Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I do think the issue of UK gas consumption is really important to this discussion.

Thanks guys, I've been following this well balanced discussion, understanding both points of view as each appears, experiencing various levels of emotion from optimism to down right depression as each new post arrives.
I've not drawn any conclusion or favour one side over the other however something that has lifted my spirits is our own experience of renewable energy over the last year and well documented in other threads.

We are in transistion from a postion of using no renewable energy whatsoever to possibly being able to furnish all our energy needs, that is heating, lighting, hot water and 8k miles of EV travel solely from that generated by the PV array on our roof. OK, so it's not balanced at any given time but the total output is there. Once complete we shall have no need for FF of any kind.

The point is if we can achieve this then surely it demonstrates that others can also and eventually the whole country, thus the demand for gas can reduce as progression takes place. Does it also show that the transfer to EV's from ICE vehicles needn't neccessarily increase stress on the Grid?
I accept that we are fortunate in having a roof space large enough and southish facing but with the technological progress being made with solar panel design/output then in a few years a roof space of perhaps only 50% the size of ours could generate a similar amount of PV.
So domestically it's possible to generate all the energy requiried to run a house and EV without resorting to burn any form of FF. That doesn't solve the problem for industry but, to some degree, they appear to be sorting this themselves through the various Power Purchase arrangements disclosed recently.
Afraid I can't offer any consolation with regard to commercial transportation, so a huge question mark over how that might be achieved?
I'm not sure anyone will understand my drivel or agree with any of it but I at least feel a little more optimistic for having put it down in black and white.:)
Do feel free to point out any flaws which exist in the above passage!

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

What doesn't change is that gas will be the fallback energy source for electricity and the prime source for domestic heating for decades to come, yes total annual consumption will fall first as efficiencies improve, but the total installed generation capacity will need to remain high to cope with peaks in times of low renewables supply ... effectively, the position we're in dictates that we'll be 'burning stuff' for a while yet!

I do hope your analysis is wrong and that HMGov get a grip with making building insulation and power use regulations more strict. I shan't hold my breath though.

I have to ask, how long will North Sea gas last? If it's 20 years, we could buy it off Norway and start on heat pump installation now. I just detest the idea of fracking with its possibilities of earthquakes and poisoning our aquifers. I admit these concerns may be unwarranted but I'd rather be safe now than make my children and grandchildren sorry.

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

you simply can't assume that renewable energy generation can be balanced by any storage other than massive builds of centralised strategic pumped hydro because of the length of periods of generation lulls and you can't assume that biogas resources can be developed & delivered within the required timescales ....


As we know, we're knocking on the door of a rapid transition to EVs

it'll require additional generation capacity which will impact on both total gas consumption and peak gas supply as a backup to RE

If we believe Tony Seba, it is only a few years until home solar and battery storage are cheaper than the cost of electricity transmission. If every new build has solar & battery we will be a long way on the route to having a resilient supply. I do believe that we will have 100% national renewables. Large scale centralised storage will come too, in the form of multi MWh batteries, pumped hydro and other systems.

BEVs can be part of the solution due to V2G coming on line. If parked at home, discharge at peak times and charge overnight which will even out generation.

A generation is 20 years and I suspect if the political will were there, we could get there earlier.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You're right that we can't assume that bio-gas or leccy storage can be delivered as hoped, but your concerns there mirror mine over fracking which is also not guaranteed, and may fail.

So we share the same concerns if you think about it, but the RE route is one we have to take anyway as gas is not a long term solution since the CO2 is too high to meet our targets.

So why gamble on fracking when we have to develop the RE alternatives anyway. [Edit - and my main concerns are that it will act as a diversion to slow down the UK's move away from FF consumption, and improve efficiencies/insulation. M.]

We also need to look at primary and final energy consumption. The 50% of leccy coming from gas is at about 50% efficiency, so by rolling out more RE we can displace about 2kWh's of gas with 1kWh of RE generation.

I'd hope that better building standards going forward, and a real drive towards better insulation such as EWI on older properties could half domestic space heating needs from gas*, and then taking boiler v's heat pump efficiencies into account, reduce them by a further factor of 4, so one additional kWh of RE generation replacing 8kWh's of gas today.

[*Not all heating comes from central heating, some comes from solar gain, leccy use, DHW, cooking, body heat (humans and pets), so the % reduction in gas consumption for heating should be higher than the % reduction in heat loss.]

I'm not that concerned about the EV transition as that will take quite a bit of time and there is no problem in producing more leccy to meet more demand, the UK's RE potential is not restricted by scale, we can roll out more and faster if we want, especially if market forces push us in that direction. I think the electrification of cars will add a gross figure of 20% to leccy demand, about 10% net after refinery savings - [Of course there will be much more again with other transport.] - but that figure will take 20+ years to arrive as we first need to get EV sales up from sub 5% to 50%+ of annual sales, and then the 10-20yrs for the existing ICE stock to 'retire'.

Also, as we've seen now for a decade, the % of leccy generation from FF's has been dropping each year. I appreciate that those years won't reflect a large increase in EV's and heat pumps, but they are still in there, and as mentioned earlier, we can increase the rate of RE generation deployment if so wish.

But more importantly, as raised in my previous post, you seemed to be working against a rising UK gas consumption, whilst I was basing my thoughts on a falling demand. In a rising scenario I would have to concede to your argument that we need to consider a source of additional gas production, but it looks to me that UK gas consumption peaked last decade.

I do think the issue of UK gas consumption is really important to this discussion.

Hi

The issue is that your default position is that because we don't actually know if the quality and quantity of gas derived from fracking we shouldn't look to find out, that the global demand for gas supply along with it's peak production is directly related to the UK experience and future expectations, that there'll be no international competition to purchase from producers, that transition from oil & coal to renewables won't impact on gas as both an intermediate form of 'cleaner' generation and a longer term backup electricity supply source on a global basis, overlooking the reality that wherever the gas comes from it needs to be extracted, missing the point that pressure to leverage gas generation plant capacity is inevitable as long as the plant exists regardless of gas source, insisting that exploring gas reserves is a gamble where it simply provides the possibility of alternative sources without impacting the RE transition timeline ... and probably most importantly .. ignoring the positive impact of successful development of UK reserves through the economic multiplier effect of keeping money in the country which would otherwise be going overseas ... this in itself could go a long way towards financing further decarbonisation.

It's not rocket science, it's really basic stuff ... if we're going to use gas then that gas needs to be extracted from a source developed somewhere, so in not exploring & developing UK reserves doesn't leave any more fossil fuels underground on a global scale, just on a local one - the problem is that as climate change & emissions reductions need to be considered on a global scale, the argument to not explore & utilise local reserves (if practical) can only realistically be considered as nimbyism or idealistism.

Finally, the important issue in this discussion isn't 'UK gas consumption', it's the ability for gas fired plant to generate electricity at a level which is effectively guaranteed to meet a realistic maximum renewable energy supply shortfall when demand is high -and- with fuel reserves guaranteed to meet the longest foreseeable timespan of that shortfall -and- with logistics in place to ensure that the fuel reserves can be replenished quickly at short notice ... lots of complexity based on averaging and multi-year peak event gambling here with a simple solution if we can develop local reserves and look to generate electricity close to source, addressing supply, logistics, storage and strategic issues all in one solution, so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

HTH
Z

zeupater

NigeWick wrote: »

If we believe Tony Seba, it is only a few years until home solar and battery storage are cheaper than the cost of electricity transmission. If every new build has solar & battery we will be a long way on the route to having a resilient supply. I do believe that we will have 100% national renewables. Large scale centralised storage will come too, in the form of multi MWh batteries, pumped hydro and other systems.

BEVs can be part of the solution due to V2G coming on line. If parked at home, discharge at peak times and charge overnight which will even out generation.

A generation is 20 years and I suspect if the political will were there, we could get there earlier.

Hi

Agreed, however .... In December we experienced a period of around 10 consecutive days with pretty poor wind generation and solar was, as expected, abysmal & so far this month we've already had a run of 6 poor days too! ... so in a scenario where resilience is provided by domestic batteries and V2G, but both transport & heating relies on their storage, what capacity would the average household need to provide any form of supply guarantee for this kind of shortfall? .... 100kWh - 200kWh? - more? ... and what happens when demand is high, but a good proportion of EVs are on the road consuming energy as opposed to supplying it?

I agree that storage provided by V2G & domestic batteries will help shift demand between hours and act as a smoothing mechanism for the grid, but the issue is that this cannot compensate for a renewable energy shortfall lasting days or even weeks .... you're really left with needing massive investment in centralised strategic storage, so with all of the potential nimbyism that would attract it's unlikely that would be delivered quickly, leaving the requirement for an interim solution, a good proportion of which is already in place - gas generation .... all we're really considering is where the fossil fuel should be extracted from, but this needs to be done whilst recognising that there's a considerable amount of hype employed around the prospect of local extraction.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The issue is that your default position is that because we don't actually know if the quality and quantity of gas derived from fracking we shouldn't look to find out, that the global demand for gas supply along with it's peak production is directly related to the UK experience and future expectations, that there'll be no international competition to purchase from producers, that transition from oil & coal to renewables won't impact on gas as both an intermediate form of 'cleaner' generation and a longer term backup electricity supply source on a global basis, overlooking the reality that wherever the gas comes from it needs to be extracted, missing the point that pressure to leverage gas generation plant capacity is inevitable as long as the plant exists regardless of gas source, insisting that exploring gas reserves is a gamble where it simply provides the possibility of alternative sources without impacting the RE transition timeline ... and probably most importantly .. ignoring the positive impact of successful development of UK reserves through the economic multiplier effect of keeping money in the country which would otherwise be going overseas ... this in itself could go a long way towards financing further decarbonisation.

It's not rocket science, it's really basic stuff ... if we're going to use gas then that gas needs to be extracted from a source developed somewhere, so in not exploring & developing UK reserves doesn't leave any more fossil fuels underground on a global scale, just on a local one - the problem is that as climate change & emissions reductions need to be considered on a global scale, the argument to not explore & utilise local reserves (if practical) can only realistically be considered as nimbyism or idealistism.

Finally, the important issue in this discussion isn't 'UK gas consumption', it's the ability for gas fired plant to generate electricity at a level which is effectively guaranteed to meet a realistic maximum renewable energy supply shortfall when demand is high -and- with fuel reserves guaranteed to meet the longest foreseeable timespan of that shortfall -and- with logistics in place to ensure that the fuel reserves can be replenished quickly at short notice ... lots of complexity based on averaging and multi-year peak event gambling here with a simple solution if we can develop local reserves and look to generate electricity close to source, addressing supply, logistics, storage and strategic issues all in one solution, so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

HTH
Z

I don't believe your comments truly nor fairly reflect my attempts to explain my position.

1. I've clearly stated that I think fracking is a gamble, but also clearly explained that I don't think the gamble is worth it, even if successful, since that will reduce the pressure on us to move away from nat-gas as fast as possible.

I've also tried hard to point out that we have to move away from nat-gas anyway, regardless of the success or otherwise of fracking, since the CO2 emissions from nat-gas, whilst lower than coal, are still too high to allow us to meet the 80%+ reductions targets.

2. I have to disagree with your comments about UK and international FF reserves. We already know that the vast majority (about 80%) of known reserves can never be tapped, or the planet's CO2 budget will be breached. Therefore the UK opening up new reserves (or any other country) puts greater pressure on the total. Again, this issue depends upon my multiple references to the need to reduce nat-gas consumption as quickly as possible, something which I believe will suffer if the UK develops its own additional gas industry. So globally, more gas will be burnt, because one country, the UK, won't have reduced its consumption as much as it otherwise would have.

I don't believe your accusations of NIMBYism are warranted since I don't want to buy the gas from abroad instead of the UK, I want to not buy the gas by reducing the need for the gas.

3. Again, I'm sorry, and I'm trying so hard (in all my posts if you refer back) to de-escalate this issue, but you previously clearly made an issue of UK gas consumption and it increasing. You referred to peaks, and RE only reducing the increase in gas consumption. I keep trying to respond to what you are raising, but you then seem to change the narrative if I challenge the basis on which you have raised an issue, which is not like you.

I'm sorry, but I think gas consumption is falling, and that's a significant factor in my position, as we are demonstrating that we can get by with less, so let's do more of that.

I appreciate your raising the issue of gas generation capacity, but that's not what we were talking about earlier, and you seem to have changed direction. Regarding generation, we already have about 20GW of capacity. That might be enough, or it might not be enough, but more gas generation capacity does not mean we need to burn more gas in total. Something we've discussed for years, and seems to be getting more likely is the possibility of storing RE excess that is above and beyond battery capacity, as gas. Possibly hydrogen, or methane, or just compressed or liquid air. These forms of storage would be used to provide additional leccy supply when needed, either via fuel cells, gas generation plants (as gas), gas generation plants (as compressed air for increased efficiency), or just as compressed air/turbines.

zeupater wrote: »

so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

HTH
Z

Again, I don't think you are being fair to me. I have considered it, I've gone to great lengths to discuss the issue and to give my counter views. To suggest I haven't even considered it is unfair.

Also, and this is quite important, I don't accept that fracking is the option that best mitigates risk. You might be right, and it might be, but throughout this discussion you have stated this (or similar) as being a pre-determined fact, and I don't understand why, nor on what basis you can make that claim.

I appreciate your time concerns, but using your excellent method of testing an idea to the extreme, by far the best way to mitigate the risks surrounding the use of FF gas is to reduce and end the use of FF gas, and every step in that direction will also act as a timely risk reduction.


Look, I don't want to fall out on this issue, and in previous comments have tried hard to get us back to a chatty basis. If this is an issue that causes us both to have/express strong feelings, then perhaps it's best left alone.

All the best, hope you appreciate I just want to chat, not argue on this issue.

zeupater

Hi

The question revolves around whether you used gas today & why you believe you did so ... then analyse what the options are for reducing gas consumption over the short term and how to fund it, followed by the medium term, and only after that look towards the Utopian uplands. Each phase must have it's place and there really aren't any easy shortcuts or I'd be the first to welcome them.

Whatever the position taken, the reality is that gas not yet extracted is in the ground somewhere and that gas which is needed has to be extracted first. The argument that we can't afford to develop new sources and should utilise what currently exists has always been a flawed concept as the existing sources are continuously being tapped further to maximise returns ... we're discussing gas powered generation to meet renewable energy generation capacity shortfall and that, whatever we may wish for, is the chosen strategic option to see the UK through the transition phase. It is therefore inevitable that gas from both currently tapped supply and wells yet to be tapped will move from underground reserves to aboveground before transportation and consumption.

Regarding gambling, the exploration of UK reserves neither impacts existing timelines or diverts public purse renewable energy funding from elsewhere with any development costs being bourne by the private sector, so in terms of what's being gambled which would effect the overall transition it's neither time or treasure, so that really leaves the locality of any extraction related emissions, in which case the acceptance of it being elsewhere but not in the UK can't really be considered as many things other than national nimbyism.

Those who would worry about developing local sources because it will lead to increased consumption and a reduction in renewable energy progress whilst simultaneously raising relative cost issues really need to consider the confusion that the position employs. Utilising non-imported but higher cost gas provides more incentive to ween ourselves off !!!!!! and look to accelerate the development of renewable backup energy sources whilst the economic multiplier effect could be the defined & partially ringfenced source of the transition funding ... logic would tend to dictate that cheaper gas sourced from elsewhere would have a completely opposite effect, yet we seem have to follow the mantra of the vocal anti fracking protest groups for fear that having a totally logical & robust alternative view is somehow a form outlying anti-religious radicalism ... I know because I've had almost the same conversation with an anti-fracking academic environmental activist in the past!

Regarding the change of direction regarding total generation and generation capacity related to the two future peaks raised ... I totally disagree with the conclusion as the position has been rock solid consistent. We have been discussing the use of gas within a transition period where there will first be an increase in electricity demand, followed by ongoing displacement by renewable energy supply sources which will reduce overall annual gas consumption, however, as repeatedly stated, this does not mean that the installed generation capacity can be seriously reduced (even if part of the generation mix includes tidal!) until there's some form of strategic energy storage built, only after that can backup gas fired generation capacity be decommissioned ... they are the two peaks mentioned and that's the position as consistently raised. The only substantive difference in discussion is the source of the gas to produce power throughout the transition period until the economy is fully operational in 'low carbon' mode ....

On risk management/mitigation ... As described, the major risk is guarantee of supply, particularly considering the likelihood of a number of central/eastern European economies which are currently heavily dependent on coal fired generation looking to embrace gas as their own interim energy source to assist in emissions reduction. Combine this with the risk of potential economic sanctions & backlash from disputes with Russia and it's foreseeable that Brussels would exercise considerable influence on Norway to ramp-up supplies to EU/EEA members as opposed to exporting to other areas .... just think back to last winter when lack of a workable UK strategic gas reserve and a long cold spell across Europe brought the UK to within sight of energy rationing .... that's what needs mitigation!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Those who would worry about developing local sources because it will lead to increased consumption and a reduction in renewable energy progress whilst simultaneously raising relative cost issues really need to consider the confusion that the position employs. Utilising non-imported but higher cost gas provides more incentive to ween ourselves off !!!!!! and look to accelerate the development of renewable backup energy sources whilst the economic multiplier effect could be the defined & partially ringfenced source of the transition funding ... logic would tend to dictate that cheaper gas sourced from elsewhere would have a completely opposite effect, yet we seem have to follow the mantra of the vocal anti fracking protest groups for fear that having a totally logical & robust alternative view is somehow a form outlying anti-religious radicalism ... I know because I've had almost the same conversation with an anti-fracking academic environmental activist in the past!

HTH
Z

Hi Z, and thanks for not using the word NIMBY this time. I think we can have a reasonable chat about the subject and it's good that it's become pretty comprehensive at this level, though the subject is of course vastly greater than my understanding/knowledge.

Regarding your comments about gas consumption and gas capacity, I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand them in context. If consumption is falling, then I don't see the argument for fracking. And I fail to see how generation capacity is impacted by the development (or not) of UK frackgas.

But it's the above paragraph that concerns me the most. I stand by my position that developing more UK gas production will encourage less action to decarbonise. But more importantly, in your response you referred to UK frackgas being more expensive (my bold), but the argument for fracking was that it would produce cheaper gas, and reduce the UK gas price for consumers (I disagree as it would have to water down the whole European gas market).

For your position to stand - that UK gas costs more putting pressure on reducing consumption - then we'd have to be buying it, but no UK gas consumer nor supplier would buy it v's the cheaper European gas market price, so the industry would fail on economic grounds, something I've been suggesting from the start.

I've been thinking about your earlier statement that our not utilising fracking, means gas elsewhere has to be utilised, and whilst my personal position is that we should take measures to reduce FF gas consumption, not import more, I forgot to mention that fracking is growing in unpopularity, and more and more countries are blocking or banning it. Even in countries like America and Australia where a lot of fracking takes, there are a number of state bans.

LIST OF WORLDWIDE FRACKING COUNTRY BANS

So worst case, my anti fracking everywhere position, would mean more conventional gas extraction 'somewhere', but I've covered that previously as frackgas has a higher CO2e than conventional gas extraction, so what we really need to do first is to continue to reduce our gas consumption to minimise/eliminate LNG imports.

On the subject of LNG imports, the report you linked to previously gave figures for 2011*, which stated that 47% of imports were from LNG. This article I've found showing imports upto the first half of 2018 now have LNG imports at 9%:

Imports of LNG decreased by 14% on Q1 2017 and now account for only 9% of total imports as volumes remain muted. LNG 'reloads' started in late 2014 and have continued since with the UK exporting to countries including Brazil, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

*The report states a consumption of 101bcm, but looking at other charts, it seems those figures relate to 2010 not 2011, so going back to the UK stats I posted previously, we see a 2010 UK consumption of 1.1m GWh's, v's approx 0.9m GWh's for 2016 and 2017. I don't know what the 2018 figures are yet.


Also the article I posted a while back on 2018 leccy production (not gas consumption) stated that gas consumption fell by 4% in 2018 (v's 2017).

Meanwhile the coal-driven output was down 25% despite warnings of a coal comeback driven by high gas prices. Nuclear power also had a weak year, with generation down 8%, mainly due to ageing reactors being taken offline for safety checks. Gas remained the top source of electricity supplies, but fell 4%.

I mention this to support my belief that annual RE rollouts can match or exceed any future annual increase in demand placed on leccy from heat pumps and EV's. And as mentioned previously, we can of course roll out RE generation faster if we so wished.


I'm wholly aware that my responses might appear to be difficult, or pedantic, but I hand on heart, are not trying to do that, I'm honestly just trying to respond to each of the issues you raise, and explain why I'm not convinced that fracking is needed, and why I think the alternatives (demand reduction, RE, and bio-gas) are preferable not only in the medium to long term, but I think in the short term too. Hopefully. :think:

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

just think back to last winter when lack of a workable UK strategic gas reserve and a long cold spell across Europe brought the UK to within sight of energy rationing .... that's what needs mitigation!

HTH
Z

Totally agree, and this is something I mentioned previously. The UK's 'policy' on reducing our already small(ish) gas storage is I believe a serious mistake.

Exclusive - Rough justice? UK snubs call for gas storage capacity review

They met officials from the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on Friday but the government declined to open an inquiry, saying market forces would ensure there was enough gas, according to two people who attended the meeting and a third who was briefed on the outcome.

The government says it is up to the market to determine whether it makes sense to invest in new gas storage and if there are any supply shortages, prices will rise sufficiently to attract more gas from elsewhere.

“There is still a level of complacency in the government that despite recent events the best course of action is to just accept these price shocks,” said Clive Moffatt of consultancy Moffatt Associates, who attended the meeting and represents several storage developers and industry associations.

Closure of UK’s largest gas storage site ‘could mean volatile prices’

One of the solutions to RE generation intermittency is the storage of excess as gas (various forms as mentioned previously). If developed, then this could work well to help mitigate the nat-gas issues too.

Martyn1981

This new article is similar to the Guardian article, but possibly worth a skim.

UK Electricity Generation Falls To 1994 Levels As Renewable Generation Soars

I do openly criticise the government policy as they've hit PV and on-shore wind hard, and dialed down new build standards, but it's only fair to recognise that there has been a lot of success too:

“The UK’s extraordinary progress on growing the economy while lowering electricity use is the result of the most successful, and least well known, European energy efficiency policy, called the Ecodesign Directive,” concluded Dustin Benton, Policy Director at the UK’s Green Alliance. “Over the past decade or so, it’s been staggeringly successful: over a decade, refrigerators cut energy use by a third, and lighting energy demand has fallen by nearly 80%. It’s the reason why UK energy bills have fallen in real terms, and has helped low carbon power become the backbone of the UK’s electricity mix.”