Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

This sets out the problem, but I truly think it's achievable now given the power, transportation and space heating alternatives that are becoming viable. I think this decade was the economic turning point, and hopefully next decade will see a massive shift both as a result of public demand and economic drivers.

Oil majors must cut output by a third to meet climate target – study

The world’s largest oil and gas companies need to slash their production by more than a third by 2040 to meet global climate targets, according to a new report.

The seven listed oil majors - including ExxonMobil, BP and Shell - would need to cut the total amount of oil and gas they produce every day by 35% to avoid driving temperatures 1.5C higher than pre-industrialised levels.

Global governments would also need to stop issuing new oil and gas licences for fossil fuel exploration, according to the report.

It showed that global oil projects that have already been approved are almost enough to meet demand in a 1.6C scenario and there is “very little headroom for new fossil fuel projects”.

“If companies and governments attempt to develop all their oil and gas reserves, either the world will miss its climate targets or assets will become ‘stranded’ in the energy transition, or both. This analysis shows that if companies really want to both mitigate financial risk and be part of the climate solution, they must shrink production.”

US supermajors ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, and ConocoPhillips would need to make the most ambitious oil and gas cuts to fall in line with global climate targets.

But European oil firms such as Shell and BP, considered the greenest of the world’s major oil companies, would also need to make a step-change in their business models to avoid contributing to a climate catastrophe.

Martyn1981

A little summary article on non-battery storage developments.

A banner year for advancing non-battery storage

This has been a breakthrough year for non-battery storage, with key advances in pumped hydro, power-to-gas, and thermal storage technologies. Many industry players are moving beyond pilot projects to contracted projects, which could lead to increased scale and lower costs.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I doubt the FF companies own PR departments could have put it better. :rotfl:

Not that they need PR but if they wanted to tackle anti FF sentiment they should just highlight all the millions of lives and hundreds of millions of sick days natural gas has saved via affordable warm homes

Of the economic development made possible by coal that allowed pensions public services mass manufacturing and the heath service to come into existence

Of the plastics and fertilisers made possible by gas and oil which feed the world and keep food affordable for billions. Of the oil that allowed mass transport of agricultural goods across the globe which certainly saved millions from mass famines. Of the oil that made transportion of food and goods to allow urbanisation and further enrichment of economies

All of this will end at some point as alternatives repalce fossil fuels but to date they have been a huge net benefit to society in every way. This has been true historically it's true today and it will be true for at least a couple more decades

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

It's a pressurised tank just had a look at one says 9 bar for water which probably means it's actual limit is a good deal higher so the water can be heated well above 100 centigrade

Anyway let me modify the idea to a tank at 10 bar pressure and heating the water between 45 and 175 centigrade. Simple pressure relief valve to outside to avoid going above tank limits

This way you can have a 500 litre tank which can hold 75KWh of storage

Internal copper tubing acts as a heat exchanger for the radiators (like now)
And a mixer to limit hot water temp to 60 to avoid scalding
Radiator temps can be limited by flow rate and length of heat exchanger

Simple circuit can limit power useage to below 80% of 100AMP limit
3 x 6KW elements each one can be turned on off by a controller depending on other loads in the house

Would cost about £1,000 for the tank
Only maintenance would be DIY replacing cheap elements every few years
Tanks have 30 year guarantees would probably last twice that time

Allows a cheap way to store excessive electricity as heat
75KWh for £1,000 = £13.33/KWh and lasts 60 years and can be be fully 'charged and discharged' with no degrading and it's just simple steel and copper which is easily recyclables and abundant

Makes more sense if the tank can go over 100 and thus store more energy although do losses increase with the square of the temperature? I am also not sure I would fancy having 500l of 170 degree water in the loft - would work for us as it could go in the garage though.

Our worst recent month was 160kwh of heat per day so we wouldn't be able to store enough in the 4 hour window. It is also still 5p per kwh compared to gas at 3p, I know the efficiency is better but it is still probably 25% more expensive than current gas prices.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

Makes more sense if the tank can go over 100 and thus store more energy although do losses increase with the square of the temperature? I am also not sure I would fancy having 500l of 170 degree water in the loft - would work for us as it could go in the garage though.

Our worst recent month was 160kwh of heat per day so we wouldn't be able to store enough in the 4 hour window. It is also still 5p per kwh compared to gas at 3p, I know the efficiency is better but it is still probably 25% more expensive than current gas prices.

Heat loss goes up linearly since it's almost all conduction
Radiation losses would go up exponentially but there would be little to no radiation losses as even tiny insulation would reduce that greatly

160KWh of gas is probably closer to 136KWh of heat or 5.67KW of power X 20 hour storage you'd need about 113KWh of storage to meet your max day

I'm aware gas is still cheaper per unit but bear in mind that these would have much less maintenance and repair costs and should last 60+ years while a boiler perhaps 15 years before replacement.

I'm not saying you should do this it's just one of the options for a boiler free future the other two being resistive heating and heat pumps.

My best guess is the most likely outcome would be air to air heat pumps with backup resistance heating and a small normal tank for hot water needs perhaps charged to 70 centigrade every night during lower demand periods.

The grid is going to have to expand considerably perhaps 2-3x what it is to allow for electrification of heating

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm not saying you should do this it's just one of the options for a boiler free future the other two being resistive heating and heat pumps.

Are you saying that General Bear AI has now ruled out your earlier idea of local/area heat distribution using nuclear fission plants? If so, why?

Martyn1981

So, after some diversions, we may be heading for 2016 all over again. My fingers are crossed for an election bidding war, where all parties aim high.

Labour would make all new homes zero carbon by 2022

The last Labour government introduced regulations to make all homes zero carbon by 2016, but the rules were scrapped by David Cameron less than a year before they were due to come into force.

Now, Labour says it would create a new “zero-carbon standard” to ensure new homes make no positive contribution to greenhouse emissions. The standard would be introduced by 2022.

And again, possibly (certainly) election based, the Tories did it -

Fracking banned in UK as government makes major U-turn

The government has banned fracking with immediate effect in a watershed moment for environmentalists and community activists.

Ministers also warned shale gas companies it would not support future fracking projects, in a crushing blow to companies that had been hoping to capitalise on one of the new frontiers of growth in the fossil fuel industry.

The decision draws a line under years of bitter opposition to the controversial extraction process in a major victory for green groups and local communities.

Now we need policies to displace that gas consumption - more RE, more heat pumps etc etc..

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, after some diversions, we may be heading for 2016 all over again. My fingers are crossed for an election bidding war, where all parties aim high.

Labour would make all new homes zero carbon by 2022

What follows is not in any way intended to be political so not having a go at Labour or the Guardian for reporting this.

I was surprised that the savings quoted would be only up to £200 so that led me to look into what is a zero carbon home and it is not what most of the general public would expect.

In England, the definition of a zero carbon home became one where CO2 emissions from regulated energy use were limited or mitigated by a combination of three factors (the first two of which are known as ‘carbon compliance’ standards):

1. Achieving minimum Fabric Energy Efficiency Standards (FEES) based on space heating and cooling:

39 kWh/m^2/year for apartments and mid-terraced houses.
46 kWh/m^2/year for end of terrace, semi-detached and detached houses.
2. Using low and zero carbon technologies and connected heat networks to limit on-site built emissions:

10 kg CO2(eq)/m^2/year for detached houses.
11 kg CO2(eq)/m^2/year for attached houses.
14 kg CO2(eq)/m^2/year for low-rise apartments.
3. Where it is not possible to reduce the regulated CO2 emissions to zero using these on-site measures, the remaining carbon emissions could be mitigated through allowable off-site solutions.

So in effect, developers would have to avoid or mitigate all regulated emissions using a combination of on-site energy efficiency measures (such as insulation and low energy heating systems), on-site zero carbon technologies (such as solar panels) and off-site measures to deal with any remaining emissions.

'Allowable solutions’ were expected to include the developer being able to make payments to an ‘allowable solutions provider' who could be a local authority provider or a private provider. There was also the possibility of creating a national carbon abatement fund, with payments made by means of an agreed fee per kg CO2 to offset emissions over a 30 year period.



Regulated energy is building energy consumption resulting from the specification of controlled, fixed building services and fittings, including space heating and cooling, hot water, ventilation, fans, pumps and lighting. Such energy uses are inherent in the design of a building.


Unregulated energy which is not included in a domestic context is building energy consumption resulting from a system or process that is not ‘controlled’, ie energy consumption from systems in the building on which the Building Regulations do not impose a requirement. For example, this may include energy consumption from .... laptops, cooking, audio-visual equipment and other appliances.



Clarification of allowable solutions was provided by the government in 2014 as abatement on site, their own abatement off site, third party off-site abatement, or payment into a price-capped fund.



Source: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Zero%20carbon%20homes

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, after some diversions, we may be heading for 2016 all over again. My fingers are crossed for an election bidding war, where all parties aim high.
Labour would make all new homes zero carbon by 2022
And again, possibly (certainly) election based, the Tories did it -
Fracking banned in UK as government makes major U-turn
Now we need policies to displace that gas consumption - more RE, more heat pumps etc etc..

Along similar lines wasn't it great to see the Stirling prize for Architecture given to the zero carbon development Goldsmith street in Norwich ahead of all the other more prestigous designs keeping the importance of climate change in focus.

JKenH

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/01/extinction-rebellion-protester-cleared-criminal-damage-arguing/

An Extinction Rebellion protester has been cleared of criminal damage for spray-painting a council building after successfully arguing she was acting to defend her property.

Ms Ditchfield, from King's Hedges Cambridge, argued she had a legal excuse to commit the vandalism as she believed there was an immediate threat to her property from climate disaster, a defence that can be used in minor cases of criminal damage.



Comment witheld.