Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Maybe we are not doomed after all

13468912

Posts

  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    I would presume that is net consumption in Scotland as a lot of the surplus wind power generated is exported to the UK.

    Scotland will still need another source when there is no wind.
  • ProssPross Posts: 28,276
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I'd be interested to know how that was measured.

    On a purely averaged input-output basis over the year, probably. On a minute my minute basis, unlikely.
    I'd be assuming that hydro counts towards renewable.

    The report (that I saw) stated that 98% figure was from wind. However, I assume it is averaged out and includes the energy sold into the grid and bought back from other sources to suit demand.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 41,978
    TheBigBean wrote:
    ...when there is no wind.

    What?!

    They are also splitting water to make hydrogen which is powering a hydrogen powered ferry for Western Isles.

    (It's now operative).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-43140326
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Sorry if this is obvious but energy is created by a variety of sources, all of which is based on demand and the practicalities of the supply side.

    Even if it is windy every day, at major events (half time in the world cup football final when everyone turns on the kettle, for example), it can't cope with that.

    Nuclear provides the base load and makes sure lights don't go out. It is very hard to turn up and down even in the medium term.
    Coal tops this up but can be turned down a bit in the summer and up in the winter
    Gas tops up further and allows more flexibility in the medium term than both of the above.
    Renewable power generation acts as a bit of a middle ground and with some good forecasting and the right pricing can be used to replace short term generation options, outlined below. Tidal being the exception to this.
    Diesel / Gas Turbines - Diesel needs to be run for a few hours to be efficient but can be used intra-day for spikes
    Battery Banks- instant off/on
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192

    Even if it is windy every day, at major events (half time in the world cup football final when everyone turns on the kettle, for example), it can't cope with that.

    The UK has a capacity market to deal with this. Unfortunately, the ECJ has just declared it state aid.
  • Yes my point is that the renewable capacity market can't.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    Yes my point is that the renewable capacity market can't.

    Renewable energy isn't eligible for the capacity market. That's presumably what you mean. The capacity market is mostly base load, but gas peakers now bid. Previously diesel bid, but that was banned. There will be no new auctions until the government addresses the ECJ case. Participants in the capacity market are paid to be on standby and need to generate within 4 (I think) hours

    Batteries are hardly deemed eligible for the capacity market, but do get to play in the firm frequency response market where rapid response is key. (Seconds)

    Wind does generate during peak load and as a result is eligible for Triads (payments for the three peak half-hours of the year). Although there is a school of thought that peak load occurs during periods of low wind as these tend to be coldest and darkest. 4.30pm to 5pm today was forecast to be a possible Triad. Is it windy?

    Has that helped the insomniacs?
  • Yep that all makes sense! My knowledge is only high level from looking at the MBO of a company involved in the energy supply industry (the peakers, I think you call it), but you clearly know more than I do!

    My point was thus:

    It is great that on average over a long period of time renewable sources can generate enough power to power Scotland, the reality is that renewables cannot meet the peaks and troughs in the demand side on their own.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,380
    190128125039-morocco-solar-farm-exlarge-169.jpg
    It's not just on the track that Morocco is aiming to become a world leader in renewable energy.
    As well as a host nation of a Formula ePrix, the country is also home to the world's largest concentrated solar farm.
    Built on an area of more than 3,000 hectares in area - the size of 3,500 football fields -- the Noor-Ouarzazate complex, produces enough electricity to power a city the size of Prague, or twice the size of Marrakesh.

    Situated at the gateway to the Sahara Desert, the whole complex provides 580 megawatts -- saving the planet from over 760,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

    Imported fossil fuels currently provide for 97% of Morocco's energy need, according to World Bank . As a result the country is keen to diversify and start using renewable energy.

    "Morocco is an emergent country," Yassir Badih, senior project manager at Masen told CNN.
    "Electricity demand has doubled since 2010 and by 2030 we want Morocco to be one of the first countries in the world for renewables to exceed share of fossil energy."
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/moto ... index.html

    Masen (Moroccan Agency for Sustainable Energy) is a privately owned company with public funding.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_ ... ble_Energy

    A great forward thinking move from Morocco with the right climate for solar energy. A reduction of reliance on other countries and a positive direction to the future.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,380
    It's consumerism which seems the biggest issue to me. The endless desire for the newest product and the sheer easy by which it can then be dis-guarded. Difficult to get over that when the vast majority of people love the latest and greatest and the global economy rely's on it. I wonder how many air miles May racked up going to the EU?
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,696
    FocusZing wrote:
    It's consumerism which seems the biggest issue to me. The endless desire for the newest product and the sheer easy by which it can then be dis-guarded. Difficult to get over that when the vast majority of people love the latest and greatest and the global economy rely's on it. I wonder how many air miles May racked up going to the EU?

    Must you talk American?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    FocusZing wrote:
    It's consumerism which seems the biggest issue to me. The endless desire for the newest product and the sheer easy by which it can then be dis-guarded. Difficult to get over that when the vast majority of people love the latest and greatest and the global economy rely's on it. I wonder how many air miles May racked up going to the EU?

    This doesn't impact the UK's net zero target too much as the production of all the gadgets happens elsewhere i.e. another country uses the carbon. This is where a carbon border tax becomes relevant.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,380
    TheBigBean wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    It's consumerism which seems the biggest issue to me. The endless desire for the newest product and the sheer easy by which it can then be dis-guarded. Difficult to get over that when the vast majority of people love the latest and greatest and the global economy rely's on it. I wonder how many air miles May racked up going to the EU?

    This doesn't impact the UK's net zero target too much as the production of all the gadgets happens elsewhere i.e. another country uses the carbon. This is where a carbon border tax becomes relevant.

    Yeah it's a fair point in term of the UK's targets. Great too if the economy can benefit from a positive move in this direction.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,184
    I get how you can achieve this is a totalitarian state as you just drive the behaviours you want from the top. You invest in massive green energy schemes and even those such as Nuclear to change the market. What I don't get is how you do this in the UK. For example we can't fund a basic such as tidal energy to work. We can't build a tidal barrage as some wildlife might be affected. I don't own an electric car as it makes zero financial sense as the purchase cost and hassle of charging the car cannot outweigh the current market options. I am building an extension on the house and the only way we can make solar break even is to put panels on and then have battery storage due to the loss of subsidies. We may well not do this as the payback is 10-20 years with probably a battery change in there as well.

    The next thing we have to consider is what is the penalty for us as a nation of consumers not complying. Is it Greenpeace suing the government for multi million pound figures which just further drains our nations finances because we could not be bothered to reduce our emissions. Or is it that we just pay such crippling high prices for carbon emitting activities that they cease to be appealing. Alternatively this is just some more propaganda bullshit.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    The full report is available here. It looks at all sectors. There will be a cost, but it is up to the government how to implement it exactly i.e. it could rely on a more free market approach or it could be more prescriptive.

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/n ... l-warming/

    I think in time you will be pushed towards an electric or hydro car.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,380
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The full report is available here. It looks at all sectors. There will be a cost, but it is up to the government how to implement it exactly i.e. it could rely on a more free market approach or it could be more prescriptive.

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/n ... l-warming/

    I think in time you will be pushed towards an electric or hydro car.

    Interesting issues will be the massive increase in electric demand to charge the vehicles and the missing Taxes generated by fossil fuels.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,380
    john80 wrote:
    I get how you can achieve this is a totalitarian state as you just drive the behaviours you want from the top. You invest in massive green energy schemes and even those such as Nuclear to change the market. What I don't get is how you do this in the UK. For example we can't fund a basic such as tidal energy to work. We can't build a tidal barrage as some wildlife might be affected. I don't own an electric car as it makes zero financial sense as the purchase cost and hassle of charging the car cannot outweigh the current market options. I am building an extension on the house and the only way we can make solar break even is to put panels on and then have battery storage due to the loss of subsidies. We may well not do this as the payback is 10-20 years with probably a battery change in there as well.

    The next thing we have to consider is what is the penalty for us as a nation of consumers not complying. Is it Greenpeace suing the government for multi million pound figures which just further drains our nations finances because we could not be bothered to reduce our emissions. Or is it that we just pay such crippling high prices for carbon emitting activities that they cease to be appealing. Alternatively this is just some more propaganda bullshit.

    I liked the good thought provoking points, it's certainly tricky.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,152
    I think the penalty for not meeting this target is altogether more existential than whether things cost a bit more or someone sues the government.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    FocusZing wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The full report is available here. It looks at all sectors. There will be a cost, but it is up to the government how to implement it exactly i.e. it could rely on a more free market approach or it could be more prescriptive.

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/n ... l-warming/

    I think in time you will be pushed towards an electric or hydro car.

    Interesting issues will be the massive increase in electric demand to charge the vehicles and the missing Taxes generated by fossil fuels.

    Reducing carbon on electricity production is considered the easy part (relatively). Powering electric cars is particularly easy as they have batteries and can be charged when demand is low. Heating is the real challenge.

    Taxes are just shuffled around.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    The additional electricity demand.

    image.png
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,152
    TheBigBean wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The full report is available here. It looks at all sectors. There will be a cost, but it is up to the government how to implement it exactly i.e. it could rely on a more free market approach or it could be more prescriptive.

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/n ... l-warming/

    I think in time you will be pushed towards an electric or hydro car.

    Interesting issues will be the massive increase in electric demand to charge the vehicles and the missing Taxes generated by fossil fuels.

    Reducing carbon on electricity production is considered the easy part (relatively). Powering electric cars is particularly easy as they have batteries and can be charged when demand is low. Heating is the real challenge.

    Taxes are just shuffled around.

    There are electric equivalents of the standard gas fired domestic boiler. There are also ground and air source heat pumps which are more limited in their application but in the right situation can be very effective. But primarily we need to get to a situation where less heating is needed > more insulation. It will be a massive job to bring the existing housing stock up to current regs let alone improve on it, and we are going to have to accept that it will change the appearance of some buildings, but it is all known technology. It's also potentially an industry that people can make money from.

    Non domestic heating is a bit different but the same principles apply: fabric first to reduce the demand.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    edited June 2019
    The above graph assumes that heat pumps are deployed on mass. It would look a lot worse if it didn't. I think the CCC's game plan includes buildings being cooler than they are now as well as being insulated.

    Heating can come from hydrogen as well, but if the hydrogen comes from electrolysis you can see the impact it has on the graph.

    Also, the point about why heating is such a challenge is it involves getting everyone to change boilers. Decarbonising the grid simply involves deploying more low carbon power generation and letting the existing stuff be decommissioned in due course. That and massively upgrading the grid capacity!
  • laurentianlaurentian Posts: 1,823
    Last September, we had solar panels installed with a battery "back up".

    The payback is pretty slow but we were in a position to do it and did so with a view to making the house cheaper to "run" as we approach retirement in 10 or so years and a certain amount of it being the "right thing to do". It requires us to maintain a certain level of broadband connection as the whole lot is continuously monitored and managed remotely

    Positives are:

    1) Appliances such as our washing machine and dishwasher can be turned on with a 3 hour delay meaning that they will be running at around midday when the electricity to run them is "free".
    2) We get an amount back through the feed in tarriff
    3) The battery provides electricity for use at night time (although in the winter our electic heating rinses the battery in pretty short time)
    4) Only 80% of the battery can be used by us. The remaining 20% is kept stored to be drawn on by the grid at times of high demand or low generation by the grid - we get a payment for providing this "service"
    5) When the battery is out of charge and solar is low, it will charge on cheap night time "Economy 7" electric
    6) The more people that take this up with the provider, the more the benefits will be to all users
    7) TAKE NOTE - Part of the change over included the installation of a Voltage Optimiser. The engineer fitting it at the time said that he could not understand why everyone didn't have one, indeed why everyone wasn't made to have one. The principle is that the electricty supply coming into any UK house is 240v but every single appliance you use is 220v. This box of tricks means that you are only drawing the 220v you need!

    Negatives (or frustrations):

    1) The battery reserve storage payback aspect will only come on line when the second generation smart meters are available (November)
    2) When second generation meters are available we will need to switch our electricity supplier to the one that sold us the system in order to see the benefits although prices are broadly in line with other mainstream providers
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).
    4) Now that I can see (on app) our real time use of electricity and battery use, it is very evident that I need to better insulate our house!

    Too early to guage the financial benefits yet as we haven't gone through a whole year of use but I am hopeful.

    (<<Stands by for someone to tell me we've done a daft thing and fallen for a double glazing style sales scam!!>>)
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 15,837
    FocusZing wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The full report is available here. It looks at all sectors. There will be a cost, but it is up to the government how to implement it exactly i.e. it could rely on a more free market approach or it could be more prescriptive.

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/n ... l-warming/

    I think in time you will be pushed towards an electric or hydro car.

    Interesting issues will be the massive increase in electric demand to charge the vehicles and the missing Taxes generated by fossil fuels.
    I suspect this is preparing the way for new taxes to cover the additional cost/add incentive. Yes, I am cynical.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,192
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,152
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The above graph assumes that heat pumps are deployed on mass. It would look a lot worse if it didn't. I think the CCC's game plan includes buildings being cooler than they are now as well as being insulated.

    Heating can come from hydrogen as well, but if the hydrogen comes from electrolysis you can see the impact it has on the graph.

    Also, the point about why heating is such a challenge is it involves getting everyone to change boilers. Decarbonising the grid simply involves deploying more low carbon power generation and letting the existing stuff be decommissioned in due course. That and massively upgrading the grid capacity!

    Yes, it's a **lot** of boilers and insulation - a big market if the conditions are right. It's really not that difficult to insulate a house to the point where it needs almost no heating beyond passive gains from occupancy, but at the moment it's cheaper to just burn a bit more gas.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,184
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The above graph assumes that heat pumps are deployed on mass. It would look a lot worse if it didn't. I think the CCC's game plan includes buildings being cooler than they are now as well as being insulated.

    Heating can come from hydrogen as well, but if the hydrogen comes from electrolysis you can see the impact it has on the graph.

    Also, the point about why heating is such a challenge is it involves getting everyone to change boilers. Decarbonising the grid simply involves deploying more low carbon power generation and letting the existing stuff be decommissioned in due course. That and massively upgrading the grid capacity!

    Yes, it's a **lot** of boilers and insulation - a big market if the conditions are right. It's really not that difficult to insulate a house to the point where it needs almost no heating beyond passive gains from occupancy, but at the moment it's cheaper to just burn a bit more gas.

    I am going to throw a guess out there but there is probably about 20-40% of the current housing stock that either can't be brought up to standards of insulation and air tightness to make and electric air source heat pump system work on either cost grounds or aesthetics grounds. This is a lot of bull dozing of peoples houses that lets face it if housing was cheaper compared to the land they would already have been bulldozed for better living. The hassle the BBC is having over not giving over 75s a free TV license is nothing compared to raising fossil fuel prices and effectively killing them off through fuel bills.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,152
    john80 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The above graph assumes that heat pumps are deployed on mass. It would look a lot worse if it didn't. I think the CCC's game plan includes buildings being cooler than they are now as well as being insulated.

    Heating can come from hydrogen as well, but if the hydrogen comes from electrolysis you can see the impact it has on the graph.

    Also, the point about why heating is such a challenge is it involves getting everyone to change boilers. Decarbonising the grid simply involves deploying more low carbon power generation and letting the existing stuff be decommissioned in due course. That and massively upgrading the grid capacity!

    Yes, it's a **lot** of boilers and insulation - a big market if the conditions are right. It's really not that difficult to insulate a house to the point where it needs almost no heating beyond passive gains from occupancy, but at the moment it's cheaper to just burn a bit more gas.

    I am going to throw a guess out there but there is probably about 20-40% of the current housing stock that either can't be brought up to standards of insulation and air tightness to make and electric air source heat pump system work on either cost grounds or aesthetics grounds. This is a lot of bull dozing of peoples houses that lets face it if housing was cheaper compared to the land they would already have been bulldozed for better living. The hassle the BBC is having over not giving over 75s a free TV license is nothing compared to raising fossil fuel prices and effectively killing them off through fuel bills.

    When I've got a moment I'll dig out some stats on the housing stock and case studies where they have brought a dilapidated terraced victorian house up to Enerphit standards (the Passivhaus equivalent for refurbishment) while maintaining its external appearance. Listed buildings are more tricky (and how!) but there wouldn't be many that couldn't be improved.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • laurentianlaurentian Posts: 1,823
    TheBigBean wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    3) There is a limit as to how much solar energy a domestic property can generate - we had as large a panel array as permitted - this seems at odds with a genuinely green governmental policy. Why can't I pay for the infrastructure (panels) and generate electricity that I'm not going to use to go back into the grid? (I guess the cynical answer is that I would be getting paid to generate electricity rather than the energy and fossil fuel companies who are "in cahoots" with the government).

    You are limited by the grid's capacity. No conspiracy. You could have applied to see if there was spare capacity.

    Thanks for that but not sure what you mean by being limited by the grid's capacity. If my neighbour wanted to install similar, presumably they could - or am I missing your point? Apologies if so
    Wilier Izoard XP
Sign In or Register to comment.