Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

One of the problems with the current market system is that the french nuclear fleet is operated to maximize revenue rather than generation. The result is they produce a lot less nuclear than they could.

The french state should change the system and just give EDF a CFD for the nuclear fleet of say 40 euro/MWh then EDF has a strong incentive to generate as much nuclear as possible even though this would crash wholesale markets. The overall cost would be negligible. Say wholesale prices are currently 40 euro well the wholesale market crashes to 10 euro so the consumer has to make up the 30 euro difference but they benefit by 30 euro from wholesale prices having fallen.

The end result would theoretically be much higher nuclear production and export perhaps as much as 100 TWh more production and export displacing german/spanish/english coal and gas.

It is also low risk in that you could just trial it for a year and see what happens and go from there but there does seem to be a big potential prize for low risk. EDF would probably need longer term CFDs to fully make use of this as they may need to do some grid upgrades to allow more nuclear exports etc
And EDF being nearly 90% state owned this would be more a change in accounting terms rather than subsidizing a company.

Martyn1981

Very big solar and storage scheme for French Guiana, but this one is hydrogen. Cool.

Meridiam buys 60% stake in 55 MW/140 MWh hydrogen-based solar-plus-storage in French Guiana

The Centrale !lectrique de l’Ouest guyanais was started by French hydrogen specialist HDF Energy in May. The $90 million plant, expected to generate 50 GWh per year, is being built near Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni in northwestern French Guiana, and will meet the energy needs of the nearby municipality of Mana.

Martyn1981

Lots of wind power, 20GW's in fact:

Wind smashes through 20 gigawatt mark

“It took 19 years to install the first 5GW of wind energy in the UK and we’ve now installed the same amount in under two years. That phenomenal growth shows just how quickly the UK is moving to a smart, low carbon power system and wind energy is at the heart of that.

“Over half of the UK’s wind energy capacity is onshore, which is the cheapest option for new power. However, Government policy preventing onshore wind from competing for new power contracts means that consumers will miss out on low-cost power that will keep bills down.

“It was the opening of the world’s largest offshore wind farm that has took us over the 20GW mark. We’re confident that offshore wind alone can reach at least 30GW by 2030 to become the backbone of a clean, reliable and affordable energy system.”

For context, assuming a capacity factor of 25% for on-shore wind and 40% for off-shore wind*, that means we have the equivalent of 6.2GW of 24/7 generation, or about 15% of the UK's demand.

*The newer off-shore wind farms have ever higher cf's as the bigger WT's reach higher up into faster wind, so cf's of 50% are expected.

30GW of new and old off-shore wind should be equal to about 30GW x 45%cf = 13.5GW or around a third of our leccy.

Martyn1981

This article is interesting, and also terribly sad. I mentioned a while back that the large FF companies' own science concluded that AGW was real and serious decades ago, well here we see that they got it pretty spot on, but spent decades denying AGW.

Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings

In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).

Those figures are really close to the scientific consensus figures that the IPCC is using, and that Exxon has campaigned against till the 2010's.

JKenH

This is a typical Guardian anti Big Oil story giving the impression that Shell and Exxon knew something that the rest of the world didn't and kept it to themselves.

The internal reports are largely an assessment of global warming science at the time, not new research.

The world had just woken up to the possibility that, if the predictions were correct, over the next century global warming could have disastrous implications for the climate and burning fossil fuels was believed to be the cause. It would have been irresponsible if an oil major hadn’t commissioned a report for the consideration of its board.

They recognise that CO2 levels are rising and acknowledge that the oil majors have a role to play. At that time alternative technologies other than nuclear (which at the time was receiving an even worse press) weren’t yet available to displace our reliance on fossil fuels.

Here is the summary of the Shell report

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0f6116l1ulidqpa/IMG_0658.jpg?dl=0

which concludes

“With fossil fuel being the major source of CO2 in the atmosphere, a forward looking approach by the energy industry is clearly desirable, seeking to play its part with governments and others in the development of appropriate measures to tackle the problem.”

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

This is a typical Guardian anti Big Oil story giving the impression that Shell and Exxon knew something that the rest of the world didn't and kept it to themselves.

The internal reports are largely an assessment of global warming science at the time, not new research.

Sorry, but no. The issue here isn't that they knew something that 'we didn't', it's that they knew what we knew, and also knew it to be true - however, from that point on they ran campaigns denying the science and claiming AGW wasn't true, and wouldn't have a big impact.

So the issue is that they said the opposite of what their own science had concluded, and helped to delay the inevitable transition to low carbon energy for around 30yrs, a delay that will also mean a higher CO2 peak than otherwise, higher environmental impacts than otherwise, and higher costs to deal with the problem than if we'd taken action sooner.

Imagine if back in the 80's, or 90's or even the naughties, if we had all been singing off of the same hymn sheets with big oil confirming (not denying) the science.

JKenH wrote: »

The world had just woken up to the possibility that, if the predictions were correct, over the next century global warming could have disastrous implications for the climate and burning fossil fuels was believed to be the cause. It would have been irresponsible if an oil major hadn’t commissioned a report for the consideration of its board.

So it would be irresponsible not to commission a report on the possibility of disastrous implications, but not irresponsible to hide the confirmation and argue the opposite in public ........ about disastrous implications for the climate?

Edit -

JKenH wrote: »

They recognise that CO2 levels are rising and acknowledge that the oil majors have a role to play. At that time alternative technologies other than nuclear (which at the time was receiving an even worse press) weren’t yet available to displace our reliance on fossil fuels.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true. Wind and PV generation both pre-date the 60's/70's. The problem with them was simply cost.

That problem remained until large investment was directed into the technologies in order to drive down costs, and drive up production, which then caused a cycle of driving down costs and driving up production.

This action was taken to address CO2 concerns.

So as I said earlier, we could have started to address matters far sooner had there not been a campaign largely by the FF industry, to deny AGW and create fake arguments against investing in the development/expansion of RE generation.

JKenH

Blaming Big Oil for our continued use of FF is somewhat hypocritical. We must take responsibility for our own consumption of FF. I doubt that many (though I am sure there will be the odd one or two) of the contributors on this forum get by without any use of FF.

As an example: one of the most repeated arguments on this forum is that battery storage is too expensive. The technology exists to make better use of REs and avoid burning fossil fuels in our own homes but the vast majority say no thanks, it isn’t worth it to me to do that.

Big Oil still exists because we still, despite the damage we are causing to the planet, want to burn oil and gas in our homes, run round in fossil fuelled cars, and fly half way round the world on holiday or going to global warming conferences. There is a demand for FF and Big Oil meets it. The obscene profits they make go to pay our pensions and contribute enormously to the exchequer.

If we want to, we can vote with our feet and stop buying fossil fuels; but will we? No, because we don’t place enough value on saving the planet.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Blaming Big Oil for our continued use of FF is somewhat hypocritical.

Nope, it's not.

As explained previously, big oil has run a multi-decade long campaign against the need to move away from FF's, despite their own scientific research proving them wrong.

The lied to us, and they campaigned spending millions (probably billions) to hinder the move away from FF's.

You can not claim that they are blameless when they are the single largest reason why we took no action, or too little action for so long.

In the US where big oil finances most of the Republican Senators and Congressman, that party still has a denial position on AGW and its impacts.

So, yes I can blame them. We might not have Back to the Future hoverboards, but I can say without doubt that had big oil supported AGW, or simply not opposed it, then the world today would be far further down the RE route and probably EV route too.

It's also import to consider the planetary carbon budget - every day we delay action, or do too little, the more carbon we consume, and the greater our actions will need to be later on. Had we started sooner, then we'd have more time to act today, and that would actually be cheaper in the long run.

It's a bit like getting your wiring renewed when you know it's old and faulty (action on AGW last century), v's the cost of a room fire (action on AGW today), v's the cost of rebuilding the house (action on AGW tomorrow).

Big oil has enjoyed the profits, whilst we've all built up a vast GHG debt that is going to cost big time. even if we act faster today.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Lots of wind power, 20GW's in fact:

Wind smashes through 20 gigawatt mark

For context, assuming a capacity factor of 25% for on-shore wind and 40% for off-shore wind*, that means we have the equivalent of 6.2GW of 24/7 generation, or about 15% of the UK's demand.
*The newer off-shore wind farms have ever higher cf's as the bigger WT's reach higher up into faster wind, so cf's of 50% are expected.

30GW of new and old off-shore wind should be equal to about 30GW x 45%cf = 13.5GW or around a third of our leccy.

The UK is going to need more than that else most the 2020s will be spent replacing lost nuclear output with wind power

Ideally 50% of electricity from offshore wind or some 45GW nameplate will be needed by 2030

The remaining would be some 10% nuclear 5% solar 5% onshore & 30% biomass/imports/CCGTs

The big challenge will be moving all that power around so the grid will need some investment but fortunately this is a much lessor problem in the UK than say Germany as our offshore wind is quite close to existing infrastructure.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Big oil has enjoyed the profits, whilst we've all built up a vast GHG debt that is going to cost big time. even if we act faster today.

Now it’s Big Wind’s turn to reap the profits

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/09/19/danish-turbine-builder-earns-bumper-45bn-uk-windfarm/

“Danish wind power giant Ørsted has sold a stake in its Hornsea offshore wind farm at a bumper price of £4.5bn to a New York based investment fund.

Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) will pay a third more than analysts expected for a 50pc stake in the Grimsby-based project which is guaranteed a revenue stream of almost three times the current market price.

Analysts at RBC Capital said the “bumper price” is “probably around 33pc above market expectations” and could fuel a dividend bonanza for shareholders of the Copenhagen-listed business.

The multibillion pound windfall echoes warnings from the National Audit Office which said energy companies stand to reap “excessive” profits as a result of the way ministers handed out its first contracts for offshore wind contracts.“

Strange how The Guardian failed to pick up on this story.