Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Might be of interest as we were chatting about frequency stabilisation of the grid as we lose large thermal powerstations.

Drax hydro provides National Grid stability

Drax Group’s Cruachan hydroelectric pumped storage plant in Argyll in Scotland has begun supplying critical system stability support services to keep Britain’s power system secure.

The six-year partnership with National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO), which is responsible for balancing supply and demand for electricity in Great Britain, is part of a strategy to decarbonise the grid. 

Built inside a hollowed-out mountain, one of Cruachan Power Station's four generating units will provide the grid with support services including inertia.

This helps to keep the electricity system running at the right frequency to reduce the risk of power cuts. 

It will achieve this through using a small amount of power from the grid to spin the turbine 600 times every minute offering inertia to the grid to manage changes in frequency without generating unneeded electricity.

Through the stability tender the ESO has procured the equivalent amount of inertia as would have been provided by around five coal-fired power stations – and in the process will save consumers up to €139m over six years.

Pile_o_stone

German floating PV plant works better than expected

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/07/15/german-floating-pv-plant-works-better-than-expected/
"Floating PV systems are still relatively new in Germany and the largest, a 750 kW facility, was installed a year ago by gas company Erdgas Südwest and gravel plant operator Armin Ossola on Lake Maiwald, in Renchen, southern Germany. A year on, the results have been better than predicted.

The 2,300 solar modules on the lake produced 860 MWh of solar power in the first year of operation, as reported by Erdgas, more than the 800 MWh anticipated. The gravel company beat predictions it would consume two-thirds of the electricity generated at the lake by instead using 75% of the yield to operate heavy equipment in the adjacent gravel works, thus reducing electricity costs 10%.

The plant also withstood extreme weather conditions with the modules surviving a stormy February after last year’s hot summer. In February, wind speeds of more than 100 kilometers per hour merely bent the inverter roof, with the problem quickly repaired."

NigeWick

DiggerUK said:

I gave up going in to debates on costs for energy a while back, getting figures that can be accepted 100% is a pipe dream. What I accept without question is that all options for electricity production have to be subsidised, there are too many snouts in too many troughs.

Are you saying that you don't care how much your electricity costs? I thought this was a money saving site. 

Martyn1981

This line says it all - "Nothing succeeds like success, they say,"

New South Wales To Add Second Renewable Energy Zone

Last month, the Australian state of New South Wales announced the creation of a renewable energy zone northwest of the city of Sydney. The stated goal of the project was 3 gigawatts of clean energy. It got proposals for 27 gigawatts (GW) — 7 times more than expected. Nothing succeeds like success, they say, and so less than a month later, NSW is back with another zero emissions proposal.

This time, the target is 8 GW of clean energy from another renewable energy zone in the New England section of the state west of Port Macquarie and Coff’s Harbor. The new project is expected to cost AU$79 million and attract AU$12.7 billion in investment. It will create 2,000 construction jobs and 1,300 ongoing jobs while lowering energy prices for the region.

Creating a renewable energy zone involves making strategic transmission upgrades to bring multiple new generators online in areas with strong renewable resources and community support. The government of New South Wales says the second REZs will play a “vital role” in delivering affordable energy to help replace the state’s existing power stations as they retire over the coming decades, according to PV Magazine.

[My bold.]

Martyn1981

Nice to know the oil industry is starting to take the climate crisis serious, or perhaps are trying to get ahead of the curve as growing international pressures start to weigh down on them. I'm thinking of the many times CNBC have now used the term 'FF's are the new tobacco' when suggesting investing in them may not be a good idea moving forward.
Of course, they may just be doing this to reduce costs and improve profitability?

World's largest oil firm agrees to carbon cuts to tackle climate crisis

The world’s biggest oil company, Saudi Aramco, has joined an alliance of oil companies to set the first industry-wide target to help tackle the climate crisis by setting carbon emissions goals.

Saudi Arabia’s state oil giant has agreed to reduce the carbon intensity of its business as part of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) which includes Shell, BP and ExxonMobil.

The industry-funded alliance has pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of their fossil fuel production by between 20 and 21kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of crude by 2025, or 13% below 2017 levels.

To meet this target oil companies will need to reduce the methane emissions that leak from oil and gas projects, cut gas flaring, invest in carbon capture technology or even run their oil rigs using renewable energy.

Pile_o_stone

Martyn1981 said:

Nice to know the oil industry is starting to take the climate crisis serious, or perhaps are trying to get ahead of the curve as growing international pressures start to weigh down on them. I'm thinking of the many times CNBC have now used the term 'FF's are the new tobacco' when suggesting investing in them may not be a good idea moving forward.
Of course, they may just be doing this to reduce costs and improve profitability?

World's largest oil firm agrees to carbon cuts to tackle climate crisis

The world’s biggest oil company, Saudi Aramco, has joined an alliance of oil companies to set the first industry-wide target to help tackle the climate crisis by setting carbon emissions goals.

Saudi Arabia’s state oil giant has agreed to reduce the carbon intensity of its business as part of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) which includes Shell, BP and ExxonMobil.

The industry-funded alliance has pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of their fossil fuel production by between 20 and 21kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of crude by 2025, or 13% below 2017 levels.

To meet this target oil companies will need to reduce the methane emissions that leak from oil and gas projects, cut gas flaring, invest in carbon capture technology or even run their oil rigs using renewable energy.

It's quite funny that even the oil and gas companies are finding that renewable energy is cheaper than using their own oil/gas to power their facilities.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/oil-and-gas-companies-can-power-offshore-platforms-with-renewables
"An oil and gas platform operator could cut its electricity bill by half in switching to clean energy via this approach, according to a recent Wood Mackenzie insight on the topic."

Martyn1981

Article on air conditioning and how much reduction in CO2(e) could be reduced by changing to 'climate friendly' refrigerant gases, and also the 'negawatts' possible by doubling their efficiency by 2050.

Air conditioning curbs could save years' worth of emissions – study

Up to eight years’ worth of global greenhouse gas emissions could be prevented over the next four decades by setting tougher standards for air conditioning, according to a study.

It found that improving the energy efficiency of cooling systems by using climate-friendly refrigerants could remove emissions equivalent to between 210bn and 460bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2060.

The peer-reviewed analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that cutting the use of climate-warming refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) alone could help avoid up to 0.4C of global warming by the end of the century.

Doubling the energy efficiency of air conditioning by 2050 would cut electricity use by 1,300 gigawatts, the equivalent of all the coal-fired power generation capacity in China and India in 2018, saving up to $2.9tn in electricity costs.

DiggerUK

NigeWick said:

DiggerUK said:

I gave up going in to debates on costs for energy a while back, getting figures that can be accepted 100% is a pipe dream. What I accept without question is that all options for electricity production have to be subsidised, there are too many snouts in too many troughs.

Are you saying that you don't care how much your electricity costs? I thought this was a money saving site. 

It is often claimed that there is no such thing as a stupid question, I agree.
There is more than enough evidence of daft questions though and yes, I did notice you're emoji.

As I live on this planet I use lots of electricity, that goes without saying; it is the same case for nigh on all humans. Resources are used to provide that electricity, resources cost, they ain't free.
Most all discussions investigating the costs of producing that electricity end up partisan in a very extreme way. I just point out that that it would be best to prioritise those ways of producing electricity that have a proven track record of doing what they say on the tin.

It is a given known that all methods of electrical production consume  subsidies. As I am one of the tax payers of those subsidies I just demand that they work 24/7. I don't feel I am being unreasonable in making such a demand.

Wind and Solar fail to pass that threshold, without an efficient way to store that power they don't seem likely to ever be an efficient solution.

If the demand is for CO2 low, or CO2 free production of electricity, fine, I'll live with that despite having no fear of CO2. Just make sure it also keeps the lights on and the wheels of industry turning. Nuclear, Geothermal and Hydro have a proven track record of doing just that, I say  stick with what we know works..._

Solarchaser

Wants something that works 24/7, sites hydro, but doesn't site battery storage. Hmmm 

But yeah let's stick to what we know, who needs electric street lights, gaslighting is fine 🤔🤪

DiggerUK

Solarchaser said:

Wants something that works 24/7, sites hydro, but doesn't site battery storage.......

There is no need to store electrical energy from hydro, the dam is the storage container, the water the power source. You just open and close a valve. 

Iceland has no storage worth talking about and hydro provides the lion's share of their electricity.

"Wind and Solar fail to pass that threshold, without an efficient way to store that power they don't seem likely to ever be an efficient solution." (op cit)