windmill frenzy over in UK

Mosschops2 · June 2007

However Gary - I'm in Nottingham, and I don't know of a single wind turbine around here. I'm not all for stringing them out in the countryside per sey (although last time I looked Radcliffe Power Station (Jn 24? M1) is visible for some 20 miles around - and it by far the greatest eyesore around), but there are none full stop. In places like Dusseldorf and Newcastle (!!) they do appear even in industrial areas of cities.

My point simply being, I find it hard to believe that we have reached saturation point!!

Have you ever tried pressing Alt+F4 ??

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Yes, I agree with your position, but I still believe that LPG as a road fuel has some significant benefits, particulalrly for fleet use in cities. The problem as I see it is that the value of carbon at present simply isn't high enough to drive significant changes in behaviour without other market interventions. Solution would seem obvious, but that would require the EU and wider world to agree on quotas restrictive enough to push the price up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, just spotted this now that Gary has bumped the thread!

The air quality benefits of LPG in cities are only signficant for NOx and PM in comparison with diesel. But the practical problems make it unnattractive for buses and lorries, which is where the greatest benefits would be. The value of carbon isn't relevant here because LPG is worse than diesel on CO2 and only a bit better than petrol.

See discussion in this TfL guide on fleet management

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
LPG is also much better for particulates. I think we've discussed the CO2 issues before - we can quibble about the best destination for the fuel (and I agree it would be better to use it for CHP etc), but the fact remains that LPG is a by-product of extraction and refinery, so in my view it is a significantly lower carbon fuel than petrol or diesel.

Whilst there are practical problems, we have a significant number of dual-fuel cars, vans and buses in our fleet which have been operating reliably for a few years now.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Apologies for resurrecting this thread but perhaps some of you might be interested in the latest news:

George Monbiot: No more wind turbines on land

Date: 29/05/2007 Author:News
Leading environmental campaigner and author George Monbiot has said that he believes land-based wind farms in the UK 'have reached saturation point', and that any future farms should be built at sea.

Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival, Monbiot said:
'Beyond having a few more windfarms, it'll generate so much antagonism it'll turn people off dealing with climate change.'

Advising a move to offshore windfarms, which are more expensive but cause far less visual intrusion or local controversy, Monbiot noted that Wales in particular was rich in sources of renewable energy:
'Cardigan Bay has great advantages. It's shallow water and it's very windy, meaning you could build on a wide scale producing huge amounts of energy,' he said.

Wind farms developers are finding it increasingly hard to obtain planning permission for new developments, and trade body the British

Wind Energy Association (BWEA) doubts that last week's Planning White Paper will make matters easier. Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of the BWEA, said that the association was 'deeply disappointed' by the government's lack of ambition in its approach to wind energy.

There are currently some 8,000 megawatts of potential wind energy held up in the planning system, a figure that represents 6 per cent of the UK's electricity needs.


Seems eminently sensible to me [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I quite agree. George Monbiot has moved to a particulary scenic part of mid Wales and is well able to see the issues. [;)]

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Yes, I agree with your position, but I still believe that LPG as a road fuel has some significant benefits, particulalrly for fleet use in cities. The problem as I see it is that the value of carbon at present simply isn't high enough to drive significant changes in behaviour without other market interventions. Solution would seem obvious, but that would require the EU and wider world to agree on quotas restrictive enough to push the price up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, just spotted this now that Gary has bumped the thread!

The air quality benefits of LPG in cities are only signficant for NOx and PM in comparison with diesel. But the practical problems make it unnattractive for buses and lorries, which is where the greatest benefits would be. The value of carbon isn't relevant here because LPG is worse than diesel on CO2 and only a bit better than petrol.

See discussion in this TfL guide on fleet management

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
LPG is also much better for particulates. I think we've discussed the CO2 issues before - we can quibble about the best destination for the fuel (and I agree it would be better to use it for CHP etc), but the fact remains that LPG is a by-product of extraction and refinery, so in my view it is a significantly lower carbon fuel than petrol or diesel.

Whilst there are practical problems, we have a significant number of dual-fuel cars, vans and buses in our fleet which have been operating reliably for a few years now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ransos, PM means Particulate Matter, so I had already accepted that LPG performs better than diesel in that respect.

On CO2, I'm afraid that your view simply isn't supported by any life-cycle analysis that I've ever seen. The comparisons given in the TfL guide I referred to earlier are based on accepted emission factors. Take a look at Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies by Ben Lane (you'll need to register, free), which concludes:

Across the vehicle categories, petrol has the highest CO2
emissions on a life cycle basis. In comparison, liquefied petroleum gas shows a 13% reduction (lying almost midway between petrol and diesel), mineral diesel 16%, and compressed natural gas show a 25% reduction, bioethanol a 37% reduction, and biodiesel >70% reduction.

On practicality, your experience may well be fine however, despite a lot of trials, there has been a noticeable lack of uptake of LPG by bus operators. First and foremost buses have to be reliable and cost-effective to run, and any alternative to diesel is going to have to meet those criteria. We can't run our public transport system on experimental vehicles.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Yes, I agree with your position, but I still believe that LPG as a road fuel has some significant benefits, particulalrly for fleet use in cities. The problem as I see it is that the value of carbon at present simply isn't high enough to drive significant changes in behaviour without other market interventions. Solution would seem obvious, but that would require the EU and wider world to agree on quotas restrictive enough to push the price up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, just spotted this now that Gary has bumped the thread!

The air quality benefits of LPG in cities are only signficant for NOx and PM in comparison with diesel. But the practical problems make it unnattractive for buses and lorries, which is where the greatest benefits would be. The value of carbon isn't relevant here because LPG is worse than diesel on CO2 and only a bit better than petrol.

See discussion in this TfL guide on fleet management

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
LPG is also much better for particulates. I think we've discussed the CO2 issues before - we can quibble about the best destination for the fuel (and I agree it would be better to use it for CHP etc), but the fact remains that LPG is a by-product of extraction and refinery, so in my view it is a significantly lower carbon fuel than petrol or diesel.

Whilst there are practical problems, we have a significant number of dual-fuel cars, vans and buses in our fleet which have been operating reliably for a few years now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ransos, PM means Particulate Matter, so I had already accepted that LPG performs better than diesel in that respect.

On CO2, I'm afraid that your view simply isn't supported by any life-cycle analysis that I've ever seen. The comparisons given in the TfL guide I referred to earlier are based on accepted emission factors. Take a look at Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies by Ben Lane (you'll need to register, free), which concludes:

Across the vehicle categories, petrol has the highest CO2
emissions on a life cycle basis. In comparison, liquefied petroleum gas shows a 13% reduction (lying almost midway between petrol and diesel), mineral diesel 16%, and compressed natural gas show a 25% reduction, bioethanol a 37% reduction, and biodiesel >70% reduction.

On practicality, your experience may well be fine however, despite a lot of trials, there has been a noticeable lack of uptake of LPG by bus operators. First and foremost buses have to be reliable and cost-effective to run, and any alternative to diesel is going to have to meet those criteria. We can't run our public transport system on experimental vehicles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
MJones - I missed your reference to PMs earlier - should have read your post more carefully! I do know what PM means...

With regard to emission carbon factors - as far as I know the published Defra numbers do not take account of extraction, refinery and distribution - only the use phase. I've had this argument with our environmental auditors, who are challenging the fact that we count our green tarrif electricity as zero carbon. The point being that if we do not, then the carbon factors for other forms of generation should also be much higher to take account of construction, supply and fuel consumption etc.

With the carbon emissions for LPG, I do feel that we are going round in circles. I do not dispute the numbers from LCA, all I have said is that LPG will always be produced as a by-product. This has been confirmed to me by a friend working for BP at a gathering station, and as far as I know has not been taken into account in the LCA reports that I have read. So it is not whether the numbers are wrong, but rather are they asking the right question?

As for LPG being experimental, well I think we're well past that stage now.

Edited to add: there's some consideration of my argument is this paper: http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lc ... kelId/6032

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos
..MJones - I missed your reference to PMs earlier - should have read your post more carefully! I do know what PM means...

With regard to emission carbon factors - as far as I know the published Defra numbers do not take account of extraction, refinery and distribution - only the use phase. I've had this argument with our environmental auditors, who are challenging the fact that we count our green tarrif electricity as zero carbon. The point being that if we do not, then the carbon factors for other forms of generation should also be much higher to take account of construction, supply and fuel consumption etc.

With the carbon emissions for LPG, I do feel that we are going round in circles. I do not dispute the numbers from LCA, all I have said is that LPG will always be produced as a by-product. This has been confirmed to me by a friend working for BP at a gathering station, and as far as I know has not been taken into account in the LCA reports that I have read. So it is not whether the numbers are wrong, but rather are they asking the right question?

As for LPG being experimental, well I think we're well past that stage now.

Edited to add: there's some consideration of my argument is this paper: http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lc ... kelId/6032
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
THanks for the ref. I'll take a look.

NB- the Ben Lane report I quoted, and others, are taking into account energy use in production. Even though LPG is much better in this respect- being pretty clean it needs little additional processing- this still doesn't bring life cycle/ 'well to wheel' emissions to below that of diesel. THis includes figures produced by the LPG lobby itself, who no doubt have been scrabbling desparately trying to present their product in the best possible light to justify ongoing demands for subsidy from the public purse. For example, the LPGA states "LPG emits similar CO2 to diesel "
http://www.boostlpg.co.uk/what_is/environment.htm

LPG is indeed a by-product, but that is not the same as being a waste product. It is a perfectly good source of energy, easily used without further processing or (in heating and generating applications) without complicated new technology. So for the industry to use an argument along the lines of "give us tax subsidies for its use in vehicles otherwise we'll wastefully flare it off" doesn't really cut a lot of ice.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

THanks for the ref. I'll take a look.

NB- the Ben Lane report I quoted, and others, are taking into account energy use in production. Even though LPG is much better in this respect- being pretty clean it needs little additional processing- this still doesn't bring life cycle/ 'well to wheel' emissions to below that of diesel. THis includes figures produced by the LPG lobby itself, who no doubt have been scrabbling desparately trying to present their product in the best possible light to justify ongoing demands for subsidy from the public purse. For example, the LPGA states "LPG emits similar CO2 to diesel "
http://www.boostlpg.co.uk/what_is/environment.htm

LPG is indeed a by-product, but that is not the same as being a waste product. It is a perfectly good source of energy, easily used without further processing or (in heating and generating applications) without complicated new technology. So for the industry to use an argument along the lines of "give us tax subsidies for its use in vehicles otherwise we'll wastefully flare it off" doesn't really cut a lot of ice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That may be true for the UK (we export over half of our LPG), but globally there is still a lot of flaring - no doubt you are aware of the adverse effects of this in Nigeria for example. And are you sure that if all use as a road fuel stopped tomorrow then an alternative use could easily be found? I think we're destined to forever go round in circles here, but as far as I can determine, there is an excess of LPG available globally, and it will continue to be available whether we want it or not. So lets make the best use of it we can, and if that means reducing duty so people will use it for road fuel then so be it. So in summary, I see the benefits as follows:

1. Lower processing/ refining energy costs
2. Infrastructure already in place for extraction/ processing/ refining
3. Extra demand would reduce flaring, a significant health impact in Nigeria for example
4. The UK is self sufficient, and could withstand a significant increase in use without having to import LPG.
5. If LPG would otherwise have been flared, then demand for other fossil fuel is displaced and carbon is significantly lower.

BTW the report I forwarded suggests that the energy well-wheel for LPG is a significant over-estimate at present.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos
...
That may be true for the UK (we export over half of our LPG), but globally there is still a lot of flaring - no doubt you are aware of the adverse effects of this in Nigeria for example. And are you sure that if all use as a road fuel stopped tomorrow then an alternative use could easily be found?

I think we're destined to forever go round in circles here, but as far as I can determine, there is an excess of LPG available globally, and it will continue to be available whether we want it or not. So lets make the best use of it we can, and if that means reducing duty so people will use it for road fuel then so be it. So in summary, I see the benefits as follows:

1. Lower processing/ refining energy costs
2. Infrastructure already in place for extraction/ processing/ refining
3. Extra demand would reduce flaring, a significant health impact in Nigeria for example
4. The UK is self sufficient, and could withstand a significant increase in use without having to import LPG.
5. If LPG would otherwise have been flared, then demand for other fossil fuel is displaced and carbon is significantly lower.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If there is a problem finding uses for LPG then surely it is easier and cheaper on the public purse to use it in gas fired power stations? Existing infrastructure and none of the operational problems with trying to use LPG for a purpose for which it is less practically suited than diesel. We have to consider value for money when comparing different options. Subsidy for LPG vehicle fuel has already cost several hundred million pounds that could certainly have been put to better use.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

BTW the report I forwarded suggests that the energy well-wheel for LPG is a significant over-estimate at present.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It doesn't matter. The LCA energy used in producing diesel still isn't high enough for LPG to end up with significantly better well to wheel CO2 emissions. Again, I refer to the industry itself. The very best figures they were using a couple of years ago was claiming something like 3% better than diesel on well to wheel basis; now LPGA doesn't even seem to be saying that. And those figures are for cars: on larger vehicles the efficiency benefits of diesel engines are correspondingly greater. Don't forget that LPG uses spark ignitition. As cylinder volume increases the time taken for the flame to propagate from the spark through the fuel air mix starts to become a significant problem.

The Bosscp · June 2007

Windmills produce next to no energy, but they are convenient for the government because they tick a political box - they are big, visible, futuristic-looking and noisy, and make it look like the government are doing something about climate change, which is a lot more important than actually doing something about climate change.

rob35 · June 2007

Polution control and energy consumption reductions are a good thing, but am i the only one to see that "Global warming" has been happening for a very long time closely followed by Global cooling. CO2 is one massive tax gain for any government to latch onto.
That big fireball in the sky has a big part to play don't you know. It also has cycles(Hydrogen) not Ti.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith
...
[Monbiot article]
There are currently some 8,000 megawatts of potential wind energy held up in the planning system, a figure that represents 6 per cent of the UK's electricity needs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The emphasis being on potential... even if we got all 8,000 MW spinning in a good location that doesn't mean we can turn off a corresponding 8% of our other electricity sources. The example of Denmark is often cited because ~ 20% of its energy is claimed to come from the wind, but it isn't as simple as that. It is actually very difficult to use a large % of windpower because of its fluctuating level of supply. Earlier in this thread I found this interesting article in Proceedings of ICE Civil Engineering 158 May 2005 Pages 66-72 Paper 13663

Why wind power works for Denmark

Summary:
Denmark generates more wind power per head of population
than any other country in the world. Its 5500 wind turbines,
including the world's two largest offshore wind farms,generate
16% of national demand. ...However,as this paper
reveals, Denmark is exporting most of its wildly fluctuating
wind power to larger neighbours while finding other solutions
for supply and demand at home. As an 'island' grid based on
slow-reacting thermal power stations, Britain may find its
comparable wind-power aspirations more difficult to achieve.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rob35

Polution control and energy consumption reductions are a good thing, but am i the only one to see that "Global warming" has been happening for a very long time closely followed by Global cooling. CO2 is one massive tax gain for any government to latch onto.
That big fireball in the sky has a big part to play don't you know. It also has cycles(Hydrogen) not Ti.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yawn. This is a complicated scientific subject, so do you really think it is likely you've suddenly spotted an obvious flaw that's been missed by thousands of climate scientists? Any chance of you doing a bit of reading about the subject before wading in with theories about it?

Try here for starters:
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... ge/dn11462

rob35 · June 2007

There are many scientists who were employed by US UK etc, who now refuse to continue with this snowballing money maker.
Yes we need to control our emmisions and clean the planet up, but warming cooling has gone on for millions of years.
Yawn all you like, but you can also continue to only read one side of the story. The butler did it, in his 4.2 jag.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rob35

There are many scientists who were employed by US UK etc, who now refuse to continue with this snowballing money maker.
Yes we need to control our emmisions and clean the planet up, but warming cooling has gone on for millions of years.
Yawn all you like, but you can also continue to only read one side of the story. The butler did it, in his 4.2 jag.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yeah yeah yeah, its all a conspiracy motivated by money; because the oil industry and US Government doesn't have money do they, only pro-global warming greenies have got the budgets to fund scientific research. You really are entirely clueless about science and how it is funded. Name those 'many' scientists and give us references to published literature that supports their arguments. Until you can come up with some evidence based arguments I'm not going to waste my time on this discussion.

windmill frenzy over in UK

Comments

Categories