The Alternative Green Energy Thread

markin

JKenH said:

markin said:

ABrass said:

Coire Glas, 30GWWh for £1 Billion. Apparently we've already got too much intra day storage.

"3m homes for 24hrs" so we just need 10?  https://www.coireglas.com/project

In one video they say we currently have 4GW and the NG think we need 40GW of storage by 2050.

Has it got the planning permission?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60250f77169f1f1381bb3020/t/60a53f280a15fb41b5a01055/1621442352145/decision-letter-and-conditions-coire-glas-002.pdf

10 needed for 24 hours if we only use 10kwh per day at the time it is needed but that’s just domestic use. I’ll try and have a look to see how much of our consumption is domestic. If we wanted sufficient storage for a 7 day stilling event we would need 70 of those for domestic use plus whatever industry needs less whatever nuclear, biomass, solar and exports were producing. 

p14

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064785/Energy_Trends_March_2022.pdf

JKenH

Looking at last year average daily demand was 31.35 GW. Coire Glas at 30 GWh will cover 3m homes for 24 hours so that assumes 3m homes will use 10kwh in one day which is 0.417 kw average. 28m domestic users x 0.417 = 11.68 GW average demand which is 37.2% of total average daily demand leaving commercial use at 62.6%.

Average demand over the 7 days in March when we had the stilling was 29.83 GW of which coal and gas accounted for 16.28 GW so we would need our storage to provide 16.28 GW for 24 hours for 7 days = 2735 GWh or 91 x Coire Glas or £91 bn.

And in doing this exercise I finally found the flaw in my £4.4tn figure. I somehow converted the average 16.28 GW average into 16.28 TWh not the 2735 GWh I now have.  So applying that correction and the 90% reduction in storage costs by using pumped hydro instead of batteries we now have a much more manageable £91bn or the equivalent of around 4 HPCs. We still need to add around £120bn of wind generation and £90bn of solar but everything is now beginning to make a lot more sense. 

That’s a relief.

markin

UK's energy use should be 95% nuclear or green by 2030 as ministers unveil self-sufficiency bid... but will it drive up your bills? 

Boris Johnson has won arguments with Chancellor Rishi Sunak over the cost of nuclear power, sources said.

The plan will set out an ambition to build up to eight nuclear plants to meet around a quarter of projected electricity demand by 2050. The ambitious proposals include a target to generate 95 per cent of Britain’s electricity from nuclear and renewable sources by 2030 – up from 55 per cent at present.

shinytop

JKenH said:

Looking at last year average daily demand was 31.35 GW. Coire Glas at 30 GWh will cover 3m homes for 24 hours so that assumes 3m homes will use 10kwh in one day which is 0.417 kw average. 28m domestic users x 0.417 = 11.68 GW average demand which is 37.2% of total average daily demand leaving commercial use at 62.6%.

Average demand over the 7 days in March when we had the stilling was 29.83 GW of which coal and gas accounted for 16.28 GW so we would need our storage to provide 16.28 GW for 24 hours for 7 days = 2735 GWh or 91 x Coire Glas or £91 bn.

And in doing this exercise I finally found the flaw in my £4.4tn figure. I somehow converted the average 16.28 GW average into 16.28 TWh not the 2735 GWh I now have.  So applying that correction and the 90% reduction in storage costs by using pumped hydro instead of batteries we now have a much more manageable £91bn or the equivalent of around 4 HPCs. We still need to add around £120bn of wind generation and £90bn of solar but everything is now beginning to make a lot more sense. 

That’s a relief.

Do we have another 90 suitable sites?  I'm not sure how big they need to be.  Could we use a lot more smaller units?

markin

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

Looking at last year average daily demand was 31.35 GW. Coire Glas at 30 GWh will cover 3m homes for 24 hours so that assumes 3m homes will use 10kwh in one day which is 0.417 kw average. 28m domestic users x 0.417 = 11.68 GW average demand which is 37.2% of total average daily demand leaving commercial use at 62.6%.

Average demand over the 7 days in March when we had the stilling was 29.83 GW of which coal and gas accounted for 16.28 GW so we would need our storage to provide 16.28 GW for 24 hours for 7 days = 2735 GWh or 91 x Coire Glas or £91 bn.

And in doing this exercise I finally found the flaw in my £4.4tn figure. I somehow converted the average 16.28 GW average into 16.28 TWh not the 2735 GWh I now have.  So applying that correction and the 90% reduction in storage costs by using pumped hydro instead of batteries we now have a much more manageable £91bn or the equivalent of around 4 HPCs. We still need to add around £120bn of wind generation and £90bn of solar but everything is now beginning to make a lot more sense. 

That’s a relief.

Do we have another 90 suitable sites?  I'm not sure how big they need to be.  Could we use a lot more smaller units?

That's just for Domestic, Total needed would be around 270. Norway is now saying they won't be the EU/UK Battery and canceled the second uk interconnect, I don't think Scotland will want to be the replacement!

Im sure a poster called Scottish scientist had it all planned out but he left or was banned years ago.

EDIT: found his blog https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/search-for-sites-to-build-new-pumped-storage-hydroelectricity-schemes/

JKenH

Dire warning on climate change ‘is being ignored’ amid war and economic turmoil

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/03/dire-warning-on-climate-change-is-being-ignored-amid-war-and-economic-turmoil

JKenH

The geopolitics of fossil fuels and renewables reshape the world

To navigate the long road to net zero, energy researchers must grapple with the lessons of history.

Quite simply, there is no way that governments — or the scholars who seek to advise them — can be serious about the energy transition without having a realistic strategy for the problems that history tells us will arise as the geopolitics of old and new energy sources and technologies combine. Unless these predicaments are faced — by citizens as energy consumers, by scientists and social scientists, as well as by governments — they will become ever harder.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00713-3

JKenH

Government’s heat pump campaign ‘will cost taxpayers £115bn’

"This money will almost certainly go to the wealthiest households at a time when our primary focus should be on getting bills down for the many. If there’s money available, a wider programme of home insulation would be a better plan and could achieve more in the way of emissions reductions."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/governments-heat-pump-campaign-will-cost-taxpayers-115bn/

markin

JKenH said:

Government’s heat pump campaign ‘will cost taxpayers £115bn’

"This money will almost certainly go to the wealthiest households at a time when our primary focus should be on getting bills down for the many. If there’s money available, a wider programme of home insulation would be a better plan and could achieve more in the way of emissions reductions."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/governments-heat-pump-campaign-will-cost-taxpayers-115bn/

Paywall so can't read.

How do they get that number? at a guess 5K x 23m homes over 10 years? How would that compare with insulating or the money spent on solar FITs? and giving every home free solar!

A quick google FIT is around 800k homes and £1B ? 2010 estimate £200/MWH in 2020, I could spend hrs reading this document. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456181/FIT_Evidence_Review.pdf

JKenH

markin said:

JKenH said:

Government’s heat pump campaign ‘will cost taxpayers £115bn’

"This money will almost certainly go to the wealthiest households at a time when our primary focus should be on getting bills down for the many. If there’s money available, a wider programme of home insulation would be a better plan and could achieve more in the way of emissions reductions."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/governments-heat-pump-campaign-will-cost-taxpayers-115bn/

Paywall so can't read.

How do they get that number? at a guess 5K x 23m homes over 10 years? How would that compare with insulating or the money spent on solar FITs? and giving every home free solar!

A quick google FIT is around 800k homes and £1B ? 2010 estimate £200/MWH in 2020, I could spend hrs reading this document. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456181/FIT_Evidence_Review.pdf

• HM Government plans to provide £5,000 grants to some households from April 2022, through the three-year £450 million boiler upgrade scheme. The purpose is to subsidise homeowners to install low-carbon heating systems – such as heat pumps – by mitigating the cost of installation, bringing the cost closer to that of installing a new gas boiler.
  
  
• If the grant were offered to the 23 million residential households that do not have an air source heat pump or equivalent, the cost would be £115 billion.

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/heat_pumps_for_all_gas_powered_homes_could_cost_taxpayers_115_billion