Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not exactly green energy, but part of the solution to the UK getting CO2 emissions down to net zero.

I'd rather see food production going over to regenerative Permaculture systems. We'd get the lower CO2 emissions, less chemical use, plus healthier food and more biodiversity.

Martyn1981

Swansea tidal lagoon with a few changes ..... my head's spinning a bit, but good luck to them.

Floating island part of new Swansea tidal lagoon plan

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Swansea tidal lagoon with a few changes ..... my head's spinning a bit, but good luck to them

We dont need no tidal lagoon the UK grid is going to be mostly solved by 2023 when only ~25% of electricity generated will be from fossil fuels

Likewise we dont need no additional nuclear (beyond what is already under construction) for the same reason

Unless electricity demand starts to go up, there is no need for much more than what is under construction and what is committed to (30GW offshore wind by 2030)

If you want a more rapid decarb the easiest thing to do is increase the UK carbon tax from £18/ton towards £50/ton.

This would also reduce the CFD cost of wind farms and nuclear plants as wholesale prices would go up so the Contract for Difference cost would go down

The imports from the interconnectors should also pay this CO2 tax to be calculated by whatever the average CO2 of the host nation grid is for that half hour

pile-o-stone

NigeWick wrote: »

I'd rather see food production going over to regenerative Permaculture systems. We'd get the lower CO2 emissions, less chemical use, plus healthier food and more biodiversity.

I'd like to see both (and I don't think they're mutually exclusive). I'd also like to see an end to subsidies for hill farming so that the hills and moorland can return to a more natural environment. Having sheep on hills only continues because of subsidies - it's a hugely inefficient and loss making way to make food. With no subsidies, there's no sheep. With no sheep, there's no destruction of natural grasses, shrubs and trees. With greater biodiversity of vegetation you a return of wildlife and insects to these areas.

Martyn1981

Short article, but great graphics to demonstrate coal's decline in the UK, and to show how it stacks up in Europe.

The power switch: tracking Britain's record coal-free run

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Short article, but great graphics to demonstrate coal's decline in the UK, and to show how it stacks up in Europe.

The power switch: tracking Britain's record coal-free run

Made possible thanks to the USA Fracking boom

Without Fracking and the large increase in LNG the UK and most of Europe could not afford to close down its coal fleet

Not because coal is cheaper than natural gas, which it is, but because the coal fired power stations provide a way to keep the gas monopolies more honest than they otherwise might be

Even today, when most the coal fleet has already been closed down, the UK retains the ability to reduce annual gas consumption by about 20% by just firing up its 10GW of remaining stations. When these soon close we will lose that ability.

michaels

If solar plus storage becomes cheaper than gas in the US then what will they do with all the natural gas that I understand is to a large degree a by product of fracking for oil?

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

If solar plus storage becomes cheaper than gas in the US then what will they do with all the natural gas that I understand is to a large degree a by product of fracking for oil?

Why frack for oil if BEV's are cheaper, and then solar and storage make leccy even more cheaper?

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

If solar plus storage becomes cheaper than gas in the US then what will they do with all the natural gas that I understand is to a large degree a by product of fracking for oil?

First of all its not true that natural gas is a byproduct of fracking for oil,
The largest shale gas basin (Appalachia) is almost 100% a gas play

40% of all the shale gas in the USA comes out of that shale gas play which is pure gas and very little oil. Roughly speaking the output is 390GW thermal gas vs ~9GW thermal oil for that shale play. So 97.7% gas 2.3% oil

The Haynesville shale play is also the same, 98% gas 2% oil.

Those two shale fields combined produce ~54% of all the shale gas and they are more or less pure gas plays with ~98% NG 2% Oil. The oil is welcome but they are drilling for the gas

So when you read that NG is just a byproduct of oil for shale, know that it is likely a propaganda piece by someone who has no idea of what they are talking about

Also the concept itself is nebulous
Even in shales which gas is a 'byproduct of oil' what exactly is that meant to mean?
That if the oil runs out so does the gas. Ok so?

What exactly does that tell us that is informative in any way?
It is just trying to lead the reader to believe 'ahh ok oil is going to run out so the shale gas along side it will run out too!!' why should one think the oil will run out before the gas and not at the same time?

Basically it is a play on words that adds nothing but confusion to the debate 'gas is a byproduct of oil!!!' and...so...what???

Not only is it wrong, the big shale gas plays are 98% gas 2% oil, but even if the statement was correct it means nothing at all


Even in 'oil play' shales, like the Permian shale in texas the ratio is roughly
287 GW Oil vs 174 GW GAS
62% Oil 38% Gas
@$35/MWh for Oil and $10/MWh for NG the revenue percentage is roughly
85% : 15%

What that means is 15% of the revenue even in the huge oil shale play, is from NG sales
That is not irrelevant and again this all means nothing the production is the production so there is no such thing as gas play or oil play there is just what the local shale is

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

If solar plus storage becomes cheaper than gas in the US then what will they do with all the natural gas that I understand is to a large degree a by product of fracking for oil?

And now regarding what will they do with all their NG when solar plus storage becomes cheaper than gas fired generation....

1: Most Gas in the USA is not used in power generation. Only about 1/3rd is used in power generation.

2: Solar PV is still expensive relative to marginal NG through an existing CCGT (which has marginal cost of circa $20/MWh)

3: Battery power does not get around the seasonal variation of PV output. Batteries can allow more solar to be integrated into the grid but overall it does not allow a huge reduction in thermal capacity (it will allow reduction in peaker but significant winter thermal capacity will still be needed)