Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

silverwhistle

Wightlink's latest vessel is a hybrid, although I haven't been on it yet. They've got some quite old vessels in their fleet so let's hope the next replacement is fully electric.


The news I'm waiting to hear is the authorities insisting on the cruise liners in Southampton being forced to use shore power instead of pumping out their fumes.

Martyn1981

Quick end of year ramble, as this year (like 2017) has really stood out for me.

In 2017 PV (in the World) became unbeatable, but my excitement revolved around off-shore wind and BEV's, which appeared (to me) to have reached a point where they couldn't fail to become unbeatable, even if they weren't there yet.

Well, and again, just my opinion, I think the burgeoning profitability of BEV's and the astonishing contracts issued for off-shore wind this year, mean that both technologies have now moved from 'guaranteed to win in the future', to 'have now won'.

So that's PV*, on-shore wind, off-shore wind and BEV's all now being better options financially than the competition, ensuring their ultimate success. And whilst it shouldn't be about economics, it should be about cleaner greener energy and fighting AGW to lower the impacts as much as possible, we have to appreciate that it's a much easier fight to win now that the baby RE/BEV economics gorilla in nappies, has grown into a young Silverback.

*PV - special mention as the UK and other countries with similar solar profiles and generation are of course a long way behind the sunny countries in terms of economics, but it's noticeable now that even subsidy free, a small number of demand side, and supply side deployments are taking place, and in true 'compromise is the best' fashion, we also have the success of the mid way option of PPA's, which continue to go from strength to strength.

So what's left to get excited about perhaps in the next few years, well I think that will be storage, be it intra-day batteries or longer term solutions such as H2, LAES etc etc.. Perhaps now that we are creeping into ever higher annual RE percentages of grid generation, and especially high penetration periods more often, we will start to see these technologies grow faster both here and around the World.

All the best to everyone as we near the end of 2019, and here's to loads more rambling posts from me about this great energy revolution that we get to watch take place in our lifetimes.

Mart, Marty, Martyn.

Solarchaser

So apologies if this has already been posted.

It's one of those things I was both delighted at, and also a little sad as I thought it was my idea lol.

Whitelees wind farm near east kilbride, Glasgow is incorporating batteries.

https://www.scottishpower.com/news/pages/super_battery_plan_to_boost_uks_biggest_onshore_windfarm.aspx

And MY other amazing idea to reduce fuel poverty in social housing.... again already being done.

Combining solar with heat batteries in east Lothian.

https://www.sunamp.com/eastheat/

Hexane

Solarchaser wrote: »

https://www.scottishpower.com/news/pages/super_battery_plan_to_boost_uks_biggest_onshore_windfarm.aspx
And MY other amazing idea to reduce fuel poverty in social housing.... again already being done.
Combining solar with heat batteries in east Lothian.
https://www.sunamp.com/eastheat/

The Scottish Power link leads to a "Not found" page, and the Sunamp/Eastheat one is a promotional item from late 2015 :coffee:

Cardew

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/can-batteries-solve-the-intermittency-problem/

Solarchaser

Hexane

The Scottish Power link leads to a "Not found" page, and the Sunamp/Eastheat one is a promotional item from late 2015

Jeezo, that was a bit of a fail!

The 2015 link was what I meant to post, as an example of actual attempts to mitigate fuel poverty.

Not sure why the Scottish power link doesnt work

The body of it is

The Scottish Government has approved ScottishPower plans for the UK’s largest windfarm, Whitelee, to have its own purpose built super battery on site, in what will be one of the biggest battery projects in the UK.

Charged with clean green renewable power from the site’s 215 turbines, the planned battery storage centre will support the National Grid in maintaining the resilience and stability of the electricity grid, even at times when the wind may not be blowing – a first for a windfarm in the UK at this scale.

The battery storage site will be the size of half a football pitch and will comprise 50MW of lithium-ion battery technology, which is the most cost-effective storage technology for renewable electricity.



Its planned storage capacity makes it the largest windfarm battery in the UK, capable of achieving full charge in less than an hour. This means it will be on standby to provide services like reactive power and frequency response to National Grid, enhancing control and flexibility. The battery can be fully discharging or used in bursts as and when required to keep the electricity network stable by balancing supply and demand.

The battery will also enhance the capability of storing excess energy from wind generation at times when demand is low or wind is high – for instance at night, and released at time of high demand and lower wind.

ABrass

Cardew wrote: »

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/can-batteries-solve-the-intermittency-problem/

July 2018 called and wants it's news back. Hardly news from the last two weeks, although that is the kind of questionable numeracy you see in a lot of deniers.

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

July 2018 called and wants it's news back. Hardly news from the last two weeks, although that is the kind of questionable numeracy you see in a lot of deniers.

.....deniers and die hard nukers.

But there is some truth in the fact that running our energy off dedicated batts, would require a vast amount of storage and cost a fortune.

Euan Mearns, a pro nuker, put a great piece together to prove the problem, just in time for wind, storage and BEV prices to fall, and that's why I think his 'negative' piece is the best one to use when addressing this issue, after all, it can hardly be called partisan.

He suggests we will need 500GWh of intraday battery storage, and that looks like great news to me. Anyone with a keen eye will spot that his calcs in the first graphic suggest a wind and sun spill of 34% of annual generation, and a gas/bio-fuels need of 13% - I'd suggest that for long term storage, even the poorest efficiency methods will get that 13% from the 34%, so ..... sorted!

Sadly, what most critics forget is that storage might well be deployed for free, not at cost to consumers, since entrepreneurs will spot the opportunity of making money through arbitrage. They can buy cheap generation during excess, and sell back during peak demand and shortages.

Also, as we transition to electric transport, then just the cars element would equate to approx 1,500GWh, so V2G should easily be able to provide 500GWh of storage or supply, and that's before we consider commercial vehicles parked up by late afternoon, early evening.

So, whilst the scale of storage may be huge, I'd suggest the problem is tiny, and the cost, or much of the cost, may come via financial opportunities, or the ability to dual use vehicular battery capacity.

Compared to building ..... oh let's say ...... a nuclear powerstation, the storage issue is quite simple, and compared to building a cost efficient, subsidy free nuclear powerstation ........ well the storage 'problem' is negligible.

Martyn1981

Talking about costs, just a quick reminder that whatever the cost of dealing with AGW (or mitigating it as much as is now possible) might be, the alternative is far more expensive.

Climate crisis linked to at least 15 $1bn-plus disasters in 2019

Climate breakdown played a key role in at least 15 events in 2019 that cost more than $1bn (£760m) in damage, with more than half of those costing more than $10bn each.

Extreme weather including floods, storms, droughts and wildfires struck every inhabited continent in the past year, causing devastation and loss of life. Christian Aid, which tracked climate-related destruction in 2019, said the costs in human terms and insured losses were likely to have been underestimated.

Floods in Argentina and Uruguay in January this year forced 11,000 people from their homes. Cyclone Idai killed 1,300 people in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi in March, and Cyclone Fani struck India and Bangladesh in May and June. A stronger than usual monsoon killed 1,900 people in India.

Richer countries were also badly affected, with Storm Eberhard hitting Europe in March and the typhoons Faxai and Hagibis battering Japan in September and October, disrupting the Rugby World Cup. Wildfires laid waste to farming areas in California and caused more than $25bn in damage, and Hurricane Dorian swept along the US east coast, killing 673 people.

The study published on Friday was compiled before the full effects of the Australian wildfires could be assessed.

Kat Kramer, a co-author of the report and the global climate lead at Christian Aid, said time was running out to tackle the climate crisis.

ed110220

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.....deniers and die hard nukers.

But there is some truth in the fact that running our energy off dedicated batts, would require a vast amount of storage and cost a fortune.

Euan Mearns, a pro nuker, put a great piece together to prove the problem, just in time for wind, storage and BEV prices to fall, and that's why I think his 'negative' piece is the best one to use when addressing this issue, after all, it can hardly be called partisan.

He suggests we will need 500GWh of intraday battery storage, and that looks like great news to me. Anyone with a keen eye will spot that his calcs in the first graphic suggest a wind and sun spill of 34% of annual generation, and a gas/bio-fuels need of 13% - I'd suggest that for long term storage, even the poorest efficiency methods will get that 13% from the 34%, so ..... sorted!

Sadly, what most critics forget is that storage might well be deployed for free, not at cost to consumers, since entrepreneurs will spot the opportunity of making money through arbitrage. They can buy cheap generation during excess, and sell back during peak demand and shortages.

Also, as we transition to electric transport, then just the cars element would equate to approx 1,500GWh, so V2G should easily be able to provide 500GWh of storage or supply, and that's before we consider commercial vehicles parked up by late afternoon, early evening.

So, whilst the scale of storage may be huge, I'd suggest the problem is tiny, and the cost, or much of the cost, may come via financial opportunities, or the ability to dual use vehicular battery capacity.

Compared to building ..... oh let's say ...... a nuclear powerstation, the storage issue is quite simple, and compared to building a cost efficient, subsidy free nuclear powerstation ........ well the storage 'problem' is negligible.

The problem with Mearns is that he grossly overestimates himself and underestimates (or simply ignores or is unaware of) actual experts. Here's a good example. A while ago he decided to scan the coastlines of some continents using Google Earth for potential pumped hydro locations. He has no obvious expertise in the field of pumped hydro, but makes do with some simple calculations of amount of water that could be held by the topography and height differences to obtain potential storage. From this he declared that the number of places around the world that were suitable was extremely limited and therefore pumped hydro could only play a small role in storing wind and solar energy. There have been quite a few academic studies done that have come to the opposite conclusion. They are pretty easy for anyone to find using a google search. Now it's possible, though unlikely, that Mearns' cursory Google Earth scan came to a better conclusion than authors with more expertise, better data etc etc. However he did not even acknowledge that others much more qualified than him had looked into the problem, much less tried to explain why they came to such a different conclusion.

Basically I think he's suffering from "elderly right wing white man rails against a world gone mad, thinking he is sane" syndrome.