plugged in should count as extra marginal load - in some weird way existing leccy use has 'grandfathered all the renewable generation' and new use is therefore all going to use non-renewables...but at the same time future solar generation will be hypothecated to charge EVs - I'm afraid that whilst I think a lot of what you say about turning a supertanker and the time required before new greener tech can make an appreciable impact is true, in this case I think your logic is fallacious.

Suppose my kettle that I have had for years breaks - presumably it used to use 'average mix' electricity. Then I take a week to get a replacement, this is now a new use and therefore uses only peak fossil fuel energy?!

Any load you add or remove from the grid uses marginal generation

Once we go towards a much higher percentage of green energy, especially with storage, the marginal production is also green. Especially as I suspect we will get to a situation where we have curtailment of wind/solar to balance demand in which case clearly marginal loads would be green (at least part of the time)

This is no big negative to EVs. An EV powered by marginal gas generation is still better than a direct petrol or diesel powered car. An due to the batteries they will allow more green onto the grid so they can be seen as more than 100% green as they allow more solar/wind than otherwise is possible

GreatApe

EricMears wrote: »

Mine certainly doesn't !

If I should happen to have 10 amps of solar power 'spare' when I'm not driving somewhere, I'll use it to charge the EV. Otherwise, I charge only at night during E7 hours; the only reason that the E7 tariff is low is because it doesn't cause any marginal generation.

In both cases you are wrong

Your EV is still marginal load the fact that you have PV panels does not change that (unless you are off grid which almost no one is.)

Likewise during economy 7 hours the UK is still not at 100% green so you are still using marginal production which is either gas or coal in the UK

For instance last night lets say someone was charging their EV at 10KW power. Had they not been doing that the UK grid would have fired up 10KW less in coal/NG. That is despite a very good night of wind and nuclear providing ~75% of UK needs

However we are close to getting towards night time marginal production of wind power at least some of the time so in a couple of years maybe night time production will be marginal wind/nuclear.

Oh it is still better to charge your EV at night becuase the marginal gas fired plants at night are likely more efficient CCGTs than say at 6pm

Also this should not be seen as a negative for EVs it isnt. An EV charged by marginal CCGTs is still better than a petrol or diesel car and going forward EVs will allow more wind and PV than without EVs so in the future they can be seen as more than 100% green as they will enable more green integration into the grid.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

We are hopefully seeing the death spiral not only for nuclear power stations, but also the proliferation and retention of nuclear weapons.

Yep, totally agree. I will confess though, that up to about 2010 I was supportive of nuclear energy as it's low carbon and cleaner than coal (when nukes go bad you have one hell of a mess, but when coal runs normally, millions die (or have shortened lives) anyway from emissions).

Given a straight 50:50 choice I would still go RE instead of nuclear, but appreciate that economics are important to many who can't suffer a small financial losss.

BUT BUT BUT now we have the wonderful situation where RE is cheaper than nuclear even after allowing for storage or over capacity costs, so nuclear brings nothing to the table. In fact quite the opposite as in the UK it is to be funded from the same subsidy pot as RE (so reduces the amount of RE deployment) and takes far longer to deploy and begin displacing FF generation.

I was surprised at the fall in nuclear energy, I suppose that's because of the lack of deployment for many years whilst energy consumption has been rising, but wait till we see the drop off in the US who have around 100 aging reactors and only 2 new ones under construction (they cancelled two others mid build, last year as they wouldn't have been economic).

The world is changing fast and RE, EV's and storage are all arriving together and piggy backing off each other too.

Edit - Quite timely!

Staff layoffs leave Cumbria nuclear plans on the brink

Nugen to consider job cuts at Moorside nuclear plant