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
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 14th Aug 19, 4:57 PM
    • 3,685Posts
    • 2,705Thanks
    GreatApe
    When will fossil fuel useage peak a general discussion
    • #1
    • 14th Aug 19, 4:57 PM
    When will fossil fuel useage peak a general discussion 14th Aug 19 at 4:57 PM
    2018: +2% increase in global CO2 emmissions

    People talk as if solar & wind are taking over while the truth is that fossil fuel useage has been growing more or less continuously since 1900 including the recent past

    So when will global fossil fuel useage peak and also which year will global FF useage fall to below 2000 level?

    My guess:

    Peak: 2030s (probably late 2030s)
    Fall below 2000 levels: 2050s (probably late 2050s)
Page 3
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 17th Aug 19, 10:28 AM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Keeping coal fired power stations ticking over to provide back up can't be cheap?

    The amount of curtailment will inevitably rise as more wind capacity is added. Using that 'spill' to provide back up & maintain the grid frequency seems to make perfect sense....even with efficiency of 30%. As it stands, 100% of nothing is still nothing so even 30% is worthwhile. I suppose it all depends on the cost verses a battery?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    But why do electricity to hydrogen back to electricity at about 33% efficiency (and creating waste in the process)

    This all reeks of accounting tricks to confuse you the government and the consumer

    Are you aware you are actually paying for 3 units of wind power and only getting one unit back?
    So the electricity will cost at least 4 x the price of offshore wind power

    If offshore wind power costs 50/MWh that means your hydrogen stored energy is actually going to cost you 200/MWh

    You are much better off building more Interconnectors
    Build interconntors to Canada and the USA & Build more to Norway

    When you are in need of power import from them for 50/MWh
    When you have too much export to them for 50/MWh

    The return trip of sending units out to Norway or France or Germany and then importing at some future date... Is closer to 90-95% efficient Vs your 33% or so for hydrogen so you actually need less overall infrastructure.


    Having said that there will be the need to do some electricity to hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilisers. And perhaps electricity to hydrogen to be used as liquid hydrogen fuel for aircraft. Perhaps you can run those on excess electricity but it makes little sense to do electricity to chemicals and back to electricity when much more efficient options exist
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 17th Aug 19, 11:16 AM
    • 809 Posts
    • 3,170 Thanks
    1961Nick
    But why do electricity to hydrogen back to electricity at about 33% efficiency (and creating waste in the process)

    This all reeks of accounting tricks to confuse you the government and the consumer

    Are you aware you are actually paying for 3 units of wind power and only getting one unit back?
    So the electricity will cost at least 4 x the price of offshore wind power

    If offshore wind power costs 50/MWh that means your hydrogen stored energy is actually going to cost you 200/MWh

    You are much better off building more Interconnectors
    Build interconntors to Canada and the USA & Build more to Norway

    When you are in need of power import from them for 50/MWh
    When you have too much export to them for 50/MWh

    The return trip of sending units out to Norway or France or Germany and then importing at some future date... Is closer to 90-95% efficient Vs your 33% or so for hydrogen so you actually need less overall infrastructure.


    Having said that there will be the need to do some electricity to hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilisers. And perhaps electricity to hydrogen to be used as liquid hydrogen fuel for aircraft. Perhaps you can run those on excess electricity but it makes little sense to do electricity to chemicals and back to electricity when much more efficient options exist
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    If the hydrogen is produced using only energy that would otherwise have been curtailed, what would the unit cost be then?
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141) - 30 pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 17th Aug 19, 12:14 PM
    • 9,210 Posts
    • 14,140 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    If the hydrogen is produced using only energy that would otherwise have been curtailed, what would the unit cost be then?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Exactly, the price of the leccy being used for longer term storage won't be 50/MWh, as that excess, spill, curtailment etc will be 'the stuff' nobody else wanted, it could even have a negative price, though I assume negative prices will disappear as more storage expands to make use of low cost/negative priced leccy ...... supply and demand economics finding a balance over time.

    So, again let's make some guesses, leccy at 10/MWh, we buy 3MWhs, then after all system losses we sell 1MWh at 100+. 30 becomes 100, and so long as the leccy to H2 and gas generation plant costs all come in at less than 70 (in this example) a profit is made. And hopefully I'm using old and low figures for the H2 process, which might be more like 80% not 50%.

    Perhaps we run the H2 through fuel cells and produce leccy directly, reducing some losses.

    Or we produce methane by combining the H2 with a waste source of CO2, ideally from bio-energy burning, and sell the methane, or gas generation again.

    Not only is H2, bio-gas, CAES, LAES etc possible, but they are actually happening, and will form part of the RE future.


    You may view all this as giving money to the wealthy, others may see it as temporarily giving your own money back to you. I can't think of any CC drivers I know that view their CC as a 'benefit' ....most of them see it as a millstone these days.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    In the US, Tesla have noted repeatedly that the majority of trade-ins they see for the TM3 are from a lower segment, the $25k Toyota's etc, so the good news seems to be that many people are doing the maths, and looking at TCO, not just purchase cost, plus of course leasing has now opened. So whilst out of my price range, I also don't see this as a wealthy person's car, just new kit that will reach us all eventually, and needs some support to artificially speed up its deployment as it has additional desirability.
    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.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 17th Aug 19, 12:48 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    If the hydrogen is produced using only energy that would otherwise have been curtailed, what would the unit cost be then?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    Still whatever the CFD is

    If they sell for 0 you still have to make up the difference as a consumer

    So if the CFD is 50/MWh and you need 3 units to get 1 unit return you have an absolute minimum cost of 150/MWh assuming all the infrastructure to build this is free and you enslave people and pay them zero to build run and maintain all of this hydrogen infrastructure. If you're not going to bring back slavery for hydrogen expect this to be a good deal higher than 150/MWh

    Again it makes no sense when you have the option to build interconntors to Norway or more to rUK or even much further away
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 17th Aug 19, 1:27 PM
    • 4,935 Posts
    • 6,683 Thanks
    zeupater
    If the hydrogen is produced using only energy that would otherwise have been curtailed, what would the unit cost be then?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Hi

    Logically, you could look to change the rules around curtailment funding fully independent of the main cfd strike price, with 'storage diversion' payment only being made when spot capacity in excess of spot demand is diverted to a form of chemical energy for long term storage, be it hydrogen, methane or whatever .... the unit cost then would equate to that currently attributable to curtailments, so a value, but not an additional one ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 17-08-2019 at 1:31 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 17th Aug 19, 2:02 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    If the hydrogen is produced using only energy that would otherwise have been curtailed, what would the unit cost be then?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    It's accounting tricks
    The cost to the hydrogen producer might be low
    But since you the consumer is paying for all of this it's payments out of your pocket

    The hydrogen plants sells you a unit of electricity for 50/MWh
    It purchased 3 units of electricity for 0
    But you as the consumer had to pay 50/MWh for those three units to be generated

    The cost is a minimum 150/MWh

    You want to be in a situation you don't curtail nor do syn fuels or you do so for an absolute minimum. So mass interconntors before syn fuels
    • markin
    • By markin 18th Aug 19, 11:49 AM
    • 830 Posts
    • 656 Thanks
    markin
    Uk
    2018 emmissions 394 million tons CO2
    1991 emmissions 603 million tons CO2
    1973 emmissions 718 million tons CO2 peak year

    Down some 45% from peak

    This was primarily because of a shift from a coal heavy energy infrastructure to a gas heavy infrastructure. Gas is more clean than coal plus it's 60% efficient in a gas fired stations Vs close closer to 30% so a double win. Nuclear (both domestic and French imports) also played a part. Plus going from maybe 25% efficient open coal fired to 90% efficient condensing boilers




    There is always a tone of self hate and self doubt with the left what's up with that?

    Re the ships, probably where they are fueled so I would guess roughly 40% in the UK 60% in China (retuning lighter so less fuel burnt)

    Re the manufactured goods, where they are produced.
    But I would argue we don't import more goods today than we did in 1973
    In 1973 we imported more or less all the oil we use
    Sure plastic toys from China were not a thing but how much energy do you think it took to produce pipe process that crude the literally 500 million barrel a year we imported?
    Originally posted by GreatApe



    The thread is FF usage, Im not sure C02 can directly be used to say FF has peaked in the uk because Gas is far cleaner than coal. Im sure it has peaked, But when and by how much? I think someone would have to convert coal, gas, oil to kwh to see when FF kwh peaked.

    NatGas shot up in 1970 so that would mean less c02 but not less FF usage.


    // I somehow forgot about Nuclear, so as long as the plants stay up we could never reach 1970 usage again. So discounting any new Nuclear the next peak for oil and gas from 1995 to now seems to be around 2005.// You should edit the first post to make it clear you mean world FF not uk.


    Uk... Peak oil was 1970, Peak natGas consumption was 2004, Peak Coal may have been 1965 that where the chart i found starts.

    Electricity Production in United Kingdom reached 21,784 GWh in Apr 2019, compared with 23,036 GWh in the previous month. Electricity Production data of United Kingdom is updated monthly averaging at 27,379 GWh from Jan 1997 to Apr 2019. The data reached an all-time high of 37,831 GWh in Mar 2004 and a record low of 19,812 GWh in Jun 2018.

    https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-kingdom/natural-gas-consumption
    Last edited by markin; 18-08-2019 at 1:03 PM.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 18th Aug 19, 12:18 PM
    • 809 Posts
    • 3,170 Thanks
    1961Nick
    It's accounting tricks
    The cost to the hydrogen producer might be low
    But since you the consumer is paying for all of this it's payments out of your pocket

    The hydrogen plants sells you a unit of electricity for 50/MWh
    It purchased 3 units of electricity for 0
    But you as the consumer had to pay 50/MWh for those three units to be generated

    The cost is a minimum 150/MWh

    You want to be in a situation you don't curtail nor do syn fuels or you do so for an absolute minimum. So mass interconntors before syn fuels
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    The consumer is already paying for curtailment so why do you include that in the cost?

    Why not pay generators the curtailment payment +5% for any energy diverted to chemical storage? It's extra income for the generator & the hydrogen plant pays virtually nothing for energy.

    Why is that an accounting trick if everyone wins?
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141) - 30 pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 18th Aug 19, 1:12 PM
    • 4,935 Posts
    • 6,683 Thanks
    zeupater
    The consumer is already paying for curtailment so why do you include that in the cost?

    Why not pay generators the curtailment payment +5% for any energy diverted to chemical storage? It's extra income for the generator & the hydrogen plant pays virtually nothing for energy.

    Why is that an accounting trick if everyone wins?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Hi

    As per my previous post (#46) ... why pay anything above the current curtailment rate as it's pretty generous anyway .... replacing curtailment payments with a divert to storage scheme with equivalent compensatory payments makes ample sense to me ... I wouldn't expect the nuclear or FF industries to have a positive reaction to the idea though! ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Aug 19, 1:29 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The consumer is already paying for curtailment so why do you include that in the cost?

    Why not pay generators the curtailment payment +5% for any energy diverted to chemical storage? It's extra income for the generator & the hydrogen plant pays virtually nothing for energy.

    Why is that an accounting trick if everyone wins?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    How can everyone win by turning 3 units of electricity into 1 unit of electricity it only works with accounting tricks

    You are saying 'it will be curtailed anyway' I am saying it won't be because we have 5GW of interconntors roughly 5GW under construction 5GW likely to start soon start construction and 10GW will be built so it will be exported not curtailed. And new markets will develop for this electricity things like cheap rate extra heating.

    If we get to a situation where we are over producing so much that there is a situation of curtailment then people will build even more interconntors to further away markets because it makes sense to use interconntors where if you put in 3 units you'd get back 2.9 units rather than 1 unit with chemicals dance


    Also the chemical dance means you'd have to over produce by some 30-40%
    If the UK needs 1,000 TWh for a population of 80m then you'd need to produce 1,300-1,400 units of renewables (300-400 units being lost in the chemical dance). So you've increased costs by 30-40% to generate 30-40% more units. This is before costing the hydrogen conversation and reconversion and storage infrastructure!!!!!!!!!! Can't you see this isn't close to cost free??

    By comparison with mass interconntors you'd size to generate 1,010 TWh and import 250TWh and export 250TWh so net 1,000 useable
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Aug 19, 1:58 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Okay since you lot don't seem to grasp the situation

    Let's say the UK needs 700 TWh of electricity in 2050 and that you can build wind/PV power to generate 700 TWh annually with say 144GW of wind @50% CF and 80GW of solar @10% CF

    This of course won't work because some times you will have too little and other times you will have too much

    You have at least these two options


    Option 1

    Build 50 GW of interconntors to Europe and further too.
    This means at times of excess you can export your excess let's say for 50/MWh and at times of need import your needs for say 50/MWh. Of your 700TWh generation you might export 200TWh a year and import 200TWh a year.

    These interconntors would cost perhaps 50 billion and are pretty inert and will last many decades

    Option 2

    You do the chemicals dance
    Anyone want to calculate how much wind and PV you'd need to get a net 700TWh when your chemicals dance is at best giving you 50% back and more likely 33% ?

    The answer is a good deal more than the amount in option 1
    So you are effectively building additional wind and PV infrastructure to get just 1/3rd of its output back

    Anyway I don't know why I'm arguing about this. We already have 5GW of interconntors with some 8.2GW under construction or soon about to start. By the time any mass curtailment issues arise (perhaps around 2040) we will have more interconntors still.
    Last edited by GreatApe; 18-08-2019 at 2:10 PM.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Aug 19, 2:44 PM
    • 9,210 Posts
    • 14,140 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    The consumer is already paying for curtailment so why do you include that in the cost?

    Why not pay generators the curtailment payment +5% for any energy diverted to chemical storage? It's extra income for the generator & the hydrogen plant pays virtually nothing for energy.

    Why is that an accounting trick if everyone wins?
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Perhaps GA's misunderstanding relates to the subsidy payments and therefore the guaranteed strike price.

    So if the wind farm had a 50/MWh CfD strike price contract, then as we've discussed, they will get 50 regardless. It might be because they sell at 50, or they sell at 100 and have to repay 50, or for the purposes of our discussion get paid 0 (and a 50 top up) when there is no demand.

    Now, how much did the leccy cost us, is 0/MWh or 50/MWh. I'm going to suggest it's 0, as that is what the wholesale price will reflect, and that's what it was sold at.

    The 50 subsidy top up, is also paid by us (via the green levies) but not by the wholesale market, and won't be reflected in the cost of the leccy that arrives after adding all additional supplier costs.

    This may appear to be a trick, con, game etc. etc. but it helps us to separate the subsidies which are of course tumbling, into a secondary column.

    For the storage business, what you are talking about, and I have to be clear, agree with what you are saying, they will not see the leccy at 50, but at 0. And that's a fairer basis to work on, since in the medium term we will see the subsidy payments reduce per MWh as the earliest and costliest schemes, rollouts, farms etc reach the end of their subsidy term. To include the 'subsidy column' costs in our grand MSE plans to rollout storage would make it next to impossible as we'd be dealing with a moving target, rather than a relatively stable wholesale market - stable in operation, but of course massively variable in spot prices.

    And back to the start and your statement, yep, curtailment costs are nothing to do with RE, or subsidies etc, they are simply payments made in return for a powerstation to sit ready for immediate action. Some time back I recall an analysis was done, and wind was providing approx 10% of UK annual leccy, and also receiving ~10% of curtailment payments, hardly unfair, but wind curtailment costs were making the DM's pages almost daily.


    Edit - Unless he thinks we're talking about paying curtailment payments and then they still generate and sell the leccy, but of course curtailment wouldn't be needed with large amounts of storage. M.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 18-08-2019 at 3:08 PM. Reason: Added an edit
    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.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 18th Aug 19, 9:08 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Under no real system will we want to invent mass chemical storage where you put in three units and get out one unit

    More likely we will mass build interconntors so the majority of excess is exported and the majority of needs are imported. This will greatly reduce the need for any chemical dance.

    There will be a need to produce hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilisers
    And there will probably be a need to produce liquid hydrogen for air travel and perhaps shipping too. But no electricity to electricity with a chemical dance in-between resulting in 3 units in 1 unit out
    Last edited by GreatApe; 19-08-2019 at 12:12 AM.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 19th Aug 19, 7:09 AM
    • 809 Posts
    • 3,170 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Under no real system will we want to invent mass chemical storage where you put in three units and get out one unit

    More likely we will mass build interconntors so the majority of excess is exported and the majority of needs are imported. This will greatly reduce the need for any chemical dance.

    There will be a need to produce hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilisers
    And there will probably be a need to produce liquid hydrogen for air travel and perhaps shipping too. But no electricity to electricity with a chemical dance in-between resulting in 3 units in 1 unit out
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    By comparison, curtailment is 3 units in zero units out

    3 units in 1 unit out sounds infinitely better to me.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141) - 30 pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Aug 19, 10:33 AM
    • 9,210 Posts
    • 14,140 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    By comparison, curtailment is 3 units in zero units out

    3 units in 1 unit out sounds infinitely better to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Once again, I suspect GA doesn't understand that those 3 units you refer to are waste. They are after direct consumption, export and intra-day storage.

    Not only is 3 in 1 out better than nothing, but the demand for those units will create a price floor for the generators. It might be a low floor, but it's better than zero or negative.

    Studies at the moment seem to suggest that overcapcity is the cheapest way to get into the 90%+ RE ranges for penetration, but as costs and tech develop, it will only be a matter of time before longer term, less cycled, large scale storage rolls, especially for countries like the UK, where our PV generation is more seasonal and less reliable - I can't imagine The UK RE mix reflected the suggested world mix for 100% where around 70% comes from solar, but given our vast wind resources we have nothing to worry about when it comes to winter RE volume generation.


    Here's mention of one 100% RE story, but there are many more, also this is energy, not just electricity.

    A global 100% renewable energy system
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 19-08-2019 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Added a report/link to the end
    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.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Aug 19, 10:47 AM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    By comparison, curtailment is 3 units in zero units out

    3 units in 1 unit out sounds infinitely better to me.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    Who says you have to curtail and around which year do you think this becomes a problem for the UK?
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 19th Aug 19, 10:58 AM
    • 809 Posts
    • 3,170 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Who says you have to curtail and around which year do you think this becomes a problem for the UK?
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Can you guarantee that there would always be a market for our surplus wind generation? Isn't it possible that we could end up with a situation similar to gas where the price occasionally goes negative?

    If the Uk really is determined to go 90% RE, then there's going to be a lot of over capacity. That's fine as long as there's a market at the end of the inter-connectors. If not, it makes sense to build local storage capability.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141) - 30 pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Aug 19, 12:15 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Can you guarantee that there would always be a market for our surplus wind generation? Isn't it possible that we could end up with a situation similar to gas where the price occasionally goes negative?

    If the Uk really is determined to go 90% RE, then there's going to be a lot of over capacity. That's fine as long as there's a market at the end of the inter-connectors. If not, it makes sense to build local storage capability.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    It depends on how many interconntors you build and to where.
    The UK looks likely to have 20GW over the next ten years (13GW within 5 yrs)
    What we can say for sure is that this curtailment problem isn't a problem for at least the next 15 years probably not even a problem for the next 25 years.

    Also we will probably have at least 12h battery storage in the system.
    This means a windfarm does not need to discharge to summer nights when demand might only be 21GW instead it can discharge into the average which is closer to 30GW.

    As you electrify heating and transport all these numbers go up


    The correlation of wind power output between the UK and it's neighbours isn't that high it's much lower than PV. What this means is when it's really windy here it isn't necessarily really windy in France. This Friday Saturday Sunday and today is windy in the UK not so windy in France

    Also you can design wind farms to be higher capacity factor and this is likely to happen

    Going from 40% offshore capacity factor to 60% offshore capacity factor makes a huge difference

    To generate 500TWh from wind power needs

    142.7 GW @40% or
    95.1 GW @60%
    A huge difference
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 19th Aug 19, 12:17 PM
    • 4,935 Posts
    • 6,683 Thanks
    zeupater
    Can you guarantee that there would always be a market for our surplus wind generation? Isn't it possible that we could end up with a situation similar to gas where the price occasionally goes negative?

    If the Uk really is determined to go 90% RE, then there's going to be a lot of over capacity. That's fine as long as there's a market at the end of the inter-connectors. If not, it makes sense to build local storage capability.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Hi

    This is the crux of an argument that's been going on for the most part of a decade now - interconnectors are fine for when there's a peak in demand which can be satisfied from an out-of-area source, but only when that source has a supply surplus ... take for example the often mentioned connectivity to French nuclear where much of the peak supply viability of the connection to the UK resolves to time shifted peak demand due to time zones - if for some reason the UK was to harmonise time with CET (financial, working day etc ...) then the periods of peak demand would be more aligned, which could pose a significant problem!

    The same individual(s) are replaying exactly the same old anti-RE arguments in exactly the same old way as has been repeated many times over the years, it's just a case of dragging comparatively new members in (new meat!), firing up the same old well rehearsed lines in a compelling way, then standing back to enjoy the disruption whilst employing a stick poking strategy when deemed necessary ....

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Aug 19, 12:31 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,705 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Also you can do a comparison of batteries Vs hydrogen

    We know the hydrogen without accounting tricks is going to cost 150+/MWh

    If you assume batteries have a life of 25 years 100/KWh how frequently would it have to cycle to cost 150/MWh?

    You get a figure of almost two weeks
    What this means is it's better to do hydrogen if the storage is needed in excess of two weeks and better to do batteries if the storage is needed less than two weeks

    Again this further reduces the need to do any significant quantities of the chemical dance


    1 Interconnectors
    2 batteries
    2.5 probably a hell of a lot more options
    3 chemicals dance
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

2,331Posts Today

5,921Users online

Martin's Twitter