BEV emmissions

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm not sure why or how you managed to use 220KWh of gas in a single day I'd suggest something is wrong with your recollection perhaps it is over two days use. I have a 6 bedroom solid wall 100 year semi home and I top out at about 200KWh and that's the peak days

We managed to use 122.96kWh yesterday & it wasn't particularly cold. 200kWh on a sub zero day is no problem.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

We managed to use 122.96kWh yesterday & it wasn't particularly cold. 200kWh on a sub zero day is no problem.

That's fine what's the problem?

The more you are using the more you can replace gas with electricity and lower emmissions

Also for the above 123kwh of gas you'd only need 4.6KW of resistance heaters to generate the same amount of heat

That's well below the 23KW or so limit of your incoming line

Presumably if you had air to air heat pumps it would be half (2.3KW) or even one third (1.5KW) of that

GreatApe

Plus you don't need to rip out your old system. You could just add an air to air heat pump. What would one or two of these cost? £1-2k?

If Martyn is correct with his 3COP and if you take the grid as 200g/kWh then heat from such a heat pump would be just 67g/kWh of heat significantly less than your boiler at 205g/KWh. The grid average will also go further down towards 30g/kWh via a 3COP heat pump

If they provide your baseload heat say 4.5KW of heat from 1.5KW of electricity then you'd save a huge 15kg emmissions per winter day

If you go on something like the agile tarriff it's almost always below 10p apart from the peak 4h or so
So you can use the heat pump for 20h a day at cheap prices below gas and use the gas for 4h a day when electricity is expensive.

This wouldn't be difficult to do
And in theory would save a huge quantity of emmissions
Probably around 2 tons per year for you
And apart from the original investment would probably not cost anymore to run

This makes more sense than BEVs
In fact a national heating service deployment in the 2020-2040 period would be a good idea
Air to air heat pumps to be used when electricity is affordable and clean which even now you can argue with a 3COP heat pump is all the time except the peak 4h or so per day

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

If 3.3%p.a. is compounded, it actually gives 38.76% after ten years.

Why would you compound it?

Displacing 3.3% of the original for 10yrs is a total of 33%.

Martyn1981

EVandPV wrote: »

I was actually pleasantly surprised when looking at the UK "clean energy" average figures over the last year compared to fossil fuels at grid.iamkate.com
When adding nuclear and bio to RE, the figure is 48% versus 43% fossil fuels.
So you could say we're 'marginal' clean. :beer:

Yep, it's been going quite well, but 'beware the spin' as we and Germany will trade places in the next decade.

They will start to displace CO2 heavy coal and lignite with their additional RE, whereas we will see perhaps a fourfold reduction in our CO2 reductions ....... WHAT?

Basically, for the last 10yrs we've been displacing high carbon coal from the grid, now that's as good as gone, so going forward we'll be displacing lower CO2 gas, and also filling in for the nuclear as it starts to close, so in simplistic terms, instead of displacing 2 units of high carbon coal, we'll displace one unit of lower carbon gas, and one unit of low carbon nuclear, so we'll see a large reduction in the ..... um .... reduction of CO2 emissions ......

....... so be aware of the 'maths trick' as we hear from the naysayers that UK CO2 reductions are slowing.

Or to be more accurate, reductions for leccy, as we should start to see huge reductions from the transport sector thanks to BEV's. :T

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why would you compound it?

Displacing 3.3% of the original for 10yrs is a total of 33%.

If you say something is increasing by x% per year then of course you would compound it. The alternative would have been to say that R.E. is expected to increase by x GWh per year.

EVandPV

Martyn1981 wrote: »

....... so be aware of the 'maths trick' as we hear from the naysayers that UK CO2 reductions are slowing.

I don't think they're fooling anyone.
The stats over the past few years speak for themselves and counter any cràp that gets spouted. 👍

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

If you say something is increasing by x% per year then of course you would compound it. The alternative would have been to say that R.E. is expected to increase by x GWh per year.

But I never said that.

The figures relate to a net increase in off-shore wind capacity deployed over the next ten years, of approx 30GW. Equivalent to approx 33% (GA's claim) of current leccy demand, or in my opinion closer to 37%.

Perhaps you could re-read what was posted.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Thought I'd comment on this as it is either a trick meant to mislead, or a complete failure to comprehend?

So, is 3.3% a small number, yes I suppose.

Is 3.3%pa a small number, no, not at all.

Is 3.3%pa everything, no, just the off-shore wind element.

So let's look at 3.3%pa over 10yrs, that would be, oh tricky maths, let me get my calculator ...... 3.3 ....... add your age ...... divide by the first number you think of ....... reverse 3.3 ....... and I think it's roughly 33%?

Never said 3.3% p.a. ?

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Never said 3.3% p.a. ?

Hi Eric, here I'll try to explain again.

The comment by GA was:

The UK plan is very significant if the UK can add a further 30GW of offshore wind in the 2020s that would be a conversion of 3.3% a year

That's correct, based on current off-shore wind capacity factors (approx 45%), though I'd suggest as these are rising in line with newer deployments, a figure of ~50%cf is probably more likely.

But putting that aside, and going with GA's figure, 30GW of new off-shore wind, deployed over the next 10yrs is approx 33% of current annual leccy demand/supply.

That 30GW is unlikley to be deployed in yr 1, nor yr 10, and is also unlikley to be delivered evenly across each year. But it will, over 10yrs, average out at 3.3% pa.

There is no compounding, as we are talking about two fixed figures, the 30GW, and today's demand/supply. The actual percentage of 'today's demand/supply' that will be delivered by new off-shore wind capacity each year is unlikley (but of course possible) to be 3.3% in one or more years, but the sum of the actual 10 percentage figures will be around 33% (or even 37%).


Just to be doubly clear, so you don't try to spin this, I said

Is 3.3%pa a small number, no, not at all.

You said:

If you say something is increasing by x% per year then of course you would compound it.

But that's a complete and total misunderstanding of what was being discussed. My statement relates to 3.3% of today's leccy demand being replaced by new off-shore wind each year (on average), with all possible/potential deployments of that 30GW over 10yrs always coming back to the original 33% total. Not, as you are implying a percentage increase in off-shore wind itself.