Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

markin

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you're bored of nuclear, then skip this post.

If you have any doubts about where money and time should go, then this article is simply chocked full of info, and the incredible thing is that it's about a report from the:

Logic supports renewables, not nuclear

OUCH!

Not a word on the cost of grid upgrades and back up to reach 100% renewable, The PDF is 323 pages but so far p235 ["Ctrl+F" Backup ]

"Whether solar, fossil-fueled, or nuclear, no generator needs 100 percent" If the uk/EU got to 100% wind and solar the UK would need 3 days back up for at least 90%, hopefully with the interconnects providing some but unlikely in a EU wide wind lull. Unless the plan from them is to use Dirty Gas As the back up???

They quote Scotland at 75% seemingly ignoring that its NET renewable and they use England as the battery.

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2019-hr.pdf




Before reading that, After reading your posts on why you haven't got a battery yet i was already thinking that the uk actually now needs a 100MW 'battery' for every 1GW of new wind and solar going forward. I think the 50MW being built at that wind farm is to small.



EDIT: p.236

backup, because one generator does not serve one load; rather, all generators serve the grid, which in turn serves all loads. The grid is designed to back up failed plants with working plants, so varying solar and wind power output are backed up by a diversified portfolio of other variable renewables, dispatchable renewables, or other resources. Solar and wind power don’t need massive batteries so they can produce power steadily like big thermal plants; rather, at least eight classes of grid flexibility resources1010 besides bulk electrical storage and fossil-fueled backup are proven, available, cost-effective, and sufficient.1011 We don’t and needn’t yet know all details of their ultimate mix as renewables rise toward 100 percent of generation; for now, we need only know that ample and affordable integration options exist.1012 As climatologist Prof. Ken Caldeira says, “Controversies about how to handle the [electricity] endgame should not overly influence our opening moves.”

markin

Super Ink For Supercapacitors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivXmSsn1bUU

GreatApe

markin wrote: »

Not a word on the cost of grid upgrades and back up to reach 100% renewable, The PDF is 323 pages but so far p235 ["Ctrl+F" Backup ]

"Whether solar, fossil-fueled, or nuclear, no generator needs 100 percent" If the uk/EU got to 100% wind and solar the UK would need 3 days back up for at least 90%, hopefully with the interconnects providing some but unlikely in a EU wide wind lull. Unless the plan from them is to use Dirty Gas As the back up???

They quote Scotland at 75% seemingly ignoring that its NET renewable and they use England as the battery.

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2019-hr.pdf

Before reading that, After reading your posts on why you haven't got a battery yet i was already thinking that the uk actually now needs a 100MW 'battery' for every 1GW of new wind and solar going forward. I think the 50MW being built at that wind farm is to small.

EDIT: p.236

No viable storage technology yet exists nor is likely to exist

Just for 1 weeks electricity storage backup the UK would need the best part of 8,000 GWh of batteries. That is about 30 years current world production and would bankrupt us as it has a cost in excess of $1 trillion Trillion with a frekin T

But to be honest we don't need storage
Gas fired power stations do fine to fill in the windless gaps

The UK is already about 50% non fossil in the grid
The UK will be about 65% non fossil by 2022 some 8 years sooner than Germany

We just have to accept a wind heavy grid is going to need full natural gas backup
That's acceptable because while the UK might need a full 50GW of CCGTs as backup we won't need to operate them many hours a year. Maybe only 10-15% of the time

With lots of interconntors
With even higher CF wind farms
The UK can probably get towards >85% non Fossil in its grid
Which is pretty darn good


But we will need significant numbers of interconntors at significant costs
We will also need significant internal UK grid upgrades

Zarch

Interesting article here from Octopus about their 'green' credentials.

https://octopus.energy/blog/greenwashing/

Obviously blowing their own trumpet to some degree, but such interesting stuff nonetheless.

Martyn1981

The cracks are starting to show?

If I'm reading this correctly, then one of the smaller oil companies has agreed to pay out compensation for rising sea levels/storm damage?

Could be the start of something big(ger). Imagine how much faster things would transition if externality costs were included in our FF usage, rather than our children's future?

Oil Company Agrees To Pay Up To $100 Million To Restore Louisiana Coastline

“The gates of history turn on tiny hinges,” Mrs. Monahon, my high school history teacher liked to say. A precedent-setting agreement this week between Freeport-McMoRan, a company that specializes in drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and 12 coastal communities in Louisiana may be one of those tiny hinges. According to the New York Times, the company has agreed to pay up to $100 million to restore the Louisiana coastline.

JKenH

I originally posted this under the fossil fuels thread by mistake so have moved it here.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/09/25/climate-change-now-irreversible-due-warming-oceans-un-body-warns/

Martyn1981

Yep, we need to act as hard and fast as possible.

No time left for deniers, even the diet versions.

GreatApe

Why are the lefties so down on the ability of mankind

You have people who believe and are working towards making mars home and then geoengineering a whole planet

Then you have the green cheerleaders on earth crying that a change of a fraction of a percentage in carbon dioxide is the end of life and humanity and there is no way to do even minor geoengineering

Solarchaser

Nah... he isn't a troll, of course not.
He just posts in a green and ethical forum, on a green and ethical thread talking about lefties and cheerleaders. and crying etc etc.

Why is it the far right just want to stick their head in the sand and say science will fix it....no no, not the science that says about agw, the science that says everything will be fine if you just put your head in the sand, I mean why would fossil fuel lobbies lie, it's not like their is anything in it for them.

All you need is a slogan, what about "make earth great again"?

GreatApe

Solarchaser wrote: »

Nah... he isn't a troll, of course not.
He just posts in a green and ethical forum, on a green and ethical thread talking about lefties and cheerleaders. and crying etc etc.

Why is it the far right just want to stick their head in the sand and say science will fix it....no no, not the science that says about agw, the science that says everything will be fine if you just put your head in the sand, I mean why would fossil fuel lobbies lie, it's not like their is anything in it for them.

All you need is a slogan, what about "make earth great again"?

The billionaire scientists musk believes in AI and the ability to geoengineer whole planets

But I guess we can ignore that because some 'study' suggests global warming will be the end of humanity as we know it

As I keep saying, if humans had been around in the ice age at these populations and this level of technology you'd be on the ice age internet crying that we must maintain the ice age for a warmer world will be indescribably hostile and unliveable.....but it isn't