Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

michaels said:

Almost all of China is South of almost all of England so they make more watt hours per installed watt.

Perhaps we should also compare wind where we probably have the comparative advantage.

Per capita we're ahead on installed capacity, around 30GW for 70 million or 428W per person. Against 360GW for 1.4 Billion or 260W per person.

There's a nice table on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

Interestingly Spain now has more capacity and more W per person than us. Our lead has completely slipped.

Coastalwatch

While the extraction and burning of fossil fuels can only continue in their contribution towards AGW, battery cell manufacture continues in its relentless pursuit of, not only reducing it's use of rare materials but also the toxins used in processes and likely achieving cost reductions into the bargain.

ZSW uses water instead of solvent in cathode production

Researchers at the Centre for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research Baden-Württemberg (ZSW) have been able to replace toxic solvents with water in the production of cathodes. Water-based production is also suitable for batteries for electric vehicles.

The electrodes have now been installed in round cells of the 21700 type for the first time. This cell format is used in the Tesla Model 3, for example. And the ZSW is satisfied with the result. “After 1,000 charge/discharge cycles, they still had 80 per cent of the initial capacity and are thus suitable for use in battery vehicles,” the research institute writes in its announcement.

https://www.electrive.com/2023/03/28/zsw-uses-water-instead-of-solvent-in-cathode-production/

zeupater

ABrass said:

[ ... ]

Interestingly Spain now has more capacity and more W per person than us. Our lead has completely slipped.

Hi

In a way, but that tends to overlook two really important points ...

Firstly, the geographic generation efficiency ... two turbines of equal nominal power efficiency will have different real world energy generation efficiencies (annual energy/nameplate power) depending on location specific average windspeeds & windspeed profiles that makeup that average velocity ...

Secondly, and likely just as important .... the level of how broken energy markets are for operating turbines in the countries being compared ... what? ... okay, so we're likely all aware that wind generation in the UK is curtailed to match demand on a regular basis (most of the time to some extent), yet gas, biomass etc are still running to various degrees ... so how does this prove a broken market? ... well quite easily really as there's a financial incentive to the whole generating sector to never fully exclude the most costly source through the current bidding system where all concerned parties are not paid according to their own bid, no matter how low, but to the highest successful bid (bottom up) required to satisfy the anticipated demand for a bidding period ... wow, head explodes!!!, so does that mean that even if a generation source bids ZERO for a period, as long as that doesn't cover the total demand they'll receive payment equivalent to the least competitive successful bid which is required to make up the total generation? .... that's about it, so through curtailing wind there's the ability to artificially raise prices and profits for the entire energy sector, including wind .....

Ever wondered why, despite having a 'guaranteed' 100% green energy source electricity tariff, the unit cost fluctuates in line with gas prices? ... well maybe it's just clicked that the energy market & energy market pricing has been designed to be fully controllable as opposed to being open to any form of real competition ... no matter how much renewables generation capacity is available or how cheap renewable sources are, combined with how little gas generation remains available to use & gas (or any other high value generation source) remains in the mix, as long as that uncompetitive source is allowed to place successful bids into the mix, then absolutely everyone (including HM Government through taxation!) except the final consumers are benefiting and have no incentive at all to seek change ..... does that describe/explain a broken market? ... in my view, absolutely!!

I'm a strong believer that National Grid ESO should be required to publish data for each generating time-slice detailing the level of curtailment of wind or any other generation source if it in any way impacts on the cost of energy, detailing potential energy cost savings to all consumers .... that'd afford a level of transparency which would certainly kick-start some heated debate related to both Ofgem's & the CMA's complicit role in the matter ... looks like ample evidence of plenty of 'snoozing' on the job, total incompetence, or worse, in those departments then! 

HTH - Z

zeupater

Hi

Interesting one to watch for those considering EVs and home battery solutions and waiting on more realistic pricing ....

Lithium carbonate prices in China sank to CNY 260,000 per tonne in late March, the lowest in 15 months and 53% down from their record-high in November, as robust output and a pullback in demand continued to support forecasts of a supply surplus this year. After subsidizing battery manufacturers and granting cash rewards to new electric vehicle purchases in 2022, China halted incentives for the new energy auto sector and catalyzed a decline in demand for battery inputs. The overproduction of batteries at the end of 2022 to take advantage of subsidies drove battery producers to have unsustainably high inventories and prompted the sale of goods at a steep discount with sharp capacity cuts at manufacturers in all streams of the supply chain. Meanwhile, 8.5 million tons of lithium, equivalent to 10% of the current world reserve, were found in a deposit in Iran.

Source

HTH - Z

michaels

zeupater said:

ABrass said:

[ ... ]

Interestingly Spain now has more capacity and more W per person than us. Our lead has completely slipped.

Hi

In a way, but that tends to overlook two really important points ...

Firstly, the geographic generation efficiency ... two turbines of equal nominal power efficiency will have different real world energy generation efficiencies (annual energy/nameplate power) depending on location specific average windspeeds & windspeed profiles that makeup that average velocity ...

Secondly, and likely just as important .... the level of how broken energy markets are for operating turbines in the countries being compared ... what? ... okay, so we're likely all aware that wind generation in the UK is curtailed to match demand on a regular basis (most of the time to some extent), yet gas, biomass etc are still running to various degrees ... so how does this prove a broken market? ... well quite easily really as there's a financial incentive to the whole generating sector to never fully exclude the most costly source through the current bidding system where all concerned parties are not paid according to their own bid, no matter how low, but to the highest successful bid (bottom up) required to satisfy the anticipated demand for a bidding period ... wow, head explodes!!!, so does that mean that even if a generation source bids ZERO for a period, as long as that doesn't cover the total demand they'll receive payment equivalent to the least competitive successful bid which is required to make up the total generation? .... that's about it, so through curtailing wind there's the ability to artificially raise prices and profits for the entire energy sector, including wind .....

Ever wondered why, despite having a 'guaranteed' 100% green energy source electricity tariff, the unit cost fluctuates in line with gas prices? ... well maybe it's just clicked that the energy market & energy market pricing has been designed to be fully controllable as opposed to being open to any form of real competition ... no matter how much renewables generation capacity is available or how cheap renewable sources are, combined with how little gas generation remains available to use & gas (or any other high value generation source) remains in the mix, as long as that uncompetitive source is allowed to place successful bids into the mix, then absolutely everyone (including HM Government through taxation!) except the final consumers are benefiting and have no incentive at all to seek change ..... does that describe/explain a broken market? ... in my view, absolutely!!

I'm a strong believer that National Grid ESO should be required to publish data for each generating time-slice detailing the level of curtailment of wind or any other generation source if it in any way impacts on the cost of energy, detailing potential energy cost savings to all consumers .... that'd afford a level of transparency which would certainly kick-start some heated debate related to both Ofgem's & the CMA's complicit role in the matter ... looks like ample evidence of plenty of 'snoozing' on the job, total incompetence, or worse, in those departments then! 

HTH - Z

I guess it depends how many other suppliers there are, unless a supplier is large, surely it makes more sense for them to sell all their output than to curtail and only sell half at a slightly higher price because they leave in the most expensive supplier?  Classical economic equilibrium, the price is the marginal cost of the last unit supplied so the energy market is not unusual in this respect.

Spain were way ahead of us on wind measured by installed capacity 10 yeas ago, we have pretty much caught up.

zeupater

michaels said:

[ ... ]

I guess it depends how many other suppliers there are, unless a supplier is large, surely it makes more sense for them to sell all their output than to curtail and only sell half at a slightly higher price because they leave in the most expensive supplier?  Classical economic equilibrium, the price is the marginal cost of the last unit supplied so the energy market is not unusual in this respect.

Spain were way ahead of us on wind measured by installed capacity 10 yeas ago, we have pretty much caught up.

Hi

Possibly, but aren't ESO involved in balancing operations and curtailment messaging and well as the bidding process? ... no market related issues to consider there then! ...  anyway, I would have thought that average successful bid pricing would be more in line with a competitive market approach, which in itself would be in line with multiple source purchasing in most industries where the classic form of least cost sourcing or component cost averaging improves the bottom line, or at least doesn't disqualify your product at quotation stage due to margin related uncompetitive pricing ... 

HTH - Z

70sbudgie

zeupater said:

ABrass said:

[ ... ]

Interestingly Spain now has more capacity and more W per person than us. Our lead has completely slipped.

Hi

In a way, but that tends to overlook two really important points ...

Firstly, the geographic generation efficiency ... two turbines of equal nominal power efficiency will have different real world energy generation efficiencies (annual energy/nameplate power) depending on location specific average windspeeds & windspeed profiles that makeup that average velocity ...

Secondly, and likely just as important .... the level of how broken energy markets are for operating turbines in the countries being compared ... what? ... okay, so we're likely all aware that wind generation in the UK is curtailed to match demand on a regular basis (most of the time to some extent), yet gas, biomass etc are still running to various degrees ... so how does this prove a broken market? ... well quite easily really as there's a financial incentive to the whole generating sector to never fully exclude the most costly source through the current bidding system where all concerned parties are not paid according to their own bid, no matter how low, but to the highest successful bid (bottom up) required to satisfy the anticipated demand for a bidding period ... wow, head explodes!!!, so does that mean that even if a generation source bids ZERO for a period, as long as that doesn't cover the total demand they'll receive payment equivalent to the least competitive successful bid which is required to make up the total generation? .... that's about it, so through curtailing wind there's the ability to artificially raise prices and profits for the entire energy sector, including wind .....

Ever wondered why, despite having a 'guaranteed' 100% green energy source electricity tariff, the unit cost fluctuates in line with gas prices? ... well maybe it's just clicked that the energy market & energy market pricing has been designed to be fully controllable as opposed to being open to any form of real competition ... no matter how much renewables generation capacity is available or how cheap renewable sources are, combined with how little gas generation remains available to use & gas (or any other high value generation source) remains in the mix, as long as that uncompetitive source is allowed to place successful bids into the mix, then absolutely everyone (including HM Government through taxation!) except the final consumers are benefiting and have no incentive at all to seek change ..... does that describe/explain a broken market? ... in my view, absolutely!!

I'm a strong believer that National Grid ESO should be required to publish data for each generating time-slice detailing the level of curtailment of wind or any other generation source if it in any way impacts on the cost of energy, detailing potential energy cost savings to all consumers .... that'd afford a level of transparency which would certainly kick-start some heated debate related to both Ofgem's & the CMA's complicit role in the matter ... looks like ample evidence of plenty of 'snoozing' on the job, total incompetence, or worse, in those departments then! 

HTH - Z

This made me wonder how much renewable generation is curtailed by the infrastructure. For example, I have 4.35kWp installed capacity of panels, but will never generate that much because I only have a 3.6kW inverter (completely ignoring their orientation for this example). I could have gone for a bigger inverter, but didn't for 2 reasons, the cost of the bigger inverter was not worth the potential extra generation and if I went for a bigger inverter, my DNO may have imposed export limits.

I imagine that every commercial renewable generator also goes through the same sizing dilemmas.

So I wonder how the installed capacity compares to the maximum export capacity. I have a feeling that it is the installed capacity that is generally quoted / recorded. I think the maximum export capacity data will be available, but it is probably a big job to dig it out.

There are also several cumulative export limitation schemes across various NG substations where large amounts of offshore wind lands. I was going to give some example locations, but I can no longer find them on the NG website.

Magnitio

On Wednesday 22 March, MPs debated solar rooftop installations.

• Watch the debate
• Read a transcript of the debate

This was a Westminster Hall debate, led by Caroline Lucas MP. Graham Stuart MP, The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, responded to the debate. MPs discussed whether installation of solar panels on all suitable new-build homes should be made mandatory.

Martyn1981

zeupater said:

Martyn1981 said:

I thought this was important. Whilst not energy specifically, it is energy related.

Looks like the world population won't reach as high a peak as estimated.

[Note - Going back, but less common these days, some tried to blame AGW on a growing population due to out of control birth rates in 'other' countries. But those claims (on here) have been debunked many times, and nearly a decade ago the late Hans Rosling gave an utterly brilliant Ted talk showing that the birth rate was now under control, but that the population could grow to ~11bn due to folk living longer.]

How we produce our energy, and how quickly we transition to RE is still up to us, but a slower rise in population, and a lower peak, will of course help with CO2(e) emissions.

World ‘population bomb’ may never go off as feared, finds study

The long-feared “population bomb” may not go off, according to the authors of a new report that estimates that human numbers will peak lower and sooner than previously forecast.

The study, commissioned by the Club of Rome, projects that on current trends the world population will reach a high of 8.8 billion before the middle of the century, then decline rapidly. The peak could come earlier still if governments take progressive steps to raise average incomes and education levels.

The new forecasts are good news for the global environment. Once the demographic bulge is overcome, pressure on nature and the climate should start to ease, along with associated social and political tensions.

But the authors caution that falling birthrates alone will not solve the planet’s environmental problems, which are already serious at the 8 billion level and are primarily caused by the excess consumption of a wealthy minority.

Hi

I've seen a number of press reports on similar findings recently and these all seem to be based on UN data related to global birth rates etc - however, when looking into the methodology and detail, the headlines often misrepresent what the data actually shows .... whether this results from misunderstanding or intentionally pushing a particular narrative is unclear, but it happens .... the population conclusion of the report itself is pretty much in line with UN population lower banding 'medium' predictions and likely therefore simply reflect what the UN expectation is on it's low end predictions, so not really anything new, probably just something timed to trigger news articles for some reason or other ...

Take for example the UN data on birth rates, that is represented as annual births per thousand population ... the issue here is that although the numerical value has been falling for decades, the rate is still higher than a 1:1 replacement, however most of the representations show this as a percentage decline compared to the previous year which many see as evidence that, based on current data, the population will fall in the future as the population explosion wave ages and finally drops out of the dataset .... unfortunately, simply basing a conclusion on this provides a logical fallacy because the data at hand doesn't show what people think it shows ....

Okay, so why? .... well let's look at the data - annual births per 1000 population .... this isn't the birth rate per 1000 fertile females per year, which would need to equate to ~2 (so 1f+1m partner) over a lifetime and would be the basis of a logical approach to population studies, but it is a foundation for flawed onward analysis .... why? ... because any rate of population change based on birth rate is currently skewed by the existing population ... so how does this skew the data and any linked results/conclusions? ... because the existing population explosion wave within the dataset is diluting the effect of births on the dataset and therefore lowering the apparent births/1000 and therefore temporarily increasing the rate of decline .... the same number of births per year will show as a decline in birth rate over the previous year until the population associated with increased birth rate wave has fallen out of the dataset (aka .. died) .... the issue there is that when this has happened, the annual birth rate per 1000 will inevitably start to climb .... think about the effect of that on extrapolating future population density based on a straight line trend analysis of what is essentially flawed concept data!!!!

I agree with the caution afforded by the authors, it's totally necessary considering the potential for others to raise quite serious counterpoints on both data & conclusions, obviously including the serious impact of reduction in infant mortality over the period of UN dataset availability ... then there's the increased life expectancy and it's affect on the prime data .... these all need to be modelled together as opposed to analysed separately, and it looks like there's plenty of evidence that the UN themselves are not even doing this, whether they're fully aware of it, or not! ... 

Take for example their projections of future total population which anticipates a gradual reduction in population growth until it starts to fall somewhere around 2090 (UN link below) ... using their own dataset this almost straight line reduction cannot be correct .... the very fact that their own data shows population increasing at ~2%/year through the 1950's, 60's and into the early 70's with the current rate being ~0.88%, there'd be a logical annual growth deficit (population reduction) of somewhere around 1.1% (2.0-0.9) expected to start around now (population global cohort starting to reach age 70+), yet apart from a slight dip in growth (probably pandemic related) over recent years, the predicted rate of population change doesn't show this at all .... odd really, based on their own historical population data, logic would predict that deaths will soon be greater than births by ~1.1% for around 20+years, thus showing a global population decline in red on the graph for the appropriate time, however, the 'official' position is that the rate of population increase will slowly decline from ~+0.88% in 2023 to ~+0.47% in 2050, totally ignoring logic .... something is very wrong somewhere!!!!

              

HTH - Z

UN Data ....

Analysed Birth rates ...

Apologies Z, I thought I replied, but must have forgotten to press submit.

Just to say, thanks for the analysis, as I was somewhat surprised at the 8.8bn figure since it's so much closer to current population, than the 11bn (itself reflecting a levelling off of the birth rate) that I've gotten used to using. Given that the 11bn reflects the already larger young base, which can be expected to live longer, it was a surprisingly lower estimate than I expected.

Whatever the resultant peak is, at least it looks like we can transition the energy supply to a cleaner, greener and hopefully cheaper option for all.

zeupater

70sbudgie said:

[ ... ]

This made me wonder how much renewable generation is curtailed by the infrastructure. For example, I have 4.35kWp installed capacity of panels, but will never generate that much because I only have a 3.6kW inverter (completely ignoring their orientation for this example). I could have gone for a bigger inverter, but didn't for 2 reasons, the cost of the bigger inverter was not worth the potential extra generation and if I went for a bigger inverter, my DNO may have imposed export limits.

I imagine that every commercial renewable generator also goes through the same sizing dilemmas.

So I wonder how the installed capacity compares to the maximum export capacity. I have a feeling that it is the installed capacity that is generally quoted / recorded. I think the maximum export capacity data will be available, but it is probably a big job to dig it out.

There are also several cumulative export limitation schemes across various NG substations where large amounts of offshore wind lands. I was going to give some example locations, but I can no longer find them on the NG website.

Hi

Wow, that take me back a decade or so ....

.... effectively this used to be the basis of numerous discussions regarding declaring TIC vs DNC to DNOs and how different responsible bodies could possibly resolve the two forms of capacity disclosure to create a single accurate view without employing pure guesswork ....

Must currently (/finally) be causing some headache to the government because I came across this 2022 government statistics (beis) review some time ago ...

This paper sets out the current methodology for producing solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment statistics. It highlights suspected data gaps in the current approach, (e.g. some unsubsidised commercial scale installations between 50 kW and 1 MW capacity). It also discusses our plans to make the statistics more accurate and complete as new data sources become available.

... it's not as if they couldn't have known well over a decade ago, it's just that the issue was either ignored or misunderstood, which really says something!

For those who are unaware, DNC is effectively the Declared Net Capacity of an installed PV system including any & all AC output limitations, so effectively the lower of the maximum calculated inverted AC output from the number of panels in the system and the maximum potential AC output of the inverter(s) ... therefore affording a way of capping export power to the grid through under-sizing the inverter, this being what the DNO would require to ensure that additional microgeneration capacity didn't cause overload problems in a particular area. TIC is effectively the Total Installed Capacity, usually declared as simply the total DC power capacity, but sometimes taken as that capacity after AC inversion losses are included, so adding additional issues when attempting to resolve how much capacity is actually available .... don't you just love the consistency of joined-up-government logic!!! ....

Anyway, back to the point (broken energy supply system) ... although there is a form of curtailment through limiting some PV export at the inverter, this is only likely to be affecting domestic type PV installations, and only then in ideal generating conditions ... the form of curtailment being raised was one of ESO instruction for particular technologies to not generate, which they do either on a supply price or grid frequency basis, or voluntary self curtailment by generators themselves at the bidding stage (based on forecast conditions) so as not to adversely lower income and potential margins .... a system designed to be manipulated without consequence from the outset will be manipulated by those with vested interests until either consequences are introduced, or the system is modified & becomes open to real competitive transparency ... I don't suggest that anyone hold their breath until that happens then ...

HTH - Z