Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 12:01:45 GMT
Place for discussion on specifics of Energy markets, how UK and rWorld can get to Net Zero, etc. Polite request for people to use and state actual sources and/or provide explanations rather than just make stuff up or misrepresent other people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 12:51:02 GMT
Short reminder of the 'options' that Kwarteng had/has for Winter '21/22 1/ Scrap or materially change[1] the price-cap 2/ Use Ofgem's SoRL (private sector Supplier of Last Resort) and then SAR (state owned supplier of resort) to minimise the cost to customers and taxpayers[2], in full knowledge that it would 'shake-out' the smaller and less well managed companies. He's chosen #2 (although not impossible he changes his mind if the taxpayer bill gets too high and Kwarteng-Rishi push that cost onto consumers, I expect he'll stick with #2). The question is then what happens in Spring'22 when the price-cap is reset (again see [1]). That will very likely see 'less than 10' survivors, mostly the bigger and/or well managed companies. Questions to answer between now and Spring: A/ Keep a State-run business in the sector OR revert back to SoRL (ie wind down the SAR and push those customers onto the 'survivors' in the Spring when the price cap is reset). Probably the latter given it is Kwarteng and CON HMG who decide. B/ Whether or not the 'survivors' become a 'cosy' (eg 'Big6' as before) or a 'competitive' (eg similar to Supermarkets) style cartel Given 'barriers to entry' should stay low (for new entrants or to poach customers from other 'survivors') and likes of Octopus will push the 'cosiness' then I hope the cartel is 'competitive' but that is TBC of course. [1] Note that might well happen in the future, once the sector has been 'Br-ight sized': Ofgem consults on adjustments to the energy price capwww.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/ofgem-consults-adjustments-energy-price-cap(plenty of other background info on how the price cap works, etc on ofgem website for those who wish to gain knowledge on the topic) [2] Quick 'fag packet' maths for illustration only as we don't know exactly how much hedging (buying forward) likes of Bulb had done or exactly what Kwarteng will do (eg lock in the lose at current prices, run the risk, use loans or grants, etc) Bulb: 1.7 million x possibly losing £50/mth per customer (inspired rounded guess) x 4 more months = £340million I'd round that up to £500million given we're likely to going to see SAR used for 'others' going forward. I'd also personally like to see some 'help' for industry and commerce (to the 'ball park' tune of £500million). That's £1billion for Rishi to find down the back of the sofa and maybe he says 'no'. He could use 'loans' instead of 'grants' and perhaps a bit of both. Depending on the outcome of [1] then the 'survivor suppliers' might offer to repay govt loans to take over 'refugee' customers (recouping say £10/mth per customer for a longer period to pay down the loan) If anyone wants to suggest a different approach then please provide the details and 'cost it'. I'm seeing quite a few 'This post is hidden' comments. I would again suggest folks 'block' comments from 'flamers', as I have done (if you can't reply to me you're on my blocked list for historic or new 'flaming' that I have ANFIW in). If you haven't read it yet then read ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 24, 2021 14:32:45 GMT
Storage has to be a big part of getting to net-zero. Converting existing hydro-electric plants in Scotland to pumped storage could give us over 500 GWh without building new dams. One still needs new tunnels, because the output flow when discharging is higher than for a pure hydroelectric scheme. www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/wind/content/storage%20available.html (this is just one of the web pages for the study; it is worth reading the whole study) and strathprints.strath.ac.uk/66242/At some time I will look at this more seriously using their spreadsheet model, but I'm just putting this in as a placeholder for the present. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 15:55:14 GMT
Storage has to be a big part of getting to net-zero. Converting existing hydro-electric plants in Scotland to pumped storage could give us over 500 GWh without building new dams. I hope more pumped hydro happens but 500GWh seems very optimistic (Dinorwig is 9GWh) and some folks are anti pumped hydro (although retrofitting existing 'normal' hydro should remove some of the rEnvironment concerns, IMO at least). I'd suggest there is also an issue of building UK projects in Scotland for various reasons (devolution and Indy). Interconnectors to Norway will also help as we can effectively use some of their pumped hydro (refilling or at least not emptying their 'baths'). For intra-day and even intra-week then pumped hydro, batteries and interconnectors will likely be a large part of the solution (notably as 'frequent' use of that type of storage/interconnection is high efficiency and that will make those projects look good on the ££ side) As well as building more generating capacity then we certainly need to build more storage and my (and EC-EU) views on hydrogen are well know. For the huge 'seasonal' storage issue then pumped hydro, batteries and interconnectors are unlikely to be enough or look so good on ££ but we should (IMO) pursue ALL options. At the moment there is far too much 'dither and delay' that has resulted in far too much reliance on nat.gas (a lot of which is imported) |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 24, 2021 17:31:59 GMT
@tw and leftieliberal - I still think there is a blind spot amongst many about the scale and scope for domestic consumers getting involved in demand side response management. It has vast potential, but will take some ,management and incentivising. This is old study, so quite out of date, but reckons it could be 67TWh by 2030. Much cheaper than eneyhting else. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 24, 2021 17:32:23 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,503
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 7:04:49 GMT
I hope more pumped hydro happens but 500GWh seems very optimistic (Dinorwig is 9GWh) As well as building more generating capacity then we certainly need to build more storage and my (and EC-EU) views on hydrogen are well know. For the huge 'seasonal' storage issue then pumped hydro, batteries and interconnectors are unlikely to be enough or look so good on ££ but we should (IMO) pursue ALL options. At the moment there is far too much 'dither and delay' that has resulted in far too much reliance on nat.gas (a lot of which is imported) Indeed, and so I have also argued we should be generating hydrogen using wind electricity. Whereas you have persistently supported expenditure on new nuclear instead. This is no solution whatever to storage, is a commitment to use that technology for 50 years, 100 years for decommissioning and indefinite thereafter for storage of waste. It also has an opportunity cost that billions spent on nuclear are not available to spend on hydrogen. Whereas we can bridge to the new technology by continuing to use natural gas with negigible impact on total CO2 output. (assuming we have enough wind generation that low wind outages are small, which is the obvious thing to do).
The obvious advantage of hydrogen is it can be burnt like natural gas and is largely interchangeable as a fuel. We already have the capital investment in gas generating plant so thats a huge cost saving just to maintain it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 7:59:17 GMT
Update to Nov 23, 2021 at 12:51pm. Looks like it will be 'loans' and my illustration only numbers were too conservative (also prices have moved a bit since, better to 'go big' with the size of the loan pot (ignore the 'net' issues), etc) Taxpayer provides £1.7bn loan to support Bulb Energy through crisiswww.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-provides-1-7bn-loan-to-support-bulb-energy-through-crisis-r637bjxwqAs before, if anyone (eg Miliband) wants to suggest an alternative solution and show the ££ cost then please do so. By all means also post the solutions being adopted by other countries facing the same global energy price spike (noting the differences to UK and the ££ to their taxpayers). Also note customers of Bulb and other suppliers who didn't hedge and have or will go under, have benefitted from the 'bad business' models of such companies with £ savings for however long they were with such a provider - not that anyone will mention that of course. Anyway, the 'rinse' is likely to continue and the eventual outcome will hopefully be a 'supermarket' style (ie not cosy) cartel of well run businesses who understand hedging and how the price cap works (with some likely changes coming to the price cap before the next reset in Spring'22 as well - see ofgem link already posted) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,503
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 8:50:23 GMT
Also note customers of Bulb and other suppliers who didn't hedge and have or will go under, have benefitted from the 'bad business' models of such companies with £ savings for however long they were with such a provider - not that anyone will mention that of course. Also note that any energy retailer which is part of a larger group including energy wholesalers...isnt necessarily losing money. The retailer may be losing on electricty bought under the perverse UK market at sky high prices, but as generator it is getting the profits from very high prices for its electricity. Everyone offering electricity to the market is getting a price at which they can afford to generate, and with shortages everyone is getting a very high price.
Energy prices overall have gone up, cap or no cap. It doesnt matter if your group hasnt hedged against electricity wholesale prices if overall it has hedged its total input fuel needs. Or has secure purchase deals at a fixed price. Energy is costing consumers more, and in due course the cap will be lifted and retailers will be allowed to earn back any losses now. Even if they will not have made real losses within their group. For the survivors this wil be a profits bonanza...because of how the Uk energy market has been structured.
Our energy costs more than most of europe. Its designeto guarantee profits for the private sector, while also passing on the costs of national energy efficiency drives to the general public without creating explicit tax rises.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 25, 2021 9:03:10 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,503
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 9:09:43 GMT
The EU is not proposing massive scale hydrogen storage for seasonal electricity balancing, as you keep suggesting. It reckons on 9% of delivered energy to come from hydrogen by 2050, with the bulk of this focused on transport and industrial use. About the same percentage the uk plans to deliver by nuclear then. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 25, 2021 9:39:29 GMT
@danny - "About the same percentage the uk plans to deliver by nuclear then."
Not really, no. The EU hydrogen target is for all energy, so road fuel, gas etc, whereas the UK nuclear target is for electricity.
That's really the point I'm making - hydrogen is going to be needed for those sectors where we need liquid/gaseous fuels, with a lesser role in the power generation system. That's what the EU strategy actually states, whereas @tw appears to think it is mass hydrogen capacity for seasonal energy storage. If we were to go down that route, then we would struggle in those transport and industrial sectors where the renewable options are very limited.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,503
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 10:53:27 GMT
The EU hydrogen target is for all energy, so road fuel, gas etc, whereas the UK nuclear target is for electricity. Take your point, although officially we are going to run road transport off generated electricity too. I dont think the Uk is trying very hard to minimise the proportion of electicity generation not covered by wind. This will involve significant over capacity at peak times. But as to gas for road fuel, I'm not seeing much of that happening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 11:49:05 GMT
leftieliberal I should perhaps clarify that I would very much like to see a lot more pumped hydro (refillable baths) in UK. As you might well be aware then some folks in BEIS (notably Kwarteng) are big fans of interconnectors and they certainly have a role, but in a similar vein then IMO some folks are overly optimistic about how large a role that part of the solution should be: gov.uk piece: www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-of-interconnectors-on-decarbonisationI won't post any articles on 'Norway, green battery of Europe' but anyone interested can find plenty of thoughts on that on the internet (in English, German, Danish, etc). My concern there is that rEurope will be thinking the same and that Norway themselves might not proceed as fast as some hope (ie we'd be reliant on foreign countries and 2nd guessing what they would do[1] - at risk of replaying the ongoing nat.gas issue as access to Norwegian 'baths' rather than Norwegian nat.gas) As well as GWh capacity (size of the 'baths'), the other issue is the speed at which you can fill/empty the baths (GW). Very roughly the UK-Norway interconnectors cost £1bn per 1GW and, in the long-term, they would likely be used less frequently than domestic pumped hydro (baths which would be emptied and refilled more frequently for intra-day, intra-week balancing). Some (not just in UK) see UK-Norway interconnectors as providing a significant part of the 'seasonal' storage as the N.Sea winds blow harder in the Winter - problem is the sun also shines a lot less this far North and still TBC on how large a role hydrogen has in heating (UK decision in 2026). Europe wide electricity demand is going to rise massively and might well have a very significant seasonal factor that for now is covered by nat.gas (eg the huge nat.gas storage capacity in Italy, Germany, etc) Hence why I state the need to pursue to ALL options. Net Zero by 2050 gives us some time to see which options are 'best' but it will require a lot of different solutions building up to the whole and we should certainly not put too many eggs in one basket (IMO of course). I hope UK pumped hydro is a much larger part of the solution than currently and whilst it is OK to hope for the best, then we also need to plan for the worst (and not 2nd guess other countries and what they will/won't do). Given the long lead times then we need to start 'doing' a lot more sooner rather than later. I'd certainly support aggressively pushing a lot more UK pumped hydro, some more interconnectors[2] and 'seed' funding into other options that might be part of the solution but the other important issue is getting a lot more generating capacity built as currently we don't have any excess to worry about storing! We obviously need to build up the overall solution progressively but with a lot more urgency. [1] Small tangent to Germany. Great to see the new coalition govt looking to stop coal faster but along with their plans to stop nuclear then they are going to be increasingly reliant on nat.gas in the near future and facing similar decisions to UK in the longer term (although they are bit further South, very close to the big baths in the Alps and rEurope and also closer to Africa who are even further South so they'll have other options). How much impact they have on rEU is TBC but again long-term good will mean short-term more competition for Norwegian gas (and 'bath-tubs') [2] At what I would think is the limit of cables (to UK at least) xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/Or for 'Power-to-X' (ie converting renewable electricity from wind/solar very far away when cable cost is prohibitive to X form of energy) then shipinsight.com/articles/power-to-x-and-energy-from-patagonia-does-it-make-sense/
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 25, 2021 16:44:27 GMT
Net zero isnt purely about energy supply. None of the options mentioned above ( and where were nukes?) are net zero. They need to be made, they need to be maintained and just as with electric cars, the manufacture is inherently CO2 generating. For that matter, so are we - if my maths is correct the human race breathes out 3.1 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, without counting the animals we eat.
The key issue is how do we capture and "bury" the CO2 that we naturally will produce however eco sensitive we are.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,040
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 25, 2021 18:24:44 GMT
Interesting debate.
The civil engineering costs of large scale pumped hydro is massive, but certainly there is room for it in UK. Small scale pumped hydro involving old quarries and the like are also feasible, but all these need targeted Government support in terms of FiTs etc.
Growing more trees and building more homes and offices from wood, using less Portland cement and bricks is an easy way to reduce CO2 as well, and wooden homes do tend to be naturally insulated.
Not a big fan of monolithic nuclear, although can see the advantages of SMR technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 25, 2021 23:01:50 GMT
What about tidal energy? I know schemes like Swansea Bay are massive undertakings and have wildlife implications, but I remember seeing an experimental tidal power scheme years ago which was a small tower on or near the low-tide mark which had a plate inside which rose and fell with the tide thus generating electricity. Wouldn't it be relatively cheap (compared to Swansea Bay) to build a few hundred of that sort of thing around the coast? Tides are more reliable than wind (and solar in this country).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 8:54:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 9:07:58 GMT
For anyone who has never read them and has genuine interest then I'll repost NG and HMG 'plausible scenario' links: National Grid (NG): Future Energy Scenarios www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios/fes-2021/documentsLonger read with a lot of 'fluff' but also has a section on 'plausible scenarios' with a .xls for the numbers: www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategyNB To cover some 'misconceptions' (to put it 'nicely') then in all scenarios it is expected we'll use less energy by 2050 (ie we will be doing stuff like better insulating our homes) and these documents are already lengthy so the issues they omit (eg intra-day, month, season supply/demand mismatch) are not explained or covered in detail but the folks involved are 'aware' of the issues. The other main 'misconception' often... ignored (to put it nicely) is the timing: 2050 is a long way away (ie we can modify the plan as we go as/when new info, much we can only learn through experience, comes in) BUT we do need to start making progress as many of the lead times involved are huge (eg SMR nuclear might be 10yrs before it comes on-stream, stuff like tidal turbines is still TBC and hence shouldn't be 'assumed' to have a major role BUT that might change). The future is not set.. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 26, 2021 12:53:20 GMT
@tw - bear in mind that it is a common misconception (to put it nicely) that the government's net zero strategy 'plausible' scenarios has any real meaning.
They are quite specific on this, that the illustrations provided are plausible only in the sense that the option mixes may be technically available, but they aren't in any way predictive nor do they represent any kind of judgement on what would represent best value. Both the HMG and NG scenarios place far too little emphasis on demand management strategies, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many other experts) because they have been developed largely based on discussions with big business with vested interests rather than with groups representing consumers and other energy users.
In short, these scenarios are flawed, and have no real value in any practical sense in the discussions.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,040
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 26, 2021 23:54:37 GMT
What about tidal energy? I know schemes like Swansea Bay are massive undertakings and have wildlife implications, but I remember seeing an experimental tidal power scheme years ago which was a small tower on or near the low-tide mark which had a plate inside which rose and fell with the tide thus generating electricity. Wouldn't it be relatively cheap (compared to Swansea Bay) to build a few hundred of that sort of thing around the coast? Tides are more reliable than wind (and solar in this country). As far as I understood, Swansea Bay would never have passed the various environmental regulations because of the damage to fish populations that swam past as part of their migration route. Unfortunately for the proponents, it never passed the £ criteria of being economically viable either. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 27, 2021 0:20:45 GMT
Firstly, an hello, as someone who has lurked on the previous board for quite some while!
What most concerns me is a fear that the entire climate and zero-carbon debate gets hijacked by players with no real "green" interest, but want to be seen to be "talking the talk" with the real aim of muddying waters such that they can carry on polluting as normal.
Maybe the best example of such is a lot of hype around a "hydrogen economy". It shouldn't be forgotten that presently most hydrogen is made by reforming of fossil fuels - such that although hydrogen is clean at point of use, carbon dioxide production is just moved to where the hydrogen is produced. (Much may be said about carbon capture, how practical or viable at large scale it may be is another story.)
Yes, hydrogen can be produced cleanly from renewable electricity and electrolysis - but it's currently far more expensive than reforming. I do see (hope?) in the future such may have a big part to play in producing hydrogen for industrial purposes where there is no alternative, but for such as transport, and home heating - no.
In such cases the problem is efficiency. Existing gas suppliers obviously love the idea - they don't want to be left with huge stranded assets. But let's think first about home heating. Renewable energy generally must start as electricity (solar, wind etc) and for every kWh produced, then about half the energy will be lost if used for electrolysis and hydrogen compressed etc and piped to homes. Even forgetting about heat pumps, just transferring that kWh to homes directly as electricity will mean a far smaller loss. We're used to a kWh equivalent of gas currently being far cheaper than a kWh of electricity - it's difficult to see this being possible if the green hydrogen route is gone down. And of course, use a heat pump, and that original kWh can give maybe 3 or 4 kWh of heating, rather than less than one. It's the argument of high capital cost/lower running cost versus a cheap boiler and (in the future) much higher running cost.
Efficiency considerations play a huge part in balancing whether it's better to go for storage or simply overbuild generation. Either will lead to wastage - it's a question of balancing energy wastage via conversion inefficiency versus capital inefficiency due to building generation capacity for the troughs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 9:26:38 GMT
What about tidal energy? I know schemes like Swansea Bay are massive undertakings and have wildlife implications, but I remember seeing an experimental tidal power scheme years ago which was a small tower on or near the low-tide mark which had a plate inside which rose and fell with the tide thus generating electricity. Wouldn't it be relatively cheap (compared to Swansea Bay) to build a few hundred of that sort of thing around the coast? Tides are more reliable than wind (and solar in this country). As far as I understood, Swansea Bay would never have passed the various environmental regulations because of the damage to fish populations that swam past as part of their migration route. Unfortunately for the proponents, it never passed the £ criteria of being economically viable either. There are several 'types' of tidal. 1/ Tidal lagoons/dams, similar to Rance Tidal Power Station (France, completed in 1966): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationor Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station (S.Korea, completed in 2011): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_StationA write-up from 2014 around the time the CON-LDEM coalition govt decided not to proceed: www.carbonbrief.org/a-rough-guide-to-tidal-lagoonsHowever, the ideas are being pushed again (although no one in BEIS seems to be interested): www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/2/ The newer, currently small scale, prototype projects receiving seed funding. See the links provided yesterday. They MIGHT become a significant part of the answer as a large number of the smaller units can be linked together in suitable locations but it is too early to know and hence we can't assume they will have a significant role (I hope they do - SNATs will be very keen on them for sure) 3/ Deep Sea current, not just tidal currents. Bit of a tangent so I'll just provide wiki for that (plenty of more info on internet for those interested) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_current_powerThe ££ issue should IMO be regularly reviewed and now seems like a good time to do that (I wouldn't trust the numbers being pushed by those backing the projects - not unless they are very well funded and prepared to take all the risks!) The rEnvironmental issues (eg marine life) are important as well but pretty much every 'solution' has some issues (eg embodied carbon in anything using a lot of concrete in the construction) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 10:04:51 GMT
It shouldn't be forgotten that presently most hydrogen is made by reforming of fossil fuels - such that although hydrogen is clean at point of use, carbon dioxide production is just moved to where the hydrogen is produced. (Much may be said about carbon capture, how practical or viable at large scale it may be is another story.) Yes, hydrogen can be produced cleanly from renewable electricity and electrolysis - but it's currently far more expensive than reforming. I do see (hope?) in the future such may have a big part to play in producing hydrogen for industrial purposes where there is no alternative, but for such as transport, and home heating - no. Hello to you. I wouldn't say anything is 'forgotten' but you make valid points about the present situation. Costs for 'Green hydrogen' should reduce as the tech is scaled up. For transport then planes, trains and larger automobiles then hydrogen is already being used although mainly in prototype or small/uneconomic scale. Shipping might be e-fuels rather than fuel-cells. Happy to provide links for all those uses on request but you should be able to find them very easily on internet. Heating is still TBC. Possibly a 'blend' of up to 30% hydrogen or some areas go 100% hydrogen. Decision in 2026: hydrogeneast.uk/major-strategic-decisions-on-role-of-hydrogen-for-heat-to-come-by-2026/So how large a role will hydrogen have in the future is very much TBC. The future is not set. The only prediction I will make is that hydrogen will have a much bigger role than currently and that that will mean the costs come down (which is a very easy prediction to make given how little a role it currently has and how expensive it currently is) PS The cost issue is important WRT our trade policy. As you rightly point out 'grey' hydrogen is nowhere near green. 'Blue' hydrogen might have a 'bridging' role? 'Green hydrogen' is obviously the best and one way we MIGHT be able to make use of periods of excess wind power generation once we've built up enough wind generation supply to have that 'nice' problem to deal with (NB some of that might be 'pink' hydrogen in the Summer and some countries that get a lot of sun might use/export 'yellow' hydrogen). So at some point then UK and possibly a 'coalition of the willing' are going to have to decide to stop exporting jobs and reimporting a higher global footprint by taking unilateral Global Climate Change action (eg if we add CCuS it will make the production costs higher and UK businesses less competitive) Not quite all the colours of the rainbow but mostly Green with a bit of seasonal Pink for UK I hope: www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrogen-colour-spectrumPPS You might be aware of what is known as 'strategic reserves'. Petroleum being a notable one in the news recently as some countries have tapped into that. In the medium-long term future then what will we use as a 'strategic reserve'? Might be e-fuels, might be a lot of hydro (pumped or normal), might rely on interconnectors to access but, for UK and many 'others', it might also be XXTWh of hydrogen stored in salt caverns. I'm hopefully the Rough facility is converted and it looks like our friends in Germany have 'worked it out' as well: www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-salt-caverns/IIRC then Germany has a very large storage capacity and pipeline infrastructure for nat.gas and might well want to move away from such reliance on Russian nat.gas. Fairly obvious solution to that IMO but like UK they are looking at the options and the future is not set. www.rechargenews.com/transition/e-on-to-convert-natural-gas-pipeline-to-carry-pure-hydrogen/2-1-910119 |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 27, 2021 17:27:59 GMT
The only prediction I will make is that hydrogen will have a much bigger role than currently and that that will mean the costs come down (which is a very easy prediction to make given how little a role it currently has and how expensive it currently is) Hydrogen may not be very significant currently for transport and home heating, but it mustn't be forgotten that it's use in industry is huge. For a lot of processes there simply is no alternative - it's needed for it's chemical properties, not simply as an energy store. And the vast majority of this is made currently from reformed fossil fuel - with consequent huge carbon dioxide release. For a green future it makes a lot of sense to transition this to "green hydrogen" before looking for other uses. There is little point in any move from natural gas to hydrogen (30% or 100%) if the hydrogen isn't made in a green way. All blending reformed hydrogen in would do is move carbon emissions from the individual boiler to the place the hydrogen is made. Which brings me back to the original post - that's something vested interests really don't want publicised. They just want a nice simple message - "hydrogen is green" - which is far from necessarily true. So is the policy still sensible iif we talk (and enforce) it being from true green hydrogen? The advantage is home boilers remain a fairly cheap commodity, but it means we have to start with electricity (wind or solar), and to get a kWh into the home will inevitably mean far more than a kWh of electricity must be generated - such is the electrolysis inefficiency. But to get a kWh of electricity in, by simply feeding it in directly, the losses are far smaller and you don't need to generate as much to start with. Bring heat pumps into the equation, and for each kWh you only need to generate LESS - but at the expense of higher capital cost in the home. We've all got used to a kWh of gas being far cheaper than a kWh of electricity in the home. So it has made sense to use gas for heating, and electricity for applications where gas doesn't work - ever seen a gas TV or washing machine!?  But if we have to always start with electricity, that price differential can't apply any more. Without distortions a kWh of (green) gas must cost more than a kWh of electricity, yes? And that will even be true without heat pumps, just using simple resistive heating. The real momentum behind using hydrogen for home heating is purely coming from vested interests in the gas industry. It makes little sense technically. PPS You might be aware of what is known as 'strategic reserves'. Petroleum being a notable one in the news recently as some countries have tapped into that. In the medium-long term future then what will we use as a 'strategic reserve'? Yes, an interesting thought, but in the past the point of a strategic reserve has been largely to protect against a foreign entity interrupting the flow of a fuel, together with more short term effects such as a fire at a refinery. Such as the OPEC problems of the '70s, let alone the recent gas situation. But if you reduce reliance on such supplies from abroad - such as to distributed wind power within a countries borders - then is it necessary to have such a large strategic reserve? Some, yes - but why as much? And frankly, hydrogen is a molecule that doesn't lend itself well to such a task. Such storage is far better with using a liquid - and the boiling point of hydrogen is so low that cryogenic hydrogen is only viable for very limited purposes. (Worse is that the critical point of hydrogen is also extremely low - only 10 degrees above the boiling point at one atmosphere. Many gases may have a low boiling point, but will remain liquid at considerably higher temperatures under pressure - hydrogen won't.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 18:11:48 GMT
lens ?!?! In the 'present' we don't produce enough electricity to be able to make green or pink hydrogen and we burn massive amounts of nat.gas for our 'present' electricity needs (even on windy days like today[1]). In the 'future' we will need to produce more electricity to cope with EV demands but will hopefully at some point be in a position of occasional 'excess supply'. We need to massively increase the amount of wind power and that will take time. I'm not sure why you confuse the present situation with the future, again state 'but it mustn't be forgotten' (for something that isn't forgotten) or make daft comments like ' ever seen a gas TV or washing machine!? ' PS I don't disagree with most of your points but I note you haven't provided any sources, any numbers or shown any awareness of the issues of time (ie the 'present' v the 'future'). Are you one of the ALECS posting under a new name (eg stating ' purely coming from vested interests in the gas industry' is one of their 'theories')? [1] gridwatch.co.uk
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 27, 2021 19:51:26 GMT
I'm not sure why you confuse the present situation with the future, again state 'but it mustn't be forgotten' (for something that isn't forgotten) or make daft comments like ' ever seen a gas TV or washing machine!? was in response to your comment as quoted, about ".....given how little a role it {hydrogen} currently has and how expensive it currently is". It is simply nowhere near true that hydrogen currently has "a little role" - it's huge! Massive! If you need a reference, then off the top of my head try www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/uses-of-hydrogen-in-industry/ It's used in oil refining, ammonia production (Haber-Bosch process), and various hydrogenation processes - and the quantites involved are massive. Already. Before any consideration of any thought of using hydrogen as energy storage. Hardly any hydrogen produced presently is "green" - before even thinking about home heating let's use any extra green hydrogen that can be produced to offset the massive industrial use. The point of the latter comment was to try to make clear why currently people are prepared to pay far more per kWh for electricity than gas. I'm sorry if I have to explain it. I was trying to make a serious and valid point humorously, and hoped the smiley made that clear. You can't just compare forms of energy purely in terms of amount. To use something like gas you effectively have to burn it, and use the heat directly (as heating) or indirectly (in a combustion engine). A kWh of electricity is far more versatile in terms of being "useful" without combustion involved - powering TVs, lighting, motors, you name it. The relevance is that with current pricing, gas is the main choice for heating - electricity for "other things". But it needs to be asked what would happen if a kWh of gas cost more than a kilowatt of electricity? What would then be the point of a gas supply - why not use an electricity supply for everything? And if the scheme was to make gas from renewable electricity - inevitably meaning you need much more than a kWh of electricity to produce a kWh of gas - then it's impossible to see how a kWh of gas can still be cheaper than a kWh of electricity! (Especially when you take into account the expensive electrolysis, compression equipment.) So why not just send the electricity directly to the home? And sorry, but your "ALECS" comment is lost on me. I assure you I haven't previously posted under a different name. As for references, well, I hope the one about the size of the industrial market above is good enough. Funnily enough, companies engaged in greenwashing don't tend to say that's what they're actually doing, so references about such are harder to come by........ You just have to look at the inevitable sums involved in making a kWh of gas from over a kWh of electricity to wonder who would seriously think it a good idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 8:40:27 GMT
Hardly any hydrogen produced presently is "green" 'Presently', yes. I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference between the 'present' and the 'future' (which is not set) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 28, 2021 17:34:40 GMT
'Presently', yes. I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference between the 'present' and the 'future' (which is not set) I assure you I understand the difference between the two - but don't underestimate the timescale. From the link previously quoted, present production in the UK of hydrogen is around 100,000 tons annually. It simply is not true to say "how little a role it currently has". It may be little in terms of "new uses" - but it's a huge role in the present. To put some more numbers to that, to produce and compress a kg of hydrogen by electrolysis takes somewhat over 60 kWh of electricity. (If you need the reference, try en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water "Industrial output" - the exact figure varies depending on the end pressure needed.) Consequently, to produce just the current hydrogen production by electrolysis in the future would need 6,000,000,000 kWh - around 6,000GWh. Possible, yes, but don't underestimate the task. And that's without any future plans which would need even more. If there's no alternative, then I do indeed hope and expect in the future at least that will be derived as true green hydrogen. There are other processes that could be "greened" by a future use of hydrogen, such as steelmaking. But why go a hydrogen route for such as (future) home heating and transport if a more efficient (hence cheaper) route exists which doesn't go the hydrogen route? That's what I'm really trying to say. Why generate 100kWh of electricity, only to lose nearly 50% via inefficiencies in the hydrogen route, when just delivering the electricity directly involves a far smaller loss? As far as my original point - companies talking about hydrogen primarily to greenwash - I've been sent a link to an article as reference to hopefully put it better than I can. www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/07/31/is-hydrogen-just-oil-and-gas-greenwashed/ The discussion may be more towards road transport in general, but the final paragraph speaks more generally - and is in agreement that hydrogen is irreplaceable in some industry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2021 11:31:49 GMT
Green hydrogen can cost less than 'grey' alternative, EU's von der Leyen says... green hydrogen could cost less than 1.8 euros per kilogram by 2030, and that should be the bloc's targetuk.news.yahoo.com/green-hydrogen-already-competitive-polluting-085940312.html?The issue for all countries who have such a target is to plan and deliver to get into the position of 'excess supply' of 'green' electricity generating capacity (wind, solar, nuclear, perhaps tidal) asap. 2030 is certainly possible for UK, looks a stretch for likes of Germany IMO, but we are presently a long way from being in a position of frequent and significant periods of 'excess supply' (ie we don't have any excess electricity production to convert to hydrogen at scale but are currently also burning huge amounts of nat.gas for electricity generation). For likes of Germany they plan to replace their considerable 'present' reliance on coal by 2030 and are anti-nuclear. Then there will also be the increased use of Electric Vehicles. So UK needs to massively increase 'green' forms of electricity generation. Hopefully one day (mid-late 2030s perhaps) we'll be a net exporter of green electricity and green/pink hydrogen as we have a 'comparative advantage' in wind and are not anti-nuclear. TBC of course
|
|
But if we have to always start with electricity, that price differential can't apply any more. Without distortions a kWh of (green) gas must cost more than a kWh of electricity, yes? And that will even be true without heat pumps, just using simple resistive heating. The real momentum behind using hydrogen for home heating is purely coming from vested interests in the gas industry. It makes little sense technically.