Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 8, 2022 19:52:11 GMT
Here's a novel idea - why not just use the electricity directly for the purpose, rather than go the hydrogen middle man? ?!?!?!? Electricity is likely to supply most of the solution, most of the time*. Nobody is saying otherwise, you're just making stuff up. I really thought you'd finally grasped the issues but sadly it seems not. PS There are more types of transport than just cars and trains. Hopefully c-a-r-f-r-e-w will supply the source link as that might contain additional info. I'd bet that a significant, probably the majority, % of the transport number is from shipping and aviation. I'll repost once again the NG 'future scenarios' (see p133). In 'Falling Short' (aka 'Climate Delay') then we're still using fossil fuels. In all their other scenarios then 80TWh of energy for those two purposes is 'expected' to come from hydrogen (which includes ammonia as they explain). In all scenarios that is larger than the amount that might be used for road transport and rail (some scenarios have those two as almost zero). You'll also note the biggest uncertainty is from 'residential heat' (aka as 'building heat and power') as it is still unknown how much of a role hydrogen might have to play to decarbonise heating (anywhere from 0 to 145TWh) www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/downloadPPS * You also seemed to have missed from the hydrogen infographic that ' power generation / buffering' is a fairly small number - obviously! FWIW then NG see that as 1-17TWh depending on the scenario (and I've previously posted the link for converting some nat.gas 'peaking plants' to hydrogen). It is stating the obvious to say there are inefficiencies of changing energy back+forth, but then I did think you had grasped the 'optimal solution' might well have a lot of suboptimal components. You can of course supply your own numbers, or say you'd be fine with 'black-outs' or energy rationing for some periods of prolonged low wind in late Winter. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 8, 2022 22:02:22 GMT
lens - "But it has to (viably) come from a specific build out of green generation - not magically appear cheaply from some supposed "surplus" capacity." I think this hits the nail on the head. Mr Poppy keeps citing the Future Scenarios document from National Grid, quoting numbers from the scenarios as if they actually represent something, whereas NG make clear that the FES modeling is there to illustrate energy demands and pathways to decarbonisation as an illustrative mechanism for the potential scale of what would be required, so stakeholders can go off and work out how they might interact with the market. They aren't predictions, and plucking out numbers from any of the FES versions doesn't mean that these numbers are real. NG make it clear that they aren't 'expecting' anything from those scenarios, only that each scenario is a potential way to meet the demand with the resultant emissions outcomes. NG actually state in the original document that new technologies will supplant many of the assumptions and that the scenarios are only for illustrative purposes. The point here is that putting these together, no one is going to build out kit of any kind, whether hydrogen or anything else, just to mop up spare electricity at times of plenty. We already have plenty of feasible options for energy storage, long and short term, that could be built out in time, if they are made financially viable, but it's the market support system underpinning the finances that is the critical factor. Anyone investing in H2 electrolysis for seasonal storage will have to have contracts lined up with power generators and NG that underpin their financial returns, else they won't build out. To get those contracts, they will have to bid into a market like the existing Contracts for Difference framework or the various parts of the Balancing Services market, when they will be up against other technologies, most of which are likely to be cheaper. So if we want hydrogen for seasonal energy balancing, then we'll need government to specifically fund that part of the energy mix preferentially, as part of a centrally planned energy strategy. It might be worth doing that, for a bit of storage capacity, but it will need to be a conscious decision by market planners and it will increase bills. The same goes for green hydrogen production for other purposes. No one is going to built a green steel furnace using hydrogen unless they have contracts in place for the hydrogen, which means the hydrogen producers will need power supply contracts etc. They will potentially also be able to make money in the balancing market, as wind farms, nuclear power stations etc do today through constraint payments, but that won't be anything like enough to persuade them to invest alone. There has to be a stable long term market opportunity on a contract basis. And wind farm operators won't be building wind farms that rely on electrolysis sales when the grid is saturated as such an income stream would be far too unpredictable. They'll need a much more solid financial base on which to base investment decisions. The link I posted the other day made this plain, when they said that FITs and carbon pricing, or similar market support mechanisms, will be critical in determining the uptake of hydrogen for power market balancing. That in itself is an admission that hydrogen isn't cost effective in strict market terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 8, 2022 23:35:47 GMT
Here's a novel idea - why not just use the electricity directly for the purpose, rather than go the hydrogen middle man? ?!?!?!? Electricity is likely to supply most of the solution, most of the time. Nobody is saying otherwise, you're just making stuff up. I really thought you'd finally grasped the issues but sadly it seems not. I was responding to the graph, which is presupposing hydrogen supplying most of the solution to various sectors, no? Let's just take transport - the graph seems to be suggesting a future where petrol/diesel interchange to be replaced by hydrogen. Great idea - if you own a filling station. Let's you keep your business model. Great idea - if your business is in the hydrogen etc industry. Totally stupid idea for consumers, and likewise from an environmental viewpoint. Fortunately, for cars at any rate, that ship seems to have sailed in favour of battery. Renewable energy is mostly going to start off as electricity - from solar, wind and hydro. It makes most sense to then use it as electricity where possible - not go the inefficient hydrogen middle man. People ARE saying other than "electricity is likely to supply most of the solution, most of the time" - or at least saying that's what they'd like!! Just look at what I quoted from Riversimple - they purport to be on the side of the environment, but when their business model is threatened....... And they are far from alone. EDIT Having just seen the PS, then OK - yes, there's a lot more to transport than road. But hydrogen for aviation? I'll believe it when I see it. Hydrogen is very energy dense by weight - pressure tanks to contain it really spoil those numbers. Yes, Airbus is talking about cryogenic hydrogen for aviation. Helps with tank weight - but even NASA has problems dealing with cryogenic hydrogen (cause of the last two mission aborts for the moon shot). I'll believe it when I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 9, 2022 0:02:40 GMT
The same goes for green hydrogen production for other purposes. No one is going to built a green steel furnace using hydrogen unless they have contracts in place for the hydrogen, which means the hydrogen producers will need power supply contracts etc The link I posted the other day made this plain, when they said that FITs and carbon pricing, or similar market support mechanisms, will be critical in determining the uptake of hydrogen for power market balancing. That in itself is an admission that hydrogen isn't cost effective in strict market terms. Yes, exactly. If you're making fertiliser, and need huge quantities of hydrogen, first question will be "how much?" Any producer of green hydrogen will (in the absence of subsidy etc) have to produce it cheaper than making it via reforming. Which is quite an ask. When this has been brought up before, it's where the answer tends to refer to "cheap surplus electricity" as the magical answer. Ignoring that it means underutilisation of electrolysis plant and defeating the cheapness of the electricity. I DO hope generation gets built out to produce green hydrogen for such as fertiliser etc - but let nobody delude themselves it will magicly be cheap. No one is going to build generation capacity to provide "cheap surplus electricity" to hydrogen producers out of the goodness of their hearts. Alec is absolutely correct. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 9, 2022 7:32:05 GMT
?!?!?!? Electricity is likely to supply most of the solution, most of the time. Nobody is saying otherwise, you're just making stuff up. I really thought you'd finally grasped the issues but sadly it seems not. I was responding to the graph, which is presupposing hydrogen supplying most of the solution to various sectors, no? No. That is not what the infographic was showing. It simply shows one 'plausible scenario' (projection) for the increase in hydrogen demand. It shows hydrogen possibly being used for 78 EJs For total demand in EJs: www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/final-consumptionFor simplicity then if World demand stays unchanged (UK/developed World is likely to go down, some places likely to go up) then 78/420 = 19% That is broadly inline with other plausible scenarios but as I've said for something like 'building heat and power', then that is probably the most uncertain category so 'plausible scenarios' range from '0-significant' in that category. Feel free to look at each sector for yourself and thank you for illustrating the importance of using and understanding the size of the numbers involved. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 9, 2022 7:44:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 9, 2022 18:10:49 GMT
I'm aware of that - and the "ambition to develop the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035". As I said: I'll believe it when I see it. (Develop - not put in service.) They are also talking about hydrogen burnt in a turbine for larger planes, which is far from fully green, before even thinking about where the hydrogen comes from. And Boeing don't agree - www.greenbiz.com/article/flying-100-sustainable-fuel-2030-boeing-announces-development-plans Which personally seems far more realistic to me, doesn't require a whole new fuelling infrastructure. But talk about "we'll have an answer in about 10-15 years" sounds a lot like kicking a can down the road to me. And throw in the word "hydrogen" and hope noone notices it's a greenwashing exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 9, 2022 18:18:24 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 9, 2022 18:48:43 GMT
Boeing don't agree - https://www.greenbiz.com/article/flying-100-sustainable-fuel-2030-boeing-announces-development-plans Which personally seems far more realistic to me, doesn't require a whole new fuelling infrastructure. I'm not doing the 'betamax v VHS' nonsense again. I've posted links for Rolls Royce before but will do so again: www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2022/11-05-2022-takes-step-towards-net-zero-ambition-with-mtu-gensets-approved-for-sustainable-fuels.aspxBiofuels tend to upset people though and obviously need to check the devil in the detail on that solution after issues like US ethanol and Amazon deforestation but FFS enough of the 'greenwashing' stuff. Yes, some companies do it. Sometimes for 'chicken+egg' reasons, notably with hydrogen which will be 'green' in the future but it is not economically viable to make green hydrogen at massive scale YET! Similar issue for a lot of 'biofuels' and some of those might be 'bridging' solutions (a bit like DVDs before internet streaming came along). DVDs and 'bridging' tech generally still an improvement on what was there before in general a good idea (IMO).
PS I'm sure you can't spot the irony in mentioning: "doesn't require a whole new fuelling infrastructure" 
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 9, 2022 20:40:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 9, 2022 22:11:54 GMT
Mr Poppy - "I'm not doing the 'betamax v VHS' nonsense again." Good, because no one apart from you has ever been interested in that nonsense. On the biofuels, these are increasingly becoming cost effective (many already are at present prices), although some level of carbon pricing is likely to be required to provide the long term basis for investment and further development. I don't think so many people are currently aware of just how common biofuels are becoming. The land take has been an issue, but again, developments are moving apace and we are seeing a lot of work on alternative feedstocks that don't utilise traditional farmland. For example, in the UK we torch something like 30,000 hectares of heather moorland every year on shooting estates. That's hundreds of thousands of tonnes of perfectly good biomass literally going up in smoke every year that could be diverted into the biofuels feedstock supply, without losing a square inch of farmland, and there are projects working on this and other novel feedstocks right now. There are also substantial advances in enzyme technology which are allowing faster biofuel production without so much processing, and this whole area is developing rapidly. In truth, there has never really been an argument here, except in your head. In the various iterations of these discussions, all that has happened is that various posters have said that hydrogen will play an important role in many industries, but that it's use in large scale energy production is likely to be less pronounced, as it is technologically not best suited to that purpose, and other better options are likely to be available. But I'm not aware that anyone has ever said this is an either/or choice. So perhaps we can just agree, and have an intelligent discussion?
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 9, 2022 22:14:59 GMT
leftieliberal - I don't know much about hemp but there are a range of new products coming through that show great promise. The other very significant issue in agriculture is the growing recognition that better soil management can greatly aid the drive to decarbonise. While not related to energy supply, the capacity for soils to gain or lose carbon under different farm management systems is immense, and I would expect to see some major advances in soil carbon uptake as one of the easy 'win win' routes to carbon sustainability.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 8:03:19 GMT
Further to using blended biofuels for aviation as a 'bridging' technology that reduces, but does not eliminate, CO2 emissions then repost of another RR link:
E-fuels powering a climate-neutral future
www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2021/e-fuels-powering-climate-neutral-future.aspxNote how e-fuels (beyond simple e-H2) are made: "..Other fuels that can be produced from hydrogen have higher energy density and are easier to store. By applying more energy and adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass), it is possible to produce other synthetic fuels such as e-hydrogen, e-methane or e-diesel. This is how electricity is turned into fuel. It can be burned carbon-neutrally, as no extra CO2 is produced"Which yet again takes us back to what we could do with all the "surplus" renewable electricity we should be producing (during prolonged windy+sunny periods for 6-9mths of the year) ONCE it becomes economically viable to do so. Due to 'chicken+egg' issues then we need to plan ahead to ensure demand encourages supply and supply can meet that demand at a much lower price (where economies of scale, etc would clearly come into play - see PWC projections of hydrogen costs dropping massively in the future). |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 10:02:03 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 10:10:51 GMT
and latest 'Energy Trends'. Pretty obvious to anyone and everyone who understood the issues of existing LNG and pipeline infrastructure and what would happen if Russia turned off the taps but for those that maybe needed to see official data then: "Exports of gas reached a new quarterly high as imports of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) arriving in the UK helped supply Belgium and the Netherlands. Electricity exports also reached a new record high with the UK becoming a net exporter of electricity* for the first time since 2010"assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1107456/Energy_Trends_September_2022.pdfAlso of note: "Renewable generation rose 12 per cent on the same period last year due to more favourable conditions and increased capacity (+6.5%)"and we'll have even more of that next year and every year there after (info on the wind farms under construction or 'approved' for construction posted previously) * part of that was also due to the issues WRT to much lower supply from French nuclear this year |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2022 10:43:07 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 11:54:49 GMT
Follow-up to one of colin 's articles WRT to nat.gas as "bridge" and that not all gas is equal. Russia has very leaky pipelines and other issues so, short-term pain aside, then it is great that Europe is weaning itself off Russian gas. Qatar have made a lot of progress on flaring so their LNG exports are 'better' (less bad). Of course the shorter the distance involved, the more control one has over stuff like flaring (ie your own polity) and the less processes involved (eg avoid fracking and/or liquify, transport then regasification) then the lower the emissions/carbon footprint will be. There is variation in the methodology for 'accounting' but to add another link then 'UK sourced for UK use' is significantly better than Qatar and way better than US LNG imports. It is bonkers to import LNG for 'just transition' when we can source lower footprint nat.gas from home, creating British jobs for British workers and generating higher tax revenues in the process. Not that I'm encouraging the eco-terrorists to start 'direct action' against our LNG import terminals but given we do need O&G for 'just transition' then 'make/buy/sell it in Britain'. www.nstauthority.co.uk/the-move-to-net-zero/net-zero-benchmarking-and-analysis/natural-gas-carbon-footprint-analysis/ |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 10, 2022 12:54:48 GMT
Mr Poppy (and lens) - "Note how e-fuels (beyond simple e-H2) are made: "..Other fuels that can be produced from hydrogen have higher energy density and are easier to store. By applying more energy and adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass), it is possible to produce other synthetic fuels such as e-hydrogen, e-methane or e-diesel. This is how electricity is turned into fuel. It can be burned carbon-neutrally, as no extra CO2 is produced" " I could well be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced you are aware of what is already happening in aviation regarding sustainable fuels? Sustainable Aviation Fuels have been in production since they were first successfully trialed on 2008, and since 2011 blends of up to 50% SAF have been permitted in civil aircraft. Like I posted previously, SAF is produced from sustainable biomass sources, of which many more are being identified, and produced mainly through pyrolysis, and don't need expensive and wasteful conversion from electricity----->H2----->SAF. It just seems a strange route to go down, adding more conversions, more losses, and more cost. "Which yet again takes us back to what we could do with all the "surplus" renewable electricity we should be producing (during prolonged windy+sunny periods for 6-9mths of the year) ONCE it becomes economically viable to do so." Again, you're making an assumption there. I would be extremely surprised indeed if the UK invested in an energy system that was in significant over supply for anything like 6 months of the year. I previously posted the data showing how the current UK renewables output is far more seasonally stable that you appear to believe, and there is no reason to assume this pattern won't continue as more renewables are added. The over supply and under supply periods are likely to be relatively short lived, even once we factor in winter heating demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Nov 10, 2022 15:14:09 GMT
Mr Poppy (and lens ) - "Note how e-fuels (beyond simple e-H2) are made: "..Other fuels that can be produced from hydrogen have higher energy density and are easier to store. By applying more energy and adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass), it is possible to produce other synthetic fuels such as e-hydrogen, e-methane or e-diesel. This is how electricity is turned into fuel. It can be burned carbon-neutrally, as no extra CO2 is produced" " I could well be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced you are aware of what is already happening in aviation regarding sustainable fuels? Sustainable Aviation Fuels have been in production since they were first successfully trialed on 2008, and since 2011 blends of up to 50% SAF have been permitted in civil aircraft. Like I posted previously, SAF is produced from sustainable biomass sources, of which many more are being identified, and produced mainly through pyrolysis, and don't need expensive and wasteful conversion from electricity----->H2----->SAF. It just seems a strange route to go down, adding more conversions, more losses, and more cost. "Which yet again takes us back to what we could do with all the "surplus" renewable electricity we should be producing (during prolonged windy+sunny periods for 6-9mths of the year) ONCE it becomes economically viable to do so." Again, you're making an assumption there. I would be extremely surprised indeed if the UK invested in an energy system that was in significant over supply for anything like 6 months of the year. I previously posted the data showing how the current UK renewables output is far more seasonally stable that you appear to believe, and there is no reason to assume this pattern won't continue as more renewables are added. The over supply and under supply periods are likely to be relatively short lived, even once we factor in winter heating demand.  Q: What are the two elements in a hydrocarbon? You might want to delete your post before too many people see it and have a ROFL or point out the 'greenwashing' of the 'vested interests' pushing SAF - or not, your choice. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 10, 2022 15:56:33 GMT
Mr Poppy (and lens ) - "Note how e-fuels (beyond simple e-H2) are made: "..Other fuels that can be produced from hydrogen have higher energy density and are easier to store. By applying more energy and adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass), it is possible to produce other synthetic fuels such as e-hydrogen, e-methane or e-diesel. This is how electricity is turned into fuel. It can be burned carbon-neutrally, as no extra CO2 is produced" " I could well be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced you are aware of what is already happening in aviation regarding sustainable fuels? Sustainable Aviation Fuels have been in production since they were first successfully trialed on 2008, and since 2011 blends of up to 50% SAF have been permitted in civil aircraft. Like I posted previously, SAF is produced from sustainable biomass sources, of which many more are being identified, and produced mainly through pyrolysis, and don't need expensive and wasteful conversion from electricity----->H2----->SAF. It just seems a strange route to go down, adding more conversions, more losses, and more cost. "Which yet again takes us back to what we could do with all the "surplus" renewable electricity we should be producing (during prolonged windy+sunny periods for 6-9mths of the year) ONCE it becomes economically viable to do so." Again, you're making an assumption there. I would be extremely surprised indeed if the UK invested in an energy system that was in significant over supply for anything like 6 months of the year. I previously posted the data showing how the current UK renewables output is far more seasonally stable that you appear to believe, and there is no reason to assume this pattern won't continue as more renewables are added. The over supply and under supply periods are likely to be relatively short lived, even once we factor in winter heating demand. Q: What are the two elements in a hydrocarbon? You might want to delete your post before too many people see it and have a ROFL or point out the 'greenwashing' of the 'vested interests' pushing SAF - or not, your choice. A Carbon and hydrogen Further note. Both alec and New Model Tory have made it quite clear where the carbon is coming from: .......... "adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass)"Q Do you understand the difference between carbon from fossil fuels, and carbon from bio fuels? (The latter is carbon neutral - the former isn't.) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 10, 2022 17:35:05 GMT
To step back from all the detail, I mentioned this topic to a friend. With reference to the domestic situation his response was simple and to the point, so simple I think it is worth repeating:
"At the moment, prices per kWh for electricity are around 30p - for gas more like 10p. At that difference, gas becomes the obvious choice for heating, you pay the extra for electricity because it can do things gas can't. But it's largely based on gas being the primary energy source, with electricity made from it. Since a kWh of gas must yield less than a kWh of electricity, and the cost of generation needs to be accounted for, that's where the price difference comes from.
But move to renewable electricity as the primary source, and it flips around. Now, for each kWh of electricity you'll get less than a kWh of gas, and it's the cost of turning it into gas that will need to be accounted for."
OK, there's a lot more to it than that (not least balancing supply and demand) and it assumes all the primary energy comes from either gas or renewable, but it sums up neatly (IMO) why making hydrogen from electricity to put into the gas grid is not a good idea in principle. And note it's only talking about basic per kWh costs, not even considering heat pumps. With even basic resistive heating, for every electricity kWh you get a kWh of heat out - boiler losses with gas mean you don't even get that. One thing if gas must fundamentally be a lot cheaper, but the more we move to renewables the less that's likely to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 10, 2022 17:47:13 GMT
Mr Poppy - "Q: What are the two elements in a hydrocarbon? You might want to delete your post before too many people see it and have a ROFL or point out the 'greenwashing' of the 'vested interests' pushing SAF - or not, your choice." Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I suspect you might not either. You are promoting e-fuels, which are, by definition, made from electricity, with associated conversion losses and therefore expense, whereas I am explaining that we are already creating carbon neutral, sustainable fuels direct from biomass, via a much more energetically efficient process. Why would this be funny?
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 17:51:59 GMT
1. A Carbon and hydrogen Further note. Both alec and New Model Tory have made it quite clear where the carbon is coming from: .......... "adding carbon (either air-borne carbon or from biomass)"2. Q Do you understand the difference between carbon from fossil fuels, and carbon from bio fuels? (The latter is carbon neutral - the former isn't.) 1. Top marks - give yourself a gold star The hydro bit being hydrogen also being used all the hydroxxx words in: skynrg.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/technology-basics/I'm sure everyone is aware of the 'colour' for most of the hydrogen currently produced and the issues of making green hydrogen economically viable. 2. Yes. For a fantastic example of a 'vested interest' doing some 'greenwashing' to fool the gullible types by using the word 'Sustainable' (and be a cunning way that the US (and others) effectively subsides their airline/air travel industry*) see: www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/what-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.htmlNote, as previously mentioned SAF is very useful as a 'bridge' as any reduction is better than no reduction. Along with more efficient engines, etc then SAF will probably offset the projected growth in air travel to mean that industry at least doesn't increase its current carbon footprint. For a really optimistic view then see p8 in (and note the 2030-50 comment): aviationbenefits.org/media/166152/beginners-guide-to-saf_web.pdf * biomassmagazine.com/articles/19261/biden-signs-new-saf-hydrogen-clean-fuel-tax-credits-into-lawBackground piece (and note Boeing gets a mention!) www.aviationtoday.com/2021/08/05/sustainable-aviation-fuels-arent-sustainable-not-yet-least/Say you'll plant a few trees, double count -ve carbon (by ensuring different companies in the supply chain pretend their input is 'zero' and/or apply for credit**) and hey presto, you can say you'll be 'net zero by 2050' (accept of course that is b*llox unless you fall for 'greenwashing' from likes of BP, Boeing, etc) ** Yes, I'm fully aware that Drax do that. Once again, if your 'bridge-ing' then OK, but they do need to start sourcing their feedstock more locally and add the CCS bit to BECCS if they expect to continue to get generous taxpayer help. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 10, 2022 18:01:51 GMT
Mr Poppy - "Say you'll plant a few trees, double count -ve carbon (by ensuring different companies in the supply chain pretend their input is 'zero' and/or apply for credit**) and hey presto, you can say you'll be 'net zero by 2050' (accept of course that is b*llox unless you fall for 'greenwashing' from likes of BP, Boeing, etc)" Said the man who, just a couple of weeks ago, was singing the praises of Drax..... No, look, I really think you should put Naughty Trevor back in his box and allow us to get back to having sensible, grown up conversations. Any sustainable biofuel source is capable of being abused by vested interests. Drax has been very guilty of that, but I'm only trying to make you aware of very recent developments in the biofuel arena, where several widely different feedstock sources, all completely sustainable, some at potentially very substantial capacity, have recently been identified. The nature of the conversion processes and the advances being made are such that this is likely to be a zero carbon energy source for specific uses at scale in the near future, with a more efficient production pathway than e-H2. Do we have to revert to childishness, or is it possible to learn more about these things and discuss options and ideas like grown ups?
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 18:24:49 GMT
OK, there's a lot more to it than that ( not least balancing supply and demand) Since your answering questions today then did you ever say if you preferred (3a) the current system of 'constraint payments' when there is "surplus" electricity* or (3b) given the right incentives (carrot and stick) and with more prolonged periods of "surplus" in the near future doing something useful with that surplus (eg to ensure the hydrogen going into increased use of SAF is green and not grey)? If you're up for doing numbers then, in TWhs to the nearest XX, could you mention the likely required storage requirements if the 'plan'** is to only use grid batteries (and you can mention/include pumped hydro and interconnectors if you want to). Please ensure to mention the annual cycles of some of those very rarely used batteries and how that would impact the cost. For a Brucie bonus then also mention if you think a 'strategic reserve' would be useful and maybe, given our natural comparative advantage for wind/tidal, that we could become a significant exporter of the type of energy that a lot of North Europe is going to buying in huge amounts in the (hopefully) not too distant future. Quite handy if we want to move into a current account surplus position and do all kinds of fun stuff when we do. * Slipped in a few extra colours with roughly the weightings that I think are 'optimal' (or at least likely) for the entire UK system. Other countries with a lot more sun, especially over Winter, would make more of the yellow type. Some new colours in the future perhaps? 'Emerald' is slightly greener than 'turquoise' so you might not notice the 'r' is a slightly blue shade of green. www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrogen-colour-spectrum ** You could go the whole hog and give numbers for each part of a 'plausible scenario' for your preferred destination to get to Net Zero by 2050 but I appreciate it's easy just to avoid an actual plan (as a 'climate delayer' type would do) and instead use wildly false assumptions and slip in a 'not least' comment. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 20:06:57 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 10, 2022 22:35:53 GMT
"1. At the moment, prices per kWh for electricity are around 30p - for gas more like 10p.... 2. (when electricity price is high then) it's largely based on gas being the primary marginal energy source, with electricity made from it. 1. Well 'at the moment' it is 3.32p/kWh chez nous and it will be -ve overnight*. Unfortunately the BEV is already fully charged so nothing much I can do to take advantage of that (other than setting the timer on my coffee machine to come on at 4am). Probably be some 'constraint payments' being made ce soir given it's a windy night. Note we're selling as much as we can to nos amis via interconnectors** and we'll have pumped up the pumped hydro ready for tomorrow's peak periods (as it is important to max out the 'cycles' of all forms of 'short-term' storage in order to make them more cost effective) * mysmartenergy.uk/Prices/Eastern-England** gridwatch.co.ukNote the above will change if you read this much later as wind power is unreliable and unpredictable. 2. Corrected that for your friend and clearly the current pricing mechanism needs to be changed (eg use a 'revenue cap' and rewrite current contracts to ensure the implications of mainland Europe having made itself so reliant on Russian gas doesn't cause that problem beyond the period where most suppliers have already locked in under the current system - FWIU then EC-EU nations are looking to do the same kind of thing) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 10, 2022 23:50:47 GMT
OK, there's a lot more to it than that ( not least balancing supply and demand) Since your answering questions today then did you ever say if you preferred (3a) the current system of 'constraint payments' when there is "surplus" electricity* or (3b) given the right incentives (carrot and stick) and with more prolonged periods of "surplus" in the near future doing something useful with that surplus (eg to ensure the hydrogen going into increased use of SAF is green and not grey)? You obviously haven't taken in the most basic points. Yes, it would be good to use all generation usefully - but *NOT* if it means having a lot of plant sitting idle the majority of the time. That would just mean swapping "surplus" generation for "surplus" storage capacity. How much more plainly can it be put? I'm not going to count angels on a pin head, not least because the exact numbers, let alone technologies, constantly change and it all depends on payment systems as well. There are many ways to balance the grid - match demand to supply - and hydrogen generation is only one (not very efficient) of them. Let's here talk about common sense principles. If you're up for doing numbers then, in TWhs to the nearest XX, could you mention the likely required storage requirements if the 'plan'** is........ As above! Common sense dictates it's worth establishing general principles before spending a long time working out the minutiae - let's keep the horse in front of the cart. Bear in mind the fundamental principle that if you make electricity from gas, each kWh of electricity will be more than a kWh of gas - make gas from electricity and it will be the other way round. Is that really so difficult to understand? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2022 6:56:55 GMT
lens - I think you're starting to comprehend the difficulty posters have in engaging with Trevor in sensible, grown up discussions. Everything has to be a battle, and unless you agree with everything he says, it gets pointlessly argumentative. He could start an argument in an empty room.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,393
|
Post by neilj on Nov 11, 2022 7:46:22 GMT
Latest poll from People's polling
Lab 42% (-5)
Con 21% (-)
LibDem 9% (-1)
Green 9% (+2)
Reform 8% (+3)
SNP 5% (-)
A low twenties lead seems to be the new normal
Both Labour and the tories look a little lower than most polls, but the difference between the two seems around the average
|
|
