Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On a personal note, I fully supported nuclear up to around 2010, then perhaps 10% till around 2012, then 0% since.

Your sudden conversion to RE was nothing at all to do with the government saying in 2011 we’ll give you a couple of grand a year to put some solar panels on the roof?

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As the FF industry is held responsible for their actions, which have obviously led to vastly more CO2 today in the environment than if we'd started the RE revolution 20-30yrs earlier, then they will have to act more, both in switching to RE, and reducing their efforts to hobble RE.

If we had gone for a rapid decarbonisation with the technology available to us in the 1980s we would have had no alternative but to go for nuclear power. Look where that would have left us economically. We would have been tied into long term nuclear contracts that cost a fortune and wind power may never have developed. (France did not have any offshore wind power until 2018.)

We would have had to drive round in Sinclair C5s as the G- Wiz wasn’t invented until 2001 or are you suggesting a young Elon Musk would have come along and ploughed billions into developing a Tesla skipping all the intermediate development stages.

The technology doesn’t develop overnight, particularly with wind turbines, as experience is gained from operating them. We couldn’t suddenly have gone straight to the huge wind turbines we have today. Wind was being subsidised from the early 1980s in the US. The first wind farm in the US in 1980 was a failure as the turbines broke down and the developers overestimated the wind resource. Lessons had to be learnt over time to get to where we are today.

It is easy to look at the technology we have in place today and think that we could have had that 30 years ago but that isn’t how the world works. Progress is incremental.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

If we had gone for a rapid decarbonisation with the technology available to us in the 1980s we would have had no alternative but to go for nuclear power. Look where that would have left us economically. We would have been tied into long term nuclear contracts that cost a fortune and wind power may never have developed. (France did not have any offshore wind power until 2018.)

We would have had to drive round in Sinclair C5s as the G- Wiz wasn’t invented until 2001 or are you suggesting a young Elon Musk would have come along and ploughed billions into developing a Tesla skipping all the intermediate development stages.

The technology doesn’t develop overnight, particularly with wind turbines, as experience is gained from operating them. We couldn’t suddenly have gone straight to the huge wind turbines we have today. Wind was being subsidised from the early 1980s in the US. The first wind farm in the US in 1980 was a failure as the turbines broke down and the developers overestimated the wind resource. Lessons had to be learnt over time to get to where we are today.

It is easy to look at the technology we have in place today and think that we could have had that 30 years ago but that isn’t how the world works. Progress is incremental.

Nuclear would have worked just fine for the UK grid
The last nuke built in the UK was completed 1995 and was on time and on budget
I suspect it was because we had 20+ years of French experience to draw upon during that time

So while the grid could have been sorted out sooner you are correct in that heating and transport would have been no different there were no easy solution especially considering the country was very poor 1945 - 1980s

The only thing that could have been done more rapidly imo is building standards
But things were different in the past it's easy to say we should have had better building standards but the reality is the nation was really poor after ww2 until about the 1980s

So while I'd like to say we should have had higher standards from 1945 onwards it's easy for me to say sitting in 2019. The council building program built a lot of crap (by today's standards) but I'm sure they were better than what replaced them and better than not having those homes at all


Anyway no one has a time machine Marty should concentrate on the future not the past

And he should accept that on net fossil fuels saved millions of UK lives and hundreds of millions of illnesses and sick days through allowing warm homes from the 1970s dash for central heating powered by north sea gas. Unlike the nonsense studies that say coal generation in Yorkshire two hundred miles away costs the NHS zillions of dollar per year in health costs. Well with the coal plants almost all closed down the NHS must be flush with resources and cash. If only the post office was still state owned I'm sure my NHS coal saving dividend cheque would have reached me by now...

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

So what you are saying is you were pro nuclear in the 1980s and 90s after Chernobyl but you were quietly doing your sums which in 2012 enabled you to forecast what the wholesale cost of wind would be compared to nuclear at some as yet to be determined point in the future. So I don’t suppose the prices achieved at the latest round of CFD auctions came as any surprise to you. All you had to do was look at your 2012 spreadsheet and there they were.

It’s a shame you didn’t work for HMG or an investment bank as you could have made a fortune. Instead you chose to spend your time on here saving the world. Maybe you’ll get a mention in the New Years honours list - a new category perhaps, the MBM.

:rotfl::rotfl:

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes it could be argued, especially if someone wanted to spin the argument away from criticism of the FF industry, but that doesn't in any way excuse the FF industry, it simply throws mud around to confuse the discussion.

On a personal note, I fully supported nuclear up to around 2010, then perhaps 10% till around 2012, then 0% since.

My position has been simple, nuclear is low carbon and cleaner than coal, so we should have rolled out far, far more in the 80/90's. But then again the FF industry was telling us all not to worry, and that facts and science should be ignored ..... baseless opinions are more important (why does that sound so familiar?)

But as RE costs fell, the argument for nuclear weakened, and with the recognition of the need to reduce and remove coal, nuclear became pointless.

Pointless in the sense that RE could be rolled out far faster, didn't carry any of the risk factors, and by 2010-12 it could be seen that RE would be cheaper than nuclear, before the nuclear could be commissioned*, so there remained no further reasons to support it.

*This is an important point, as my position regarding nuclear shifted before RE was cheaper, but to clarify, was after it was clear that RE would be cheaper on deployments that would be commissioned before new nuclear. So by ~2012 it was clear that any new nuclear built, would be more expensive (on commissioning) than RE commissioned at that same time. In reality, RE dropped much further and faster.

Nuclear is not the same as wind or solar and it's controllable and doesn't need mass battery or grid upgrades and all the waste of nuclear is stored and internalised while the manufacturing and disposal waste of solar and wind will probably end up in the electronics waste streams so some poor Indian or African kids can try to recycle the heavy elements with their bare hands

And saying nuclear is more expensive is also limited fake news because the cost of nuclear is vastly different from one project to another. The countries which actually want nuclear to work can build reactors in just over 4 years as per my thread about that. While a solar panel is more or less the same price globally

Nuclear can be done in a time frame of 4 years for s reactor and you can build 6 reactors on one site and start multiple sites at the same time.

The problem is we don't do mega projects in the west anymore
Nuclear or HS2 or Boris Island or... Will cost too much and be too slow
It's not the fault or limitation of the technology but the fact we are rich enough to give time and patience to protestors rather than tell them okay you can stand there with your placard but the bulldozer is going to do its job irrespective you you being under its tracks

Offshore wind has 'won' in the UK and it will be deployed at a slow rate of about 2-3% a year coupled to the mass interconntors under construction and likely the UK will have a very low carbon grid within a few short years.

The picture for the rest of the world is more complex
Most likely the world will continue to use more !!!!!! for another 10 years at least
Because the world knows more fossil fuels mess more heath more lived saved
Despite your protests otherwise

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

So what you are saying is you were pro nuclear in the 1980s and 90s after Chernobyl but you were quietly doing your sums which in 2012 enabled you to forecast what the wholesale cost of wind would be compared to nuclear at some as yet to be determined point in the future. So I don’t suppose the prices achieved at the latest round of CFD auctions came as any surprise to you. All you had to do was look at your 2012 spreadsheet and there they were.

It’s a shame you didn’t work for HMG or an investment bank as you could have made a fortune. Instead you chose to spend your time on here saving the world. Maybe you’ll get a mention in the New Years honours list - a new category perhaps, the MBM.

I don't believe I did anything clever, nor noted anything that any other sensible person wouldn't have seen.

I simply looked at the cost curves for PV and wind, the industry contract prices being issued, and the HPC CfD issued by HMG in 2012 for £92.50/MWh (revised down to £89.50 if SC is built), and could plainly see that RE would be cheaper than nuclear within the construction and commissioning period for 'new' nuclear.

Wasn't it obvious to you too?

The fact that RE costs have fallen far further and faster than I'd expected, is simply the cherry on the top.

Regarding Chernobyl, that is proof that we should avoid nuclear and go to RE regardless of the fact that prior to 2012 i wasn't certain that RE would end up cheaper. But sadly, it's not up to me, and there are lots of people like you, G & N, who put costs first, hence why I accepted the reality that it had to be nuclear, but even so, it's still cleaner (believe it or not) than coal, which pollutes and kills every single day.

JKenH wrote: »

Your sudden conversion to RE was nothing at all to do with the government saying in 2011 we’ll give you a couple of grand a year to put some solar panels on the roof?

Nope. I've always supported RE, and it's always been my personal preference.

But thanks for posting that, as it makes it clear where you are coming from, and what you are willing to post, especially with regard to me.

JKenH wrote: »

If we had gone for a rapid decarbonisation with the technology available to us in the 1980s we would have had no alternative but to go for nuclear power. Look where that would have left us economically. We would have been tied into long term nuclear contracts that cost a fortune and wind power may never have developed. (France did not have any offshore wind power until 2018.)

We would have had to drive round in Sinclair C5s as the G- Wiz wasn’t invented until 2001 or are you suggesting a young Elon Musk would have come along and ploughed billions into developing a Tesla skipping all the intermediate development stages.

The technology doesn’t develop overnight, particularly with wind turbines, as experience is gained from operating them. We couldn’t suddenly have gone straight to the huge wind turbines we have today. Wind was being subsidised from the early 1980s in the US. The first wind farm in the US in 1980 was a failure as the turbines broke down and the developers overestimated the wind resource. Lessons had to be learnt over time to get to where we are today.

It is easy to look at the technology we have in place today and think that we could have had that 30 years ago but that isn’t how the world works. Progress is incremental.

Already answered, but I'll repeat - the technology is not new, it already existed, what was needed was a huge increase in demand and supply.

In the case of PV, that demand came from the FiTs scheme(s) in Italy and Germany, and the supply came from China investing in large scale production. Immediately the costs tumbled, as they would have done decades earlier had the market been artificially expanded then, instead of in the naughties.


I fully appreciate where you are coming from, and I think everyone else is also aware now, as you are no longer 'pretending'. But whilst you may not like my posts, nor my beliefs/opinions, that's no excuse to attack this thread and spoil it for everyone.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Already answered, but I'll repeat - the technology is not new, it already existed, what was needed was a huge increase in demand and supply.

In the case of PV, that demand came from the FiTs scheme(s) in Italy and Germany, and the supply came from China investing in large scale production. Immediately the costs tumbled, as they would have done decades earlier had the market been artificially expanded then, instead of in the naughties.

I fully appreciate where you are coming from, and I think everyone else is also aware now, as you are no longer 'pretending'. But whilst you may not like my posts, nor my beliefs/opinions, that's no excuse to attack this thread and spoil it for everyone.

Reality check
Fossil fuels continue to expand
Solar and wind is still considerably more expensive to build and integrate into a grid than just using fossil fuels

PV and Wind costs have improved a lot but they are not cost competitive I know you'll provide a thousand studies that say otherwise but I'd rather you just look at global fossil fuel consumption as more authoritative than a study by some green group. Almost no one expects fossil fuel consumption to be lower in 2029 than it is in 2019


I hope solar and wind prices continue to fall but the price points need to go towards £25/MWh while offshore wind is £46/MWh for delivery 2025. Perhaps by 2035 offshore wind can get to £25/MWh in which case it will be the bulk supply of UK electricity.

Heating is still a problem concentrate on deploying air to air heat pumps start with the council stock of 5 million homes

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

Because the world knows more fossil fuels mess more heath more lived saved

Personally I think we need less fossil fuels mess, not more.

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

Personally I think we need less fossil fuels mess, not more.

You can sit and criticise because you have the comfort the health and wellbeing based on a foundation of affordable fossil fuels

Those that don't have this comfort and heath and wellbeing want it and will create loves and economies to provide it which is why ten years from now fossil fuel useage will go up and so will health and wellbeing

Martyn1981

Nice and long article on nuclear fusion. All joking aside, it does suggest commercial operation in 30yrs, but possibly this 30yrs is real.

We will, of course, need to have gotten to zero or net zero CO2 by then anyway, but if it's economical/competitive, then it will be a great addition to the energy toolbox.

[Note - On another forum a year or so back, I asked a 'smart guy' why he'd transferred back to the fission industry, after having moved from there to fusion for a few years, and he simply said it was down to lack of funding. Basically, whilst the technology is progressing, it's looking less and less likely to be cost competitive v's RE as their costs have fallen so far, and so fast this decade. Depending on how you look at this, it's good news, bad news or both, I suppose.]

A lightbulb moment for nuclear fusion?