When will fossil fuel useage peak a general discussion

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

technology would likely suit the low cost SS cell stacks developed by Ceres Power.
Z

Are they still peddling their non viable tech?

New CCGTs are nearly 63% efficient what's more they are cheap last decades and can be operated with as little as 10 men on site for a 1GW plant

That's pretty dam hard to compete against

Also their technology is soon going to be more Dirty than the UK grid
50-60% efficient fuel cell are too high carbon Vs Wind/Nuclear/PV/Imports

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Can you elaborate where the co-gen heat source is? Are we talking about district heating supplemented by a heat pump?

Methane fuel cell 'boiler', which at around 50% efficiency for leccy generation, would compliment PV and batts perfectly in the colder, lower generation months.

If that route proves viable, then the existing gas infrastructure can be used, and with lower overall demand for gas (insulation, heat pumps, etc etc) then would open the door to higher % penetrations of bio-gas.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Methane fuel cell 'boiler', which at around 50% efficiency for leccy generation, would compliment PV and batts perfectly in the colder, lower generation months.

If that route proves viable, then the existing gas infrastructure can be used, and with lower overall demand for gas (insulation, heat pumps, etc etc) then would open the door to higher % penetrations of bio-gas.

This makes absolutely no sense

How is generating electricity with fuel cells an advantage over today's grid let alone the grid of 5-10 years from now?

Even in a co-generation setup getting 85% overall efficiency this is a bad deal because the grid is cleaner (very soon) than even a fuel cell at 100% (which isn't theoretically even possible) so why are you trying to peddle 50% (85% co-generation) systems? Systems that will be generating local pollution impacting the health of innocent children and pets

It makes more sense to buy your electricity from the grid and use a condensing boiler at 90% and ideally a condensing boiler with a built in electrical elements that can use surplus wind when it's available. Such a boiler would get more and more green over time as it runs more and more on electricity

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

This makes absolutely no sense

How is generating electricity with fuel cells an advantage over today's grid let alone the grid of 5-10 years from now?

Even in a co-generation setup getting 85% overall efficiency this is a bad deal because the grid is cleaner (very soon) than even a fuel cell at 100% (which isn't theoretically even possible) so why are you trying to peddle 50% (85% co-generation) systems? Systems that will be generating local pollution impacting the health of innocent children and pets

It makes more sense to buy your electricity from the grid and use a condensing boiler at 90% and ideally a condensing boiler with a built in electrical elements that can use surplus wind when it's available. Such a boiler would get more and more green over time as it runs more and more on electricity

I believe we have been all over this many times before, and I can understand ABrass'ed off with it.

So quick re-cap, then shall we move on?

Firstly, you complain about teh use of a methane fuel cell boiler for pollution, but then suggest a methane GCH boiler as the alternative, bit weird?

So back to the fuel cell boiler. Now, these can run more efficiently on hydrogen, but the issue here is to make 'best use' of the existing infrastructure, and what most UK properties have is electrical supply and gas (methane) supply.

So, you use the CHP methane fuel cell boiler, I think it's about 30% efficient in heat, and around 50% efficient in leccy. This gives you hot water, and some heating, and the heating part is fixed (back to that in a bit).

You now have a winter source of leccy generation, which would be a very good 'partner' to demand side PV generation, which is (of course) lower in the winter months.

I, personally would suggest this mix would work best with a battery as heating and leccy demand would not necessarily match (timewise), especially if the heating is running in the early hours, to warm up the house, and evening to prevent cooling down, when leccy demand will be low.

Now, the obvious, I think, next step is to install a small air to air heat pump (A/C unit). This can be used to top up heat when the boiler needs assistance, and would of course make use of the leccy generation, and get a COP boost - even if the COP average was only 2, we then have 1kWh(t) from 1kWh of gas from the leccy side, plus the heat itself from the boiler.

The simple ASHP is perfect as DHW is provided by the boiler, and it can run off PV generation during the shoulder months when the boiler isn't needed much, or at all (other than for DHW, but a PV diverter might suit also).


Moving on from the micro side, to the macro side, switching all our space heating from GCH to leccy will be tough, so anything that can help spread the load is a benefit.

I personally can see the benefits of a mix of heat pumps, plus GCH boilers using bio-gas, plus CHP fuel cell boilers also using bio-gas. To run the UK wholly on bio-gas is probably close to impossible, but with better insulation, and a mix of alternatives (as suggested) it may well be doable.

I apologise for repeating all this 'stuff' yet again, but you keep ignoring/dismissing the alternatives, when as yet, we can't do that.

The only thing that we can say for certain, is that FF methane can not be considered as we look towards the medium and long term, it has to go, there is no choice. Note - This is not my opinion, this is simply a fact.

zeupater

ABrass wrote: »

All the sums showing how great a deal gas is miss the point that we can't use gas forever.

All the sums looking at how great CHP is miss the point that with decent levels of insulation you don't need that much heat.

Also CHP has been bored to death in other threads. Can we avoid repeating it ad nausem?

Hi

I really don't know how anyone would expect to have a discussion related to the peak use of !!!!!! without considering how the consumption of !!!!!! being used for domestic heating can be reduced. so ...

- "All the sums showing how great a deal gas is miss the point that we can't use gas forever" ....

The issue here is how you get from where you are to where you need to be.

Currently we use FF gas which leads to emissions at a level which is unsustainable, therefore there's a need to get to a position where emissions are reduced to net zero, then net negative, a position which can't be achieved through wishing the issue away, so it needs a pathway which includes efficiencies & various technologies along with a way of managing the interrelationships between those technologies.

Moreover, whatever direction the technology path takes it can't be allowed to force us into a cul-de-sac which is fully controlled by any one sector! ... if the combination of insulation, PV, batteries, fuel cells & heat pumps can be leveraged to reduce the FF gas (& gas generated electricity!) provision for domestic heating by (say) 80%-90% without loss of comfort or amenity for the average person we get to a position where a crossover from FF gas to a sustainable source of renewables based gas become possible, in which the short carbon cycle becomes a GHG non-issue ....

- "All the sums looking at how great CHP is miss the point that with decent levels of insulation you don't need that much heat" ...

Agree, but even if your home conforms to current passivhaus standards there's still a recognised need for heat provision to maintain comfort ...

We ourselves have a highly insulated property (well above current standards) and therefore have a relatively low space heating requirement, which enables us to use smaller capacity versions of expensive technologies which narrows the capital investment gap to current gas boilers (etc) & reduces the cost of energy purchased.

- "Also CHP has been bored to death in other threads. Can we avoid repeating it ad nausem?" ...

Well, considering we're effectively talking about energy efficiency measures through utilising what would otherwise be a waste product, I can't see how you could avoid the existence of CHP.

Leaving the energy source aside, GA has ideas on applying a form of district CHP provision on a national basis, controlled by very large conglomerates or governments (as these are the only bodies that have access to the capital requirements!) which may work in densely populated areas of densely populated countries, but as the required economic population density doesn't apply to all populations in all countries, then a centralised network of heating would tend to target only the areas which are considered suitable, therefore being unlikely to provide a global solution, whereas a straight replacement of one set of consumer technologies for another on an individual property basis can tap into typical economies of scale savings whilst creating relatively little disruption ...

You simply can't consider the peaking of FF derived energy without considering the relevant technologies to reduce gas consumption related to domestic & commercial property heating ... unless you don't really want to consider the peaking of FF usage that is! ....

HTH
Z

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I believe we have been all over this many times before, and I can understand ABrass'ed off with it.

So quick re-cap, then shall we move on?

Firstly, you complain about teh use of a methane fuel cell boiler for pollution, but then suggest a methane GCH boiler as the alternative, bit weird?

So back to the fuel cell boiler. Now, these can run more efficiently on hydrogen, but the issue here is to make 'best use' of the existing infrastructure, and what most UK properties have is electrical supply and gas (methane) supply.

So, you use the CHP methane fuel cell boiler, I think it's about 30% efficient in heat, and around 50% efficient in leccy. This gives you hot water, and some heating, and the heating part is fixed (back to that in a bit).

You now have a winter source of leccy generation, which would be a very good 'partner' to demand side PV generation, which is (of course) lower in the winter months.

I, personally would suggest this mix would work best with a battery as heating and leccy demand would not necessarily match (timewise), especially if the heating is running in the early hours, to warm up the house, and evening to prevent cooling down, when leccy demand will be low.

Now, the obvious, I think, next step is to install a small air to air heat pump (A/C unit). This can be used to top up heat when the boiler needs assistance, and would of course make use of the leccy generation, and get a COP boost - even if the COP average was only 2, we then have 1kWh(t) from 1kWh of gas from the leccy side, plus the heat itself from the boiler.

The simple ASHP is perfect as DHW is provided by the boiler, and it can run off PV generation during the shoulder months when the boiler isn't needed much, or at all (other than for DHW, but a PV diverter might suit also).


Moving on from the micro side, to the macro side, switching all our space heating from GCH to leccy will be tough, so anything that can help spread the load is a benefit.

I personally can see the benefits of a mix of heat pumps, plus GCH boilers using bio-gas, plus CHP fuel cell boilers also using bio-gas. To run the UK wholly on bio-gas is probably close to impossible, but with better insulation, and a mix of alternatives (as suggested) it may well be doable.

I apologise for repeating all this 'stuff' yet again, but you keep ignoring/dismissing the alternatives, when as yet, we can't do that.

The only thing that we can say for certain, is that FF methane can not be considered as we look towards the medium and long term, it has to go, there is no choice. Note - This is not my opinion, this is simply a fact.

First of all it's not fact that we have to stop using natural gas or !!!!!! it's currently a mild desire of the political class it's not a fact as in the speed of light is X meters per second fact


As for your fuel cell running a heat pump idea it's a bad idea because you are taking an already complicated and expensive system and making it more expensive and complicated

Even if you are using this electricity in a heat pump and let's be more generous And say you get 2.5x cop and the 30% of heat from NG you are at 155% efficiency Vs 90% in a condensing boiler

That improves the efficiency but it doesn't clean things up much
185 grams CO2 natural gas becomes 120 grams per kWh heat
That's not good enough
If the grid is only 50 grams (which it will be in the near future) why not just use grid electricity and use the same 2.5x cop heat pump to get 20 grams per KWh heat?

In fact your idea is worse than even using simple cheap resistance heaters which would be 50 grams CO2 Vs your 120 grams idea. Plus your idea has massive capital and maintenance cost

Your idea is 6x more carbon intensive and is really expensive Vs just using grid electricity and a heat pump

So again these make no sense
Not for a carbon budget
Not for capital efficient
Not for simplicity


What makes sense to electrify heating is a mix of technology

About one third resistance heated (most the flats and low demand newer builds), one third pure heat pump heated (mostly the larger demand properties so the capital cost is spread among more units) and about one third hybrid heaters to mop up excess rather than curtail it or invent mas syn fuel industries

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

First of all it's not fact that we have to stop using natural gas or !!!!!! it's currently a mild desire of the political class it's not a fact as in the speed of light is X meters per second fact


As for your fuel cell running a heat pump idea it's a bad idea because you are taking an already complicated and expensive system and making it more expensive and complicated

Even if you are using this electricity in a heat pump and let's be more generous And say you get 2.5x cop and the 30% of heat from NG you are at 155% efficiency Vs 90% in a condensing boiler

1. No, it is a fact that we will have to stop using FF gas. I appreciate that you are openly an AGW denier (and also deny the health impacts of burning FF's), but UK and international policies/agreements are to reduce CO2 emissions to zero - this is a fact, and unless that changes (and it won't) it will remain a fact. If you can provide a link stating that this is not the Worldwide policy, then post it, otherwise please stop denying facts.

2.You say my idea is complicated, yet you want to install a complex system too, a gas boiler plus resistive leccy heating.

Yet many of us on here have already combined GCH with leccy heating, but instead of 1:1 efficiency, have opted for HP's with much higher COPs. We have done this today (actually yesterday), simple and cheap.

3. Yes, I agree, even at a low(ish) COP, the fuel cell boiler and ASHP are far more efficient than your idea. And offer far more flexibility, and offer a distributed leccy generation source (SSEG's) during the coldest periods, when the NG is under greatest demand strain.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. No, it is a fact that we will have to stop using FF gas. I appreciate that you are openly an AGW denier (and also deny the health impacts of burning FF's), but UK and international policies/agreements are to reduce CO2 emissions to zero - this is a fact, and unless that changes (and it won't) it will remain a fact. If you can provide a link stating that this is not the Worldwide policy, then post it, otherwise please stop denying facts.

Those are aims not facts

And I believe in climate change I just don't think it's a big net problem likewise the health impacts are negligible compared to normal human activities

2.You say my idea is complicated, yet you want to install a complex system too, a gas boiler plus resistive leccy heating.

Actually I'm fine with just sticking with what we have
I'm just pointing out the next most easy and effective solution is to regulate boilers to have resistance heaters. The additional cost would be negligible and such a boiler installed today would get more and more green over its 20 year life as more and more wind power is installed. The cost of doing this is very close to nil

Yet many of us on here have already combined GCH with leccy heating, but instead of 1:1 efficiency, have opted for HP's with much higher COPs. We have done this today (actually yesterday), simple and cheap.

But didn't you say it was fact you had to stop using methane
Depending on cost and maintenance an air to heat heat pump could be effective
What is the cost and COP for an A2AHP?

3. Yes, I agree, even at a low(ish) COP, the fuel cell boiler and ASHP are far more efficient than your idea. And offer far more flexibility, and offer a distributed leccy generation source (SSEG's) during the coldest periods, when the NG is under greatest demand strain.

I said no such thing I said your fuel cell idea is about 6 X more carbon intensive than the grid so is Abbas idea

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Those are aims not facts

But didn't you say it was fact you had to stop using methane

1. It's a fact that the aim is to reduce FF consumption to zero. I think I made that clear.

If you disagree with that fact, then you need to provide a link saying that the global aim is not to reduce FF emissions to zero.

2. No. I said we had to stop using FF methane. If you don't understand the difference then I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.

GreatApe wrote: »

I said no such thing I said your fuel cell idea is about 6 X more carbon intensive than the grid so is Abbas idea

Actually you were quite specific that the heat pump idea was more efficient, I believe you said '155% v's 90%'.

And it would be net zero in carbon emissions if run on bio-gas.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. It's a fact that the aim is to reduce FF consumption to zero. I think I made that clear.

What's with adding fact in front of an aim? What does it achieve other than to try and confuse your readers into pushing your views and values as necessities?

The current aim (which can change) is that we will try to reduce fossil consumption towards zero by 2050

If you disagree with that fact, then you need to provide a link saying that the global aim is not to reduce FF emissions to zero.

A fact would be something like the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s
We will try to reduce fossil fuel useage is an aim a goal

2. No. I said we had to stop using FF methane. If you don't understand the difference then I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.

You sound like my grandmother who used to say we had to go to church every Sunday
Turns out I didn't have to
That was her trying to impose her views and values onto me
Which is what you are trying to do
No thanks

And it would be net zero in carbon emissions if run on bio-gas.

Complexity and cost on top of complexity and cost on top of complexity and cost

Yep that's Gona work