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, 7:25 AM
    • 8,089Posts
    • 12,736Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 7:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 7:25 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 MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 10:41 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 95
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Feb 19, 8:24 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Some interesting modelling says meeting us energy demand by on shore wind would result in local heating averaging 0.5c basically as less wind means less local heat removal.
    Originally posted by michaels
    It would be interesting to know the impact of PV too. Assuming 20% efficiency now, that suggests 20% of the Sun's energy doesn't hit the ground. Of course that 20% gets released later on as heat (leccy use), but displaces other forms of generation, especially thermal, which create heat (and CO2 emissions) to produce the leccy, which later gives of the same leccy heat.

    In an ideal world, I assume diverting African heat (via PV and HVDC) to northern country heat pumps, to displace FF burning for heat is the great balancer.

    Edit - Also, and just thinking out loud here, but a decade or so back I was watching a program showing how innovative the Cuban's had to get when Soviet money dried up. They were growing crops on land, and at times, when normally it would be too hot. They used suspended mesh to reduce the solar impact.

    Combine that with German, Japanese and Korean success at co-locating high mounted and thinly spaced PV over crops, where both PV and crops managed 80% efficiency, so a combined 160% from the land.

    Taking this a step further, perhaps such a combination could be used to bring back poor quality land for crop use, with the long term goal of re-seeding the land with carbon, so it can then support itself. Not for PV or food use, but China is managing to restore land now faster than desertification is claiming it, via decade long replanting and management.

    Green land and plants/crops, help to cool land surfaces, whilst naturally storing carbon too.

    Every little helps.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 09-02-2019 at 8:38 AM. 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.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Feb 19, 8:30 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    So ..... Aussie central government politics and policies are not exactly RE friendly (they do like a nice lump of coal) but state politics and individuals are pro-RE, and especially pro-money (saving it).

    So, kinda ironic, but also incredibly good news, is that Aus is smashing it when it comes to leccy generation/RE.

    Not so good with transport, with poor efficiency and a love of petrol/diesel, but growing EV choice and falling costs, combined with cheaper RE leccy, could mean a perfect storm is heading for transport too.

    Australia on track to meet Paris Agreement targets by 2025

    “The electricity sector is on track to deliver Australia’s entire Paris emissions reduction targets five years early, in 2025, without the need for any creative accounting.

    “Australia is on track to reach 50% renewable electricity in 2024 and 100% by 2032. The Australian renewable energy experience offers real hope for rapid global emissions reductions to preserve a living planet.”
    And S. Australia, the home of the giant Tesla battery (soon to be the small cute Tesla battery), needs special mention as it proves the way, over and over.

    Massive solar-plus-storage projects move forward in Australia

    The Robertstown region could host two big renewable energy projects – a 500 MW solar farm co-located with a 250 MW/1 GWh battery storage capacity, and a construction-ready 200 MW PV project with 120 MWh of storage that forms part of the Solar River Project, the size of which could eventually double.
    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 10th Feb 19, 8:13 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    An article here on the issues and need to get to carbon free gas. This doesn't remove the need today for gas, with the multiple concerns we discussed in detail recently, but is more about the future and underpining RE generation with a backstop price/product for excess. [Perhaps for the UK, the leccy is more likely to come from off-shore wind excess, but the same issues apply.]

    The weekend read: From solar to gas
    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 10th Feb 19, 6:34 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    An article here on the issues and need to get to carbon free gas. This doesn't remove the need today for gas, with the multiple concerns we discussed in detail recently, but is more about the future and underpining RE generation with a backstop price/product for excess. [Perhaps for the UK, the leccy is more likely to come from off-shore wind excess, but the same issues apply.]

    The weekend read: From solar to gas
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    You keep cheer leading this excess electricity to gas idea but it wont work and as mentioned previously a lot of gas demand is for heating which can and should be electrified in the same way the french use a lot more electricity for heating and thus a lot less gas for the same population.

    The storage problem is solved by EVs and higher CF wind farms not by building chemical plants and hiring chemical engineers on zero hour contracts to work only when the wind blows hard.

    If the political will is there and the public accept the price the future for the UK is offshore wind heavy + EVs + interconnectors + curtailment + CCGTs to fill in the gaps. You could get to perhaps as much as 85% wind 15% CCGTs for everything (electricity transport and heating) which is a 90%+ decarb of the UK which is sufficient.

    If you really wanted to get towards 100% more likely is you would have some biomass plants to fill in the gaps rather than CCGTs although that probably is a bad idea as costs and difficulty rises exponentially after a certain point.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 10th Feb 19, 6:53 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    In the not too distant future humanity will create machines capable of human level skills at more or less everything. At that point anything and everything becomes possible and very very rapid.

    You will be able to simply command those machines to do anything and everything. Move mountains, build whole new nations, and of course controlling the climate to exactly what you want. Then the interesting part of environmental science starts. What is an ideal environment and for what lifeforms do you maximize the climate for?

    These are not questions even thought about now primarily because climate change is a non issue mostly pushed by the hard leftists as an anti business ideological weapon (they lost the argument that capitalism doesn't create mass wealth by simply..looking around them...so the green movement started as a way to say ok we are all rich now but the plant is dying so we were right after all capital doesn't work...only it does work it creates mass wealth for everyone and the planet is not and never was dying)

    My guess before 2050 everything will be solved
    The real challenge of this century is not claimitchange that is a non issue
    The challenge will be how to survive the singularity and if we do, how to expand humanity to the trillions
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Feb 19, 7:22 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    From nightmare to dream solution ..... well I'm allowed to be optimistic.

    After Puerto Rico's leccy system was all but destroyed, I hoped that they would start again from the ground up, and be the perfect demonstration of an RE solution.

    They have lots of sun, and great wind too. And the small solar farms survived the hurricane well (at least better), and PV + battery solutions were quickly rolled out for emergency situations, such as the charitable Tesla quick fixes of PV in carparks linked to Powerpacks to get hospitals up and running again.

    So, could they go for a system of large mini grids, cross linked to meet future needs - certainly looks like that's were they are going, with gas generation (replacing diesel) to fill in the gaps.

    Presumably, more PV, wind and batts will roll out long term to replace the LNG imports being planned. Cool!

    Puerto Rico Renewable Energy Plan Calls For Solar, Storage, & “Midi” Grids

    The energy plan calls for the installation of 2,220 MW of solar energy and 1,080 MW of energy storage. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, there are 1,031 MW of battery storage in all the US at the present time. The renewables will allow Puerto Rico to phase out the coal and diesel powered generating stations that have been the backbone of its energy supply for decades.

    With input from Siemens Power Technologies International, the plans calls for the emphasis to be on creating renewable energy sources during the first five years of the plan. The proposed battery installations would contain a mix of 2, 4, and 6 hours of energy storage, according to Utility Dive.
    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.
    • pile-o-stone
    • By pile-o-stone 11th Feb 19, 11:07 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 130 Thanks
    pile-o-stone
    In the not too distant future humanity will create machines capable of human level skills at more or less everything.
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    I first heard something like this back in 1984 when I was told I was wasting my time learning to program because coding will be done in the background by computers, guided by the flowcharts selected in the foreground by analysts.

    I ignored that advice and learned to program in various languages and I have had a 27 year career in IT where we still develop code line by line. The tools are better but the basic premise is the same.

    On my computer science degree I did an Artificial Intelligence module and they had the same statement as we always hear from the developers of fusion reactors - the technology is only 10 years away. Again, 27 years later and we still are just 10 years away.
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 300L thermal store.
    • pile-o-stone
    • By pile-o-stone 11th Feb 19, 11:19 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 130 Thanks
    pile-o-stone
    I saw this on the news the other day:

    "Drax Power Station says it has become the first to use carbon capture technology on burning wood pellets in the fight against climate change.

    Drax has long been a testing ground for carbon capture following a government-funded investigation into the technology in 2012, although the subsequent removal of subsidies ended that trial.

    This latest trial implements a different solution known as bioenergy carbon capture and storage (Beccs). It uses a solvent developed by Leeds-based C-Capture to isolate carbon dioxide from flue gases, which are released when biomass is used to generate electricity. It has been used to catch around a tonne of the greenhouse gas a day during the pilot.

    There are even hopes that if the pilot could be scaled up it could deliver “negative emissions” and remove carbon from the atmosphere."


    https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/drax-becomes-the-first-power-station-to-capture-carbon-from-biomass/
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 300L thermal store.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 11th Feb 19, 11:42 AM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I first heard something like this back in 1984 when I was told I was wasting my time learning to program because coding will be done in the background by computers, guided by the flowcharts selected in the foreground by analysts.

    I ignored that advice and learned to program in various languages and I have had a 27 year career in IT where we still develop code line by line. The tools are better but the basic premise is the same.

    On my computer science degree I did an Artificial Intelligence module and they had the same statement as we always hear from the developers of fusion reactors - the technology is only 10 years away. Again, 27 years later and we still are just 10 years away.
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone

    There is no doubt general AI will arrive, the question is simply when

    If the exponential curve of computer tech continues it can't be too far away because by definition the exponential function is so powerful that even if the task is exponentially harder than you think it just takes a small additional amount of time to get there

    With regards to fusion power it is a waste of time because like fission the reactor is just a small fraction of the cost of a plant. In a fission nuclear plant the reactor is about the size of a bus its not the reactor that makes it expensive it is the low thermal efficiency and the large physical size of the buildings and the small numbers needed meaning no learning curve or efficiency gains. That is to say lets pretend we have a working fusion reactor a simple black box. Well build everything you need around the fusion reactor to make it work and whats that going to cost you? Too much is the answer. This is why fission reactors lost out to CCGTs. A CCGT is about 1/10th the physical size and 1/10th the cost of a fission nuclear plant. Likewise a fusion plant is likely to be multiple times the size of a CCGT so they wont be economic vs CCGTs. CCGTs killed new nukes. CCGTs also killed fusion nukes before they were even born. CCGTs also killed coal plants in some countries like the UK which will be coal free in a few years time thanks not to wind or PV but to CCGTs. CCGTs are fundamentally better than coal and nuclear plants. Operating at 60%+ efficiency is much much better than 33% efficient nukes or coal plants. Not only do you get twice as much electricity for the same thermal energy but the infrastructure to handle the heat is less than 1/3rd the size which more or less means less than 1.3rd the cost to build
    Last edited by GreatApe; 11-02-2019 at 11:46 AM.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 11th Feb 19, 12:42 PM
    • 4,528 Posts
    • 6,079 Thanks
    zeupater
    Hi

    As ever with CCS, the issue isn't the ability or the technology, it's cost & scalability ...

    If DAX alone burns 7million tonnes of biomass per year it'll be creating around 12million tonnes of CO2, averaging over 30,000 tonnes/day of which around 8200 tonnes ((12/44)*30000) is pure recoverable carbon which in solid form would occupy over 3600 cubic metres of storage, that's 1.3million cubic metres/year, or a cube of permanent carbon storage measuring around 110*110*110metres from one relatively small generating plant for each and every year of generation ...

    The only realistic solution which doesn't create mountains of recovered carbon waste is to recycle the carbon into a form which is ready for burning again, which effectively means utilising clean energy to recover the emissions from the atmosphere when energy is in abundance, which it isn't when there's a need to use backup generation sources.

    This effectively is & has always been the issue with CCS ... it's fine in principle & even for small scale technology proving tests, but when the realisation of the impact of the issues of scaling comes into play the justification becomes very hard ....

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 11-02-2019 at 12:46 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Feb 19, 7:02 PM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    As ever with CCS, the issue isn't the ability or the technology, it's cost & scalability ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Yes, you are right, but BECCS has a potential joker to play.

    The world is slowly waking up to carbon pricing. The UK says it will freeze our tax at about £18/tonne, and possibly lower it a bit, if the EU tax keeps going up.

    But, BECCS is a negative carbon solution, so, perhaps, whilst not being charged a carbon price (as emissions from bio-mass are net zero), they might also get a carbon subsidy for storing carbon too, giving them a double economic boost in competing with FF's, and a single boost in competing against RE.

    No idea if that would make them viable, possibly not given the falling costs of RE generation, but v's RE + storage (as bio-mass can demand follow a bit, and is predictable/dependable) and with a carbon subsidy too, perhaps?

    Plus, long term, to avoid runaway climate change and meet the +1.5C target, we need to deploy CCS as the plans currently are for a plus 2C rise, with the goal of avoiding that and only hitting +1.5C by 2100 based on carbon capture being rolled out from 2050 onwards - when we assume we can invent something to do this, and hopefully do it economically.

    So many things have to go right it scares me, but it's also fun to watch the technological arms race.
    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 11th Feb 19, 9:42 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I first heard something like this back in 1984 when I was told I was wasting my time learning to program because coding will be done in the background by computers, guided by the flowcharts selected in the foreground by analysts.

    I ignored that advice and learned to program in various languages and I have had a 27 year career in IT where we still develop code line by line. The tools are better but the basic premise is the same.

    On my computer science degree I did an Artificial Intelligence module and they had the same statement as we always hear from the developers of fusion reactors - the technology is only 10 years away. Again, 27 years later and we still are just 10 years away.
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone

    Well if I were around in 1984 I would have pointed out the fundamental limits of why such a prediction in 1984 was wrong. in 1984 a computer was no where near a human in sensory input or output let alone the processing power to make sense of that input

    But now computers have reached a level when they can input and output at human limits and beyond. Your eyes take in a huge amount of data much more than a 1984 computer but less than a 2019 computer.

    Digital cameras exceed human eyes now
    Video output at 4k is more pixels than your eye has cone cells

    Computers are still not human level at visual processing but they seem to be getting close. At least the sensors are already here. Your £100 smartphone now has a sensor kit which exceeds in many ways you own biological sensors.

    Also I would argue that the internet as a whole is already very very close to an 'AI'
    If I have a difficult question who do I ask for an answer? Not the local university professor but google. And 99.99% of the time I get a good useful answer back.

    At what point does a huge bank of stored data become an AI?
    Sure it cant invent new things but most humans never invent new things in their life but we still call and class them as Biological intelligence

    The main thing to accept is that we are just a bunch of atoms with the emergent property of intelligence a property which is clearly not unique by the fact that we have 7 billion human brains all wired up differently and all intelligent

    If you think the task is 1000 x harder than I think just up your time frame by 20 years.
    If you think the task is 1 million x harder than I think just up your time frame by 40 years.
    If you think the task is 1 thousand trillion times harder than I think just up your time frame by 100 years.

    I think its very unlikely we will not get artificial intelligence this century
    Good or bad its happening in my lifetime and if I had to bet I would put it before 2060 rather than after 2060 so 40 years or less
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 11th Feb 19, 9:49 PM
    • 4,528 Posts
    • 6,079 Thanks
    zeupater
    ... But, BECCS is a negative carbon solution, so, perhaps, whilst not being charged a carbon price (as emissions from bio-mass are net zero), they might also get a carbon subsidy for storing carbon too, giving them a double economic boost in competing with FF's, and a single boost in competing against RE ...
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    All that someone needs to do to get their head around the issues regarding scaleability is look at what negative carbon really looks like on a global basis ....

    If global CO2 emissions are correct at around 37 billion tonnes and the goal is not only to maintain net-zero emissions but actively reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations we're realistically looking at processing 50 billion tonnes per year in order to roll back CO2 by around 3 years per decade of time passage, resulting in around 14billion tonnes ((12/44)*50billion) of pure recoverable carbon, so around 7billion cubic metres in solid form, which would form a cube of around 2x2x2km each year ... another way of looking at it is in mountain terms it's approximately the equivalent of around 4 Mount Everest sized piles of solid carbon ... per year, for a number of decades! ... so it just comes down to cost of scaling up capture from the current capital investment of £1000 to remove 1tonne/year to a commercial basis and what to do with all of that carbon .... anyone got up to £14trillion to spend each decade-or-so in spare change at current prices? ....

    It all sounds fine in principle, but it's a far bigger issue than the simple geological sequestration in depleted underground mines and oil/gas fields that's being sold as the solution to both governments and the general public at the moment, yes it obviously works for a while, but when the majority of the suitable & easily accessible carbon 'dumps' are full, what happens? .... as mentioned, the issue is one of scalability!

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 11th Feb 19, 9:51 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Yes, you are right, but BECCS has a potential joker to play.

    The world is slowly waking up to carbon pricing. The UK says it will freeze our tax at about £18/tonne, and possibly lower it a bit, if the EU tax keeps going up.

    But, BECCS is a negative carbon solution, so, perhaps, whilst not being charged a carbon price (as emissions from bio-mass are net zero), they might also get a carbon subsidy for storing carbon too, giving them a double economic boost in competing with FF's, and a single boost in competing against RE.

    No idea if that would make them viable, possibly not given the falling costs of RE generation, but v's RE + storage (as bio-mass can demand follow a bit, and is predictable/dependable) and with a carbon subsidy too, perhaps?

    Plus, long term, to avoid runaway climate change and meet the +1.5C target, we need to deploy CCS as the plans currently are for a plus 2C rise, with the goal of avoiding that and only hitting +1.5C by 2100 based on carbon capture being rolled out from 2050 onwards - when we assume we can invent something to do this, and hopefully do it economically.

    So many things have to go right it scares me, but it's also fun to watch the technological arms race.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    you can already cool the planet its not difficult to do but we dont do it because no one actually wants to take the huge risk of cooling the planet

    The whole debate is so anti scientific it relies on the premise that what we have by chance is perfect any movement in either direction is hell in a hand basket which is almost certainly wrong.

    There is also no right answer
    A planet better for who or what?
    Every climate disaster, every volcano that destroyed thousands of species, every asteroid impact that killed half the planet, every negative you can imagine and not imagine is actually a positive for life that exists today not only is it a positive but it was all a NECESSITY. What this shows is there is no positive or negative there is only change

    So if you cant even conclude if a huge asteroid impact was a negative or positive how can you claim a small minute change in global temperatures is a positive or negative

    anyway we will transcend all this in the near future.
    Humanity will become gods and we will need to decide what we want to do with earth
    No more will chance and nature dictate the direction of the sons of DNA
    We will geo engineer the planet to what we think is best for what we think is best for what we think is best for.....until we probably decide to digitize everything and have trillions upon trillions of universes within universes within universes
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 11th Feb 19, 9:56 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Hi

    All that someone needs to do to get their head around the issues regarding scaleability is look at what negative carbon really looks like on a global basis ....

    If global CO2 emissions are correct at around 37 billion tonnes and the goal is not only to maintain net-zero emissions but actively reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations we're realistically looking at processing 50 billion tonnes per year in order to roll back CO2 by around 3 years per decade of time passage, resulting in around 14billion tonnes ((12/44)*50billion) of pure recoverable carbon, so around 7billion cubic metres in solid form, which would form a cube of around 2x2x2km each year ... another way of looking at it is in mountain terms it's approximately the equivalent of around 4 Mount Everest sized piles of solid carbon ... per year, for a number of decades! ... so it just comes down to cost of scaling up capture from the current capital investment of £1000 to remove 1tonne/year to a commercial basis and what to do with all of that carbon .... anyone got up to £14trillion to spend each decade-or-so in spare change at current prices? ....

    It all sounds fine in principle, but it's a far bigger issue than the simple geological sequestration in depleted underground mines and oil/gas fields that's being sold as the solution to both governments and the general public at the moment, yes it obviously works for a while, but when the majority of the suitable & easily accessible carbon 'dumps' are full, what happens? .... as mentioned, the issue is one of scalability!

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater

    only a fraction of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels seems to be entering the atmosphere the rest is absorbed by the oceans and soil and whatever else. I dont recall the fraction but lets say half for arguments sake

    What this means is if you cut CO2 burning by half the atmospheric CO2 should be stable

    If you cut it down to zero the atmospheric CO2 should fall by half the rate it is currently increasing by

    So no CCS needed just reduce CO2 into the air and it seems nature will rapidly take care of the rest
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 12th Feb 19, 8:06 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    All that someone needs to do to get their head around the issues regarding scaleability is look at what negative carbon really looks like on a global basis ....

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    That's probably why the can has been kicked down the road to a hoped for solution/technology by 2050 (that's a roll out starting in 2050, not a fix by 2050).

    If we all cross our fingers, or click our heels together three times, we might just pull this off!
    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 12th Feb 19, 11:36 PM
    • 2,917 Posts
    • 2,480 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Hi

    All that someone needs to do to get their head around the issues regarding scaleability is look at what negative carbon really looks like on a global basis ....

    If global CO2 emissions are correct at around 37 billion tonnes and the goal is not only to maintain net-zero emissions but actively reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations we're realistically looking at processing 50 billion tonnes per year in order to roll back CO2 by around 3 years per decade of time passage, resulting in around 14billion tonnes ((12/44)*50billion) of pure recoverable carbon, so around 7billion cubic metres in solid form, which would form a cube of around 2x2x2km each year ... another way of looking at it is in mountain terms it's approximately the equivalent of around 4 Mount Everest sized piles of solid carbon ... per year, for a number of decades! ... so it just comes down to cost of scaling up capture from the current capital investment of £1000 to remove 1tonne/year to a commercial basis and what to do with all of that carbon .... anyone got up to £14trillion to spend each decade-or-so in spare change at current prices? ....

    It all sounds fine in principle, but it's a far bigger issue than the simple geological sequestration in depleted underground mines and oil/gas fields that's being sold as the solution to both governments and the general public at the moment, yes it obviously works for a while, but when the majority of the suitable & easily accessible carbon 'dumps' are full, what happens? .... as mentioned, the issue is one of scalability!

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater

    You dont need to scale anything the equilibrium forcing function is already such that carbon is removed from the atmosphere naturally in large quantities. Something like 15-20 gigatons net per year is removed from the atmosphere naturally (not counting the FF CO2 we add)

    So in theory if you reduce fossil use to half of today then CO2 in the air should stop going up.
    If you reduce FF use by 99% then CO2 in the air should go down by ~15-20 giga tons in the first year and keep doing that over time (with the rate slowing down as the concentration in the atmosphere falls naturally)
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Feb 19, 8:23 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    An article on the cost (additional cost) of building net-zero homes in California.

    California Leads In Net-Zero Homes As Costs Drop

    Half a dozen California cities are hosting enough net-zero homes to place the state in first place nationally among other states like Arizona where the net-zero trend is catching on rapidly, both among legislators and among leading homebuilders. This trend is expected to accelerate markedly over the coming decade, as the cost of adding net-zero features, including solar, drops by 50%.

    Although the premium cost of making a new home net-zero is currently between 7% and 8%, the cost is expected to drop in half by 2030, according to a 2019 study by the Rocky Mountain Institute. Unfortunately, consumer surveys show that most potential buyers only want to spend about a 4% premium for the purchase of a net-zero home, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
    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 15th Feb 19, 8:50 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    So ..... Aussie central government politics and policies are not exactly RE friendly (they do like a nice lump of coal) but state politics and individuals are pro-RE, and especially pro-money (saving it).

    So, kinda ironic, but also incredibly good news, is that Aus is smashing it when it comes to leccy generation/RE.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Speaking of irony, and the difference between Aus progress and Aus central government policies, how about this for irony:

    Emissions reduction fund could be used to upgrade 40-year-old coal-fired power plant

    The emissions reduction fund, which is at the heart of the Morrison government’s climate change policy, could be used to help pay for an upgrade at a 40-year-old coal-fired power plant after its owners successfully applied to register under the scheme.

    In a step that underscores the political divide over emissions policy, Vales Point power station in New South Wales was registered in August for a proposal to improve some of its turbines. It is the first stage in it being allowed to bid against land owners and other businesses for climate funding.
    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 15th Feb 19, 9:04 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 12,736 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Promising news from BP -

    Renewable energy sources will be the world’s main source of power within two decades and are establishing a foothold in the global energy system faster than any fuel in history, according to BP.

    The UK-based oil company said wind, solar and other renewables will account for about 30% of the world’s electricity supplies by 2040, up from 25% in BP’s 2040 estimates last year, and about 10% today.
    Renewable energy will be world's main power source by 2040, says BP

    But I can't help thinking that they are still lowballing here, as costs/prices for RE and storage (battery and large scale longer term storage) are still falling and deployments are speeding up. I'd expect more of a rising curve deployment, than a steady roll out 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.
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

3,430Posts Today

8,170Users online

Martin's Twitter