The Alternative Green Energy Thread

paul991

If only they were aspirational not bland 

JKenH

Energy secretary to force Great British Energy to ensure there is no slavery or human trafficking in its supply chain

Between 35% and 40% of polysilicon, the key raw material for solar panels, is produced in Xinjiang where the Muslim Uyghur population has been subject to arbitrary detention and forced labour.

MPs and peers have campaigned for months for changes to the Great British Energy bill to make clear the company, which has been promised more than £8bn to spend, will not invest in projects where there is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chains.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/23/great-british-energy-will-not-use-solar-panels-linked-to-chinese-slave-labour

JKenH

I came across this on the internet. Nothing, perhaps, most people on here don’t know but a dramatic visual representation of how dependent developing economies still are on coal.  Should we really be importing EVs and solar panels made in China with all their embedded carbon emissions? Maybe it’s time to repatriate manufacturing to Europe and soak up all the renewable energy that currently is, and even more in the future, will be curtailed. 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcapitalist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F04%2FGlobal-Electricity-Mix-2024_Website_04032025.png&tbnid=Kg9yseyFC_6-xM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcapitalist.com%2Fcharted-how-top-economies-generated-electricity-in-2024%2F&docid=E2mJ5BM1iEoA8M&w=1200&h=1630&itg=1&hl=en-gb&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F1&kgs=d041fec971d95c48

No matter how much some commentators might applaud China for progress in renewables, its economy is driven by coal. Imagine if Europe and the U.S. stopped importing from China and repatriated manufacturing just how much that would save in CO2 emissions. There would perhaps be no need to keep building new coal fired stations. 

Construction started on 94.5GW of new coal-fired power plants in 2024, according to the study. It says this is a sign of continued momentum in developing new coal projects, despite government pledges to “strictly” control the use of the fossil fuel. The report adds that 3.3GW of suspended projects also resumed construction in 2024. 

Approvals for new coal construction rebounded in the second half of the year to 66.7GW, after permitting only 9GW in the first half.

Taken altogether, the report says this signals a substantial amount of new capacity will come online in the next few years, “solidifying” coal’s place as a major source of electricity.

In 2023, China accounted for 95% of the world’s new coal construction.

Meanwhile, retirement and mothballing of old coal plants remains “low”, the report says. This is particularly pronounced in recent years, with the amount of capacity being closed down each year dropping sharply from around 13GW in 2020 to 2.5GW in 2024.

All of this stands in “direct conflict” with Chinese president Xi Jinping’s pledge in 2021 to “strictly limit the increase in coal consumption” between 2021 and 2026, the report says, as well as China’s 2030 carbon-peaking action plan. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/

QrizB

JKenH said:

No matter how much some commentators might applaud China for progress in renewables, its economy is driven by coal.

China passed peak oil last year, and is probably at peak coal this year. Those new coal plants will burn less coal than the ones they're replacing did.

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

No matter how much some commentators might applaud China for progress in renewables, its economy is driven by coal.

China passed peak oil last year, and is probably at peak coal this year. Those new coal plants will burn less coal than the ones they're replacing did.

There is widespread outrage at the idea of a coal mine to produce coking coal to keep essential primary steel production in the UK but China adding a net 92GW of coal fired generation is perceived as acceptable. One wonders, why 94.5 GW of coal capacity are under construction if the demand isn’t won’t be there. If it was simply a matter of replacing inefficient plants then we might have expected more than 2.5 GW of old capacity to have been withdrawn retired.

Even if the IEA are right and we do see peak coal in 2025 China will be continuing to burn coal for decades. Reaching  peak coal should not be anything to celebrate but it seems on the world climate stage special rules apply for China. Even if peak coal equates to peak CO2 this is still nothing to celebrate. CO2 emissions are cumulative. China needs to slash its CO2 emissions now and the only way that will be achieved quickly is to slash demand - something we in the West can influence. Wearing hair shirts in the UK and Europe will not make a jot of difference. China must be laughing at our net zero self flagellation.

Edit: added “net zero” in case self flagellation was misconstrued, “withdrawn” replaced by “retired” and opening sentence about coking coal in the UK added and “isn’t” replaced by “won’t be”.

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

T

here is widespread outrage at the idea of a coal mine to produce coking coal to keep essential primary steel production in the UK..

Except that isn't true as many of us here know: British Steel themselves have said that the quality of that coal is not good enough for their needs.

Whilst I agree that we need to keep some primary steel production in the UK it's not an argument for that mine. Similarly drilling for more oil in the North Sea will not bring down energy costs in the UK.

One of the ironic things about Trump's actions is that by bringing down the price of oil and gas due to the depressed economy he has also made it more difficult for high cost producers to make money, and the North Sea area is a high cost one.

CO2 emissions are cumulative. China needs to slash its CO2 emissions now

Cumulative indeed, which is why as the cradle of the industrial revolution and coal burning we have greater responsibilities than just pointing at China now. There is a lot to be critical but their efforts in the renewable arena are not one of them.

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

T

here is widespread outrage at the idea of a coal mine to produce coking coal to keep essential primary steel production in the UK..

Except that isn't true as many of us here know: British Steel themselves have said that the quality of that coal is not good enough for their needs.

Whilst I agree that we need to keep some primary steel production in the UK it's not an argument for that mine. Similarly drilling for more oil in the North Sea will not bring down energy costs in the UK.

One of the ironic things about Trump's actions is that by bringing down the price of oil and gas due to the depressed economy he has also made it more difficult for high cost producers to make money, and the North Sea area is a high cost one.

CO2 emissions are cumulative. China needs to slash its CO2 emissions now

Cumulative indeed, which is why as the cradle of the industrial revolution and coal burning we have greater responsibilities than just pointing at China now. There is a lot to be critical but their efforts in the renewable arena are not one of them.

Which is why I was very careful to say  “ There is widespread outrage at the idea of a coal mine to produce coking coal to keep essential primary steel production in the UK”. [Bold added]

Whether or not the coke was suitable was not the primary issue - it was just another argument against, that later came to light - we must not have a coal mine, full stop, was the essence of  the protests.

This is what Google AI had to say

Protests against the proposed Whitehaven coal mine in Cumbria, which was intended to produce coking coal for steel production, have been widespread and have been fueled by environmental concerns, including the mine's potential impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The mine's plans were initially approved by the local council but faced delays and eventually faced a legal challenge that resulted in the High Court quashing the planning permission, effectively killing the project. 

Key Points of the Protests:

• Environmental Concerns:

  Protesters, including groups like Earth First, raised concerns about the mine's potential contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the overall environmental impact of developing a new coal mine. 

Climate Change:

The protests were also linked to the broader issue of climate change, with campaigners arguing that the mine would undermine the UK's efforts to meet its climate goals. 

Legal Challenges:

Environmental groups and local communities launched legal challenges against the mine's planning permission, arguing that it was not lawful. 

Public Inquiry and Delays:

The proposed mine underwent a public inquiry and faced delays, with the project's approval ultimately being overturned by the High Court. 

Local Community Opposition:

The proposed mine faced significant opposition from the local community in Whitehaven, with residents expressing concerns about the mine's impact on the area. 

Successful Campaigning:

Campaign groups, including the Coal Action Network, played a significant role in mobilizing opposition to the mine and advocating for its rejection. 

Withdrawal of Plans:

Following a series of legal challenges and a rejection of their coal licence, West Cumbria Mining Ltd ultimately withdrew its planning application for the Whitehaven coal mine. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=protestsagainst+%C2%A0cumbrian+coal+mine+to+produce+coking+coal+protest&client=safari&sca_esv=e6dc1ba993d4f09e&hl=en-gb&sxsrf=AHTn8zo9TUBZ3VHHxAsASm2CUhjjVAAudA%3A1745748322865&ei=YgEOaNzONOSHhbIP3dHgGQ&ved=0ahUKEwjch5ul-_eMAxXkQ0EAHd0oOAMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=protestsagainst+%C2%A0cumbrian+coal+mine+to+produce+coking+coal+protest&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQ3Byb3Rlc3RzYWdhaW5zdCDCoGN1bWJyaWFuIGNvYWwgbWluZSB0byBwcm9kdWNlIGNva2luZyBjb2FsIHByb3Rlc3RI6U9QtApYwUlwAXgAkAEAmAH-AaABkSKqAQYwLjIzLjO4AQPIAQD4AQGYAg2gAs8RwgILEAAYsAMYogQYiQXCAggQABiwAxjvBcICCBAAGKIEGIkFwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQABiABBiiBJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkAYDkgcFMS43LjWgB4BSsgcFMC43LjW4B8QR&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

As the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, the world has a lot to thank us for. We didn’t realise what impact CO2 would have back in the eighteenth century and realistically it wasn’t until the 1980s it was recognised something needed to be done when Margaret Thatcher addressed the UN. We, in the UK, have since done something about it and eliminated all coal generation. China, like us, (or were its leaders in denial?) has been aware of the problem for 45 years and every year has continued to expand its coal generation despite having the same alternative options available to it that we have.

It doesn’t matter who started industrial emissions, if China, India and U.S. don’t curb their emissions now we are all doomed. It is time ideological justification for China dragging its feet made way for a dose of pragmatism. 

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

T

here is widespread outrage at the idea of a coal mine to produce coking coal to keep essential primary steel production in the UK..

Except that isn't true as many of us here know: British Steel themselves have said that the quality of that coal is not good enough for their needs.

Whilst I agree that we need to keep some primary steel production in the UK it's not an argument for that mine. Similarly drilling for more oil in the North Sea will not bring down energy costs in the UK.

One of the ironic things about Trump's actions is that by bringing down the price of oil and gas due to the depressed economy he has also made it more difficult for high cost producers to make money, and the North Sea area is a high cost one.

CO2 emissions are cumulative. China needs to slash its CO2 emissions now

Cumulative indeed, which is why as the cradle of the industrial revolution and coal burning we have greater responsibilities than just pointing at China now. There is a lot to be critical but their efforts in the renewable arena are not one of them.

Another irony is that if Trump wins the tariff war with China, world CO2 emissions will come down. What do you want to see?

JKenH

Help needed

I have to admit I don’t fully understand how PPAs work alongside CfD contracts so perhaps someone can help. My interest was triggered by this article where Amazon have entered into a PPA with Ocean Winds. It doesn’t say what rate Amazon are paying - will it be a flat rate or variable? Ocean Winds already effectively get a flat rate guaranteed from the CfD contract and anything above that rate goes to the government, so what is the point of a PPA for a wind farm with a CfD contract? What happens under a PPA when the wind farm can’t produce enough or when output from the wind farm is curtailed - Amazon presumably buy from the grid or do Ocean Winds purchase from the grid under their supply contract at market rates - expensive if low wind but very cheap if curtailed? 

Basically, can someone explain to me please how it all works - @QrizB or anyone else? (Special exemption, @Martyn1981 if you want to post a reply on here to help me out) TIA

Moray West onshore wind farm switched on by Scottish Secretary

Ocean Winds, which is a joint venture between EDP Renewables and ENGIE, has set up a high-profile corporate power purchase agreement (CPPA) with online multinational retail giant Amazon. Amazon will purchase a share of up to 473MW from the Moray West offshore wind farm as part of its mission to use 100% renewable energy by 2025.

The development was awarded a contract in the Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Round 4 (AR4). 

https://www.current-news.co.uk/moray-west-onshore-wind-farm-switched-on-by-scottish-secretary/

JKenH

Presumably we have all been avidly following the grid shut down story in Spain (which just happened to coincide  with peak solar). We don’t know the cause yet but rightly or wrongly frequency management and lack of inertia has been mentioned. Traditionally this has been provided by synchronous generation but battery storage can fulfil a similar role with “digital inertia” as this article from 2018 explains. 

https://www.current-news.co.uk/energy-storages-digital-inertia-could-stabilise-the-grid-at-a-fraction-of-t/

Does anybody know how this is progressing in the UK? It just seems to me that while there are lots of attention grabbing headlines about new wind and solar farms we don’t hear much about this.

This is from Google AI which mentions just 3 systems.

In the UK, Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) can provide "digital inertia," a form of frequency support that mimics the natural inertia of traditional power plants. This is achieved through advanced inverters that can quickly respond to frequency changes, providing a virtual inertial response. BESS are increasingly being used to help stabilize the grid as the amount of traditional synchronous generators decreases, which in turn reduces the overall inertia of the system. 

Here's a more detailed look:

• What is Digital Inertia?

  Traditional power plants, like coal or nuclear plants, have large rotating masses (generators) that provide inertia, resisting changes in frequency. As these plants are replaced by renewable sources and BESS, the overall system inertia decreases.Digital inertia is a way to replicate this inertia using BESS and advanced inverters. 

How BESS Provide Digital Inertia:

BESS can be programmed to respond quickly to frequency deviations, acting like a virtual inertia source. This helps to keep the grid frequency stable during sudden changes in supply or demand, allowing the grid to recover from disturbances. 

Examples of BESS Providing Inertia in the UK:

• Zenobe's South Kilmarnock BESS: This project is designed to provide stability services, including "true synthetic inertia," to the UK grid. 

Zenobē 200MW BESS: This operational BESS is already providing stability services, including short-circuit level and synthetic inertia. Other BESS projects: Various other BESS projects across the UK are also being developed to provide inertia support, as part of initiatives like the National Grid Electricity System Operator (NESO) Stability Pathfinder project. 

Benefits of BESS for Inertia:

• Reduced reliance on traditional generators: BESS can help maintain grid stability as the share of renewable energy increases and the number of traditional generators decreases. 

Faster response time: BESS can provide a faster inertial response than traditional generators, helping to stabilize the grid during disturbances. Flexibility: BESS can be deployed in various locations and can be scaled up or down as needed. 

Research and Development:

Research projects, like the one conducted by QUB, are investigating how BESS can provide digital inertia and optimize its contribution to grid stability. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=digital+inertia+from+BESS+uk.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

Are the UK BESS based schemes as effective as synchronous generators or synchronous condensers?