The Alternative Green Energy Thread

Pile_o_stone

JKenH said:

Pile_o_stone said:

JKenH said:

 In the last 12 hours we have used 220GW of gas and generated 10GWH each by wind and solar. 

I don't understand your usage of different units of measurement here. I'm not sure how you can do an accurate comparison when you compare GW against GWH?

My mistake should be 220GWH. Thank you, I’ll correct it.

Are you sure you're now correct? 220GWh?

JKenH

ABrass said:

We're currently expecting to triple our current wind capacity by 2030, that's probably a low estimate. The CF is likely to be higher as well as newer ones are higher performing.

Storage solutions like Hydrogen answer these worries quite easily. When wind is low you burn green hydrogen, when the wind is full tilt, and more than is needed for current use, you use the surplus energy to split green hydrogen. When the wind is mediocre then you stop producing hydrogen and send the power to the grid instead.

I got my figures for 2020 and 2030 from Wikipedia which suggested we would have 50GW by 2030 compared to 24GW hence my reference to capacity having doubled. 

By the beginning of August 2020, wind power production consisted of 10,911 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of over 24.0 gigawatts: 13,649 megawatts of onshore capacity and 10,415 megawatts of offshore capacity.[5]This placed the United Kingdom at this time as the world's sixth largest producer of wind power.[6] As of 2012, polling of public opinion consistently shows strong support for wind power in the UK, with nearly three quarters of the population agreeing with its use, even for people living near onshore wind turbines.[7][8][9][10][11][12] The UK Government has committed to 40GW of installed offshore capacity by 2030,[13] bringing overall UK wind capacity to over 50GW. This is greater than the UK's electricity demand of between 30-40GW in 2019.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

I suggested with current demand and 2030 wind capacity we would need about 200GWH of effective storage by 2030 to replace gas and coal for 12 hours on a day like today. Scaling that up to 24 hours would require 400 GWH of storage. Are we likely to be near that by 2030? We could be faced with several days of calm and the figure needed could be approaching 2TWH.

I would really love to see that but National Grid are currently planning for 30GW (30GWH?) of storage. Everybody seems to be saying ‘it will be alright on the night’ but it won’t with current plans. 

I know it keeps being said you can overbuild wind and solar ad infinitum as it is so cheap but if utilisation is down to 10% or lower will it cover the costs without massive subsidy? At one stage today our 24MW of wind capacity was producing just 0.85MW of power. If we have 3 times the amount of wind capacity installed by 2030 that’s still only going to provide 2.5GW of current demand. Imagine how many electric cars there will be on the road by 2030 and what demand might be if 50% are on charge at 7.15am before their owners set off for work. 

Wind is wonderfully cheap and we need to make as much use of it as possible but it is in the medium term unpredictable and all the time unreliable so unlike other sources it needs a huge amount of storage to make it work. 

JKenH

Pricey electricity this evening. Good job there is an upper limit on Agile. I thought the idea of inter connectors was to enable smoothing of the prices. 

joefizz

ABrass said:

Yes it is economic to overbuild wind and solar, there's loads of reports saying it's still cheaper than alternatives.

We're currently expecting to triple our current wind capacity by 2030, that's probably a low estimate. The CF is likely to be higher as well as newer ones are higher performing.

Storage solutions like Hydrogen answer these worries quite easily. When wind is low you burn green hydrogen, when the wind is full tilt, and more than is needed for current use, you use the surplus energy to split green hydrogen. When the wind is mediocre then you stop producing hydrogen and send the power to the grid instead.

That is pretty much it. The behind the scenes noises about hydrogen are now starting to come to the forefront in PR releases and no doubt will be making youtube and other newsletters in due course. Its all about the seeding of the ideas. I had a chat with a neighbour (transmission network engineer) and the guys installing the new kit in the local transformer last week (replacing equipment designed in the 60s!) and pretty much all the talk was about hydrogen for storage, not batteries.
Saying that though the current holy grail for battery tech is 100% renewable batteries and forget utilisation, lifetime, power output etc. Crack that and you will be very rich indeed.

Someone mentioned Drax earlier, bought into them after the crash in March and whilst on paper its a dirty power station, the future could be significantly different, but DYOR YMMV etc etc.

Going back to the mini nukes (yeah that again), I also see this is gaining traction behind the scenes. The big headline nuke deals are apparently falling through. Apparently. What does seem to be happening is that companies involved see whats happening in the wider economy and that the present govt coupons for 10, 30 years etc are negative so effectively people paying governments to borrow their money! Add in the Feds stated wish (I mentioned this as a possibility over a year or more ago on here) to have a 2% long term average as an 'aim' (not direct quote I dont think, just using quotes to signify questionable) means they are happy that inflation will front run rates. Add in the coupons and no matter what governments borrow now they will be inflated away in no time.
The problem being that they are happy with 4% inflation (no matter how stupid the measurement criteria - food has more than covered that his year) but historically when you hit 4% you are more likely to go nearer to 10% first than back to 0%.

Hence the handing off of nukes, because ultimately thats the governments responsibility, not private companies.
Look at other big companies crying future problems and cutting dividends (shortage of oil demand, too much regulation - royal mail for instance wanting to make the saturday letter post corona cut permanent, consumer costs being capped by regulators for companies that proved their worth during corona etc). All paves the way for either investment (one big telco just locked in something like a 15 year loan at 1% and their prices are currently something like inflation plus 1.5% so effectively license to print money), or price rises above what people have been used to in a low interest rate environment.
I had a message yesterday I think about the Siemens share split setting up a new Siemens energy company. Its all underway and also a lot of the big oil/energy companies will have free capital in any inflationary environment (coupled with the dividend splits after crying poverty to the govt as govt wont cut them a deal unless they cut divis.) and will end up buying out a lot of the good but struggling cashflow renewables companies.
We will still need oil for the forseeable, even if its just to make the renewables, grow food etc etc. Its not a secret that most commentators think the saudis have been overstating their reserves for years so there has never been a better time to make a big push for renewables whilst we still can. Its one of the reasons I hate what happened with shale, its pretty much played out and that resource has been wasted in a low price environment for political purposes.
The apparent withdrawal from the anglesey nuke site would look to set it up as a trial site for a mini nuke with government backing. Again I reiterate Im very much anti nuclear power but with my network engineer hat on I cant see how the UK will plug future gaps without it, or without serious consumer modification (ignoring the recent daily heil article about smart meters cutting people off - they have always had that ability).
I realise its a long rambling post with multiple ideas but I like the way this thread is going!

JKenH

California Reveals That the Transition to Renewable Energy Isn’t So Simple

Sorry to keep banging this drum but as long as articles from those with vested interests are being posted on this board saying we need faster roll out of RE and quicker retirement of FF generators I feel the need to keep pointing out that RE must at the same time be accompanied by appropriate levels of storage. It is all very well saying hydrogen is coming but it is not here yet and meanwhile more RE is being rolled out and fossil back up is being retired. 

What is happening in California should be a lesson to us all:

For years, renewable energy enthusiasts have insisted that most of the problems of the electric grid were caused by outdated and inflexible coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy technologies. A system built on solar panels and wind turbines, smart meters, electricity storage, and payments for flexible demand would lower costs and improve reliability for everyone. Some academic studies showed that renewables could easily supply 80 percent or more of an electric grid’s demands.

But with non-hydroelectric renewable technologies, mostly solar and wind, generating about 30 percent of California’s electricity today, we are witnessing the types of obstacles and problems that these new technologies introduce.

Solar power, of course, is well matched with high demand for air conditioning in the middle of the day. That advantage disappears when the sun goes down but the temperature doesn’t. Distributed and centralized electricity storage technologies can shift some power generation toward later in the day. But lithium-ion battery systems are usually designed for only a few hours of storage—enough to accommodate much of the daily swings in solar generation, but not the type of extreme surges in demand we’ve seen this week. Storage technologies that last a few days would help, but truly high-renewables systems will likely require seasonal storage technologies that can shift consumption from the hot months to the cool months. Beyond geographically constrained, pumped hydroelectric storage systems, those technologies are largely nonexistent.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/california-blackouts-wind-solar-renewable-energy-grid.html

JKenH

Energy Storage - Towards a commercial model - 2nd Edition

Interesting paper on energy storage even if a little dated.

https://www.regen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/P2P_-_Energy_storage_-_2nd_Edition_-_DIGITAL_FILE_Singles.pdf

JKenH

Climate Science as Culture War 

The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology.

I was prompted by an article and the associated comment on the G&E News thread to wonder why there is such a divide (generally but not exclusively) between the liberals and conservatives (I prefer those terms to the pejorative left and right) when it comes to climate change policy. I came across this article which helps to explain the entrenched views of the Republican Party that many consider to fly in the face of the “science” and also how we might move the debate forward.

One study has observed “increased education and self-reported understanding of climate science have been shown to correlate with lower concern among conservatives and Republicans and greater concern among liberals and Democrats. Research also has found that once people have made up their minds on the science of the climate issue, providing continued scientific evidence actually makes them more resolute in resisting conclusions that are at variance with their cultural beliefs.”

Another comment was “when people hear about climate change, they may, for example, hear an implicit criticism that their lifestyle is the cause of the issue or that they are morally deficient for not recognizing it.”

I have previously commented that calling someone stupid or morally bankrupt does not bring them round to your point of view. I also believe that the continual launching of law suits against the fossil fuel industry may be counterproductive causing a defensive reaction by the oil majors who just can’t move on without losing face. Sometimes you have to give a person or an organisation the opportunity to exit from a position gracefully. 

Those on the extremes have turned what is a problem we all need to solve into a war that has to have losers as well as winners. A message that we want to see the industries which have been the source of your prosperity wiped out is not going to bring Donald Trump who has been elected to represent traditional American values to the negotiating table. Is he going to turn to ‘his people’ and say ‘sorry folks, I was wrong, you know that Greta Thunberg girl may have a point’?

The article does suggest that the “challenge is to move the debate away from the loud minorities at the extremes (defined in the article as “the alarmed” and “the dismissive”) and to engage the majority in the middle—the “concerned,” the “cautious,” the “disengaged,” and the “doubtful.” People in these groups are more open to consensus-based debate, and through direct engagement can be separated from the ideological extremes of their cultural community.“

The problem is of course that the media ensure that the more extreme views (eg Thunberg and Trump) are the only ones we get to hear and align with so the debate remains polarised. 

https://ssir.org/books/reviews/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war

Pile_o_stone

JKenH said:

I have previously commented that calling someone stupid or morally bankrupt does not bring them round to your point of view. I also believe that the continual launching of law suits against the fossil fuel industry may be counterproductive causing a defensive reaction by the oil majors who just can’t move on without losing face. Sometimes you have to give a person or an organisation the opportunity to exit from a position gracefully. 

Lol, A top-drawer comedy posting that can stand alongside some of the best ones on this board, such as the "Household Nuclear Powered Heating" and "Fossil fuels are safe enough to drink!" from the other deniers.

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?
In other news, The Police have decided to stop arresting criminals and are now quietly urging them to "gracefully exit from a position of criminality and move towards to legality without losing face".  

JKenH

Pile_o_stone said:

JKenH said:

I have previously commented that calling someone stupid or morally bankrupt does not bring them round to your point of view. I also believe that the continual launching of law suits against the fossil fuel industry may be counterproductive causing a defensive reaction by the oil majors who just can’t move on without losing face. Sometimes you have to give a person or an organisation the opportunity to exit from a position gracefully. 

Lol, A top-drawer comedy posting that can stand alongside some of the best ones on this board, such as the "Household Nuclear Powered Heating" and "Fossil fuels are safe enough to drink!" from the other deniers.

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?
In other news, The Police have decided to stop arresting criminals and are now quietly urging them to "gracefully exit from a position of criminality and move towards to legality without losing face".  

Thank you, you have proved my point. It is possible for most to engage with people and organisations in a constructive and respectful manner and develop a useful dialogue. There will, however, always be those at the extremes who believe that they have all the answers and anyone else’s point of view is worthless. 

I did wonder if it was worth replying but I am curious to understand your pathological hatred for the fossil fuel industry and anyone who doesn’t share that position.

JKenH

Pile_o_stone said:

JKenH said:

I have previously commented that calling someone stupid or morally bankrupt does not bring them round to your point of view. I also believe that the continual launching of law suits against the fossil fuel industry may be counterproductive causing a defensive reaction by the oil majors who just can’t move on without losing face. Sometimes you have to give a person or an organisation the opportunity to exit from a position gracefully. 

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?

Be positive - accept that they are trying to diversify into renewables just as we are trying to wean ourselves off oil and gas. If you think you can manage without oil and gas don’t let me stop you. As I said last time they will only be in business as long as we buy their products. The transition to renewables won’t happen overnight because the general public won’t let it. Should the oil companies just shut up shop now? 

Danish Oil and Natural Gas (DONG Energy) successfully transformed into Ørsted and are now the world leaders in offshore wind.

https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/climate-and-carbon/black-green-energy-15554049/

BP has been trying hard but being an early entrant into the renewables business got its fingers burned. 

The British multinational oil company BP, headquartered in London, has to take a rather careful approach in terms of renewable investments, having lost several billion dollars in premature bets in the 2000s [17]. Notably, BP was the first oil major to commit significant capital to renewable energy, showing high dedication towards renewables from 1980 to 2010 with activities in component manufacturing (solar) as well as project development (solar and wind). The company launched a $200 million campaign in 2001 to re-brand BP into Beyond Petroleum, highlighting its early envisioned transition to new sources of energy. In 2005, BP established BP Alternative Energy to consolidate its low-carbon business activities [37]. However, by now, most of its $8 to $10 billion of green energy investments during that era has been written off, while the company still has major onshore wind legacy assets in the US, a biofuels business (sugar cane processing, ethanol production, research, and development) in Brazil, and a carbon capture and storage joint venture with Chevron, Petrobras, and Suncor 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300574

Since then of course BP has got back into the water and Shell has stated it is no longer an oil and gas company, but an energy transition company.