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
    • 8,165Posts
    • 12,862Thanks
    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 Former 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 99
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Mar 19, 7:55 AM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    A well hoped for process theory to achieve this would be to increase the oxygen content in direct biofuel combustion energy generating plant to (thus increasing the process efficiency through achieving higher burn temperatures & reducing the nitrogen content) and using the plant & process as a focal point for carbon concentration & sequestration ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Morning. Putting aside CCS, I recall that a use for CAES is to improve the efficiency of thermal generation, so more bang for less fuel buck, so I assume that adding O2 would have the same effect as adding more air. Does that make sense?

    So, something I hadn't thought about was the O2 side of the equation giving an additional boost from H2 production as you point out. Nice.
    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.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 18th Mar 19, 11:44 AM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    Morning. Putting aside CCS, I recall that a use for CAES is to improve the efficiency of thermal generation, so more bang for less fuel buck, so I assume that adding O2 would have the same effect as adding more air. Does that make sense?

    So, something I hadn't thought about was the O2 side of the equation giving an additional boost from H2 production as you point out. Nice.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    If you think of it in terms of processes improvements such as oxyacetylene cutting/welding you can appreciate the effect of increasing the oxygen concentration above that in air ... raised combustion temperatures & therefore efficiency.

    The CCS element however is extremely relevant ....

    In general terms air basically comprises 4x inert(ish) gas (mainly nitrogen) to oxygen by volume, therefore the combustion process in air results in oxidisation of the carbon fuel to form CO2 and the expansion of any inert gasses with a small proportion of the combustion process nitrogen converted to NOx (nitrogen dioxide & nitric oxide) emissions.

    Through reducing, or even removing, the inert gasses from the combustion process, the expanded volume of emission are reduced by approximately 4/5, thus decreasing the velocity of the exhaust process as well as increasing the concentration of CO2 by 5x. Taking both of these facts into consideration describes a process improvement which isn't hard to understand why it forms the basis of combustion for efficient carbon capture for onward sequestration ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Mar 19, 12:04 PM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    Through reducing, or even removing, the inert gasses from the combustion process, the expanded volume of emission are reduced by approximately 4/5, thus decreasing the velocity of the exhaust process as well as increasing the concentration of CO2 by 5x. Taking both of these facts into consideration describes a process improvement which isn't hard to understand why it forms the basis of combustion for efficient carbon capture for onward sequestration ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Damn, never thought of that. So CAES would be akin to a turbocharger or supercharger putting in more air, and therefore more oxygen, but also more nitrogen, and therefore more NOx.

    Whereas adding the extra O2, without the nitrogen part (as you say, 4x the oxygen) would give a cleaner burn - have I got it?

    Never heard that side put forward before, but seems logical and sensible if the H2 production (and O2 production) is done on site with thermal generation, or within transport range.

    Hmmm, interesting, thanks.

    Edit - and the CCS side too, also an interesting point.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 18-03-2019 at 12:06 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.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 18th Mar 19, 12:44 PM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Interesting developments in Japan, and firstly I have to note that I didn't realise that they burn so much coal. Even if/as and when the nuclear fleet gets back up to speed, Japan would still be getting a majority of leccy from coal.

    Well, it seems that coal generation investment is hitting a cliff edge as it becomes un-economic, and may need government support going forward.

    Major Japanese investors, including those most indebted to coal, are seeking to back large-scale renewables projects across Asia, marking a “monumental” shift that energy market analysts say is “the start of the end for thermal coal”.

    At the same time, Japanese banks and trading houses are walking away from coal investments, selling out of Australian mines and scrapping plans to build coal-fired power.
    Buckley said coal-fired power in developing Asian countries required government underwriting to attract significant private financial investors. Such projects would be looking to JBIC, JICA and the Korean equivalent, the Export-Import Bank of Korea, which has also made significant recent moves into the renewables sector.

    “The vast majority of the Asian coal-fired power fleet expansion is underwritten by government subsidies, capital subsidies,” Buckley said.

    “Once you remove that capital subsidy, private enterprise is not going to put their own capital at risk on $4bn and $5bn capital projects in a foreign market. Projects that have been endorsed, announced, in train for five years all of a sudden become total stranded asset proposals.
    Energy analysts forecast 'the end of coal' in Asia as Japanese investors back renewables
    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 Mar 19, 11:05 AM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The energy industry changes slowly it is just not possible to shift from fossil to renewables/nuclear in a quick way although you can quickly ramp up the fuel through existing coal and gas plants which is more or less what happened with germany/japan turning their nukes off

    The 2011 reactor meltdowns were more or less harmless but what it did do was scare politicians so much so that the best part of 40GW of nuclear was shut down needlessly and the result was ~3,000 TWh less nuclear generation in the 2010s and ~3,000 TWh more gas and oil generation which was a real environmental and economic disaster and perhaps the same again in the 2020s due to the early ending of german nukes and the very slow and not fully restart of japan nukes

    More important is what happens in 2030-2050 when electricity demand will once again boom as transport and heating is electrified.

    The world (and the UK) has to make a decision very very soon does it want to start building nukes today so they start up during the 2030-2050 period or is it going to leave it too late and try desperately to meet the massive 2030-2050 ramp (maybe as much as +25TWh/yr) via wind/pv/CCGT
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Mar 19, 11:50 AM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    And in other energy news.....USA shale gas and oil now exceed 1,500 GWt

    8.5mbpd of oil and even more than that in gas equivalent and this is likely to be ~10% higher by 2020

    That is equal to about 6 x total UK energy (not just electricity but all energy) usage enough to power the whole of France + Germany + UK + Spain + Poland + Switzerland + ireland + belgium +denmark combined.

    The energy revolution of 2010-2020 was really shale tech not solar and wind

    Even once converted to equivalent assuming 50% efficiency (base-load CCGTs can get as much as 62%) the shale energy is worth 3 x as much as all the wind power and solar PV deplayed in the 2010-2019 period.

    Let us hope annual deployment of PV and wind power triples in the 2020s so the renewable revolution can at least catch up to the shale revolution

    If the world can up its game to deploy 200GW of wind and 200GW of PV per year at an average 30% & 15% CFs then it will be closer to shale tech revolution

    Hopefully that will come to pass. Wind power in particular really needs to expand 4x vs 2018 rate of ~50GW
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 19th Mar 19, 12:18 PM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Even if we compare just the most recent 2018 solar and wind additions at say 100GW PV at 15% CF and 50GW wind at 30% CF that equals ~30GWe average

    Compare that to the ~200GWt that will be added this year from shale and equate that to ~100GWe equivalent as electricity is worth more than thermal we still see that shale is ~3x as important to energy as wind/PV

    Really it is a shame the EU did not embrace shale too. Even if the whole of the EU had just 1/5th as much shale gas production as the USA that would have been enough gas to displace all of the EU coal usage and some EU nations are very very big coal users.

    2010s was shale
    2020s will still be shale
    2030 will be wind and solar
    2040s will be EVs (negative net energy usage as they are about twice as efficient as oil/gas cars)
    2050s will be EVs & Wind/Solar
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 19th Mar 19, 10:57 PM
    • 2,270 Posts
    • 3,236 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    The 2011 reactor meltdowns were more or less harmless
    Originally posted by GreatApe

    I don't normally read your posts but this leapt out at me and reminded me of one of the reasons why I ignore them..
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Mar 19, 7:37 AM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I don't normally read your posts but this leapt out at me and reminded me of one of the reasons why I ignore them..
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    Obviously the explosions were not harmless, and our focus should be on the radioactive contamination and the loss of land for those that had to move, but, if we take a purely economical look at the issue, then that cost is staggeringly harmful.

    The latest government estimates for the cleanup and compensation are (or were) around 20tn Yen, about $200bn, but Japanese think tanks suggest this could more than triple to around Yen70tn or over $600bn.

    That's a lot of money, but then go one step further and think what that expenditure denies/prevents (the opportunity cost of spending the money on this cleanup)?

    That money isn't generating leccy, no, it's consuming leccy and vast amounts of other energy and materials as part of the clean up. Whereas averaging out the cost of cheap on-shore wind and PV with more expensive off-shore wind, $200bn would buy close to 200GW of RE generation.

    Next, and just for fun, let's spend the $600bn on RE, and get 200GW of off-shore wind (50%cf), 200GW of on-shore wind (30%cf), and 200GW of PV (12%cf).

    That would generate approx 1,600TWh of leccy pa, greater than Japan's current annual consumption of ~950TWh.

    So, just for fun, there's the economic cost of this 'harmless' event, an opportunity cost of producing nearly two Japan's worth of clean leccy generation, with the money pee'd up against the wall, to clean up nuclear, not generate nuclear leccy, but consume leccy whilst cleaning up nuclear.

    Clearly "harmless".
    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 20th Mar 19, 7:59 AM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Trawling CleanTechnica this morning, I noticed a veritable hoard of news or perhaps lesser known facts and ideas for clean energy, transport and storage. Enjoy.

    Despite President Trump's pro coal agenda, US clean energy jobs now outnumber FF jobs by about 3:1.

    US Clean Energy Jobs Increased 3.6% In 2018 To Nearly 3.3 Million


    'Holy hot rocks Batman', energy storage at a very low cost of deployment, and also very low losses.

    Storing Energy By Heating Stones To 600 Degrees Could Power Denmark For Hours


    And how do you transport big, heavy and bulky items in hard to reach areas, and use less energy fuel, well, the sky's the limit in China .... possibly.

    Can We Go Back To A Clean Future With Hybrid Airships?
    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 20th Mar 19, 11:11 AM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I don't normally read your posts but this leapt out at me and reminded me of one of the reasons why I ignore them..
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    Everything is relative.

    From wiki
    Death(s) 1 from radiation,[3] 2,202 from evacuation,[4]

    And compared to the tsunami itself there were ~20,000 deaths from that

    Perhaps more relevantly, how many more will get sick or die from the ~ 6,000 TWh of coal/gas that will need to be generated in lue of the nukes that were shut down?
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Mar 19, 11:55 AM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Obviously the explosions were not harmless, and our focus should be on the radioactive contamination and the loss of land for those that had to move, but, if we take a purely economical look at the issue, then that cost is staggeringly harmful.

    The latest government estimates for the cleanup and compensation are (or were) around 20tn Yen, about $200bn, but Japanese think tanks suggest this could more than triple to around Yen70tn or over $600bn.

    That's a lot of money, but then go one step further and think what that expenditure denies/prevents (the opportunity cost of spending the money on this cleanup)?

    That money isn't generating leccy, no, it's consuming leccy and vast amounts of other energy and materials as part of the clean up. Whereas averaging out the cost of cheap on-shore wind and PV with more expensive off-shore wind, $200bn would buy close to 200GW of RE generation.

    Next, and just for fun, let's spend the $600bn on RE, and get 200GW of off-shore wind (50%cf), 200GW of on-shore wind (30%cf), and 200GW of PV (12%cf).

    That would generate approx 1,600TWh of leccy pa, greater than Japan's current annual consumption of ~950TWh.

    So, just for fun, there's the economic cost of this 'harmless' event, an opportunity cost of producing nearly two Japan's worth of clean leccy generation, with the money pee'd up against the wall, to clean up nuclear, not generate nuclear leccy, but consume leccy whilst cleaning up nuclear.

    Clearly "harmless".
    Originally posted by Martyn1981


    This is mostly propaganda and the cost is mostly self induced (ie inflated lies)

    What did the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima cost? One would imagine magnitudes more considering almost 100,000 people and large parts of the city were completely destroyed rather than the bogyman fear of ooooo the magnitudes diluted radiation and stopped by air from a reactor hundreds or thousands of miles away will get you

    And BTW even if that cost were true, which I dont buy for one second, it would be the same as running the 50GW of nuclear that were taken offline for 30 years and the damage done on spending $600 billion more on coal and gas energy instead? Coal and gas mining is safe and environmentally friendly right?

    The choice was to turn the reactors off and run more coal and gas through existing coal and gas fired stations it was not turn the reactors off and instantly magic the next morning the equivalent in wind farms
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 20th Mar 19, 12:00 PM
    • 2,952 Posts
    • 2,488 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Germany averaged ~150TWh/yr of nuclear through the 2000s, and soon that will be 0TWh
    If they had not shut down the nukes then by 2023 they could have reduced coal usage towards zero. Instead Germany will continue to be a massive coal user for many many years to come

    There is also the ramp up in electricity demand come 2030-2050 when transport and heating is electrified. The germans should have phased out their nukes not in the 2010s but in the 2050s Germany alone is going to use 6,000 TWh more coal and gas than it otherwise would have thanks to the early needless retirement of its fleet of nukes

    6,000 tWh = equal to about 2.5 billion tons of coal

    Japan roughly double that so those two combined will be 7.5 billion tons of coal (or nat gas equivalent) over the next 40 years thanks to the nuclear hysteria and propaganda
    • pile-o-stone
    • By pile-o-stone 20th Mar 19, 2:37 PM
    • 117 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    pile-o-stone
    Is this another thread that will be renamed ("...in the news in the last 2 weeks" because it's taken off topic?
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 300L thermal store.
    • EricMears
    • By EricMears 20th Mar 19, 4:03 PM
    • 2,413 Posts
    • 4,204 Thanks
    EricMears
    Is this another thread that will be renamed ("...in the news in the last 2 weeks" because it's taken off topic?
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone
    It's already labelled thus; alas, some contributors seem unable to grasp the concept.
    NE Derbyshire.
    4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Mar 19, 6:58 PM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    It's already labelled thus; alas, some contributors seem unable to grasp the concept.
    Originally posted by EricMears
    Apologies if I'm one of them, and no offence taken either way, as it's hard to talk about modern day expenditure and investment in RE for CO2 reduction, without considering nuclear.

    And then to consider nuclear, which is very current - pretty much daily news in that the UK is running around in circles trying to decide what to do - without considering all costs (and dangers/concerns) is also tricky. History has given us clues, but they are of course outside of the 2 week window.

    Personally, whilst I don't consider nuclear green nor ethical, as it can be avoided, I do think it's important to discussions due to it being low carbon and predictable.

    Again, personally, I'm very happy, and relieved, that it now seems to be more expensive than RE and storage, as that allows me to discount it, without concerns about hypocrisy.

    So long as I'm right (and that's not necessarily true) then nuclear is more expensive, slower to deploy, and carries additional risks which are, to be fair, very unlikely, but if something does go wrong then the cost is simply staggering.

    All the best.
    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 21st Mar 19, 6:58 AM
    • 8,165 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Potentially enormous news. No, seriously, this is BIG BIG BIG!!

    In the US state of Wyoming a whole raft of new FF drilling and mining has been temporarily halted by a legal decision that climate change / global warming has not been accounted for in the licencing process.

    US judge halts hundreds of drilling projects in groundbreaking climate change ruling

    In the first significant check on the Trump administration’s “energy-first” agenda, a US judge has temporarily halted hundreds of drilling projects for failing to take climate change into account.

    Drilling had been stalled on more than 300,000 acres of public land in Wyoming after it was ruled the Trump administration violated environmental laws by failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions. The federal judge has ordered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages US public lands and issues leases to the energy industry, to redo its analysis.

    The decision stems from an environmental lawsuit. WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center sued the BLM in 2016 for failing to calculate and limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from future oil and gas projects.
    I've no idea where this will go, and what impact it will have, but if you open up the door to AGW legal arguments, then that door is going to see a serious amount of traffic (let's hope they use EV's).
    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

1,102Posts Today

6,666Users online

Martin's Twitter