Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Here's a slightly different piece of news with the Co-op tendering to buy 100GWh's pa of RE under PPA agreements.

Co-op to launch 100GWh UK renewables tender

Co-op Power has partnered with Zeigo to tender an annual demand of 100 gigawatt hours of renewable energy for a power purchase agreement (PPA).

As part of this structure, which is first of its kind in the UK, the Co-op will be the anchor tenant, off-taking majority of the volume.

This will help open this avenue to businesses that otherwise might not have the energy requirements to do this on their own, into impactful, traceable renewable energy agreements directly with generators.

Martyn1981

Hmmmm. I may have to stop including hydrogen in my list of long term / large scale storage, as the issues relating to green hydrogen production, particularly the economics, do seem to be less promising than hoped. [Not to worry, other methods for example CAES and LAES, seem to offer similar scales of storage, and possibly slightly higher round trip efficiencies.]

The only market where any/significant growth is predicted in this article, is in the steel industry. But the article is positive as it looks at falling H2 related CO2(e) emissions through this century

Shrinking Hydrogen Demand & Hydrogen Decarbonization Will Have Major Climate Benefits

The hype related to a hydrogen economy continues, relatively unabated. The fossil fuel industry, the natural gas utilities, Hyundai, and Toyota continue to push the illusion that hydrogen will be a source of heating, transportation fuel, and energy in general, despite the basics of physics and economics. They are, of course, going to be proven wrong unless their heavy thumbs on the scales of policy force us down that expensive dead end.

Exiled_Tyke

Martyn1981 said:

Hmmmm. I may have to stop including hydrogen in my list of long term / large scale storage, as the issues relating to green hydrogen production, particularly the economics, do seem to be less promising than hoped. [Not to worry, other methods for example CAES and LAES, seem to offer similar scales of storage, and possibly slightly higher round trip efficiencies.]

The only market where any/significant growth is predicted in this article, is in the steel industry. But the article is positive as it looks at falling H2 related CO2(e) emissions through this century

Shrinking Hydrogen Demand & Hydrogen Decarbonization Will Have Major Climate Benefits

The hype related to a hydrogen economy continues, relatively unabated. The fossil fuel industry, the natural gas utilities, Hyundai, and Toyota continue to push the illusion that hydrogen will be a source of heating, transportation fuel, and energy in general, despite the basics of physics and economics. They are, of course, going to be proven wrong unless their heavy thumbs on the scales of policy force us down that expensive dead end.

I'm not sure why but I've never felt positively towards hydrogen.  I feel much more optimistic about dropping lumps of concrete down disused mine shafts! 

Coastalwatch

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

Hmmmm. I may have to stop including hydrogen in my list of long term / large scale storage, as the issues relating to green hydrogen production, particularly the economics, do seem to be less promising than hoped. [Not to worry, other methods for example CAES and LAES, seem to offer similar scales of storage, and possibly slightly higher round trip efficiencies.]

The only market where any/significant growth is predicted in this article, is in the steel industry. But the article is positive as it looks at falling H2 related CO2(e) emissions through this century

Shrinking Hydrogen Demand & Hydrogen Decarbonization Will Have Major Climate Benefits

The hype related to a hydrogen economy continues, relatively unabated. The fossil fuel industry, the natural gas utilities, Hyundai, and Toyota continue to push the illusion that hydrogen will be a source of heating, transportation fuel, and energy in general, despite the basics of physics and economics. They are, of course, going to be proven wrong unless their heavy thumbs on the scales of policy force us down that expensive dead end.

I'm not sure why but I've never felt positively towards hydrogen.  I feel much more optimistic about dropping lumps of concrete down disused mine shafts! 

Yeah, I feel similarly, a bit like nuclear fusion. Reckon it's going to be a very expensive pot of gold at the end of a rainbow that doesn't actually exist!

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

Hmmmm. I may have to stop including hydrogen in my list of long term / large scale storage, as the issues relating to green hydrogen production, particularly the economics, do seem to be less promising than hoped. [Not to worry, other methods for example CAES and LAES, seem to offer similar scales of storage, and possibly slightly higher round trip efficiencies.]

The only market where any/significant growth is predicted in this article, is in the steel industry. But the article is positive as it looks at falling H2 related CO2(e) emissions through this century

Shrinking Hydrogen Demand & Hydrogen Decarbonization Will Have Major Climate Benefits

The hype related to a hydrogen economy continues, relatively unabated. The fossil fuel industry, the natural gas utilities, Hyundai, and Toyota continue to push the illusion that hydrogen will be a source of heating, transportation fuel, and energy in general, despite the basics of physics and economics. They are, of course, going to be proven wrong unless their heavy thumbs on the scales of policy force us down that expensive dead end.

I'm not sure why but I've never felt positively towards hydrogen.  I feel much more optimistic about dropping lumps of concrete down disused mine shafts! 

Thanks mate, that gave me such a great laugh. Perhaps the silver lining, and you know how much I like to look for the positive, is that whilst hydrogen solutions would work, we're finding and developing better solutions fast, so it's actually a positive. For example hydrogen fuel cell cars, a nice alternative to ICEV's, but then along come BEV's and blow them out of the water.

Those gravity based systems, be it weights down a mineshaft, or vertically stacked upwards are almost twice as efficient as H2, so it all comes down to the cost/economics, and that seems to be moving away from hydrogen ...... oh well ..... on to better things. 

Coastalwatch

After a decade of modelling various renewable scenarios in relation to the US Grid Professor Mark Jacobson sees no fear in renewables and storage combining to keep light and heat supplied without blackouts, not to mention several additonal benefits into the bargain. What surprised me was that a reduction in demand of a staggering 63% would occur and 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose resulting in cleaner air and fewer pollution related illnesses. Could it be the hundreds of oilfield pump Jacks  consuming such huge amounts of energy contributing to this 63% figure!

It would seem that in the states no long term energy storage would be necessary as all troughs in output could be covered by batteries for big peaks in demand short term  or lower peaks for a longer term and anything in between.

Strangely, I couldn't find no mention of Hydrogen!

The research would appear to confirm the presentation Tony Seba launched a year or so ago which suggested a similar outcome predicting a doomsday for FF and nuclear energy generation.

Grid stability and 100% renewables

New research from Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson seeks to remove any doubts about grid stability in a world powered entirely by renewable energy. The latest study models 100% wind water and solar powered grids across the United States, finding no risk of blackouts in any region and also broad benefits in cost reduction, job creation and land use.

But in many regions there is still reluctance to move away from fossil fuels and fears that the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation is likely to cause problems to regional energy supplies. In the United States, for example, blackouts caused by extreme weather in California and Texas over the past two years are still sometimes blamed on renewables, despite the analysis showing renewables were not more vulnerable than fossil-fuel infrastructure in either case.

In addition to stability, the study found the same system would result in a 63% reduction in energy costs across the United States, and a reduction in required land use from 1.3% of U.S. land currently occupied by fossil fuel operations to 0.84% needed for electricity infrastructure in a 100% renewables scenario.

The cost for implementing such a transition is estimated at between $9 trillion and $11 trillion, depending on the level of interconnection between regions. The study’s authors estimate that based on the energy cost savings alone, this investment could be paid back in as little as five years. It also estimates that this energy transition would create close to 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose, and the cleaner air and fewer pollution-related illnesses would prevent more than 50,000 deaths per year and save around $700 billion annually in health costs.

While the study mentions seasonal heat storage to meet demand in colder climates, it finds that no long-term electricity storage would be needed to keep the U.S. grid running. They note the strategy of connecting short-duration batteries in succession can provide longer-term storage, and can be discharged simultaneously to deal with strong demand peaks. “In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between,” said Jacobson.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/08/grid-stability-and-100-renewables/

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

After a decade of modelling various renewable scenarios in relation to the US Grid Professor Mark Jacobson sees no fear in renewables and storage combining to keep light and heat supplied without blackouts, not to mention several additonal benefits into the bargain. What surprised me was that a reduction in demand of a staggering 63% would occur and 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose resulting in cleaner air and fewer pollution related illnesses. Could it be the hundreds of oilfield pump Jacks  consuming such huge amounts of energy contributing to this 63% figure!

It would seem that in the states no long term energy storage would be necessary as all troughs in output could be covered by batteries for big peaks in demand short term  or lower peaks for a longer term and anything in between.

Strangely, I couldn't find no mention of Hydrogen!

The research would appear to confirm the presentation Tony Seba launched a year or so ago which suggested a similar outcome predicting a doomsday for FF and nuclear energy generation.

Grid stability and 100% renewables

New research from Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson seeks to remove any doubts about grid stability in a world powered entirely by renewable energy. The latest study models 100% wind water and solar powered grids across the United States, finding no risk of blackouts in any region and also broad benefits in cost reduction, job creation and land use.

But in many regions there is still reluctance to move away from fossil fuels and fears that the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation is likely to cause problems to regional energy supplies. In the United States, for example, blackouts caused by extreme weather in California and Texas over the past two years are still sometimes blamed on renewables, despite the analysis showing renewables were not more vulnerable than fossil-fuel infrastructure in either case.

In addition to stability, the study found the same system would result in a 63% reduction in energy costs across the United States, and a reduction in required land use from 1.3% of U.S. land currently occupied by fossil fuel operations to 0.84% needed for electricity infrastructure in a 100% renewables scenario.

The cost for implementing such a transition is estimated at between $9 trillion and $11 trillion, depending on the level of interconnection between regions. The study’s authors estimate that based on the energy cost savings alone, this investment could be paid back in as little as five years. It also estimates that this energy transition would create close to 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose, and the cleaner air and fewer pollution-related illnesses would prevent more than 50,000 deaths per year and save around $700 billion annually in health costs.

While the study mentions seasonal heat storage to meet demand in colder climates, it finds that no long-term electricity storage would be needed to keep the U.S. grid running. They note the strategy of connecting short-duration batteries in succession can provide longer-term storage, and can be discharged simultaneously to deal with strong demand peaks. “In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between,” said Jacobson.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/08/grid-stability-and-100-renewables/

I think it says a reduction in 63% in energy costs not demand unless that is also mentioned elsewhere?

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

After a decade of modelling various renewable scenarios in relation to the US Grid Professor Mark Jacobson sees no fear in renewables and storage combining to keep light and heat supplied without blackouts, not to mention several additonal benefits into the bargain. What surprised me was that a reduction in demand of a staggering 63% would occur and 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose resulting in cleaner air and fewer pollution related illnesses. Could it be the hundreds of oilfield pump Jacks  consuming such huge amounts of energy contributing to this 63% figure!

It would seem that in the states no long term energy storage would be necessary as all troughs in output could be covered by batteries for big peaks in demand short term  or lower peaks for a longer term and anything in between.

Strangely, I couldn't find no mention of Hydrogen!

The research would appear to confirm the presentation Tony Seba launched a year or so ago which suggested a similar outcome predicting a doomsday for FF and nuclear energy generation.

Grid stability and 100% renewables

New research from Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson seeks to remove any doubts about grid stability in a world powered entirely by renewable energy. The latest study models 100% wind water and solar powered grids across the United States, finding no risk of blackouts in any region and also broad benefits in cost reduction, job creation and land use.

But in many regions there is still reluctance to move away from fossil fuels and fears that the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation is likely to cause problems to regional energy supplies. In the United States, for example, blackouts caused by extreme weather in California and Texas over the past two years are still sometimes blamed on renewables, despite the analysis showing renewables were not more vulnerable than fossil-fuel infrastructure in either case.

In addition to stability, the study found the same system would result in a 63% reduction in energy costs across the United States, and a reduction in required land use from 1.3% of U.S. land currently occupied by fossil fuel operations to 0.84% needed for electricity infrastructure in a 100% renewables scenario.

The cost for implementing such a transition is estimated at between $9 trillion and $11 trillion, depending on the level of interconnection between regions. The study’s authors estimate that based on the energy cost savings alone, this investment could be paid back in as little as five years. It also estimates that this energy transition would create close to 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose, and the cleaner air and fewer pollution-related illnesses would prevent more than 50,000 deaths per year and save around $700 billion annually in health costs.

While the study mentions seasonal heat storage to meet demand in colder climates, it finds that no long-term electricity storage would be needed to keep the U.S. grid running. They note the strategy of connecting short-duration batteries in succession can provide longer-term storage, and can be discharged simultaneously to deal with strong demand peaks. “In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between,” said Jacobson.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/08/grid-stability-and-100-renewables/

Hiya CW, as Michaels points out the 63% seems to refer to costs, so I think you've transposed the 63% on to the 60% mentioned as energy reduction in the article. In the linked doc it states "Whereas transitioning more than doubles electricity use, it reduces total end-use energy demand by ∼57% versus business-as-usual (BAU), contributing to the 63 (43–79)% and 86 (77–90)% lower annual private and social (private + health + climate) energy costs, respectively, than BAU."

So, I'm guessing that ~57% reduction is down to the issue of higher efficiency we've discussed in the past, where a majority of the energy contained in coal, gas, petrol etc is actually wasted due to the low efficiency of thermal plants or car engines, or GCH, v's for instance a wind farm, a BEV or a heat pump.

Do you remember when some folk used to claim that moving away from FF hydrocarbons would mean we had to wear hair shirts, and live in caves ...... instead you've got a tonne of PV, part ownership of a windfarm, heat pumps, and drive around in a BEV ...... it's a hard life!     


PS - Reading the linked doc I learnt a new word for the day, after having to resort to 'GIYF' when I couldn't work out what this typo was meant to be - "Concatenating" ...... turns out it's not a typo "link (things) together in a chain or series."

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

After a decade of modelling various renewable scenarios in relation to the US Grid Professor Mark Jacobson sees no fear in renewables and storage combining to keep light and heat supplied without blackouts, not to mention several additonal benefits into the bargain. What surprised me was that a reduction in demand of a staggering 63% would occur and 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose resulting in cleaner air and fewer pollution related illnesses. Could it be the hundreds of oilfield pump Jacks  consuming such huge amounts of energy contributing to this 63% figure!

It would seem that in the states no long term energy storage would be necessary as all troughs in output could be covered by batteries for big peaks in demand short term  or lower peaks for a longer term and anything in between.

Strangely, I couldn't find no mention of Hydrogen!

The research would appear to confirm the presentation Tony Seba launched a year or so ago which suggested a similar outcome predicting a doomsday for FF and nuclear energy generation.

Grid stability and 100% renewables

New research from Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson seeks to remove any doubts about grid stability in a world powered entirely by renewable energy. The latest study models 100% wind water and solar powered grids across the United States, finding no risk of blackouts in any region and also broad benefits in cost reduction, job creation and land use.

But in many regions there is still reluctance to move away from fossil fuels and fears that the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation is likely to cause problems to regional energy supplies. In the United States, for example, blackouts caused by extreme weather in California and Texas over the past two years are still sometimes blamed on renewables, despite the analysis showing renewables were not more vulnerable than fossil-fuel infrastructure in either case.

In addition to stability, the study found the same system would result in a 63% reduction in energy costs across the United States, and a reduction in required land use from 1.3% of U.S. land currently occupied by fossil fuel operations to 0.84% needed for electricity infrastructure in a 100% renewables scenario.

The cost for implementing such a transition is estimated at between $9 trillion and $11 trillion, depending on the level of interconnection between regions. The study’s authors estimate that based on the energy cost savings alone, this investment could be paid back in as little as five years. It also estimates that this energy transition would create close to 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose, and the cleaner air and fewer pollution-related illnesses would prevent more than 50,000 deaths per year and save around $700 billion annually in health costs.

While the study mentions seasonal heat storage to meet demand in colder climates, it finds that no long-term electricity storage would be needed to keep the U.S. grid running. They note the strategy of connecting short-duration batteries in succession can provide longer-term storage, and can be discharged simultaneously to deal with strong demand peaks. “In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between,” said Jacobson.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/08/grid-stability-and-100-renewables/

Hiya CW, as Michaels points out the 63% seems to refer to costs, so I think you've transposed the 63% on to the 60% mentioned as energy reduction in the article. In the linked doc it states "Whereas transitioning more than doubles electricity use, it reduces total end-use energy demand by ∼57% versus business-as-usual (BAU), contributing to the 63 (43–79)% and 86 (77–90)% lower annual private and social (private + health + climate) energy costs, respectively, than BAU."

So, I'm guessing that ~57% reduction is down to the issue of higher efficiency we've discussed in the past, where a majority of the energy contained in coal, gas, petrol etc is actually wasted due to the low efficiency of thermal plants or car engines, or GCH, v's for instance a wind farm, a BEV or a heat pump.

Do you remember when some folk used to claim that moving away from FF hydrocarbons would mean we had to wear hair shirts, and live in caves ...... instead you've got a tonne of PV, part ownership of a windfarm, heat pumps, and drive around in a BEV ...... it's a hard life!     


PS - Reading the linked doc I learnt a new word for the day, after having to resort to 'GIYF' when I couldn't work out what this typo was meant to be - "Concatenating" ...... turns out it's not a typo "link (things) together in a chain or series."

 In this model, all electricity is going to be RE/storage; it doesn't matter how it's generated now.  So the important number is future electricity demand in terms of kWh consumed.  Is that going to reduce by 57% with added EVs, heat pumps, etc?  How?     

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

After a decade of modelling various renewable scenarios in relation to the US Grid Professor Mark Jacobson sees no fear in renewables and storage combining to keep light and heat supplied without blackouts, not to mention several additonal benefits into the bargain. What surprised me was that a reduction in demand of a staggering 63% would occur and 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose resulting in cleaner air and fewer pollution related illnesses. Could it be the hundreds of oilfield pump Jacks  consuming such huge amounts of energy contributing to this 63% figure!

It would seem that in the states no long term energy storage would be necessary as all troughs in output could be covered by batteries for big peaks in demand short term  or lower peaks for a longer term and anything in between.

Strangely, I couldn't find no mention of Hydrogen!

The research would appear to confirm the presentation Tony Seba launched a year or so ago which suggested a similar outcome predicting a doomsday for FF and nuclear energy generation.

Grid stability and 100% renewables

New research from Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson seeks to remove any doubts about grid stability in a world powered entirely by renewable energy. The latest study models 100% wind water and solar powered grids across the United States, finding no risk of blackouts in any region and also broad benefits in cost reduction, job creation and land use.

But in many regions there is still reluctance to move away from fossil fuels and fears that the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation is likely to cause problems to regional energy supplies. In the United States, for example, blackouts caused by extreme weather in California and Texas over the past two years are still sometimes blamed on renewables, despite the analysis showing renewables were not more vulnerable than fossil-fuel infrastructure in either case.

In addition to stability, the study found the same system would result in a 63% reduction in energy costs across the United States, and a reduction in required land use from 1.3% of U.S. land currently occupied by fossil fuel operations to 0.84% needed for electricity infrastructure in a 100% renewables scenario.

The cost for implementing such a transition is estimated at between $9 trillion and $11 trillion, depending on the level of interconnection between regions. The study’s authors estimate that based on the energy cost savings alone, this investment could be paid back in as little as five years. It also estimates that this energy transition would create close to 5 million more permanent jobs than it would lose, and the cleaner air and fewer pollution-related illnesses would prevent more than 50,000 deaths per year and save around $700 billion annually in health costs.

While the study mentions seasonal heat storage to meet demand in colder climates, it finds that no long-term electricity storage would be needed to keep the U.S. grid running. They note the strategy of connecting short-duration batteries in succession can provide longer-term storage, and can be discharged simultaneously to deal with strong demand peaks. “In other words, short-duration batteries can be used for both big peaks in demand for short periods and lower peaks for a long period or anything in-between,” said Jacobson.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/08/grid-stability-and-100-renewables/

Hiya CW, as Michaels points out the 63% seems to refer to costs, so I think you've transposed the 63% on to the 60% mentioned as energy reduction in the article. In the linked doc it states "Whereas transitioning more than doubles electricity use, it reduces total end-use energy demand by ∼57% versus business-as-usual (BAU), contributing to the 63 (43–79)% and 86 (77–90)% lower annual private and social (private + health + climate) energy costs, respectively, than BAU."

So, I'm guessing that ~57% reduction is down to the issue of higher efficiency we've discussed in the past, where a majority of the energy contained in coal, gas, petrol etc is actually wasted due to the low efficiency of thermal plants or car engines, or GCH, v's for instance a wind farm, a BEV or a heat pump.

Do you remember when some folk used to claim that moving away from FF hydrocarbons would mean we had to wear hair shirts, and live in caves ...... instead you've got a tonne of PV, part ownership of a windfarm, heat pumps, and drive around in a BEV ...... it's a hard life!     


PS - Reading the linked doc I learnt a new word for the day, after having to resort to 'GIYF' when I couldn't work out what this typo was meant to be - "Concatenating" ...... turns out it's not a typo "link (things) together in a chain or series."

 In this model, all electricity is going to be RE/storage; it doesn't matter how it's generated now.  So the important number is future electricity demand in terms of kWh consumed.  Is that going to reduce by 57% with added EVs, heat pumps, etc?  How?     

No it won't reduce, in fact it states quite clearly that leccy demand is expected to more than double, it's even in my post you've quoted.


Edit - I don't know if this will clarify it for you, but this image is a useful one to help visualize the losses of energy in the existing system (business as usual), and versions of it have been posted on here just a few months back. Don't worry about the year, it's just a visual aid:



To clarify the change in energy consumption v's electrical demand, then I can use my household as an example.
We did get leccy consumption down to about 3MWh pa a few years back but this year it will have almost doubled to around 5.7MWh.
This may at first seem like a backwards step, but the increase is due to increased use of the small air-air heat pumps (and reduction in GCH use), and the transition from ICEV to BEV.

Whilst the leccy demand has gone up, we need to remember that the HP's have a COP of about 3 whereas the GCH is about 80% efficient, so a difference of almost 4x. Also our petrol car would have been around 25% efficient, whereas BEV's are ~75%, again leading to a reduction in energy consumption.

Even a move to PV (or any deamd side RE generation) can help, since home generation, or export to neighbouring properties is almost 100% efficient, whereas gas generation is about 50% efficient and transmission + distribution losses are about 8%, so roughly 46% efficient.

And those examples are of course after the FF's and their gross energy have been delivered to the power station/home, whereas their exploration, extraction and transportation/refining also consume energy.