Jump to content

Net Zero - 2050


lapal_fan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Am I alone?

I actually don't think wind farms are ugly or a blot on the landscape.  I think there is a certain beauty to them and if I could see one from my house I would probably while away hours watching it turn around.

Agreed, especially up close when you truly get to appreciate how enormous they are, they're so impressive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Am I alone?

I actually don't think wind farms are ugly or a blot on the landscape.  I think there is a certain beauty to them and if I could see one from my house I would probably while away hours watching it turn around.

I like them. I find them calming to look at.

I suspect many people do and that this idea that everyone thinks they are ugly is just actually a small number of grumps that whine at everything.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Am I alone?

I actually don't think wind farms are ugly or a blot on the landscape.  I think there is a certain beauty to them and if I could see one from my house I would probably while away hours watching it turn around.

On a clear day, here, I can see two wind farms - one on the hills and the other out at sea, and I like them. I do worry though about the impact on wildlife they have (obviously less than global warming from coal etc.) but they are or can be a major problem for bats, birds, whales and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2020/8/23/how-much-space-will-a-100-renewables-uk-require

This renewables fleet would require approximately these areas

Offshore wind             -           41,000 sq km

Onshore wind             -           30,000 sq km

Solar                            -             5,000 sq km

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strike price agreed for nuclear power generated from Hinckley C will be £103 Mwh at 2021 prices, and is linked to inflation, so it will be over £110 per unit next year… in theory, as it doesn’t actually open until 2026 if it opens on time. So it’s safe to assume that by the time we do get electricity from Hinckley C it’ll be costing us over £120 a unit.

Wind is coming down in price and currently at £55 a unit.

Government policy is to push for a massive expansion in nuclear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2020/8/23/how-much-space-will-a-100-renewables-uk-require

This renewables fleet would require approximately these areas

Offshore wind             -           41,000 sq km

Onshore wind             -           30,000 sq km

Solar                            -             5,000 sq km

 

 

I’ve quickly scan read that, a couple of points:

It doesn’t mention what the area of roofing is that already exists across the UK. Or for that matter, solar at sea. 

It doesn’t mention ground source heat pumps and I haven’t yet seen anything about investing massively in insulation (might be in there).

I don’t see any mention of tidal.

 

Imagine every hospital and prison and factory and school having a solar roof and some ground source pumps.

Imagine every old stock house having new insulated windows, walls and roofs.

Tidal lagoons for Swansea, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Aberthaw, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Clevedon…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if tidal lagoons might be looked at again as a way to make us more energy independent. 

It's become a political issue now rather than just climate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

I was wondering if tidal lagoons might be looked at again as a way to make us more energy independent. 

It's become a political issue now rather than just climate. 

I’ve said it before, but the people that tell you the wind doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, rarely mention if the tide comes in every day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve said it before, but the people that tell you the wind doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, rarely mention if the tide comes in every day.

Yeah? Tell that to Commander John Koenig. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve said it before, but the people that tell you the wind doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, rarely mention if the tide comes in every day.

Yeah but it also goes back out again so you can't trust it. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2020/8/23/how-much-space-will-a-100-renewables-uk-require

This renewables fleet would require approximately these areas

Offshore wind             -           41,000 sq km

Onshore wind             -           30,000 sq km

Solar                            -             5,000 sq km

 

There's some interesting stuff in the article,  but also a lot that doesn't  stand up to scrutiny. 

His basic proposal  seems to be to massively over install renewables to ensure that you always have enough generation  to meet demand at any one time, and then make hydrogen with the surplus (for mainly industrial and aviation use), but also to make up the electricity generation mix. 

Part of the problem  with this is inefficiency, which the author partly recognises, but also cost and system operation. 

Cost: if I need to have double  the number of wind turbines to ensure  that I always have enough  electricity, then the cost per unit of electricity generated  by wind will go up, making it less competitive with e.g. nuclear 

System operation: in order to handle the unpredictable output of renewables and the huge increase in electricity demand from heat and transport, there will already need to be massive upgrades for infrastructure (cables) to increase capacity. In a 100% renewables grid, these upgrades would be even costlier and the system even more challenging to handle and control.  There needs to be some kind of steady  baseload generation. Currently e.g. there are issues in parts of Scotland where there's excess generation, too much for the local network to handle and therefore the need to curtail generation. In much of the UK, the parts most suited for generation  are far away from the parts where people  live and there's  more power demand. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things that will help reduce the need for electricity generation capacity:

- shifting demand away from peak times, including using storage.  This could be battery storage at building or grid level (and maybe things like Dearman engines at grid level, though I don't  know how proven they are), hot water (e.g. hot water tanks) or even using good insulation as a means of storing heat and therefore being able to run heating systems outside peak times

- shift from cars to bikes (including e-bikes and cargo bikes) and public transport. Not easy and would need a lot of investment in infrastructure and services,  but the public health benefits would be huge

- reduced heat demand (e.g. through insulation, but also much better heating controls, draught proofing and better ventilation. Again, huge public health  and also employment benefits, but can be hugely disruptive  and costly (and really hard to engage people on - that may well change)

All of these things will have quite an impact on people's lives - potentially  in a really positive way - but will take some getting used to, plus cost, disruption,  stress etc. I'm  not sure many understand that, and the government certainly  isn't  doing a good job of communicating that. 

We need to do all of the things above, as otherwise generating the vast majority of the UK's energy needs from net zero sources becomes ridiculously challenging and costly. 

Nuclear - good for providing predictable baseload demand, but takes ages to build, costs a lot and I don't  think the long term waste disposal is factored into a lot of those costs. 

Tidal - unproven, potentially  even more costly than nuclear. Nice idea though 

CCS - can only be a stopgap  and I'll believe it when there's been a successful large scale demo

Hydrogen - hugely inefficient and would anyway require a lot of surplus renewables for green hydrogen. 

In other words, a lot of difficult choices that we probably don't  really understand  all that well and not much time to make them in. It will require a lot of change in the way we use energy, buildings,  transport(not just the sources of the energy). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Some things that will help reduce the need for electricity generation capacity:

- shifting demand away from peak times, including using storage.  This could be battery storage at building or grid level (and maybe things like Dearman engines at grid level, though I don't  know how proven they are), hot water (e.g. hot water tanks) or even using good insulation as a means of storing heat and therefore being able to run heating systems outside peak times

- shift from cars to bikes (including e-bikes and cargo bikes) and public transport. Not easy and would need a lot of investment in infrastructure and services,  but the public health benefits would be huge

- reduced heat demand (e.g. through insulation, but also much better heating controls, draught proofing and better ventilation. Again, huge public health  and also employment benefits, but can be hugely disruptive  and costly (and really hard to engage people on - that may well change)

All of these things will have quite an impact on people's lives - potentially  in a really positive way - but will take some getting used to, plus cost, disruption,  stress etc. I'm  not sure many understand that, and the government certainly  isn't  doing a good job of communicating that. 

We need to do all of the things above, as otherwise generating the vast majority of the UK's energy needs from net zero sources becomes ridiculously challenging and costly. 

Nuclear - good for providing predictable baseload demand, but takes ages to build, costs a lot and I don't  think the long term waste disposal is factored into a lot of those costs. 

Tidal - unproven, potentially  even more costly than nuclear. Nice idea though 

CCS - can only be a stopgap  and I'll believe it when there's been a successful large scale demo

Hydrogen - hugely inefficient and would anyway require a lot of surplus renewables for green hydrogen. 

In other words, a lot of difficult choices that we probably don't  really understand  all that well and not much time to make them in. It will require a lot of change in the way we use energy, buildings,  transport(not just the sources of the energy). 

CCS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Some things that will help reduce the need for electricity generation capacity:

- shifting demand away from peak times, including using storage.  This could be battery storage at building or grid level (and maybe things like Dearman engines at grid level, though I don't  know how proven they are), hot water (e.g. hot water tanks) or even using good insulation as a means of storing heat and therefore being able to run heating systems outside peak times

- shift from cars to bikes (including e-bikes and cargo bikes) and public transport. Not easy and would need a lot of investment in infrastructure and services,  but the public health benefits would be huge

- reduced heat demand (e.g. through insulation, but also much better heating controls, draught proofing and better ventilation. Again, huge public health  and also employment benefits, but can be hugely disruptive  and costly (and really hard to engage people on - that may well change)

All of these things will have quite an impact on people's lives - potentially  in a really positive way - but will take some getting used to, plus cost, disruption,  stress etc. I'm  not sure many understand that, and the government certainly  isn't  doing a good job of communicating that. 

We need to do all of the things above, as otherwise generating the vast majority of the UK's energy needs from net zero sources becomes ridiculously challenging and costly. 

Nuclear - good for providing predictable baseload demand, but takes ages to build, costs a lot and I don't  think the long term waste disposal is factored into a lot of those costs. 

Tidal - unproven, potentially  even more costly than nuclear. Nice idea though 

CCS - can only be a stopgap  and I'll believe it when there's been a successful large scale demo

Hydrogen - hugely inefficient and would anyway require a lot of surplus renewables for green hydrogen. 

In other words, a lot of difficult choices that we probably don't  really understand  all that well and not much time to make them in. It will require a lot of change in the way we use energy, buildings,  transport(not just the sources of the energy). 

People won't give up their cars. They're too lazy. 

See people doing journeys under a mile all the time. At my sons school I'm the only one who collects their kid on a bike (even a guy who runs a bicycle repair shop doesn't do it and uses his van). I think 2 or 3 other families occasionally walk but everyone else is in cars (usually a 4x4). My neighbour drives 600 yards to her work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As electric cars become more and more common, aren't they expected to become a bigger part of the solution rather than such a big problem? Millions of reasonably large batteries around the country that can be charged when demand is low, and trickle back to the grid when demand is high seems like a valuable tool for balancing demand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

As electric cars become more and more common, aren't they expected to become a bigger part of the solution rather than such a big problem? Millions of reasonably large batteries around the country that can be charged when demand is low, and trickle back to the grid when demand is high seems like a valuable tool for balancing demand.

Yes, this is a vision of how cars can be 5, indeed are used. You can designate now a small % of your battery space to be sold back to the grid on some plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â