Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    • 8,885Posts
    • 13,831Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 6:25 AM
    MSE Insert:

    We've seen some debate on this thread about the relevance of some posts to the topic.

    To ensure the thread remains on topic for forumites wanting to discuss the latest news we're asking that all posts contain a link to the news you're discussing.

    For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks.

    Back to Martyn1981's original post.

    ---

    I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for posting general news items that may be of interest.

    PV and the 'Solar in the news' thread attract a lot of interest, so here's a thread for all the other goings on.

    Mart.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 9:41 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Page 126
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Jul 19, 6:54 AM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    TBH I was thinking hydrocarbons produced from Hydrogen (from RE leccy generation) and captured CO2.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Ideas like this:

    Stiesdal to produce cheap carbon-negative aviation fuel by 2025

    Wind-power pioneer Henrik Stiesdal has begun work on what may be the most ingenuous of his decades’ worth of inventions — carbon-negative aviation fuel.

    Plenty of carbon-neutral aviation fuels are in the pipeline, including biofuels and synthetic fuels made using green hydrogen, but this would appear to be the first that will actually result in CO2 being extracted from the atmosphere — so the more fuel produced, the more carbon will be removed.

    The Danish inventor’s eponymous company, Stiesdal Fuel Technologies A/S, is targeting a pilot plant in the next four years that will enable the production of 60.000 tons of carbon-negative jet fuel per year — enough to supply 6-7% of the Danish aviation sector’s requirements.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Jul 19, 7:04 AM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Originally posted by Piddles
    I can't see that article, but it depends on what we class as dangerous.

    What we are seeing today reflects atmospheric CO2 from about 30-50yrs ago, due to the lag. So if things are getting messy now, then we've already baked in much higher CO2 related weather conditions going forward.

    Then we have the small issue that annual CO2 emissions are almost leveling out, but are still the highest ever, so currently we are not only adding more CO2, but more than ever before, so it's a long road back from there to zero.

    But even at zero emissions (perhaps 2050), we still have the cumulative levels growing from today to 2050.

    It's bad, all bad, that's why I try to promote the positive news, and especially fight back against false negatives ...... we are where we are (sadly), no going back now, so the challenge now is to reduce the additional harm as fast as possible, because the rest of this century is going to be bad, it's just a question of how bad now.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 18th Jul 19, 1:48 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    Tesla model 3 sounds good to me
    Originally posted by Solarchaser
    Tesla Model 3 standard edition price now reduced from £41,550 including Plug-in grant, £37,340

    That's a lot of heat which is encouraging for the planet, but not so encouraging for your place on the waiting list.....
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 18th Jul 19, 1:59 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    I can't see that article, but it depends on what we class as dangerous.

    What we are seeing today reflects atmospheric CO2 from about 30-50yrs ago, due to the lag. So if things are getting messy now, then we've already baked in much higher CO2 related weather conditions going forward.

    Then we have the small issue that annual CO2 emissions are almost leveling out, but are still the highest ever, so currently we are not only adding more CO2, but more than ever before, so it's a long road back from there to zero.

    But even at zero emissions (perhaps 2050), we still have the cumulative levels growing from today to 2050.

    It's bad, all bad, that's why I try to promote the positive news, and especially fight back against false negatives ...... we are where we are (sadly), no going back now, so the challenge now is to reduce the additional harm as fast as possible, because the rest of this century is going to be bad, it's just a question of how bad now.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    It said basically that. We started to late, we're making too little progress, the annual global emissions continue to go unrelentingly upwards, there's no technical magic bullet that going to rescue us. Basically, a lot of resources have now to go into planning on how to adapt to the hell that awaits our children and grand children.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Jul 19, 3:14 PM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I can't see that article, but it depends on what we class as dangerous.

    What we are seeing today reflects atmospheric CO2 from about 30-50yrs ago, due to the lag. So if things are getting messy now, then we've already baked in much higher CO2 related weather conditions going forward.

    Then we have the small issue that annual CO2 emissions are almost leveling out, but are still the highest ever, so currently we are not only adding more CO2, but more than ever before, so it's a long road back from there to zero.

    But even at zero emissions (perhaps 2050), we still have the cumulative levels growing from today to 2050.

    It's bad, all bad, that's why I try to promote the positive news, and especially fight back against false negatives ...... we are where we are (sadly), no going back now, so the challenge now is to reduce the additional harm as fast as possible, because the rest of this century is going to be bad, it's just a question of how bad now.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    If by bad you mean the number is going to go up sure
    But actual harm and loss is going to be a net nothing

    Plus my understanding is that the forcing function of CO2 or the partial pressure as it was called in chemistry lessons is now quite heavily from the air to the oceans and land. So much so that about half the CO2 emmissions are not seen in the air. Another way of saying this is that if we cut emmissions to about 50% of today then atmospheric CO2 will stop going up. Of you cut emmissions to say 25% of today atmospheric CO2 would actually go down (or so it is in theory)

    If we went down to net zero then atmospheric CO2 would actually rapidly fall
    This is actually a mild risk
    So we really want to return to 300ppm and put the climate on a knife edge that could slip into an ice age (magnitudes worse than minor global warming)
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Jul 19, 3:27 PM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    It said basically that. We started to late, we're making too little progress, the annual global emissions continue to go unrelentingly upwards, there's no technical magic bullet that going to rescue us. Basically, a lot of resources have now to go into planning on how to adapt to the hell that awaits our children and grand children.
    Originally posted by Piddles

    You can't believe that global warming is going to be anything major at all?

    It's really a joke it's so trivial I mean humans need to literally turn this planet into a spaceship so we can move its orbit to save it from an expanding sun and one day an exploding sun

    Human progress is so rapid that global warming is a trivial joke
    The problems we face this generation that are real are AI and unforseen events like a super volcano or asteroid strike and of course global nuclear war. Not that the composition of the atmosphere is changing by one or two atoms per million per year

    Fossil fuel useage will be rapidly replaced once the AI arrives
    Because everything will more or less be free at that point
    You want 1 terra watt of offshore wind power and mountain sized batteries?
    Sure here you go.....it might take the AI six months to do

    Self replication will mean anything and everything is going to be possible
    1 droid can build 1 droid in a week which can build one droid in a week which ..
    In the time it takes to grow a baby human you have built 550 billion droids... your workforce
    Even if they were only as productive as just 1 human you have just increased world output 1000x even if the humans stop working

    We won't need that many droids we would be fine with probably just 1 billion droids doing all the work for 10 billion humans and fixing all the climate problems you can imagine

    Let's just hope they don't decide to torture us for eternity or to exterminate us.
    Perhaps they will put us in a big collective zoo and come us off the other 95% of earth and 100% of space can be theirs
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Jul 19, 3:46 PM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    This infinite world could be 50% wind 50% PV powered with a global HVDC grid such that virtually no storage would be necessary probably most of that infrastructure far away and out of sight and the lines buried underground

    It's also possible nuclear might play a part in that infinite AI droids world
    1 TW nuclear reactors maybe deep under the sea
    You'd only need 1,000 such reactors for a world of 1 trillion humans

    Any mass energy needs for the AI would probably be met by space based power
    I'm thinking magnitudes more energy than is hitting the earth in the form of sunshine so it wouldn't be possible to power it terrestrially via any (or every) means possible.

    Who knows maybe said AI will figure out a way of converting matter into anti matter and all we would need is less than 1 gram of anti matter per second to power all of human activity and society. There's your clean energy future for you. Arriving this century sometime
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Jul 19, 6:51 PM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    It said basically that. We started to late, we're making too little progress, the annual global emissions continue to go unrelentingly upwards, there's no technical magic bullet that going to rescue us. Basically, a lot of resources have now to go into planning on how to adapt to the hell that awaits our children and grand children.
    Originally posted by Piddles
    And of course, it only gets worse. The target of 1.5C rise, which we are not anywhere on target yet to meet, gives us a 2/3rds chance of avoiding runaway global warming. And 2/3rds is not exactly great odds ..... imagine playing Russian roulette with 2 rounds in the chambers ..... no thanks.

    And even if we do meet the zero target by 2050, we won't actually be heading for +1.5C, but +2C, as the lower temperature is what we might be able to catch the peak at with the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology from 2050-2100, tech that doesn't currently exist or isn't currently economical.

    But other than that, sunny days!

    PS Sorry for the downer, back to good RE news now.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jul 19, 7:46 AM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Bogof
    Two stories, both experimental, but with great potential.

    A New Kind Of Geothermal Energy And Faster Charging Batteries Are Coming

    Regarding the 'low' temperature geothermal - opening up an additional source of clean generation, with predictability, would certainly help strengthen the RE package as a whole.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jul 19, 7:47 AM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Remember the UK plans to end gas heating in new properties from 2025, well California is looking at similar plans, possibly from 2020.

    This Is How Natural Gas Loses: One Building At A Time
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 19th Jul 19, 10:03 AM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    Remember the UK plans to end gas heating in new properties from 2025, well California is looking at similar plans, possibly from 2020.

    This Is How Natural Gas Loses: One Building At A Time
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Great article, thanks. For me, it does emphasise that this is ALL about getting the cost of electricity from renewables (and particularly storage and/or global grid/time zone shifted solar) to out compete fossil fuels globally on price.

    A couple of related questions for you Mart:
    • what do you think is happening with the government's carbon neutral new build plan? It seems like a no-brainer from a distance and from the current climate change direction. As far as I can tell, it adds 1-2% to the costs of a new build and I would have thought also to the value of that property, plus all the energy savings over time.
    • where are we with distributed micro wind generation? Domestic solar at our latitude seems at the total opposite of the demand/supply equation when it comes to home heating.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Jul 19, 11:45 AM
    • 8,885 Posts
    • 13,831 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Great article, thanks. For me, it does emphasise that this is ALL about getting the cost of electricity from renewables (and particularly storage and/or global grid/time zone shifted solar) to out compete fossil fuels globally on price.

    A couple of related questions for you Mart:
    • what do you think is happening with the government's carbon neutral new build plan? It seems like a no-brainer from a distance and from the current climate change direction. As far as I can tell, it adds 1-2% to the costs of a new build and I would have thought also to the value of that property, plus all the energy savings over time.
    • where are we with distributed micro wind generation? Domestic solar at our latitude seems at the total opposite of the demand/supply equation when it comes to home heating.
    Originally posted by Piddles
    Not sure what's happening with build standards now. As part of the post election slaughter in 2015, the government scrapped the very last stage of the increased building standards, I think they pulled it 8yrs into the 9yrs plan, and developers said they had already planned for it, so such a waste.

    Then we had the Green Deal with its high interest rates killing off most of the upgrades.

    Article yesterday explains that deployments have collapsed:

    UK energy-saving efforts collapse after government subsidy cuts


    Regarding micro-wind, it just doesn't seem to work. The idea is fantastic, and I'd absolutely love some, but the systems just don't seem to work.

    Lots of comments on another forum (Navitron) from those with wind, typically off-gridders. They explain how running wind is a love/hate situation due to the maintenance and problems, and I've noticed one poster in particular, whose been off-grid for decades* singing the praises of PV which he started to build out a few years back as costs fell. He no longer needs to lower the WT before a storm, or switch on dump loads to waste/consume excess generation to protect batts, as the PV charge controllers can simply reduce output from the PV as the batts charge up.

    *He built his house, and whilst doing that ran power off generators, ready to connect to the mains in the street on completion, but slowly got the bug for self generation with WT's and old fork lift truck batts.

    Main problem with micro-wind is that the WT has to be around 10m up, and have 100m+ of unobstructed ground between it and the direction the wind mainly comes from. Otherwise objects like trees, bushes etc cause turbulence, and the wind won't be smooth when it hits the WT, so the WT will 'hunt' trying to line up, and in doing so generate very little.

    From there, imagine how much worse the problem gets in suburban and urban areas as the WT is surrounded by rooftops all causing turbulence. Generation tends towards naff all.

    Oft touted solutions come up all the time in the shape of VAWTS, vertical axis WT's (most WT's are HAWT's as the blades rotate around a horizontal shaft). They are always reported as solving turbulence issues, but most seem to be little more than crowdfunding exercises, and also tend to be pretty small, which goes against physics, since the smaller the WT (VAWT or blades) the smaller the wind energy that can be hitting it.

    But keep those fingers crossed for a micro solution as even something tiny, say generating 50-100W on average, would still work out at 1 to 2kWh's per day, which would seriously boost PV at night and winter.


    Slight aside, but this highlights the critical difference between PV and wind. PV will work anywhere, there are of course better (sunnier) locations, but it really doesn't care if it's on a house roof or a giant solar farm. Whereas WT's need careful placement, taking into account topography and wind history.

    Also, and this may seem controversial but I'm pretty sure it's a fact not an opinion, PV isn't impacted by economies of scale*. It is a two dimensional product (not true, but for descriptive purposes), so to generate more you have to go bigger taking up twice the land area, roof area etc to generate twice as much, whereas almost all other technologies are three dimensional, so to make a more powerful diesel engine, you can double all three dimensions and make it 8x bigger. This applies to WT's where going bigger makes them cheaper - 1,000 1kW WT's will cost more than 1 1MW WT and take up more area, and generate less. Plus of course the simple act of going bigger, means higher, and higher means stronger winds, more constant winds and less turbulence.

    *Not to be confused with economies of bulk purchasing. Buying 16,000 PV panels will mean a lower unit cost than buying 16 panels, but each panel will still do the same.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 20th Jul 19, 2:27 PM
    • 2,581 Posts
    • 3,788 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    But keep those fingers crossed for a micro solution as even something tiny, say generating 50-100W on average, would still work out at 1 to 2kWh's per day, which would seriously boost PV at night and winter.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    My base load is 52 watts (although once saw it down to 37?), so those sorts of generation would indeed be useful, particularly in winter.


    The issue I have at the moment is a hot tank of water, a load of washing done and I'm exporting! No complaints of course, and as my total energy bill for the last quarter was £52 I'm very pleased that the return on my investment also includes a bit of peace of mind over fuel bills.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Jul 19, 4:41 PM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Two stories, both experimental, but with great potential.

    A New Kind Of Geothermal Energy And Faster Charging Batteries Are Coming

    Regarding the 'low' temperature geothermal - opening up an additional source of clean generation, with predictability, would certainly help strengthen the RE package as a whole.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    There are lots of 'hot springs' in the form of the waste heat at nuclear power stations

    These could potentially be used as 'free' heat if distributed heating grids existed


    In a different universe where Europe went nuclear rather than windy, we could have used nuclear heat to solve the biggest problem which is seasonal heating. Or rather than using the waste heat we could have built dedicated heat only reactors. Something the size of a single EPR could yield 10GW of heat sufficient easily for 5 million homes and working at 100% efficiency (90% when District heating losses are taken into account). And smaller and simpler than an EPR as you don't have two thirds of the bits necessary when generating low temp heat only rather than high temp heat to generate electricity

    It would also be a semi permanent way to store waste in a useful way
    Store it in the pools and they will contribute heat to the heating grids for decades
    As long as homes need heating they would be usefully stored
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Jul 19, 5:24 PM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Great article, thanks. For me, it does emphasise that this is ALL about getting the cost of electricity from renewables (and particularly storage and/or global grid/time zone shifted solar) to out compete fossil fuels globally on price.

    A couple of related questions for you Mart:
    • what do you think is happening with the government's carbon neutral new build plan? It seems like a no-brainer from a distance and from the current climate change direction. As far as I can tell, it adds 1-2% to the costs of a new build and I would have thought also to the value of that property, plus all the energy savings over time.
    • where are we with distributed micro wind generation? Domestic solar at our latitude seems at the total opposite of the demand/supply equation when it comes to home heating.
    Originally posted by Piddles


    A low fossil fuel world is already baked in
    It just takes time to build and deploy things

    The real star of the show is high capacity factor wind turbines especially in high wind areas (like offshore or some onshore areas)

    Likewise EVs will replace combustion engines for all land transport and most low and medium distance sea transport. A lot of flying will be done by high speed ground EVs

    It's just heating remaining.
    That will be costly but it's heat pumps and resistance heaters

    2050 targets of -80% to -100% are achievable
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 22nd Jul 19, 7:02 AM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    Air travellers to be hit by carbon charge on all tickets

    Misleading headline, but a step in the right direction to make it easier for consumers to make climate informed buying decisions.
    Payments would be voluntary but could work on an “opt-out” system. Similar measures could also be applied to trains, buses and ferries.
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 22nd Jul 19, 8:08 AM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    Onshore Wind
    Thought this was encouraging: End onshore windfarm ban, Tories urge
    The survey, carried out by Survation, for the Conservative Environment Network, showed that 74% of people who voted Conservative in the last election support onshore wind farms.
    With a money saving expert spin:
    The analysis undertaken by Vivid Economics shows that growing onshore wind from 13GW today to 35GW by 2035 would reduce the cost of electricity by 7%.
    But it's also in our interests to prove to the high growth economies like China, India and Africa that it makes economic sense to build all their new energy generation capacity with renewables (currently 40% of new capacity is fossil fuel). As the second highest historical emitter, we kinda have a moral responsibility too.

    On a related subject. could Ireland be the EU's energy producer of cheap electricity with the highest wind and rain figures in Europe? Onshore wind and combined hydro and pumped hydro and a few HVDC interconnectors to the EU's emerging grid.
    Last edited by Piddles; 22-07-2019 at 8:17 AM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 22nd Jul 19, 11:12 AM
    • 3,502 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Thought this was encouraging: End onshore windfarm ban, Tories urge

    With a money saving expert spin:

    But it's also in our interests to prove to the high growth economies like China, India and Africa that it makes economic sense to build all their new energy generation capacity with renewables (currently 40% of new capacity is fossil fuel). As the second highest historical emitter, we kinda have a moral responsibility too.

    On a related subject. could Ireland be the EU's energy producer of cheap electricity with the highest wind and rain figures in Europe? Onshore wind and combined hydro and pumped hydro and a few HVDC interconnectors to the EU's emerging grid.
    Originally posted by Piddles
    There is a small link from Ireland to France planned it's mostly to import French nuclear to fill in gaps in Ireland

    There is no need to go to Ireland to import wind power it is too far and too small a grid plus the locals will complain plus they aren't anywhere near 100% renewables for their own needs at this point

    The UK doesn't need Irish wind energy it has sufficient quantities of its own
    France is the next closest country and it too doesn't need wind power it has nukes and hydropower
    The next big user is Germany but it has an excess on its north coast while it's demand is on its south. After that it's Spain but that's really far away

    The North sea is better place to deploy large scale wind farms
    Close to 7 EU nations which themselves have a lot of existing links to the other EU nations

    300GW offshore in the north sea by 2050 would generate 1,200TWh which is 30% of the roughly 4,000 TWh of demand by 2050 the remaining 70% would be onshore wind hydropower nuclear solar biomass and natural gas perhaps on that order
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 22nd Jul 19, 2:18 PM
    • 2,581 Posts
    • 3,788 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Is that map available with any more granularity? I'd be interested to see if more Mediterranean coastal regions had a resource based on onshore/offshore breezes. Also, in my experience some Alpine valleys have very regular resources due to adiabatic winds.



    Couple of interesting points: the Rhone valley stands out very distinctly and, as you say, Ireland has an embarrassment of riches. What explains the patchwork in Finland - the lakes? - and what mechanism would explain that.
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 22nd Jul 19, 2:37 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    A low fossil fuel world is already baked in
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Really? This suggests otherwise:


    Beyond betting on the right developing technologies that can help the world decarbonise, what happens in the UK is pretty irrelevant compared to the growth elsewhere in the world, isn't it?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,736Posts Today

6,806Users online

Martin's Twitter