Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

DiggerUK

Nuclear Power And Hydrogen Four Times Cheaper Than Renewables, New Report Claims

"Hydrogen is rapidly turning into the holy grail for environmentalists and big oil companies alike, because the only by-product of its combustion is water. The government is committed to the UK achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The report, by consultancy LucidCatalyst, claims that nuclear power could create hydrogen and “decarbonise aviation, shipping, cement and industry using … proven technologies”. For hydrogen to be affordable and clean, it says, the gas “must be generated from non-fossil sources, at a price which is competitive with cheap oil”.

It reckons the cost of this transition globally would be about $17 trillion by 2050 — versus $70 trillion if renewables such as wind and solar power were used.

The nuclear industry is on a last-ditch lobbying push as ministers prepare to publish a much-delayed energy white paper that will explain how they plan to cut emissions while keeping the lights on — as well as powering the growing fleet of electric cars."

To illustrate my point about who's costings you accept and who's you don't, here is today's article from The Sunday Times, all very plausible.......but aren't all spin doctors and their accountants singing their own praises..._

Martyn1981

And just for fun, here's a quick reminder of the LCOE as published by the pro-nuclear UK government for 2025, with wind and solar estimated to be in the £40-£60/MWh range (the high end being the prediction for off-shore wind, but contracts have already been issued for £46/MWh as costs continue to fall rapidly), v's the £100/MWh for nuclear.


Electricity generated from wind and solar is 30-50% cheaper than previously thought, according to newly published UK government figures.

With regard to green hydrogen, in case anyone is, shall we say, a bit confused - it's a storage medium, such as pumped hydro, batteries, or CAES/LAES. It will be produced using electroloysis from excess leccy generation. It doesn't care about the leccy  source, though we will of course care about the cost of said leccy generation.

So as always, don't fall for the hype, nor the opinions, instead, stick to reality and the facts.

ABrass

DiggerUK said:

Nuclear Power And Hydrogen Four Times Cheaper Than Renewables, New Report Claims

"Hydrogen is rapidly turning into the holy grail for environmentalists and big oil companies alike, because the only by-product of its combustion is water. The government is committed to the UK achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The report, by consultancy LucidCatalyst, claims that nuclear power could create hydrogen and “decarbonise aviation, shipping, cement and industry using … proven technologies”. For hydrogen to be affordable and clean, it says, the gas “must be generated from non-fossil sources, at a price which is competitive with cheap oil”.

It reckons the cost of this transition globally would be about $17 trillion by 2050 — versus $70 trillion if renewables such as wind and solar power were used.

The nuclear industry is on a last-ditch lobbying push as ministers prepare to publish a much-delayed energy white paper that will explain how they plan to cut emissions while keeping the lights on — as well as powering the growing fleet of electric cars."

To illustrate my point about who's costings you accept and who's you don't, here is today's article from The Sunday Times, all very plausible.......but aren't all spin doctors and their accountants singing their own praises..._

Organisation that exists to sing praises of nuclear power, sings praises of nuclear power. Who'd have thought of that. Life truly is stranger than fiction.

joefizz

DiggerUK said:

To illustrate my point about who's costings you accept and who's you don't,

To reiterate one of my previous points, the costings dont really matter and internet forum calculations about it are meaningless. What does matter is always on, fixed output, reliable, backbone background generation. Even more important with a grid migrating to majority RE use.

Unfortunately in a lot of cases going forward thats nuclear. That generation is required at any cost. If its not nuclear then a lot of countries are looking at running up the coal stations again.

I remember a previous poster commenting about mini nukes and at the time seemed far fetched but more and more countries are looking at them, particularly with upgraded distributed grid optimised for renewables, they could be placed throughout the network in a better configuration than today.

As long as I dont have to live within the fallout region of course ;-)

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

DiggerUK said:

To illustrate my point about who's costings you accept and who's you don't,

That generation is required at any cost. 

Nope. It's only required up to the cost of RE and storage.
It's very important to take facts, costs and reality into account when considering the need (or not) for nuclear.

PS - Yes, lots of countries interested in, and looking at mini-nukes, but if they aren't cost effective, and they certainly don't appear to be, then don't expect anything significant from them.
If however, they are absolutely great, then a couple of years ago Rolls Royce estimated the Worldwide market capacity at around 65-85GW. To put that in context, it's equal to the output of installed PV at that time.

ABrass

joefizz said:

DiggerUK said:

To illustrate my point about who's costings you accept and who's you don't,

To reiterate one of my previous points, the costings dont really matter and internet forum calculations about it are meaningless. What does matter is always on, fixed  tooutput, reliable, backbone background generation. Even more important with a grid migrating to majority RE use.

Unfortunately in a lot of cases going forward thats nuclear. That generation is required at any cost. If its not nuclear then a lot of countries are looking at running up the coal stations again.

I remember a previous poster commenting about mini nukes and at the time seemed far fetched but more and more countries are looking at them, particularly with upgraded distributed grid optimised for renewables, they could be placed throughout the network in a better configuration than today.

As long as I dont have to live within the fallout region of course ;-)

They are still far fetched. In that they're not going to be in place before 2029 according to Rolls Royce. Given nuclear powers track record of delivering more and earlier then maybe 2035? Assuming that it doesn't prove to be just as much of a disappointment as the EPR.

Martyn1981

Just to cheer everyone up, here's a quick reminder why we need to reduce CO2(e) emissions as fast as possible, as the cumulative total is growing extremely fast. The Mauna Loa (Hawaii) monitoring has risen from 407.83 ppm in July 2019 to 410.04 ppm in July 2020. Pre industrial revolution levels were between 260-280ppm.

United In Science 2020 Report: Climate Change Has Not Stopped For COVID19

State of Global Climate (WMO and UK’s Met Office)

The average global temperature for 2016–2020 is expected to be the warmest on record, about 1.1°C above 1850–1900, a reference period for temperature change since pre-industrial times and 0.24°C warmer than the global average temperature for 2011–2015.

In the five-year period 2020–2024, the chance of at least one year exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is 24%, with a very small chance (3%) of the five-year mean exceeding this level. It is likely (~70% chance) that one or more months during the next five years will be at least 1.5°C warmer than pre-industrial levels.

In every year between 2016 and 2020, Arctic sea ice extent has been below average. 2016–2019 recorded a greater glacier mass loss than all other past five-year periods since 1950. The rate of global mean sea-level rise increased between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020.

Major impacts have been caused by extreme weather and climate events. A clear fingerprint of human-induced climate change has been identified on many of these extreme events.

Martyn1981

Bad news day for FF interests.

We have growing pressure on and from investors in FF companies:

Investors that manage US$47tn demand world’s biggest polluters back plan for net-zero emissions

A group representing investors that collectively manage more than US$47tn in assets has demanded the world’s biggest corporate polluters back strategies to reach net-zero emissions and promised to hold them to public account.

Climate Action 100+, an initiative supported by 518 institutional investor organisations across the globe, has written to 161 fossil fuel, mining, transport and other big-emitting companies to set 30 climate measures and targets against which they will be analysed in a report to be released early next year.

It is the latest step in a campaign by climate-concerned shareholders to force business leaders to explain how their targets and strategies will help reach the goals of the 2015 Paris agreement.

And a surprise to me, that we may have reached peak oil demand. I thought we might have hit 'peak price' as supply (still growing) outstrips demand, but I hadn't realised we were even close to hitting peak demand, which will itself, further damage the price (and profits/profitability) of oil production.

Global oil demand may have passed peak, says BP energy report

BP has called time on the world’s rising demand for fossil fuels after finding that demand for oil may have already reached its peak and faces an unprecedented decades-long decline.

Demand for oil may never fully recover from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the oil firm, and may begin falling in absolute terms for the first time in modern history.

BP’s influential annual report on the future of energy, published on Monday, says oil will be replaced by clean electricity from windfarms, solar panels and hydropower plants as renewable energy emerges as the fastest-growing energy source on record.

Spencer Dale, BP’s chief economist, said the company’s vision of the world’s energy future had become greener due to a combination of the Covid-19 pandemic and the quickening pace of climate action, which has hastened “peak oil”.

Martyn1981

The CBI is setting out a great argument for investing in green technology, RE and energy efficiency ...... but will the government listen ..... fingers crossed perhaps?

UK must become global leader in tackling climate crisis, says CBI

Britain needs to step up and become a global leader in climate action, creating a number of green jobs and boosting productivity to help the economy recover from the coronavirus pandemic, the CBI will say on Monday.

Launching the organisation’s “green recovery roadmap”, the CBI’s director-general, Carolyn Fairbairn, will call on the government to take ambitious steps nationally and use the rest of this year to reignite global efforts to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Its recommendations to the government include creating jobs and energy savings by retrofitting homes and buildings to be more energy-efficient, pumping money into the development of sustainable aviation fuels, and kickstarting the creation of a hydrogen economy in the UK as part of efforts to find new, cleaner ways to heat the UK’s homes and businesses.

The CBI is calling on the government to use the upcoming autumn budget to prioritise public spending on low-carbon projects and “gamechanging” technologies.

The CBI’s green recovery roadmap outlines a number of priorities designed to reignite business investment and create green jobs.

joefizz

ABrass said:

They are still far fetched. In that they're not going to be in place before 2029 according to Rolls Royce. Given nuclear powers track record of delivering more and earlier then maybe 2035? Assuming that it doesn't prove to be just as much of a disappointment as the EPR.

At least! Dont forget though they are aiming for 2050 so everything at the minute is a bit of a stopgap.

Saying that though the Russians are already just putting sub nukes in shipping containers and fitting them to old barges. Im sure thats going to end well.

Have a look at the crown estates wind farm roll out plans for that sort of timeframe and its possible to see the future gaps in where 'something' is going to be required to maintain supply and stability. Or simply we all get used to either having downtime or incredibly expensive periods of electricity (effectively social engineering).

I wasnt joking when I mentioned the coal aspect. If everything else is RE people are then preparing to justify using coal as stop gaps (or more likely gas in areas where its mainlined). Now thats a tough decision but for those places without the 10-15 year build for nuclear its not really much of a decision.