Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

Speaking of large scale longer term storage, we have this item, which if I'm playing with the numbers correctly would have up to 1.2GW and 30GWh of storage potential. Just throwaway estimates at this point, but for comparison we are told that the UK will probably need around 20GW+ of storage to cope with a very high to 100% annual RE penetration. [Dinorwig is about 1.7GW and 9GWh.]

SSE Renewables receives government consent for Coire Glas pumped storage scheme

SSE Renewables says the Scottish Government has granted consent for its proposed Coire Glas project, the UK’s largest newly planned hydro pumped storage scheme.

SSE Renewables says this decision marks another step toward helping Scotland and the UK deliver their net-zero ambitions. If commercially approved, Coire Glas could double the UK’s pumped storage volume capacity and provide the national grid with the low-carbon balancing flexibility needed to reduce energy costs to consumers while helping decarbonize the power system, according to a press release. The project’s future commercial development is subject to identifying the right market investment framework.

The Coire Glas project, located near Loch Lochy in Lochaber in the Scottish Highlands, would be the UK’s first new pumped storage scheme in over 30 years. Initially approved for a 600-MW scheme in December 2013, revised plans were submitted in April 2018 to the Scottish Government for an up-to-1500-MW scheme. The changes were designed to maximize the potential of the site and help the UK in its transition to a net zero energy system by 2050.

The newly-approved scheme would be capable of producing power for 24 hours non-stop and would have a pumped storage capacity of up to 30 GWh, SSE Renewables said.

I find this most interesting because (just to name drop for a moment) a couple of years ago I was chatting with the Chief Electricity Engineer at the National Grid. I'm sure he told me that Dinorwig wasn't value for money and he couldn't see any similar schemes being built in the foreseeable future. Perhaps I got it wrong or perhaps with the decreasing costs and massive expansion of wind energy, the maths have changed??? 

Hi. I know nothing, so these are just my personal thoughts, but I can understand why such comments may have been made as Dinorwig was built to help solve the problems associated with nuclear, chiefly that it can't demand follow*, and will overproduce at night. So storage, 'heat electric' and E7 were created. So the storage side is needed to make the generation side economical as per intermittent renewables.
Whether or not the storage side can be profitable is another question entirely and it might be via the payments for frequency balancing, peak supply etc etc etc that these 'things' become viable. I also assume that these costs today, and in the future, will be wrapped up in our charges, passed on by the energy suppliers who in turn are paying the costs to the NG and generators to provide a package?
*In case any nukers want to argue that nuclear can be ramped up and down a bit - yes it can, but its costs remain, just spread over a smaller amount of generation, as unlike FF generation there are no fuel savings. HPC is touted to be able to ramp down 60% (which would effectively push up the cost of that lower generation by 150%), but the contract docs show that it will not be ramping down.

Martyn1981

Opening paragraph says it all, nice to remember and chat about the other tools in the RE toolbox.

Solar panels, wind turbines, solar panels, wind turbines, solar panels … you know the theme in the energy-generation sector. However, we’ve got a fun one tonight that doesn’t get much love — because it’s hardly deployed anywhere. As you might have guessed from the headline, I’m talking about tidal turbines.

3 Tidal Turbines
 Pop Into New York City’s East River

Martyn1981

Couple of items on UK and (of course) Scottish off-shore wind, plus other coastal water issues such as leccy transmission and potential CCS.

UK maps offshore energy sites to support decarbonisation

A new interactive mapping application has been launched that reveals the location of every energy-related site in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) that could help decarbonise offshore energy.

The map shows the proximity of existing oil and gas infrastructure to offshore wind farms, electrical cables and carbon capture and storage (CCS) sites, which will assist in gauging the potential for reuse when decommissioning assessments are being made.

Wow! From 8GW to 11GW that's a 37.5% increase.

Scottish Government bumps up offshore wind target to 11GW

The Scottish Government has set a new ambition to increase offshore wind capacity to 11GW of energy installed by 2030, up from 8GW, and has adopted a plan that identifies commercial-scale offshore wind sites. 

The aim of substantially increasing the offshore wind capacity in Scottish waters supports the delivery of Scotland’s 2017 Energy Strategy and the decarbonisation of heat and transport.

The strategy has been agreed following an extensive consultation with industry, stakeholders, coastal communities and environmental organisations.

And lastly a really interesting article, packing a huge amount of information into a small package. Worth a read.

Wind, PV sends energy emissions into decline from 2027

Wind and solar combined will account for 56% of global electricity generation by mid-century and together with batteries take 80% of the $15.1trn invested in new power capacity over the next 30 years, the analysis found.

An additional $14 trillion is invested in the grid to 2050.

BNEF CEO Jon Moore said: “The next 10 years will be crucial for the energy transition.

“There are three key things that we will need to see: accelerated deployment of wind and PV; faster consumer uptake in electric vehicles, small-scale renewables, and low-carbon heating technology, such as heat pumps; and scaled-up development and deployment of zero-carbon fuels.”

BNEF chief economist and the NEO 2020 lead author Seb Henbest said: “Our projections for the power system have become even more bullish for renewables than in previous years, based purely on cost dynamics.

“What this year's study highlights is the tremendous opportunity for low-carbon power to help decarbonise transport, buildings and industry – both through direct electrification and via green hydrogen.”

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 said:

silverwhistle said:

Those megapack batteries at 3MWh each would on  their own be a useful local reinforcement embedded within networks and not just associated with generation sites. I know my local DNO in the past had small generators of shipping container size in some critical spots for peak lopping.

Couldn't agree more, I really think something like that could be used to mop up supply side excesses when needed, support increased demand side generation by storing excess PV, and reduce the need for the supply to the area to cope with annual peaks and the associated costs.
What if each local sub station had something like this, but sized appropriately, would we then be able to install much larger amounts of PV? Our supplies are typically 80A+ (about 20kW) so the cables can cope with much higher loads than the 3.68kW export standard, it's just the ability to cope with it locally at the time of generation that is a problem.
I mention this as I assume as time goes on, with more PV being deployed and bigger systems possible and more economic*, then it seems that we can kill multiple birds with less stones ....... (too early to mention birds again?)

*3.68kW wasn't a bad number with low installs and 250Wp panels, but now that we approaching 400Wp standard panels and similar installs now reaching 6kWp+.

Doh! Why didn't I mention this? Tesla is already offering this ...... kinda ...... but on a domestic up basis not a DNO down basis with their UK based Tesla tariff for folk who own a Powerwall. It's 11p/kWh import and export, or 8p/kWh if you also own a Tesla car, and no standing charge. Tesla then uses the Powerwalls as a VPP (virtual power plant).

Octopus Energy - Tesla tariff FAQs

Cardew

Pile_o_stone said:

Solarchaser said:

Speaking for myself only, from 2014 we were promised more devolved powers that never arrived, and promised that everything that came back from EU would go to Scotland rather than the UK and that hasn't happened.
The internal market bill is further stripping of devolution. 

So in short when the UK gov tells us about more devolution coming, I straight up dont believe them, as the actions point in the other direction.

The EU, im a fence sitter.
What I'd like to see is an independent Scotland inside the EU for maybe 5 years, and then an in/out referendum, because I just dont know if its a positive or negative thing.

If brexit has taught us anything, its how much the media and the current government lies to us from bendy bananas, to £350m to the NHS and even no control over our borders.

As the wee nyaf said in that film "I want the truth"
And its crystal clear we will never get that with the current government 

I'm not sure you can get the truth from any government, and the larger the government is the more they hide their misdeeds in the herd. If I were living in Scotland I'd vote for independence, but outside the EU. When I see the SNP on TV, all the arguments they make for EU membership are the same ones the UK government make for Scotland to stay in the UK. When they talk about independence, they make the same arguments the Brexiteers made about leaving the EU. It all seems very muddled and hypocritical. I was working in Scotland during the last Indyref and the one guy who impressed me was the Green Party leader who said that people should ignore the economic arguments and ask themselves simply whether they wanted to live in an independent country or not, even if it made them worse off financially. 

Just to keep  the discussion vaguely on topic, the SNP financial case for Independence was a nonsense even when playing their trump card of exporting oil at US$118  a barrel with an inexhaustible supply!  I gather from this thread that RE is the future and it will be so cheap it won’t need to be metered

Should independence be achieved will the heir apparent  - Alex Salmond – still become President?

Solarchaser

Pile_o_stone said:

Solarchaser said:

Speaking for myself only, from 2014 we were promised more devolved powers that never arrived, and promised that everything that came back from EU would go to Scotland rather than the UK and that hasn't happened.
The internal market bill is further stripping of devolution. 

So in short when the UK gov tells us about more devolution coming, I straight up dont believe them, as the actions point in the other direction.

The EU, im a fence sitter.
What I'd like to see is an independent Scotland inside the EU for maybe 5 years, and then an in/out referendum, because I just dont know if its a positive or negative thing.

If brexit has taught us anything, its how much the media and the current government lies to us from bendy bananas, to £350m to the NHS and even no control over our borders.

As the wee nyaf said in that film "I want the truth"
And its crystal clear we will never get that with the current government 

I'm not sure you can get the truth from any government, and the larger the government is the more they hide their misdeeds in the herd. If I were living in Scotland I'd vote for independence, but outside the EU. When I see the SNP on TV, all the arguments they make for EU membership are the same ones the UK government make for Scotland to stay in the UK. When they talk about independence, they make the same arguments the Brexiteers made about leaving the EU. It all seems very muddled and hypocritical. I was working in Scotland during the last Indyref and the one guy who impressed me was the Green Party leader who said that people should ignore the economic arguments and ask themselves simply whether they wanted to live in an independent country or not, even if it made them worse off financially. 

Patrick Harvie, at times very impressive, speaking from the heart,  but well thought through also...at other times, whiney and nonsensical.

So the biggest differentiation of the eu vs uk is 1 country, 1 vote.
The eu 28 (27 now) all get a vote, and get their vote heard.

In my lifetime Scotland has never voted tory, but has got tory almost exclusively. 
Scotland has been used and abused by the UK as a dumping ground for nuclear materials, and the one nuclear sub base is near Scotlands largest population. 
Any accidents or targeted strike would wipe out all of my family.... the EU didn't put that base there.
Scotland has a big drugs problem, especially the west of Scotland,  an awful lot of that goes back 30 years or so when thatcher put a whole lot of people, including my father, out of work.
Eu haven't done that.

But here's the real kicker, when uk decided they wanted to leave the eu, they left, Scotland has to ask, if it truly is a union of equals.... which the eu appears to be, then surely its Scotlands decision, not anyone else's?

From a more economic and perhaps personal point of view, alot of biomedical in Scotland is in collaboration with eu. There's quite alot with ruk also, but England (and Wales) voted to leave the eu, and quite a few biomedical studies in Scotland are suffering due to Englands decision.... regardless of what Scotland voted for.

You guys will see what the news wants you to see, and you won't im sure get the rebuttal that we get up here.... because it doesn't happen on the news, it happens through blogs and fact checking via mostly social media because the main media is so biased.
Have a look at even question time for instance, despite independence being ahead for the last ten polls, question Time fronts 3 unionists against one independence supporter, as you mentioned the green party, they tend to be on an even keel with lib dems up here, but greens are pro independence,  so are very very rarely seen on TV, whereas we here the lib demo all the time.

To completely over extend myself, it can be put down in trust,  in the main, Scots trust the eu, in the main, Scots don't trust Westminster politicians 

Solarchaser

Cardew said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Solarchaser said:

Speaking for myself only, from 2014 we were promised more devolved powers that never arrived, and promised that everything that came back from EU would go to Scotland rather than the UK and that hasn't happened.
The internal market bill is further stripping of devolution. 

So in short when the UK gov tells us about more devolution coming, I straight up dont believe them, as the actions point in the other direction.

The EU, im a fence sitter.
What I'd like to see is an independent Scotland inside the EU for maybe 5 years, and then an in/out referendum, because I just dont know if its a positive or negative thing.

If brexit has taught us anything, its how much the media and the current government lies to us from bendy bananas, to £350m to the NHS and even no control over our borders.

As the wee nyaf said in that film "I want the truth"
And its crystal clear we will never get that with the current government 

I'm not sure you can get the truth from any government, and the larger the government is the more they hide their misdeeds in the herd. If I were living in Scotland I'd vote for independence, but outside the EU. When I see the SNP on TV, all the arguments they make for EU membership are the same ones the UK government make for Scotland to stay in the UK. When they talk about independence, they make the same arguments the Brexiteers made about leaving the EU. It all seems very muddled and hypocritical. I was working in Scotland during the last Indyref and the one guy who impressed me was the Green Party leader who said that people should ignore the economic arguments and ask themselves simply whether they wanted to live in an independent country or not, even if it made them worse off financially. 

Just to keep  the discussion vaguely on topic, the SNP financial case for Independence was a nonsense even when playing their trump card of exporting oil at US$118  a barrel with an inexhaustible supply!  I gather from this thread that RE is the future and it will be so cheap it won’t need to be metered

Should independence be achieved will the heir apparent  - Alex Salmond – still become President?

Erm I dont think the snp did that.
But here is the UK government report of predictions for the same time

Note their predictions were actually much higher than the Scottish government, funny how thats never mentioned 🤔

And the oil (not that we want it to all be used anyway) but has a maximum of 4 years till it runs out.... or at least that's what we were told in 1984, and many times since, including 2014.

The oil has made the UK alot of money, but its time it was wound down imo, or at least the mass production for burning in ICE's.

As for independence,  I think even the most staunch and blinded unionist would now admit its *when* Scotland becomes independent,  and not *if*, and when that happens id be surprised to see either Mr salmond or Ms sturgeon in a lofty position in Scotland after the transition period.

Martyn1981

OK, this is big news, perhaps surprising, probably not, but heartbreaking either way. We now know that the FF giants knew that AGW was not only real but very serious about 40yrs+ ago, but argued against AGW and funded denial and denial science.
Well, it turns out that the US auto giants GM and Ford did the same. Raising the question, if VW was fined $billions for lying about their emissions, as this was found to be a crime, then could the same be applied to GM and Ford.

Attached is an article from Cleantechnica, but if you have the time (~20mins) I'd strongly recommend watching the vid from Nikki at Transport Evolved. She's been a car and motorbike fan all her life, and has been promoting EV's for over a decade. Her channel is entirely unbiased. She sets out the background and story to this news, and sadly how most nations and companies were happy to work with the science 40-50yrs ago, until some (mostly US) big companies realised that financially it would be better for them to oppose the science and spread disinformation to delay action.

Ford And GM Lied. The Planet Died. Part One

What we can say is that General Motors and Ford employed respected scientists on their staffs who warned them way back in the 1950s that carbon dioxide spewing out of the tailpipes of their products would likely lead to a warming planet. For a while, senior executives of both companies believed aerosols emitted by their internal combustion engines would have a cooling effect equal to the warming caused by carbon dioxide. Think of it as an early form of geoengineering.

Thanks to an exhaustive analysis by E&E News, we now know that when they learned the truth — that their products contributed significantly to global warming — both companies shut down further research into the matter and began contributing heavily to climate change denial organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Those same organizations also received major financial support from the oil industry, especially ExxonMobil. In other words, once they found out the truth, they lied through their teeth to their customers, their workers, the American public, and government regulators about the harm carbon dioxide could do to the environment.

Vid from Transport Evolved:

GM, Ford And Others Knew About Climate Change Decades Ago - Should We Still Be Buying Their Cars?

Martyn1981

I think these stories go well together. We have the news that RE not only creates an enormous amount of jobs, but also that they are well paid jobs.

Cleantech Creates Higher Paying Jobs — Millions Of Them

One of the greatest side benefits of climate action is that it creates a lot of jobs. Not only that — it creates a lot of well paying jobs. Solar installers, solar panel manufacturers, wind turbine technicians, electric vehicle engineers, electrical engineers, and the list goes on. But how many jobs? And how well do they pay? E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs), the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), and the Clean Energy Leadership Institute (CELI) have some answers.

And to create those jobs, we have ever cheaper RE, and in this article SWB (solar wind and batteries) is considered, and Tony Seba's thoughts on how higher and higher production at lower and lower costs won't damage the industry (as some have tried to argue), but will instead change the energy industry through disruption and evolution.

Tremendously Cheap Solar, Wind, & Batteries To Transform Society, RethinkX Forecasts

A new report by RethinkX explores this topic much further. Here’s the one-line summary: “By 2030 electricity systems comprised entirely of solar, wind and batteries (SWB) can provide both the cheapest power available and two to three times more total energy than the existing grid in the continental United States, and most populated regions globally, bankrupting coal, gas and nuclear power companies and slashing consumer costs dramatically.”

Such cheap clean energy doesn’t just mean somewhat lower costs, though. It means disruption — to some extent or another. Why is it disruptive, not just cheaper? Because when you get down to basically “too cheap to meter,” business models shift around, new business potential appears, and the market transforms.

“A 100 percent SWB system will possess much more generation capacity than used on most days currently, which will produce an enormous amount of electricity at a marginal cost close to zero. The report authors show that this ‘Clean Energy Super Power‘ will enable new business models and industries, create trillions in new value, and could help repatriate energy-intensive manufacturing.”

Martyn1981

Not really about energy, but just a reminder why we need to act as fast as possible to minimise as much as possible the climate crisis:

Global heating threatens UK wildlife’s ability to adapt and survive

Global heating is shifting Britain’s climatic zones by up to 5km each year, outpacing wildlife’s ability to adapt and survive, according to a new report by Rewilding Britain.

If species cannot adapt to higher temperatures or relocate elsewhere, they will be threatened with extinction.

But research by the rewilding charity suggests that restoring and connecting species-rich wild habitat across 30% of Britain’s land and sea by 2030 could save a fifth of species from climate-driven habitat loss, decline or extinction.

Rewilding Britain is calling for the creation of core rewilding areas, where as many natural processes, habitats and related species are restored as possible, across at least 5% of the UK, with a mosaic of nature-friendly land and seas across another 25%.

'Sleeping giant' Arctic methane deposits starting to release, scientists find

Scientists have found evidence that frozen methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean – known as the “sleeping giants of the carbon cycle” – have started to be released over a large area of the continental slope off the East Siberian coast, the Guardian can reveal.

High levels of the potent greenhouse gas have been detected down to a depth of 350 metres in the Laptev Sea near Russia, prompting concern among researchers that a new climate feedback loop may have been triggered that could accelerate the pace of global heating.

The slope sediments in the Arctic contain a huge quantity of frozen methane and other gases – known as hydrates. Methane has a warming effect 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years. The United States Geological Survey has previously listed Arctic hydrate destabilisation as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change.

The international team onboard the Russian research ship R/V Akademik Keldysh said most of the bubbles were currently dissolving in the water but methane levels at the surface were four to eight times what would normally be expected and this was venting into the atmosphere.