Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope. P2G allows for a large amount of concentrated storage (possibly even seasonal storage) that can then be used to generate leccy during high demand / low supply periods, either via fuel cells or CCGT. It's principal benefit is to allow far greater capacity of RE onto the grid, which in turn displaces even more FF and its externalities - the whole point of RE.

You dont need to do that to green the grid.
Offshore wind + curtailment + interconnectors + EV-Storage and perhaps a small amount of biomass will get you there.

So that can not be the reason to make Electricity to chemical processes viable. The reason is for seasonal storage.

I've already explained all of this, and whilst you dismiss the P2G industry / process / research out of hand, I personally think it will continue, and do rather well.

Why are you forcing yourself to deny the simple logic and math behind it all?
How on earths name do you plan to do Electricity to Methane where the Methane side is just £15/MWh ? And closer to $10/MWh in places like the USA/Canada/Australia/Middle-East/Russia

Do you not see how crazy a proposition that is?
You need renewable electricity to fall to less than £5/MWh

Also what do you think of a world grid (or rather regional grids with some interconnection to other regions). That solves the seasonal storage and integreation problems and its just some copper wires. No need to build thousands of monster industrial complexes to make chemicals to then burn those chemicals and create pollutants in the processes.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

You dont need to do that to green the grid.
Offshore wind + curtailment + interconnectors + EV-Storage and perhaps a small amount of biomass will get you there.

Why waste the leccy with curtailment if P2G is available. Now do you understand? I appreciate that you don't get it, but I'm not sure why my being aware of it is so important to you. The industry exists and much R&D is going into it .... regardless of what I (or you) think.

I believe we've been through all of this many times before - are you @cells posting under two names?

I keep asking as @cells' mind was always made up regardless of what I ever said, such as the grid costing 10p/day, when it's actually 30p/day.

If you are @cells too, and using two names on here, then there really is little point in us going over old ground.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm really not sure where you were going with all of that, other than to deny facts, figures and national / international press info.

The facts of journalists with a degree in arts who mostly just copy and past other websites? Yeh you can bet I dont take them too seriously

In which case nothing I say, nor links to what is actually happening, such as China cancelling coal powerstations will change your mind.

That is funny I read just yesterday that the reason for china canceling 100GW or so of coal was to do with politics. The central government gave the provinces the power to decide if and when they needed additional coal generation. The provinces decided to overbuild because they knew a cap was coming and because at the time (2-3 years ago) coal was cheap and the output of the coal stations was purchased at regulated prices which meant it was guaranteed profit . The central government slapped them down and said get realistic stop gaming the system expecting the provinces to do a better job. A while later it was obvious the provinces were not behaving or acting in the national interest but in their provincial interest so the central government took over again and canceled some 100GW or so of planned coal.

So it was provincial government bringing forward demand in the hope of getting jobs in their areas, then the central government taking back control and saying hold on a minute.

That makes a hell of a lot more sense than your websites dancing around pretending 100GW of coal was actually closed down or canceled. It was as I said a few posts ago, someone puts a plan down and then decide against it. There is nothing in that to celebrate

Anyway the fact is the chinese already have the best part of 1400GW of thermal plants. They are adding more thermal plants int he form of nuclear and will likely add some more NG in the future they dont need more for a stable grid.

And other good news is they are getting really tough about polution from the coal plants supposedly by 2020 the worst chinese coal plant is going to be better than the best USA coal plant when it comes to pollutants. Plus the Chinese have more ultra super critical plants than anyone else and will likely add some more over the next 5-10 years to dispalce their older plants.

Anyone that values that gas displacement purely on the fuel cost whilst ignoring the AGW impact, will never understand the benefits of clean generation.

You have to try very hard to convince any reasonable person that CCGT output tens/hundreds of miles away is harming their health. Cars expose you to orders of magnitude more pollutants. Cooking at home exposes you to orders of magnitude more. Your boiler in your kitchen exposes you to orders of magnitudes more. Displacing the remaining CCGT output in the UK will do very close to nothing to improve life expectancy or health in the UK

I am very pro solar for hot countries
And I am pro offshore wind for the UK (and many other nations) and feel offshore wind could get to £30/MWh in which case it works fully on its own merits.

There is no need to con people into thinking they will live longer healthier lives if only we displaced some CCGT output a hundred miles away that makes you look silly and it betrays the trust the public have in your information.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why waste the leccy with curtailment if P2G is available

Because you can not build a capital expensive industry like manufacturing chemicals and only run it 5-20% of the time. What are you going to do, hire chemical engineers and process personnel on zero hour contracts and send them a text when the wind is blowing hard to haul !!! and get to work? Large capital intensive industry needs to run at 100% capacity or close to it.

Also this is not a problem that needs a solution anytime soon. with say 50GW of offshore wind and 40GW of CCGT and 1.2GW of our existing LWR and potentially the 3.2GW dual EPR if it is built + 15GW interconnect to the EU we wont get to a point of much curtailment anytime soon.

At best with 50GW of offshore wind the max likely output is to be 35GW
Out low points are about 20GW demand at night + 15GW of exports would mean we dont need to curtail much of the wind at all.

We wont pass 50GW wind anytime soon. When is the plan to have 50GW wind in the uk which year?

Also if EVs become popular and if we electrify base-load heating needs (like showers/baths) that will increase the demand for electricity during the lower demand periods so more wind can be integrated still without much curtailment

Now do you understand? I appreciate that you don't get it, but I'm not sure why my being aware of it is so important to you. The industry exists and much R&D is going into it .... regardless of what I (or you) think.

And just like hydrogen cars its all going to waste

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

We need to remind you all that this is a friendly forum. Please help us keep it that way.

Please read our Forum Rules to remind yourselves of how you can help us keep it friendly: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs

To be clear, a post that is negative, disagrees with you, or could be wrong does not break our rules.

We don't have the resource to deal with reports of those and will simply close the ticket. Abusive, sexist, racist posts etc do.

Please help us by using your ignore list to block anyone you don't get on with.

If we ask you to taken certain steps, such as use your ignore list and you choose not to and continue to argue, we may have to take action on your own forum account.

Thanks for listening.

Peace and out :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSGBct3RgX0

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

The facts of journalists with a degree in arts who mostly just copy and past other websites? Yeh you can bet I dont take them too seriously

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as we've already gone over all of these arguments many times before, there seems little point discussing the matter further.

All the best.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope. P2G allows for a large amount of concentrated storage (possibly even seasonal storage) that can then be used to generate leccy during high demand / low supply periods, via CCGT.

Didn't you spend lots of time trying to convince me CCGTs are a hazard to health and that wind/PV will help reduce this hazard to health by displacing CCGT output?

If CCGTs are really that bad, which I do not buy but its a story you are trying to sell, then why the hell would you want P2G to then burn that methane in CCGTs?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as we've already gone over all of these arguments many times before, there seems little point discussing the matter further.

All the best.

We dont fundamentally disagree you just dont like me because I say tone down the propaganda

I think PV will do very well in hot countries

I think Offshore wind (and high CF onshore wind) might do VERY well if the price goes towards £30/MWh or $30/MWh (and I think that will happen) then it becomes a terrific technology really fantastic new source of energy that will go on to take huge market share

I also think nuclear for the UK is a bad idea.
We probably agree on all the above that is the bulk of the arguments covered

I just dont see the need to lie to the public about CCGT pollution being a big hazard to their heath. I dont see the need to use trickery accounting to pretend that PV or Wind in the UK is subsidy free or close to it at this time. I dont see the need to try and frame it as nuclear vs Wind/PV. Then there are small debates about batteries and storage and the grid and P2G etc etc but those really dont matter much in that they wont play much of a part of the energy system for 20 years

Martyn1981

More good news for off-shore wind:-

World’s First Floating Wind Farm Finally Starts Production In Scotland

It's still early days and this scheme is expensive, but if it can work, then it opens up the market massively, as turbines will no longer have to sit on bases, which in turn are mounted on the sea bed.

This could work well for the US.

The project was officially opened today by Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

“I am delighted to open Hywind Scotland — the world’s first floating wind farm,” said the First Minister. “Hywind will provide clean energy to over twenty thousand homes and will help us meet our ambitious climate change targets.”

“This marks an exciting development for renewable energy in Scotland. Our support for floating offshore wind is testament to this government’s commitment to the development of this technology and, coupled with Statoil’s Battery Storage Project, Batwind, puts us at the forefront of this global race and positions Scotland as a world centre for energy innovation.”

Statoil announced in March of 2016 that it would be building a pilot battery storage solution for Hywind Scotland, cheekily named Batwind.

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

... then why the hell would you want P2G to then burn that methane in CCGTs?

Hi

It called shortening the carbon cycle ... taking carbon from the atmosphere, storing it & then releasing the energy later has a net-zero impact on atmospheric CO2 whilst consuming natural gas/methane adds to existing CO2 levels ...

HTH
Z