Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

joefizz

Hexane wrote: »

As per the MSE Insert at the top of this thread, please include the news within the last 2 weeks that you are discussing, with each post. Here's mine, related to your post: 'Water bears' stuck on the moon after crash

My bad. Phone cut and paste on a moving ferry didnt seem to work ;-)


Heres the reuters link.


https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1UY1O3?__twitter_impression=true

Martyn1981

joefizz wrote: »

Forget the nuclear option, its a non starter, or the nuclear option so to speak.

Totally agree. There may be a place for localised, new build CHP, perhaps around bio-gas (or even bio-mass if built to a high enough emissions standard). I also think that anything that lifts some of the strain of singular solutions, such as leccy heat pumps, then help to make those options (HP's) more practical.

But, and this is the key point, the whole issue of CHP has been brought up as a way to improve the appalling economics of nuclear, by suggesting/pretending that SMR's (the next great hope/hype) are viable.

So please don't think I or I'd suggest (apologies if wrong and speaking out of line) Z or others are against the idea of some localised CHP, in suitable situations, again probably new development, not retro-fit. My main disagreement is with the true reason for raising the issue, and that's (again) to try to introduce diversion, disagreement, uncertainty, in the need now to drive forward with RE at as fast a pace as possible.


I may be rehashing, so apologies, but CHP especially retrofit just doesn't seem to make sense to me, given what we already have in existence today:

Leccy mains - for heat pumps.
Gas mains - for bio-gas.
Gas mains - for H2 or methane CHP fuel cell boilers.

Even for new build developments, I can shoot down my own support for localised CHP, simply by pointing to higher building standards, and a massively reduced heating requirement. As was pointed out to me a few years ago on another forum, cutting heating needs by 50% probably reduces 'gas' consumption by 75%, since much heating comes from other sources - solar gain, leccy consumption, DHW consumption, cooking, human and pet occupants.

I'm not disagreeing with your facts, as you seem to be laying out the theoretical possibility of localised CHP, I'm just pointing out, that be it old or new properties, there seems to be existing solutions, that can be built on, and green'd, and I'd suggest/guess, that those are cheaper and simpler(?)

Martyn1981

Interesting news, given recent discussions. Like Big Tobacco, if Exxon / Big Oil start to lose litigation, then we could see a far more rapid shift away from FF's, simply due to the end of mis-information campaigns.

It won't happen (sadly) IMO, but imagine what could be achieved along the lines of 'Electrify America' where $bn's of funding has been provided by VW as a result of rapidgate [Sorry, I meant dieselgate. M.]. The scale of funding/liability from Big Oil could probably green the whole US.

Exxon Pressure Tactics On Potential Witnesses May Breach Ethical Boundaries

What did Exxon Mobil know and when did it know it? Those two questions are at the heart of the lawsuit against the fossil fuel giant by the State of New York, which believes Exxon knew plenty about the dangers of its business model for decades but hid that knowledge from regulators and investors. In essence, the New York suit claims Exxon misled its own investors, to their financial detriment.

New York expects to call some of those investors to testify when the trial — now scheduled to begin on October 23 — kicks off. There is an old expression in the law that says, “Time always works to someone’s advantage.” In this case, the longer Exxon can delay the proceedings, the longer it can continue polluting the environment with its products.

That may be part of the reason why the company has written to several key investors to ask if they plan to testify. If the answer is yes, Exxon says it will serve them with subpoenas forcing them to produce all their books, records, memorandums and papers. One investor says the letter from the company claims the subpoena will ask for “all documents concerning your oil and gas holdings.”

Make no mistake. The law is a meat grinder that can chew people up and spit them out, forcing them to spend enormous amounts of money on legal fees and put their personal life and business dealings on hold until a matter is settled.

Of all the potential witnesses the state has said it may call, only 7 have gotten “the letter” from the company. Those who have indicated they will not testify at trial have not yet felt the wrath of the Exxon legal team.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I think the DM make a fair point. If I owned a helicopter, and could therefore see over hedge and tree lines, I'd be sick to my core at the view being spoilt by a field of PV.
.

Surely the DM wouldn't stoop so low..


My GF is not far off getting her PPL (H) and I've been up from Bournemouth airport a couple of times and seen her videos and there's loads of PV nearby, and do you know, it's all on prime scrubland!

silverwhistle

joefizz wrote: »

Thats why probably every single person reading this forum who has any sort of a pension has a stake in big oil ownership....

Aksherly,l I think you'll find that the movement by pension funds to divest from fossil fuels has gone quite a way already and is accelerating. Admittedly this started with coal, but the funds are definitely piling in to RE now, even if, like Neil Woodford they can't change their funds as fast as they would like..

zeupater

silverwhistle wrote: »

Surely the DM wouldn't stoop so low..


My GF is not far off getting her PPL (H) and I've been up from Bournemouth airport a couple of times and seen her videos and there's loads of PV nearby, and do you know, it's all on prime scrubland!

Hi

There's a hill nearby where you should be able to see at least a dozen PV developments which are of equivalent size or larger ... last time I was up there and pointed this out to someone, he struggled to find two, and they were both just over a mile away!

I think it's pretty telling that the article concentrated extreme negativity on little more than aesthetics, taking little regard of the salient point ...

... Locals claim it is less of a blot on the landscape than wind farms, because the panels are completely surrounded by trees and greenery ...

... just an excuse for a 'jolly' on expenses for a couple of guys(?) wanting to try the experience of a helicopter ride then! ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Surely the DM wouldn't stoop so low..

Nah, I don't believe they would either. Next you'll be telling me they'll be photographing a camera flash on the front of a man's sunglasses to pretend it's the shine, from behind, from PV panels, on a grey day? :rotfl:

It's like living in a tanning salon! Family's agony over neighbour's solar panels that reflects sunlight directly into their home



TBF, we used* to get the same from our neighbours greenhouse shining through the conservatory into the living room. Only about an hour, and only at specific times of the year when all the oranges lined up (so to speak). It was hell on earth, we sometimes had to pull the curtain over a bit.

*No longer as they passed away and the new neighbours didn't want it. Shame, it was a very well built greenhouse.

Martyn1981

News on other forms of large scale storage. Mention is made of efficiencies around the 50% mark, but bear in mind that these large scale systems would be buying cheap leccy when there is little demand, or excess generation, and selling it back during high demand periods when prices rise/soar.

Google X spin-off Malta could change world, but lags behind rivals

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Leccy mains - for heat pumps. Will increase peak winter demand to some 200GW
Gas mains - for bio-gas. Probably not scalable and also local pollution
Gas mains - for H2 or methane CHP fuel cell boilers. H2 or synthetic methane not proven on a commercial scale. And again local pollution

Problems highlighted in bold

And to be fair the problems for nuclear CHP is a large cost for the distribution system primarily the 'last km' and 'last 100 yards' but this could potentially be solved by automated computerised directional drilling making things much faster and cheaper than a man with a shovel who then has to reinstate his shovelling

Also heating is huge more than electricity
UK uses some 825 TWh of natural gas
275 TWh in power stations the remaining 550 TWh is mostly heating buildings

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

Aksherly,l I think you'll find that the movement by pension funds to divest from fossil fuels has gone quite a way already and is accelerating. Admittedly this started with coal, but the funds are definitely piling in to RE now, even if, like Neil Woodford they can't change their funds as fast as they would like..

Divesting from FF funds may actually be counterproductive from a green point of view as it is the “responsible” investors who withdraw - the very same people who might have been expected to steer the companies towards more green policies. The balance in the boardrooms will shift away from green policies to more traditional profit generating strategies.