Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

But that is the very point. The choice isn't just between Nuclear and Gas, two outdated industries that would be better confined to the history books. Clean, sustainable, non polluting forms of energy supply in the form storage are available now. They may not yet be capable of ensuring around the clock supply but progress in that direction is taking place.

Apologies, but am still unable to grasp why you continue to promote Fossil Fuels when clean alternatives exist. Politicians may well need convincing, but I would have thought those with a genuine desire to make the world a better and healthier place to live in would not.

Of course other opinions are available.

Lets look at the facts, HPC is going ahead even though we can't see how it makes sense and it seems almost certain that the gov will sign up to at least one more expensive new reactor as well.  I am suggesting that given the govt are determined to go ahead with 'base load' generation projects then perhaps it is worth debating the options and maybe selecting one that is 'least bad' based on the fact that it won't be a millstone for 60 years and is most likely to fit with renewable generation.

I could ask you why you are so determined to push renewables when in the real world the govt is going to look at the variability in generation, get scared, and choose nuclear.

Honestly I would love for the govt to see the way to solving the problem with renewables and storage but that seems like a uturn too far too expect it to happen before they commission another nuke.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

But that is the very point. The choice isn't just between Nuclear and Gas, two outdated industries that would be better confined to the history books. Clean, sustainable, non polluting forms of energy supply in the form storage are available now. They may not yet be capable of ensuring around the clock supply but progress in that direction is taking place.

Apologies, but am still unable to grasp why you continue to promote Fossil Fuels when clean alternatives exist. Politicians may well need convincing, but I would have thought those with a genuine desire to make the world a better and healthier place to live in would not.

Of course other opinions are available.

Lets look at the facts, HPC is going ahead even though we can't see how it makes sense and it seems almost certain that the gov will sign up to at least one more expensive new reactor as well.  I am suggesting that given the govt are determined to go ahead with 'base load' generation projects then perhaps it is worth debating the options and maybe selecting one that is 'least bad' based on the fact that it won't be a millstone for 60 years and is most likely to fit with renewable generation.

I could ask you why you are so determined to push renewables when in the real world the govt is going to look at the variability in generation, get scared, and choose nuclear.

Honestly I would love for the govt to see the way to solving the problem with renewables and storage but that seems like a uturn too far too expect it to happen before they commission another nuke.

OK, let's look at nuclear. The day before the contract signing, with the Chinese delegation on the ground, Theresa May called it off, and asked for a review. Now, I may be reading into that, but it seems like even the Tories realised that nuclear was not economically competitive, and risked upsetting the Chinese. Fast forward a couple of months, and the UK signed up. Again, reading into it, but I'd suggest that Chinese said - "You've just voted to leave the EU, do you really want to pee us off royally?"

Next let's look at SC, no deal was brokered as the £5bn down and ~£80/MWh was considered too expensive by the UK, and too low to be profitable by the French/Chinese consortium.

Then we have the Govt's own economic advisory telling them to drop the plan for 6(ish) nuclear power stations and 16GW, and instead stop at HPC +1, then review the position again as RE & RE + storage were looking to be the cheaper option, and since then RE has gotten a lot cheaper as shown in the dramatic price reduction in off-shore wind in the 2019 auction, from the dramatically lower prices in the 2017 auction. It's also worth remembering that HPC carries with it a poison pill of £20bn if we now cancel, otherwise I strongly suspect that cancellation might be a real consideration.

So, whilst I agree that on the face of it, it seems like the Tories are hell bent on rolling out some sort of nuclear/FF option for what may soon become 'mythical' baseload, I would also suggest that 'in the real World' those options are losing ground rapidly, not just because they are dirty, unpopular and slow, but also because they no longer have any form of economic argument on their side, and the Tories do like a good economic argument.

So given your choice of nuclear or FF gas + CCS, I would reject the binary nature of the question and promote a cheaper, faster, cleaner, greener and more popular option instead. After all most nations haven't got nuclear power, don't want nuclear power, and can't afford to roll it out nor insure it, so if the majority of nations don't need it, then why is it essential to the UK. The same can be said for FF CCS which appears to be floundering, primarily over costs. And as a personal aside, when the carbon is already dead and buried, it seems somewhat ridiculous to exhume it, just to cremate it and give it another burial.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

But that is the very point. The choice isn't just between Nuclear and Gas, two outdated industries that would be better confined to the history books. Clean, sustainable, non polluting forms of energy supply in the form storage are available now. They may not yet be capable of ensuring around the clock supply but progress in that direction is taking place.

Apologies, but am still unable to grasp why you continue to promote Fossil Fuels when clean alternatives exist. Politicians may well need convincing, but I would have thought those with a genuine desire to make the world a better and healthier place to live in would not.

Of course other opinions are available.

Lets look at the facts, HPC is going ahead even though we can't see how it makes sense and it seems almost certain that the gov will sign up to at least one more expensive new reactor as well.  I am suggesting that given the govt are determined to go ahead with 'base load' generation projects then perhaps it is worth debating the options and maybe selecting one that is 'least bad' based on the fact that it won't be a millstone for 60 years and is most likely to fit with renewable generation.

I could ask you why you are so determined to push renewables when in the real world the govt is going to look at the variability in generation, get scared, and choose nuclear.

Honestly I would love for the govt to see the way to solving the problem with renewables and storage but that seems like a uturn too far too expect it to happen before they commission another nuke.

OK, let's look at nuclear. The day before the contract signing, with the Chinese delegation on the ground, Theresa May called it off, and asked for a review. Now, I may be reading into that, but it seems like even the Tories realised that nuclear was not economically competitive, and risked upsetting the Chinese. Fast forward a couple of months, and the UK signed up. Again, reading into it, but I'd suggest that Chinese said - "You've just voted to leave the EU, do you really want to pee us off royally?"

Next let's look at SC, no deal was brokered as the £5bn down and ~£80/MWh was considered too expensive by the UK, and too low to be profitable by the French/Chinese consortium.

Then we have the Govt's own economic advisory telling them to drop the plan for 6(ish) nuclear power stations and 16GW, and instead stop at HPC +1, then review the position again as RE & RE + storage were looking to be the cheaper option, and since then RE has gotten a lot cheaper as shown in the dramatic price reduction in off-shore wind in the 2019 auction, from the dramatically lower prices in the 2017 auction. It's also worth remembering that HPC carries with it a poison pill of £20bn if we now cancel, otherwise I strongly suspect that cancellation might be a real consideration.

So, whilst I agree that on the face of it, it seems like the Tories are hell bent on rolling out some sort of nuclear/FF option for what may soon become 'mythical' baseload, I would also suggest that 'in the real World' those options are losing ground rapidly, not just because they are dirty, unpopular and slow, but also because they no longer have any form of economic argument on their side, and the Tories do like a good economic argument.

So given your choice of nuclear or FF gas + CCS, I would reject the binary nature of the question and promote a cheaper, faster, cleaner, greener and more popular option instead. After all most nations haven't got nuclear power, don't want nuclear power, and can't afford to roll it out nor insure it, so if the majority of nations don't need it, then why is it essential to the UK. The same can be said for FF CCS which appears to be floundering, primarily over costs. And as a personal aside, when the carbon is already dead and buried, it seems somewhat ridiculous to exhume it, just to cremate it and give it another burial.

My argument is not about what is best but what is the best solution we can hope for from this govt and I would argue fossil fuel plus CCS as it is a shorter term option is less bad than a second nuke plant.
I hope you are right, perhaps the supertanker can be turned before we end up committed to another HPC and lock in probably the highest electricity prices in the world.  

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

But that is the very point. The choice isn't just between Nuclear and Gas, two outdated industries that would be better confined to the history books. Clean, sustainable, non polluting forms of energy supply in the form storage are available now. They may not yet be capable of ensuring around the clock supply but progress in that direction is taking place.

Apologies, but am still unable to grasp why you continue to promote Fossil Fuels when clean alternatives exist. Politicians may well need convincing, but I would have thought those with a genuine desire to make the world a better and healthier place to live in would not.

Of course other opinions are available.

Lets look at the facts, HPC is going ahead even though we can't see how it makes sense and it seems almost certain that the gov will sign up to at least one more expensive new reactor as well.  I am suggesting that given the govt are determined to go ahead with 'base load' generation projects then perhaps it is worth debating the options and maybe selecting one that is 'least bad' based on the fact that it won't be a millstone for 60 years and is most likely to fit with renewable generation.

I could ask you why you are so determined to push renewables when in the real world the govt is going to look at the variability in generation, get scared, and choose nuclear.

Honestly I would love for the govt to see the way to solving the problem with renewables and storage but that seems like a uturn too far too expect it to happen before they commission another nuke.

OK, let's look at nuclear. The day before the contract signing, with the Chinese delegation on the ground, Theresa May called it off, and asked for a review. Now, I may be reading into that, but it seems like even the Tories realised that nuclear was not economically competitive, and risked upsetting the Chinese. Fast forward a couple of months, and the UK signed up. Again, reading into it, but I'd suggest that Chinese said - "You've just voted to leave the EU, do you really want to pee us off royally?"

Next let's look at SC, no deal was brokered as the £5bn down and ~£80/MWh was considered too expensive by the UK, and too low to be profitable by the French/Chinese consortium.

Then we have the Govt's own economic advisory telling them to drop the plan for 6(ish) nuclear power stations and 16GW, and instead stop at HPC +1, then review the position again as RE & RE + storage were looking to be the cheaper option, and since then RE has gotten a lot cheaper as shown in the dramatic price reduction in off-shore wind in the 2019 auction, from the dramatically lower prices in the 2017 auction. It's also worth remembering that HPC carries with it a poison pill of £20bn if we now cancel, otherwise I strongly suspect that cancellation might be a real consideration.

So, whilst I agree that on the face of it, it seems like the Tories are hell bent on rolling out some sort of nuclear/FF option for what may soon become 'mythical' baseload, I would also suggest that 'in the real World' those options are losing ground rapidly, not just because they are dirty, unpopular and slow, but also because they no longer have any form of economic argument on their side, and the Tories do like a good economic argument.

So given your choice of nuclear or FF gas + CCS, I would reject the binary nature of the question and promote a cheaper, faster, cleaner, greener and more popular option instead. After all most nations haven't got nuclear power, don't want nuclear power, and can't afford to roll it out nor insure it, so if the majority of nations don't need it, then why is it essential to the UK. The same can be said for FF CCS which appears to be floundering, primarily over costs. And as a personal aside, when the carbon is already dead and buried, it seems somewhat ridiculous to exhume it, just to cremate it and give it another burial.

I hope you are right, perhaps the supertanker can be turned before we end up committed to another HPC and lock in probably the highest electricity prices in the world.

Too late, HPC is regularly referred to in international news for its high price. SC will have to be cheaper, even if it too is horrifically expensive. So in a decade or so when the most expensive off-shore wind CfD's come to an end, we will be able to look forward to another 30yrs of the HPC CfD and possibly the highest leccy price contract in the World.* UK number one again.

*Give or take Fukushima with the high price to build, plus the $200bn+ to decommission, spread over a 40yr lifespan.

silverwhistle

Elsewhere on this board there have been discussions on investments and people wanting to put their money where their mouths are. It got me wondering whether as electricity users we will all have to pay the premium for nuclear power even if we are on 'green' tariffs. Will C*rd*w come on here fulminating about the surcharge and the poorest consumers having to pay the subsidy?

Martyn1981

Law and order wind farms in Germany:

Germany publishes 20GW offshore wind law

The German government has published a draft Bill that sets 2030 and 2040 offshore wind targets of 20GW and 40GW, respectively.

silverwhistle

Does anyone have an FT account as I've seen they have a headline saying we should build nuclear - "future prosperity depends on securing reliable zero carbon at the lowest cost"..?

Martyn1981

Interesting comparison of the big 3 (EU, US and China) as they look to grow their way out of the coming recession/depression. Sorry to keep wittering on about it, but the article explains why US actions are so important, they do set a standard that many others will follow, if only as an excuse to do less.

After Coronavirus, What’s Next? China: More Coal, US: More Oil, EU: More Renewables

The vast majority of carbon emissions come from three places — China, Europe, and the US. The US is planning to spend billions of taxpayer dollars propping up the oil and gas industry. China has embarked on a plan to build new coal-fired thermal generating plants. Only Europe is responding in what might be called a rational, forward thinking way. The recovery plan proposed by the EU focuses on creating a low carbon economy. Here’s a closer look.

One thought though, is that China already seems to have excess coal generation capacity. As they open new plants, older ones close, or run at ever low capacity levels. So perhaps, maybe, possibly ..... a policy to spend money in the country to stimulate the economy by building coal generation, might not lead to an increase in coal generation/emissions ..... I'm not really sure?

Martyn1981

The pressure continues for a green recovery stimulus in the UK.

UK businesses sign letter to PM ‘pushing for clean recovery’

More than 200 UK businesses across energy, finance and other sectors have signed a letter urging the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government to deliver a clean, inclusive and resilient coronavirus recovery plan.

Chief executives from across the UK economy have offered support to the government in tackling the pandemic, while requesting the UK leader to provide “clear vision” for recovery efforts that align with the UK's wider social, environmental and climate goals.

In the letter the signatories stated that efforts to “rescue and repair” the economy in response to the current crisis “can and should be aligned” with the UK's legislated target of net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest.

The letter’s UK CEO and managing director signatories include Eon UK’s Michael Lewis, Engie’s Nicola Lovett, Glennmont Partners’ Joost Bergsma, London Pensions Fund Authority’s Robert Branagh, National Grid’s John Pettigrew, Ramboll’s Mathew Riley, SSE’s Alistair Phillips-Davies, The Climate Group’s Helen Clarkson, ScottishPower’s Keith Anderson and Shell UK chair Sinead Lynch.

Signatories span sectors including banking and investing, construction, retail, manufacturing as well as energy.

National Grid chief executive John Pettigrew said: “We’ve estimated that the energy sector alone will need hundreds of thousands of new recruits as we work towards Net Zero and believe that an economic recovery with climate action at its heart will be key to unlocking these opportunities.”

Martyn1981

If this article is correct, then the UK is doing really well when it comes to energy storage deployments:

UK energy storage 'nears 4GW'

Almost 4GW of energy storage capacity is now connected to the UK network with a further 9GW in the planning process, according to a new report released today by the Electricity Storage Network (ESN).

The report – 'Electricity Storage: Pathways to a Net Zero Future' – said there is a ‘shovel ready’ pipeline of billions of pounds worth of electricity storage projects.

Projections of the amount of storage needed by 2035 range from 15GW to 29GW, the report said.

That last quote interested me. It's far less than the 500GWh that I've seen (and refer to) as a rough figure for intra-day storage for 100% RE leccy. Even if we assume 4-6hrs of storage it's still 'only' around 60-170GWh, but that makes sense as the amount of storage needed won't be linear, but will instead ramp up dramatically as we get ever closer to 100% RE, so 2035 probably reflects a much lower figure than 2040-50 will need. So, the UK nicely on course ..... perhaps?