Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

The UK doesn't need new nuclear primarily because we have significant old nuclear and we are very close to excess north coast French reactor fleet (and are building 3 new links to France to take advantage of this) plus the dual reactors currently under construction. What this means is the UK could be ~40% nuclear powered (domestic + Imports) by just keeping its old nukes going

More than 40% is unnecessary especially since we are committed to 33%+ offshore wind and also have significant contribution from solar onshore wind and even hydropower and will be importing a lot of Norway hydropower too.

New nuclear should be abandoned in the UK but old nuclear should be kept as long as safe
Give EDF a 15 year CFD starting from 2025 for the old reactors at perhaps a price of £45-55/MWh
This gives them the security of income and security to invest into the mid term
Let UK nukes work out to 2040 and hinkley C plus French imports means the UK would be about 40% nuclear and would have a very low carbon grid

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Two problems with that argument:

1. The 'old' UK fleet is already at end of life, and the whole fleet is to close down from 2023 to 2030.

You can't just increase their life, something which has already been done without great expense and a lowering of their output to effectively stretch out their life, but not increase their generation.

2. The interconnectors are not being built to make use of French nuclear, but to better link us with the continent for import and export.

The French have previously announced a reduction in their nuclear percentage from around 80% to 50%, and an expansion of RE generation. As French nuclear declines, they will not have as much or any overnight spare for us.*

As RE costs continue to fall, and French nuclear costs continue to rise we can expect the 50% figure to most likely be revised downward.

So apart from all the nuclear you are relying on, not being available, I'm sure your plan is sound. And just to repeat in case you didn't get it, you suggest 40% from new and old nuclear, when all we will have is 7% from new nuclear HPC, and that's at a subsidy cost of approx £45bn v's todays results delivering approx the same amount of generation from off-shore wind for zero subsidy ..... and arriving before HPC.

*Note that nuclear in France is even less popular than nuclear in the UK. they have it, they pay for it, and they've concluded ...... no thanks!

European Perceptions of Climate Change (EPCC)

please see page 27, table 8

French support for nuclear is 23%, for RE 80%-90%

page 31, table 9

support to include nuclear in the energy mix is 28%, support subsidies for RE 76%




So, without the old UK nuclear, and no French spare, we are down to approx 3.2GW (HPC) against ~20GW UK summer nightime demand, so not 90% as you claim, but approx 16%.

But wait, there's more. that's before additional transportation BEV charging, and a small 'elephant in the room' that nuclear typically refuels or carries out maintenance during the summer.

HPC is, if I recall correctly, to spend two months every two years being refueled, hence the cf of ~92%. So if we widen 'summer' to 4 months when we can fairly assume heating won't be needed and demand is low, then we lose 1 month per year (2 months every two years), so HPC will provide that 16% for 3/4 months, or 12%.

Next let's assume a 20% leccy demand increase for all BEV's (I've previously calculated approx 10% net for cars), then that's 70TWh pa, or 191GW per day, over 12 hrs (very rough generalisation for nightime) comes to 16GW.

So now we have a nighttime demand of ~36GW and HPC supplying 2.4GW or 7%, v's your 90% claim.

just saying!

What exactly are you arguing against?

I agree the UK doesn't need new nukes they are too expensive relative to just keeping what we have and relative to offshore wind backed up by CCGTs

I disagree with your idea that the UK will not be able to import any french nuclear power
Their nuke phase down is mostly a political decision and guess what those decisions can be overturned or delayed which has already happened how far back did they push the phase down already?

Certainly in the short term the UK is going to import more nuclear from France as a new link comes online in Q1 2020 and then a second in Q4 2020. The UK will probably be importing about 7% of its electricity needs from France in 2021 thanks to the three links we will have another two are likely to be built in a few years time. Italy is also getting a new link with France next year. This will allow EDF to earn more revenue than if these three additional links were not built

Plus France is building additional wind and solar
This means they will have more electricity they need to export
Going from 2GW link to France now, to 4GW within 12 months and then 7.4GW+ a few years later


Regarding you trying to show that nuclear will be a small part of the mix, sure if we close the nukes and don't build any that's pretty obvious to anyone no need for a abacus to try and prove that. My argument was if we don't close the nukes but keep them operating and complete HPC and are able to import from France then at times we could be as much as 90% nuclear. This will seldom be the case. However on a yearly basis the old nukes can do 60TWh HPC can do 26TWh and can import probably another 40TWh or so from France to give 126TWh which is about 38% nuclear if demand stays roughly constant which in the short term is likely as BEV uptake is slow and energy efficiency balances out a bigger population


BTW why do you feel you need to counter this?
What does it matter?
We both agree new nukes are unnecessary
Where we diverge is I think the old nukes should get a CFD and their lives extended by about 10 years. After that re-evaluate the technological landscape and either close them or give them another 10 years.

If as you say demand for electricity is about to boom due to electrified transportation and heating then it makes sense to keep the old nukes for at least another decade. If electrified transportation and heating is late or slow then the old nukes can be closed roughly as planned.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Putting aside your made up claim that we need £25-£30 for sub free ....... :rotfl:

What is £40 today, well a simple test would be to look at the CFD Register I've given before and look at the 2017 offshore auction price which was £57.50 (2012 baseline) and as of Apr 2019 is now £65.09.

So (£40 x £65.09) / £57.50 = £45.28

For comparison the 35yr CfD (RE gets 15yr subsidy) for HPC is now £101.99.

Well by definition the CFDs are a subsidy (else they wouldn't be needed) and you say the result is £45.28/MWh in today money for offshore wind so by definition the subsidy free figure is clearly below this £45.28 figure you quote. So if you think my estimate of £25-30 is wrong why don't you tell us what your estimate is....let me guess 1 penny below the current price

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Campaigners urge UN to endorse global fracking ban

Quite short, worth a read, here are some extracts:

Probably the same type that want a GMO ban, the type who don't get their kids immunised and think the moon landing and AIDs are fake :beer:

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry Nick, but once again, please stop lying. Your post claimed 1% of cumulative emissions were down to the UK, and I can't misquote it, as it's your post and I'm simply 'quoting' it:




The rise from ~260ppm to ~400ppm is cumulative from the start of the industrial revolution.

The difference, you state perfectly clearly, is 140ppm. That is not an annual addition, it is a cumulative addition from the start of the industrial revolution.

The amount you allocate to the UK is 1.4ppm, which is clearly 1% of the cumulative increase.

You did not say "current emissions" you said, and I've quoted it many times "global carbon emissions".

My response pointed this out and referenced the fact the UK is actually responsible for 5%:



Your response (un-referenced) was to claim scientists are in dispute:



So you under reported the UK contribution by 80%, and when caught, used the old denial myth that experts disagree.

Please stop denying the thread contents.

If you absolutely won't admit you are wrong, and claim the 1.4ppm addition for the UK is current and annual, then you are also claiming that the UK is responsible for ~60% of the annual CO2 ppm rise, since it's around 2-2.5ppm pa.

Such a long post & a complete waste of effort as the majority of your post industrial revolution CO2 has been absorbed back into the ocean.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Such a long post & a complete waste of effort as the majority of your post industrial revolution CO2 has been absorbed back into the ocean.

:rotfl: Nice spin.

BTW Absorbed "back" into the ocean is false and misleading. 'We' didn't release it from the oceans, we released it from fossil fuels, and the oceans can't cope with too much more CO2 as they become more acidic.

Excuses excuses!

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Well by definition the CFDs are a subsidy (else they wouldn't be needed) and you say the result is £45.28/MWh in today money for offshore wind so by definition the subsidy free figure is clearly below this £45.28 figure you quote. So if you think my estimate of £25-30 is wrong why don't you tell us what your estimate is....let me guess 1 penny below the current price

Nope, these CfD's can be seen as a support mechanism.

Since the government expect average wholesale prices to be higher, then these deployments may well be net contributors to the subsidy pot, not net beneficiaries.

See earlier article link:

The UK’s next wave of offshore windfarms will generate clean electricity at no extra cost to consumers after record low-subsidy deals fell below the market price for the first time.

This means households will not face extra costs to support the new projects, which may even help to bring down energy bills.

GreatApe wrote: »

Probably the same type that want a GMO ban, the type who don't get their kids immunised and think the moon landing and AIDs are fake :beer:

Nope, you've gone and done 'a Ken' like his flat earther argument.

Those that believe in AGW believe in science, they are the ones that will believe in Moon landings etc.. It's the conspiracy theory nutcases that deny Moon landings, immunization, spherical earth etc..

GreatApe wrote: »

Regarding you trying to show that nuclear will be a small part of the mix, sure if we close the nukes and don't build any that's pretty obvious to anyone no need for a abacus to try and prove that. My argument was if we don't close the nukes but keep them operating and complete HPC and are able to import from France then at times we could be as much as 90% nuclear.

I know what your argument is, and I was pointing out that it was complete BS. We have to close the old nukes, they have already had extensions, they aren't magic, they deteriorate and need to close, and the French ones are to close too, with possible replacements of far less capacity.

So your 90% is 100% false, as the nuclear generation you are relying on, simply won't exist - not an opinion, but a known fact.

Why do all your posts deny reality? Why do you seem so totally unaware of all the real facts and figures?

No need to answer, a politer response would simply be to take your misinformation and AGW denial somewhere else.

Martyn1981

Obviously yesterday was a big day regarding climate strikes, and as that's a bit serious, and not exactly fun, I thought I'd post a side issue article, that's kinda funny, also kinda sad, but mainly funny:

Climate strikes: hoax photo accusing Australian protesters of leaving rubbish behind goes viral

The image was not taken after a climate strike and was not even taken in Australia

According to the fact-checking site Snopes, the London marijuana event was held next to an Extinction Rebellion protest. The photo does show London’s Hyde Park but the rubbish was created by the 420 attendees, not climate protesters.

According to organisers, Extinction Rebellion protesters helped clean up the mess made at the 420 event.

Martyn1981

No the other Amazon:

Amazon Pledges To Meet Paris Climate Goals 10 Years Early, Commits To 100,000 Electric Delivery Vehicles

The announcement was part of a press conference given by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, in Washington, DC. He told those in attendance that his company will be carbon neutral by 2040 — 10 years sooner than the date set by the Paris climate accords. Bezos is challenging other companies to do the same. Here’s his statement as contained in an Amazon press release.

“We’re done being in the middle of the herd on this issue. We’ve decided to use our size and scale to make a difference. If a company with as much physical infrastructure as Amazon — which delivers more than 10 billion items a year — can meet the Paris Agreement 10 years early, then any company can. I’ve been talking with other CEOs of global companies, and I’m finding a lot of interest in joining the pledge. Large companies signing The Climate Pledge will send an important signal to the market that it’s time to invest in the products and services the signatories will need to meet their commitments.”

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

:rotfl: Nice spin.

BTW Absorbed "back" into the ocean is false and misleading. 'We' didn't release it from the oceans, we released it from fossil fuels, and the oceans can't cope with too much more CO2 as they become more acidic.

Excuses excuses!

Actually, all this happened during a time when the increase in CO2 wasn't significant in terms of climate or ocean acidity.

It's history Mart ... you can't change it ... we're currently contributing 1% & that figure is reducing every year.

Go ahead & indulge yourself in a guilt trip if that's what makes you feel better, but don't expect me to join you anytime soon.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

BTW Absorbed "back" into the ocean is false and misleading. 'We' didn't release it from the oceans, we released it from fossil fuels, and the oceans can't cope with too much more CO2 as they become more acidic.

I think you're underestimating our planet !

Long before the first hominids walked the Earth, there was a time when CO2 levels were far far higher than current levels or even projections and none of that had arisen from burning fossil fuels. Over aeons - and without any help from us - the Earth managed to reach a new equilibrium by absorbing CO2 into the oceans and to a lesser extent by plants converting CO2 to O2 and complex carbohydrates, some of which made their way into our fossil fuels.

We have certainly extracted a lot of fossil fuels over the last few centuries and released their embedded Carbon back into the atmosphere. However, we know there's a lot of fossil fuels still remaining (so still storing Carbon) as they're deemed uneconomic to exploit and the balance of probability is that there's even more fossil fuels still undiscovered. Likely therefore that we've actually burnt only a very small proportion of fossil fuels.

Don't overlook the contribution to CO2 levels by volcanoes. One eruption event outputs far more CO2 in a few days than Mankind generates in a year.

My own personal view is that, for the sake of our descendants, we shouldn't use up all the fossil fuels in case they're needed later but it seems unlikely that our use of them has actually made a significant impact upon the rise in CO2 levels.

'Global Warming' is a completely foreseeable result of the 'recent' Ice Age drawing to a close. Looking a little further ahead, we should expect the next Ice Age to start in another hundred centuries or so.