The future of fuel: will today be Britain's first coal free day since the Ind Rev?

GreatApe

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

But the supply may not be reliable.
Personally I have no desire to become dependent upon the whims of others, especially when these "others" include such as Vladimir Putin who has already threatened gas supplies elsewhere.

Then there is the question of price; we would become subject to markets controlled by who-knows-who in the future?
As with OPEC in the past and oil prices.

For gas to be a real, viable option we must have more of our own supply rather than being dependent upon others.

Plenty of people hold your view but its nonsense

Russia did not cut off gas even in the soviet cold war years. The future of gas is LNG which is more diversely and the USA Canada and Australia are all going to become big international suppliers.

Countries do not need to be energy independent nor should it even be an aim if its a costly endeavour.

Having said all this I do think many countries will become mostly energy independent in 50 years with PV and batteries simply due to that becoming the cheapest source.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

GreatApe wrote: »

Plenty of people hold your view but its nonsense

Russia did not cut off gas even in the soviet cold war years. The future of gas is LNG which is more diversely and the USA Canada and Australia are all going to become big international suppliers.

Countries do not need to be energy independent nor should it even be an aim if its a costly endeavour.

Having said all this I do think many countries will become mostly energy independent in 50 years with PV and batteries simply due to that becoming the cheapest source.

On the contrary, the misguided belief that reliance upon external supply for our electricity is without potential problems is where the nonsense lays.

A country may not indeed need to be self-sufficient in terms of power but it as sure as heck is a major advantage - and we potentially have the possibility to be self-sufficient.
It is an opportunity we should make the most of.

wotsthat

We could be self-sufficient in energy but choose not to be - it's not a big deal.

We sit above coal and frackable gas - let the NIMBY's win (for now) and leave it where it is. The danger is we deplete our own (probably more expensive) resources and miss out on the current plentiful supplies of cheap gas on the world market. No point cutting off our noses to spite our faces in the name of self-sufficiency. If/ when there was really a danger to supply the NIMBY's will be invited to do one and you'd find we'd all fall in love with fracking and suddenly find the urge to plan and build a couple of nuclear power stations in less than four decades.

Gas is only a medium term stopgap anyway. The future is probably nuclear and renewable. Plus, IMO, there's going to be a revolution in smart-devices that work with the grid to match supply and demand. They don't need to be that smart either - things like washing machines on stand-by waiting for the daily solar dip, or houses that go into stand-by/ energy generation mode when you leave for work.

The ideal would be for the technology to not only balance supply and demand but to allow planned energy supply (gas/ nuclear) to run at efficient baseload steady states and let the smart-devices negotiate over the available fluctuating renewables i.e. if you want a load of washing doing and specify it needs doing now you pay more than if you specify it can be done anytime over the next 3 days.

Obviously this is already happening as energy usage has been falling for years but it's going to continue bar a blip as the personal transport system is electrified.

Something I don't think has really been discussed has been the future impact of electric bicycles especially as human drivers are taken from behind the wheel. I commute a lot in the summer - 30 miles takes me 1:45 and I average 150 watts or so. It's a long time for a commute but I like the exercise and the alternative car commute is a pain in the !!!! and regularly takes an hour anyway. If I could get a 150 watt boost I'd probably be looking at doing that in 1:15 and, all of a sudden, it's something doable on a daily basis and I get 1:15 of exercise for only 15 minutes net time.

Extrapolate that to the population at large. If people could, in conjunction, with an electrical boost propel themselves at 20mph the world of commuting would look very different. Most days you could probably do a 10 mile commute quicker than driving. TBH the bike technology is already here so I suspect it's the fear of being mown down by careless drivers that is putting people off.

ruperts

wotsthat wrote: »

We could be self-sufficient in energy but choose not to be - it's not a big deal.

We sit above coal and frackable gas - let the NIMBY's win (for now) and leave it where it is. The danger is we deplete our own (probably more expensive) resources and miss out on the current plentiful supplies of cheap gas on the world market. No point cutting off our noses to spite our faces in the name of self-sufficiency. If/ when there was really a danger to supply the NIMBY's will be invited to do one and you'd find we'd all fall in love with fracking and suddenly find the urge to plan and build a couple of nuclear power stations in less than four decades.

Gas is only a medium term stopgap anyway. The future is probably nuclear and renewable. Plus, IMO, there's going to be a revolution in smart-devices that work with the grid to match supply and demand. They don't need to be that smart either - things like washing machines on stand-by waiting for the daily solar dip, or houses that go into stand-by/ energy generation mode when you leave for work.

The ideal would be for the technology to not only balance supply and demand but to allow planned energy supply (gas/ nuclear) to run at efficient baseload steady states and let the smart-devices negotiate over the available fluctuating renewables i.e. if you want a load of washing doing and specify it needs doing now you pay more than if you specify it can be done anytime over the next 3 days.

Obviously this is already happening as energy usage has been falling for years but it's going to continue bar a blip as the personal transport system is electrified.

Something I don't think has really been discussed has been the future impact of electric bicycles especially as human drivers are taken from behind the wheel. I commute a lot in the summer - 30 miles takes me 1:45 and I average 150 watts or so. It's a long time for a commute but I like the exercise and the alternative car commute is a pain in the !!!! and regularly takes an hour anyway. If I could get a 150 watt boost I'd probably be looking at doing that in 1:15 and, all of a sudden, it's something doable on a daily basis and I get 1:15 of exercise for only 15 minutes net time.

Extrapolate that to the population at large. If people could, in conjunction, with an electrical boost propel themselves at 20mph the world of commuting would look very different. Most days you could probably do a 10 mile commute quicker than driving. TBH the bike technology is already here so I suspect it's the fear of being mown down by careless drivers that is putting people off.

Why would anyone want to travel on an electric push bike when they can drive a car though? Cars are much more comfortable, quicker, safer, more practical etc. I can't see any future where bicycles overtake cars as the preferred method of treatment and it's about time the filthy hipster liberals who work on Council transport planning departments realised that and started funding the roads properly again. We've the worst roads in Europe and frankly that's an embarrassment.

wotsthat

ruperts wrote: »

Why would anyone want to travel on an electric push bike when they can drive a car though? Cars are much more comfortable, quicker, safer, more practical etc. I can't see any future where bicycles overtake cars as the preferred method of treatment and it's about time the filthy hipster liberals who work on Council transport planning departments realised that and started funding the roads properly again. We've the worst roads in Europe and frankly that's an embarrassment.

In the scenario where the electric motor assists rather than provides 100% propulsion people might decide not having a fat Harris is a welcome by-product along with improved mental health and a lower risk of the diseases associated with wealth (heart attack/ cancer/ diabetes).

There's also a self-satisfied glow (smugness) you get having cycled 30 miles to work in the morning. Plus there's the diesel saved.

Yes, the road surfaces are crap but they're crap for cyclist and motorist alike although disproportionately more dangerous to the cyclist.

GreatApe

wotsthat wrote: »

We could be self-sufficient in energy but choose not to be - it's not a big deal.

We sit above coal and frackable gas - let the NIMBY's win (for now) and leave it where it is. The danger is we deplete our own (probably more expensive) resources and miss out on the current plentiful supplies of cheap gas on the world market. No point cutting off our noses to spite our faces in the name of self-sufficiency. If/ when there was really a danger to supply the NIMBY's will be invited to do one and you'd find we'd all fall in love with fracking and suddenly find the urge to plan and build a couple of nuclear power stations in less than four decades.

Gas is only a medium term stopgap anyway. The future is probably nuclear and renewable. Plus, IMO, there's going to be a revolution in smart-devices that work with the grid to match supply and demand. They don't need to be that smart either - things like washing machines on stand-by waiting for the daily solar dip, or houses that go into stand-by/ energy generation mode when you leave for work.

The ideal would be for the technology to not only balance supply and demand but to allow planned energy supply (gas/ nuclear) to run at efficient baseload steady states and let the smart-devices negotiate over the available fluctuating renewables i.e. if you want a load of washing doing and specify it needs doing now you pay more than if you specify it can be done anytime over the next 3 days.

Obviously this is already happening as energy usage has been falling for years but it's going to continue bar a blip as the personal transport system is electrified.

Something I don't think has really been discussed has been the future impact of electric bicycles especially as human drivers are taken from behind the wheel. I commute a lot in the summer - 30 miles takes me 1:45 and I average 150 watts or so. It's a long time for a commute but I like the exercise and the alternative car commute is a pain in the !!!! and regularly takes an hour anyway. If I could get a 150 watt boost I'd probably be looking at doing that in 1:15 and, all of a sudden, it's something doable on a daily basis and I get 1:15 of exercise for only 15 minutes net time.

Extrapolate that to the population at large. If people could, in conjunction, with an electrical boost propel themselves at 20mph the world of commuting would look very different. Most days you could probably do a 10 mile commute quicker than driving. TBH the bike technology is already here so I suspect it's the fear of being mown down by careless drivers that is putting people off.

What's more likely than electric bicycles is that the robo taxis of the future will be small cars like smart cars or even smaller single seat vehicles.

Also a lot of deliveries could be made with small drones the size of a shopping trolleys or smaller. Think of a pizza delivery. Currently a 1kg pizza is delivered by a 100kg man sitting inside a 1,000kg car. In the future that 1kg pizza might be delivered by a 30kg pavement delivery drone.

GreatApe

ruperts wrote: »

Why would anyone want to travel on an electric push bike when they can drive a car though? Cars are much more comfortable, quicker, safer, more practical etc. I can't see any future where bicycles overtake cars as the preferred method of treatment and it's about time the filthy hipster liberals who work on Council transport planning departments realised that and started funding the roads properly again. We've the worst roads in Europe and frankly that's an embarrassment.

Cars are designed to meet a families max needs. 5 passengers plus cargo. Robo taxi fleets can match average needs. So if most trips are currently one person per car then a robo taxi fleet could mostly be one seat cars naybe something that is half the width of a smartcar. With a smaller number of two person and five person cars for those trips that involve more people.

Having said that bikes are fun and electric bikes are fun too so they will still be used.

Martyn1981

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Which leaves one option really for gas to remain both viable and a sensible option if we are to use gas rather than significantly increase greener sources.
How popular can we make fracking as an option?

There are two other options for gas.

Firstly bio-gas such as the green grass gas idea from Ecotricity. They are 'following' the fraccing industry around and applying in the same locations.

Secondly is power to gas (P2G) which is a storage method for excess leccy generation from renewables as and when we have too much. It produces hydrogen, which can then be used to produce methane. The process benefits from a source of CO2, so siting this storage at a gas generation plant has benefits. Also, another form of large scale storage LAES (liquid air energy storage) can reach 70%+ efficiency when boosted by waste heat ..... such as that from a gas generation plant. So co-siting gas generation, P2G and LAES is a great form of peak generation and concentrated storage which would boost renewables.

There is a third option, but it gets more complex, and that's heat pumps for domestic space heating. These are more efficient than domestic gas boilers even after allowing for approx 2kWh's of gas being burnt to generate 1kWh of leccy, since the average UK COP of heat pumps is about 2.9+. Increasing the amount of generation that comes from renewables would further improve this technology as a UK gas reducer.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Offshore wind has potential its going to be expensive but it is possible in the UK to go to perhaps as much as 55% wind power

Hopefully this months CfD auction will result in off-shore wind bids at less than the CfD awarded to Hinkley Point C. HPC is to get a 35yr subsidy of £100/MWh in today's money, whilst the 15yr off-shore wind contracts have steadily fallen from about £160 down to £120, with expectations of £100 this year, and perhaps £85 by the mid 2020's.

So it should be joining on-shore wind and PV which are already considerably cheaper than nuclear at around £83, with more recent European contracts this year down to around £60.

Germany has laid out plans for unsubsidised off-shore wind, but these are for construction starting in about 5yrs time and based on the assumption that larger turbines will be possible (around 15MW each) which will pull down costs considerably.

Also, whilst the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon will be expensive to test out the technology, the tidal lagoon package (equal to about 150% of the annual generation of HPC) should come in at around on-shore wind / PV costs.

So 55% wind power is more than possible, especially given the rapidly falling costs of storage. Add on 20% from PV, 12% from tidal, 4% from hydro, 10-20% from bio-energy, 10% grid balancing/demand following from natural gas, and we are well over the finishing line, even if the current nuclear fleet isn't replaced.

GreatApe

All three options are silly large capital low usage low efficiency ideas. The UK should just go for efficiency EVs and large amounts of gas in CCGTs.

If offshore wind power gets cheap enough then install that to displace some of the CCGT generation.

Every country does not need to go for a 100% green grid, small highly populated countries like England have a good case to not pollute the countryside with solar and wind farms and make residential buildings ugly with bolt on PV panels.