Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why are you so obsessed with me, and what I do?

Because when I suggest we let technology make RE cheaper then deploy more of it for the same cost you argue

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The 'we should wait till it gets cheap' argument has come up for 10yrs on here, but it's always been, shall we say, 'daft'. It relies entirely on somebody else doing it, or the costs will never fall, so it's not a valid alternative, just another morally bankrupt argument.

But when I ask why you haven’t got a battery you argue

Martyn1981 wrote: »

whilst I would like to see some government support for batteries, I'm content with their progress, and have no worries that they will be capable and economic when we need them.

In what way is my argument morally bankrupt and yours not? The answer of course is it depends on who is making the argument.

Martyn1981

Very ambitious suggestion from Labour regarding wind farms, though the nationalisation side scares me, especially if we have now reached a stage were we can actually charge off-shore wind farms (via leases) but still see private deployment?

Labour unveils £83bn state windfarms plan before key climate vote

Labour is promising to build dozens of new state-owned offshore windfarms, at a cost of £83bn in public and private money. The plan comes as members prepare to debate the climate emergency at their party conference in what could be a fierce contest between heavyweight unions and grassroots campaigners.

On Tuesday, delegates will be asked to vote on the party’s target to cut the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero. Two motions are to be put to members, one with a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030 – which would be much more stringent than the government’s current target of net zero by 2050 – and one backed by the GMB union, which does not set a date.

The motions emerged from the “compositing” process after 128 constituency parties sent climate-related motions to the conference. The 2030 motion came from the pressure group Labour for a Green New Deal and has the support of several smaller unions. Both motions could pass.

She pointed to the proposals for new offshore windfarms as a prime example of how the strategy would work. The new farms, which would provide electricity for 57m homes, were needed because the construction of new turbines by the private sector was too slow, despite falling costs, she said. The profits from the power generation would be reinvested to benefit coastal communities and tackle the climate emergency.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Because when I suggest we let technology make RE cheaper then deploy more of it for the same cost you argue




But when I ask why you haven’t got a battery you argue


In what way is my argument morally bankrupt and yours not? The answer of course is it depends on who is making the argument.

I've already answered all of this. Cost reductions in the storage technology is being handled by the automotive side. So much demand in fact, that it's delayed price reductions in domestic batts due to supply constraints.

So, as I've argued for years, on a purely personal basis, my getting a battery would result in more gas being burnt, so on this issue I'm content.

If you are unable to see/appreciate differences across technologies and industries, then that is your problem, not mine.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This has surprised me, it says that natural gas is actually worse for the environment due to methane emissions, but I thought that was only true for fracking.

I believe burning anything is pretty much bad for the environment. The occasional forest fire helps some plants germinate seed but other than that, they're unhealthy.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, as I've argued for years, on a purely personal basis, my getting a battery would result in more gas being burnt, so on this issue I'm content.

Would that apply to any/all of us getting a battery?

1961Nick

JKenH wrote: »

Would that apply to any/all of us getting a battery?

His argument will start to fall apart when curtailment becomes the norm rather than the exception. You could also argue that having a battery enables the deployment of more (unpredictable) RE.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Would that apply to any/all of us getting a battery?

Yes which is why batteries make no sense in uk homes (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter) at least until mid day afternoon production is being curtailed which it isn't for now.

There is an exception which is true in homes or in solar farms which is adding batteries to be able to stick to grid limits

For instance if you are limited to 16 amps out that might mean 5KWp panels max
If you add a battery or two with the same inverter and same 16 amp limit you can probably go to 15KWp

Likewise a 1GW UK solar farm with sufficient batteries could add many more panels
It would still have a 1GW link to the grid but might have closer to 3.5GW of panels. Instead of this grid link operating at about 11% capacity factor it would operate closer to 38% capacity factor

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Would that apply to any/all of us getting a battery?

Yes I suppose, at the moment if there is no reason other than economical for getting one. But there's also the fun factor, and if folk can afford one then fill your boots. I chose instead to invest some monies in RE generation schemes (via Abundance) but I've explained this to death many times, and many years ago, so seems unhealthy to keep having to repeat it.

However, the idea of batteries is excellent and essential going forward (as I've said before) once gas generation starts to get pushed off the grid for significant periods. The beauty of batteries is that they can be retro-fitted (as has been said by the wind and PV industries too).

There are also of course lots of other benefits, such as deployments where the DNO is struggling to allow more SSEG's, economic deployments supported by leccy companies, and of course establishing a national industry. Commercial deployments can bring economic benefits by avoiding peak rate leccy prices, and even higher capacity supply rates.

But since the enormous demand, supply and investment needed to make batteries viable is coming from (being 'driven' by) the automotive sector, I'm (personally) more than happy with progress. Certainly a massive win rolling out.


TBH - If your enjoyment of life and particularly your battery is entirely dependent on my actions, then I'd suggest you pop me on ignore to prevent further upset, or 'get a life'? After all, as a great poet once said:

"Don't hail me and don't idolize the ink
Or I've failed in my intentions, can you find the missing link?
Your only validation is in living your own life
Vicarious existence is a ....... waste of time"

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

I believe burning anything is pretty much bad for the environment. The occasional forest fire helps some plants germinate seed but other than that, they're unhealthy.

Hiya Nige, yes .... but .... worse than coal, I had no idea conventional NG production was that 'leaky', unless the report is a bit biased?

I'd suggest we therefore need to move to RE even faster, but that'll go down like a led balloon with some on here.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

TBH - If your enjoyment of life and particularly your battery is entirely dependent on my actions, then I'd suggest you pop me on ignore to prevent further upset, or 'get a life'?

I couldn’t manage without my daily dose of Mart:)