Energy Markets and Net Zero

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 14, 2023 1:19:42 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 14, 2023 1:08:13 GMT lens said:

Well it isn’t very generalised, was considering the case of batteries, though you can usefully generalise from that case. 

You seem more interested in repeating things that are not in dispute though, like how there is no point trying to improve something it’s impossible to improve. 

It’s a step forward though to acknowledge that more money may be invested if they see potential rewards. There have always been many potential uses of better batteries though, it’s such a generally useful tech. So why did it seem to take off more recently?

If you consider this graph I posted on the old board: 



Notice how battery efficiency has been improving for over a century? One technology takes over from another, but it kept improving.
...

For grid level solutions then £/MWh of storage (adjusted for efficiency) is where improvements need to come. Rare Earth metals are.. well rare.

If something is 20% of the £/MWh price, readily available BUT a lot bulkier and less efficient than stuff like Lithium then once we get to prolonged periods of 'excess supply' and realise that 'medium' term storage isn't going to have 200+ cycles per year (as an existing pumped hydro or Lithium grid level battery might) then.. well... it does already look like a lot of folks have worked it out and aren't so bothered about Energy density or very close to 100% 'round trip' efficiency for a lot of the things that batteries/hydrogen can be used for. Huge TWhs are needed and a ££trillions market for those who can get 'at scale' solutions out there (and, the harder part, get Ofgem (HMG) or whoever else has to agree in other polities to give them a long-term revenue based contract)

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 14, 2023 1:32:49 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 14, 2023 1:25:33 GMT lens said:

We already leave plant lying around unused a lot of the time lens, we have those gas peaker plants waiting for when we have a shortfall of leccy.*

If electrolysers fall enough in price as is possible as they get economies of scale and if value is there, then they will likely use them.

Especially given the projected demand of hydrogen.
...

Thank you for reposting that graph. Could you also post the link for the source. The numbers seen 'reasonable' but are obviously not set in stone. Hydrogen MIGHT be used for perhaps around 20% of our total Energy needs of which 10% (ie just 2% in total) MIGHT be for 'Power generation and buffering'.

So, just to use UK in a 'plausible' scenario for 2050 then our total Energy use MIGHT have dropped a bit from now (due to demand reduction) and be about 1,000TWh of which 2% (ie 20TWh or 20,000,000MWh) MIGHT be 'Power generation and buffering'. I reckon it will probably be less than 20TWh* for 'Power generation and buffering' specific purpose but only if the "OR" choice of cheap, low cycle rate, forms of storage deployable at massive scale are available in the coming decades (see previous post) - and hence I reckon we'll need less than 20TWh from H2 'peaker plants' per year but we will probably need some!

If the 'peaker plants' are on long-term revenue contracts then the £MWh of that 20TWh might not be as high as leaving it to the spot 'market' but the vested interests quite like the current pricing mechanism as it works very nicely for CCGT operators and 'climate delayers'. 

* My 'guess' being 10GW (10,000MW) of 'repurposed' CCGT running on 100% hydrogen for 'average' of 500hrs per year = 5,000,000MWh = 5TWh.
Note, as per convention, then the TWhs are stated at the 'consumption' side where as there are of course 'efficiency' loses. Brand spanking new CCPPs might be up to 70% efficient (and cover some heating) and would reduce 'future retrofit' costs so there is another "OR" choice concerning 'repurposing' CCGT v new CCPP but that is not a decision we need to make (at scale) today - see how the numbers (giga)stack up once we've doing more small scale trials.

Anyway, I doubt we'd burn 20TWh worth of hydrogen to make lecky in 2050.. unless it was an abnormally low wind year and we had to tap into our strategic reserve (which doesn't exist yet but should do by then) 

www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/offerings/power-generation/power-plants/hydrogen-power-plants.html

[Mr Poppy]

leftieliberal Following on from the 'tangent' on the main thread then I very much doubt anyone on UKPR2 thinks Ofgem have been doing a great job.

I don't want the Issue Specific thread to be 'partisan' but whether or not Ofgem and everyone they currently regulate are 'nationalised' or the current system continues is 'rearranging the deckchairs' rather than dealing with the "OR" issues.

I do note Ofgem are 'improving' from a very low base, speeding up some of the decision making process and moving away from '5yr plans'.

Ofgem could put fast-track investment schemes at heart of RIIO3
utilityweek.co.uk/ofgem-mulls-fast-tracking-investment-for-networks/

utilityweek.co.uk/riio3-and-the-dawn-of-the-third-age-of-network-regulation/

Denmark used to have a very good 'open door' approach but IIRC a bigger regulatory power put a stop to that! I've no issue with copying good ideas. 

Could continue down this tangent but I note a lot of the investment in GB 'Energy' is from foreign state owned companies (eg Equinor). We can't whack Equinor with a 'windfall tax' but, as a Lexiteer, then I'd have no issue with a UK State Owned business taking a bigger slice of future investment, possibly buying out some assets, etc. My 'quibble' would be on a/ where the money is coming from (and I prefer 'crowding-in' to 'crowding-out'), b/ that GBE is not run by politicians (Equinor is not a bad approach to copy, although there is the issue of a/)
www.equinor.com/where-we-are/united-kingdom

[Mr Poppy]

Some info on increasing capacity of UK battery storage. 2022 was a record year and we have a large pipeline of additional projects. Note they are mostly 'short-term' and hence expect a high number of annual cycles to justify their capital cost (and that would be the same whether they were owned by taxpayers or the 'private' sector).

"2022 shows a record-breaking annual planned capacity of 20.7GW across 295 sites, including some 500MW projects and a 1GW project. Most of these projects are expected to be at least 2-hour duration batteries (compared to 2017 where projects had a duration of 0.5 or 1 hour)"

800MWh of utility-scale energy storage capacity added in the UK during 2022
www.energy-storage.news/800mwh-of-utility-scale-energy-storage-capacity-added-in-the-uk-during-2022/

[alec]

From Wiki - "The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency stockpile of petroleum maintained by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). It is the largest publicly known emergency supply in the world; its underground tanks in Louisiana and Texas have capacity for 714 million barrels (113,500,000 m3). The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 to mitigate future supply disruptions as part of the international Agreement on an International Energy Program, after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo.

The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website. As of December 30, 2022, the inventory was 372.4 million barrels (59,210,000 m3). This equates to about 18 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. consumption levels of 20.54 million barrels per day (3,266,000 m3/d) or 38 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. import levels of 9.141 million barrels per day (1,453,300 m3/d)."

There is no requirement for the SPR to earn sufficient income to repay the substantial capital and running costs, because it's an emergency reserve, not a commercial asset. It sits alongside private sector importers, oil drillers, refineries, and suppliers, only used to underpin supplies in times of market stress. That's fairly obvious to most people. Likewise, battery storage systems, or interconnectors, or additional generation capacity on the UK grid, would not need to justify the expenditure by high cycling rates or high load factors or through constraint payments or through capacity market payments, if those assets were based on an emergency need provision and were not commercial investments. If the assets objectives are to maintain energy security, taking some of the responsibility for this away from the private sector elements of the system, the commercial requirements that would normally be needed for a return on investment are void.

All very simple. The complexity comes in ensuring that such state led investment doesn't perturb the private sector market elements, and that's the bit that remains very complicated.

[Mr Poppy]

I usually focus on the TWhs but FWIW then CON HMG are providing some ££ to look at a range of possible options for 'Longer Duration' storage than the (very)-short duration storage that the private sector is busy building:

5 projects got some ££: Longer Duration Energy Storage Demonstration Programme, Stream 2 Phase 2: details of successful projects
www.gov.uk/government/publications/longer-duration-energy-storage-demonstration-programme-successful-projects/longer-duration-energy-storage-demonstration-programme-stream-2-phase-2-details-of-successful-projects

I'd put in a 'quibble' for the word 'Longer' for a few of those but do note the largest award was given to this one:
The EXTEND project and longer duration thermal energy storage in homes
sunamp.com/extend/

TBC exactly what LAB intend to do but IMO it is a shame that UK tax/bill payers don't directly share in the 'upside' of these bungs. Bungs are OK and will indirectly help tax/bill payers if the company developing promising 'green-tech', made/sold in Britain but hopefully also exported, becomes successful, but it would be even better if HMG had either some shares (or convertible debt or similar) and held a portfolio in the same way a VC fund or sovereign wealth fund might (eg similar to 'Yomza'). 

NB I don't want politicians running those kind of companies and doubt that HMG as a 'shareholder' in some promising 'green-tech' would cause a crowding out issue but we await more specifics from LAB on exactly what they intend to do differently to CON. I'm cautiously optimistic that LAB can go one better than the 'no regret' bungs that CON have been using.  

[Mr Poppy]

Slightly misleading title as the chemical formula for ammonia is NH3 and the 'H' has to come from somewhere* but, sure, we can store hydrogen in different ways. I'll pick out one nugget:

"Looking towards the critical component, according to the IEA we need 720GW of electrolyzer capacity on a global scale by 2030 to stay on course for net zero in 2050; but only 500MW of electrolyzer capacity is currently installed"

Beyond hydrogen: green ammonia to drive energy transition in hard-to-abate sectors
sgvoice.energyvoice.com/strategy/technology/26725/beyond-hydrogen-green-ammonia-to-drive-energy-transition-in-hard-to-abate-sectors/

There are other types of 'Power-X' (usually then also with a 'X-Power' process) and as per previous link then HMG is investing in a few different options that have received less attention from the 'big' corporate players.  

NB One 'error' in the SGVoice article as it obviously doesn't need to be 'just' corporates in "This means corporates need to fund the necessary capital required to produce green ammonia at scale, and industries need to recognize, and seize upon, the value.". Although corporates should be playing a much larger role, especially those making 'obscene' profits from fossil fuels! I'm not a big fan of windfall taxes as such but 'carrot' approach doesn't seem to working as well as hoped so I'm not opposed to using a larger 'stick' incentive (and/or govts doing more than just providing the 'clarity and certainty' bits - and noting that govts need to deliver on the bits that only they can do faster than they currently are) 

* royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia/

[Mr Poppy]

PS to my above. 720GW of electrolyser capacity by 2030 is a low estimate (as the previous article is only discussing the role of 'green ammonia'). Others have total electrolyser capacity needing to be 3,100GW (and note 'Blue' hydrogen needs to be just a bridge). Folks can convert GW capacity to TWhs if they want, using plausible %s for how often the electrolysers will be used. The article picks 15% as a 'guess' for the total energy demand we need to come from hydrogen, although notes regional plans are below that. Some other useful info in the article such as the 'conversion cost' of "repurposed natural gas pipelines" issue mentioned a few days ago (which is relevant to countries with a huge existing nat.gas pipeline infrastructure and also LNG ports* that can repurposed and, in UK's case, switch from import of LNG to export of green ammonia or other stored forms of hydrogen)

Hydrogen at risk of being the great missed opportunity of the energy transition
www.dnv.com/news/hydrogen-at-risk-of-being-the-great-missed-opportunity-of-the-energy-transition-226628

* PPS Some countries are ahead of UK and going for expanding port infrastructure. Netherlands (and Germany) need to get that (preferably green) ammonia from somewhere and the Middle East is gearing up to supply future fuels to our near neighbours. 
www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/new-ammonia-import-export-terminals/

[Mr Poppy]

I'm certainly not Amazon's biggest fan (due to how little tax they pay in UK) but I am glad to see them taking climate change seriously - bit of a shame the various O&G companies making 'obscene' profits aren't the ones who are making grants for 'seaweed farms' (and hence perhaps the need for a bigger 'stick'). In due course we'll perhaps see govts pay 'carbon credits' for seaweed farms and more carbon -ve stuff but someone needs to get the ball rolling and try this stuff out - we learn by doing.

Amazon funds offshore wind seaweed scheme
North Sea Farm 1 in the Netherlands* will grow the crop between turbines

renews.biz/83872/amazon-funds-offshore-wind-seaweed-scheme/

There might be some 'environmental' impact and unintended consequences of large seaweed farms which is why it important to try them out. We might be able to 'mitigate' any specific localised environmental issues (eg impact on marine life) but we won't know until we know. 

* Whose EEZ borders our own of course. Although if it works in the South N.Sea then it should work in many other seas/oceans. 

[leftieliberal]

Feb 16, 2023 21:23:50 GMT Mr Poppy said:

I'm certainly not Amazon's biggest fan (due to how little tax they pay in UK) but I am glad to see them taking climate change seriously - bit of a shame the various O&G companies making 'obscene' profits aren't the ones who are making grants for 'seaweed farms' (and hence perhaps the need for a bigger 'stick'). In due course we'll perhaps see govts pay 'carbon credits' for seaweed farms and more carbon -ve stuff but someone needs to get the ball rolling and try this stuff out - we learn by doing.

Amazon funds offshore wind seaweed scheme
North Sea Farm 1 in the Netherlands* will grow the crop between turbines

renews.biz/83872/amazon-funds-offshore-wind-seaweed-scheme/

There might be some 'environmental' impact and unintended consequences of large seaweed farms which is why it important to try them out. We might be able to 'mitigate' any specific localised environmental issues (eg impact on marine life) but we won't know until we know. 

* Whose EEZ borders our own of course. Although if it works in the South N.Sea then it should work in many other seas/oceans. 

I'm not sure whether this is really seaweed or whether it is seagrass www.wildlifetrusts.org/natural-solutions-climate-change/seagrass

Seagrasses are easily confused with seaweeds; whilst they are both plant-like and live on our shores, there are some key differences. Seaweeds cling onto the seafloor, often rocks or reef, with a ‘holdfast’ and transport nutrients directly from the water through their body. Whereas, because they are flowering vascular plants, seagrasses have an internal transport system for nutrients they take in through a root system based in seafloor sediment.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 17, 2023 15:38:12 GMT leftieliberal said:

Feb 16, 2023 21:23:50 GMT Mr Poppy said:

..
Amazon funds offshore wind seaweed scheme
North Sea Farm 1 in the Netherlands* will grow the crop between turbines

renews.biz/83872/amazon-funds-offshore-wind-seaweed-scheme/
...

I'm not sure whether this is really seaweed or whether it is seagrass www.wildlifetrusts.org/natural-solutions-climate-change/seagrass

Seagrasses are easily confused with seaweeds; whilst they are both plant-like and live on our shores, there are some key differences. Seaweeds cling onto the seafloor, often rocks or reef, with a ‘holdfast’ and transport nutrients directly from the water through their body. Whereas, because they are flowering vascular plants, seagrasses have an internal transport system for nutrients they take in through a root system based in seafloor sediment.

Certainly not my specific area of expertise but North Sea Farmers are calling it seaweed:

www.northseafarmers.org

and they even have an interactive map (who doesn't love a map, eh): www.northseafarmers.org/projects/roadmap-of-the-seaweedsector

Some 'fun facts' on there as well.

I expect specific species will vary a bit by site (eg Kelp forests or seagrass meadows) and from my admittedly limited knowledge then I can't see any -ve impact to (mostly) marine life, although what might be good for Planet (ie 'negative carbon') and marine life overall might be bad for some marine species that some environmental group wants to protect (eg like bats and wind farms). 

I hope to they succeed and their trial is rolled out en masse - grants can get them started but they'll need a 'carbon pricing' mechanism to provide them with a strong revenue stream (or should we call it a strong current given most of the potential sites will be in sea water?)

The 'deep ocean' projects that have been posted before look very promising as well, although IIRC they plan just to harvest the seaweed and then send it to the bottom of the ocean.

[Mr Poppy]

Although this map suggests it will more likely be 'seagrass meadows' (and salt marshes around much of GB and Eire) in coastal areas. The North Sea Farm 1 project is pretty close to the coast:

www.thebluecarboninitiative.org

[alec]

Seaweed is generally seen as a good thing for the environment. It's a good environment for fish nurseries (provides cover) and maintaining good seabed populations of seaweed in shallow spawning grounds is one reason why conservationists are arguing for no fish zones and action on bottom dredging for scallops, which can be incredibly destructive.

I don't think Trevor's link mentioned it (and this may already have been posted on here - can't recall) but there are a couple of seaweed biomass projects off the east coast of England. Seaweed isn't great for conventional biomass, (eg solid fuel) because it's so wet (obvs!) but it has a low lipid content and no lignin (the stuff that makes wood woody), both of which are difficult for biodigestors to break down. Biofuels also want wet material, seaweed is a promising option for sustainable biofuels.

[leftieliberal]

Feb 17, 2023 16:28:06 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 17, 2023 15:38:12 GMT leftieliberal said:

I'm not sure whether this is really seaweed or whether it is seagrass www.wildlifetrusts.org/natural-solutions-climate-change/seagrass

Seagrasses are easily confused with seaweeds; whilst they are both plant-like and live on our shores, there are some key differences. Seaweeds cling onto the seafloor, often rocks or reef, with a ‘holdfast’ and transport nutrients directly from the water through their body. Whereas, because they are flowering vascular plants, seagrasses have an internal transport system for nutrients they take in through a root system based in seafloor sediment.

Certainly not my specific area of expertise but North Sea Farmers are calling it seaweed:

www.northseafarmers.org

and they even have an interactive map (who doesn't love a map, eh): www.northseafarmers.org/projects/roadmap-of-the-seaweedsector

Some 'fun facts' on there as well.

I expect specific species will vary a bit by site (eg Kelp forests or seagrass meadows) and from my admittedly limited knowledge then I can't see any -ve impact to (mostly) marine life, although what might be good for Planet (ie 'negative carbon') and marine life overall might be bad for some marine species that some environmental group wants to protect (eg like bats and wind farms). 

I hope to they succeed and their trial is rolled out en masse - grant can get them started but they'll need a 'carbon pricing' mechanism to provide them with a strong revenue stream (or should we call it a strong current given most of the potential sites will be in sea water?)

The 'deep ocean' projects that have been posted before look very promising as well, although IIRC they plan just to harvest the seaweed and then send it to the bottom of the ocean.

I see what they are doing, they are growing the seaweed on artificial reefs (nets), rather than planting on the seabed (which is what you do with seagrass). If you are planning on harvesting it's a natural approach. Seagrass meadows are more like rewilding.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 17, 2023 16:49:07 GMT leftieliberal said:

Feb 17, 2023 16:28:06 GMT Mr Poppy said:

www.northseafarmers.org

I see what they are doing, they are growing the seaweed on artificial reefs (nets), rather than planting on the seabed (which is what you do with seagrass). If you are planning on harvesting it's a natural approach. Seagrass meadows are more like rewilding.

I'm about to head out but I didn't spot them posting any info on 'tonnes of CO2 per annum per hectare' or 'total potential hectares'.

If you've looked into it, then any 'ballpark' numbers on how much extra CO2 could be removed by large-scale 'blue carbon' (credits)?

My only concern is that govts will think they can rely on a lot of -ve carbon and go back to 'dither and delay' on reducing carbon emissions - especially with the price of nat.gas continuing to drop. Carbon -ve is most definitely a "yes, and".

[alec]

This is typical of the studies on seaweed and carbon sequestration - www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.1015612/full

It has potential, and this paper gives plenty of calculations, but there are major knowledge gaps, notably in how CO2 fixing translates into permanent sequestration, if indeed it does. There are also possibilities for algae, but again if the idea is permanent removal of carbon, then there are issues with seafloor disposal and whether this really is permanent and how it affects the oceans more widely. This article questions the assumption of seaweed as a net carbon -ve resource as well, for other complex ecological reasons - theconversation.com/kelp-wont-help-why-seaweed-may-not-be-a-silver-bullet-for-carbon-storage-after-all-178018

My gut feeling is that marine plants will have a role to play in biofuel production at some level (possibly quite a big level) but not so much for carbon sequestration.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 17, 2023 16:49:07 GMT leftieliberal said:

Feb 17, 2023 16:28:06 GMT Mr Poppy said:

I see what they are doing, they are growing the seaweed on artificial reefs (nets), rather than planting on the seabed (which is what you do with seagrass). If you are planning on harvesting it's a natural approach. Seagrass meadows are more like rewilding.

My understanding is that NSF are truly 'farming' the seaweed. A lot of the previous projects were more like 'rewilding' (or additional 'wilding') and increasing but not 'harvesting' the amount of carbon capture.

The 'deep ocean' projects intend to sink the carbon very deep (ie they are a good sink). The NSF approach is regular 'harvesting' and then using the product - so they'll be some 'carbon accounting' issues depending on what the product is used for (eg synthetic hydrocarbons need to source both the carbon and hydrogen, best not mention Drax and the 'dodgy' accounting used for wood pellets).

So whilst some seaweeds can remove 30tonnes of carbon per hectare per year* then that number should have a % applied to it depending on where the carbon goes (eg deep ocean sink or used in a process where we need carbon). If it is simply 'wilding' then the % would be very low - which is why the NSF and deep ocean projects can claim to be 'new' and are IMO quite exciting. 

* www.greenoceanfarming.com/Carbon-Sequestering.php
So even if the 'farmed' % is as low as 20% 'net' sink (ignoring timing issues, although IMO they are relevant) then 6tonnes per hectare, 600tonnes per km2 (per annum). There is 361,740,000 km2 of water surface on Earth so for just 1% of proper 'farming' that is a lot of -ve carbon. Some issues to resolve for sure, but I'm cautiously optimistic - provided it is "yes, and" 

[leftieliberal]

Feb 18, 2023 10:33:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 17, 2023 16:49:07 GMT leftieliberal said:

I see what they are doing, they are growing the seaweed on artificial reefs (nets), rather than planting on the seabed (which is what you do with seagrass). If you are planning on harvesting it's a natural approach. Seagrass meadows are more like rewilding.

My understanding is that NSF are truly 'farming' the seaweed. A lot of the previous projects were more like 'rewilding' (or additional 'wilding') and increasing but not 'harvesting' the amount of carbon capture.

The 'deep ocean' projects intend to sink the carbon very deep (ie they are a good sink). The NSF approach is regular 'harvesting' and then using the product - so they'll be some 'carbon accounting' issues depending on what the product is used for (eg synthetic hydrocarbons need to source both the carbon and hydrogen, best not mention Drax and the 'dodgy' accounting used for wood pellets).

So whilst some seaweeds can remove 30tonnes of carbon per hectare per year* then that number should have a % applied to it depending on where the carbon goes (eg deep ocean sink or used in a process where we need carbon). If it is simply 'wilding' then the % would be very low - which is why the NSF and deep ocean projects can claim to be 'new' and are IMO quite exciting. 

* www.greenoceanfarming.com/Carbon-Sequestering.php
So even if the 'farmed' % is as low as 20% 'net' sink (ignoring timing issues, although IMO they are relevant) then 6tonnes per hectare, 600tonnes per km2 (per annum). There is 361,740,000 km2 of water surface on Earth so for just 1% of proper 'farming' that is a lot of -ve carbon. Some issues to resolve for sure, but I'm cautiously optimistic - provided it is "yes, and" 

Mr Poppy It's really a "yes and" not an "either or". See esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/110004?casa_token=xVPsw9mgHHUAAAAA%3A-Sz2X6atZTjTAaHYxTSFrpnOycA04PDcsYztj-3ONSym0E2CqST_jtnWjFb7qipAFdJoUl0AE2OcVg and in particular Tables 1 and 2 comparing the amount of carbon buried in salt marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows with those in forests. Part of the argument for rewilding on land is that once you stop grazing by large herbivores ancient forests return and provide wildlife habitats. To just think in terms of reducing global heating and to ignore the loss of diversity that is also happening at the same time is to only see part of the picture.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 18, 2023 11:02:57 GMT leftieliberal said:

Feb 18, 2023 10:33:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

My understanding is that NSF are truly 'farming' the seaweed. A lot of the previous projects were more like 'rewilding' (or additional 'wilding') and increasing but not 'harvesting' the amount of carbon capture.

* www.greenoceanfarming.com/Carbon-Sequestering.php
So even if the 'farmed' % is as low as 20% 'net' sink (ignoring timing issues, although IMO they are relevant) then 6tonnes per hectare, 600tonnes per km2 (per annum). 

Mr Poppy It's really a "yes and" not an "either or". See esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/110004?casa_token=xVPsw9mgHHUAAAAA%3A-Sz2X6atZTjTAaHYxTSFrpnOycA04PDcsYztj-3ONSym0E2CqST_jtnWjFb7qipAFdJoUl0AE2OcVg and in particular Tables 1 and 2 comparing the amount of carbon buried in salt marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows with those in forests. Part of the argument for rewilding on land is that once you stop grazing by large herbivores ancient forests return and provide wildlife habitats. To just think in terms of reducing global heating and to ignore the loss of diversity that is also happening at the same time is to only see part of the picture.

Thank you for the link and some useful numbers in Tables 1+2. I totally agree that 'loss of diversity' is a serious issue but I was mainly looking at the ££ side of carbon credits as, IMO, to see massive scale-up of 'carbon -ve' initiatives they'll need to be some ££ incentive (ie some juicy 'carrots'). A big 'stick' to stop further loss of carbon sinks and habitat (on land, coastlines or at sea) is also important of course. 

[lens]

Feb 18, 2023 10:33:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

The NSF approach is regular 'harvesting' and then using the product - so they'll be some 'carbon accounting' issues depending on what the product is used for (eg synthetic hydrocarbons need to source both the carbon and hydrogen, .............

Seaweeds will typically be various carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose and such like) so as a raw material they source both the carbon and hydrogen for any eventual hydrocarbon. Sugars are an easier route to biofuels (ferment to ethanol), but in a worst case presumably seaweed could be just burnt as biomass to provide energy?

[alec]

lens - the issue with burning marine biomass is always moisture content (as it is with land based biomass as well). The effort of drying makes this energy inefficient. That's why the predominant interest is in biofuels via fermentation, where moisture content is actually desirable. The absence of ligin (present in woody materials and many other plant based potential biomass sources, like bracken) is also a bonus for this approach, as lignin is difficult to break down via bioreactor enzymes. So if seaweed is a viable bio crop, it's likely to be for liquid fuels, as above. That would probably provide a carbon reduction argument, largely on the back of replacing fossil fuels, but as per one of the links I posted previously, there is a live debate about the carbon sequestering element of this. Some studies have shown seaweed to be a carbon emitter, so if true, planting more seaweed wouldn't create a natural carbon sink, and could actually increase atmospheric carbon.

I think this is one to watch, for sure, as the potential is huge (there is a lot of ocean out there!) but we aren't quite there with the detail just yet.

[lens]

Feb 18, 2023 22:49:22 GMT alec said:

lens - the issue with burning marine biomass is always moisture content

Well, I did say "in a worst case"........

Feb 18, 2023 22:49:22 GMT alec said:

The effort of drying makes this energy inefficient.

...... and that was why! 😉

More seriously, could such be a possibility in places which tend to a hot, dry climate? Where drying can happen quite quickly, naturally? I also seem to have memories that historically seaweed ash has had value for chemicals? (Iodine?) Could some such make the idea of burning seaweed for energy more viable?

Feb 18, 2023 22:49:22 GMT alec said:

Some studies have shown seaweed to be a carbon emitter, so if true, planting more seaweed wouldn't create a natural carbon sink, and could actually increase atmospheric carbon.

I'm curious why it should ever be a carbon EMITTER? I'd have thought in a worst case it would overall be neutral?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

How populist Poland exposed Britain’s failing heat pump strategy
Poland eases its addiction to coal to become a heat pump utopia in Europe

“Poland was always an unlikely candidate to become a heat pump utopia.

It has a populist, right-wing government and a heavy reliance on coal power. In 2018, it was home to 36 of the top 50 most polluted cities in Europe.

But in 2022, Poland’s heat pump market blew the rest of Europe out of the water.

Heat pump sales in Poland soared by 120pc, according to the Polish Organisation for the Development of Heat Pump Technology (Port PC).

Sales of air-to-water heat pumps in Poland have increased by 100 times over the last 10 years.

Poland is not Europe’s market leader; the heat pump markets in Scandinavia and France are far more advanced. But Poland is rapidly undergoing a heat pump revolution – and is breaking records in the process. “It is absolutely number one in terms of growth,” says Thomas Nowak, of the European Heat Pump Association.

“No country has seen such exponential growth from such a low base,” adds Jan Rosenow, of the Regulatory Assistance Project, an energy NGO.

…

This meant that Poland had a double incentive to move to heat pumps. “It was not only about cost but about air quality,” says Maćkowiak Pandera.

The policy change began in earnest in 2018, when the government introduced the Clean Air Programme. This is a PLN103bn (£19bn) grant programme that covers part of the costs of replacing coal heating systems. The budget runs until 2029.

This programme dwarfs comparable UK initiatives in terms of both funding and time period. The UK’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme offers only £450m in funding from 2022 to 2025. The Green Homes Grant announced in 2020 went further, with £2bn in funding, but this was supposed to be spent in only a six-month period – and then was scrapped.

“Long-term certainty is the number one complaint from the UK industry,” says Phillips. UK retrofit businesses say that they are unable to plan ahead and scale-up their workforces to increase the rollout of green instalments because government subsidy programmes are so patchy.

“The lesson is that the UK needs a long-term funding programme, not just money for one, two or three years. In the UK funding has been so stop-start,” says Rosenow.
….

In 2021, heat pumps accounted for only 2pc of all boiler sales in the UK, according to the EHPA. Just 1.48 households in every 1,000 have installed a heat pump. By both of these metrics, the UK ranked lowest out of all of the 21 countries tracked by the EHPA.

Last year, Poland installed more than 200,000 heat pumps. In the UK, even though heat pump sales increased by 42pc, the total was still only around 60,000, says Nowak. This was less than a third of the Polish total, despite the fact that the British population is nearly double the size.

Across 2022, Nowak estimates the UK sold around two heat pumps per 1,000 households. In Poland, that number was 15.”

Telegraph

[alec]

lens - "I'm curious why it should ever be a carbon EMITTER? I'd have thought in a worst case it would overall be neutral?"

I was surprised too, and don't fully understand it either, not having time to delve into the paper. It was talking about the ancillary effects of plankton moving into the seaweed zone, which although fits with Trevor's ideas of habitat improvement apparently ends up with knock on effects of greater C02 emissions, potentially.

As you say, a bit of a strange one.

[lens]

Feb 20, 2023 15:20:34 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

How populist Poland exposed Britain’s failing heat pump strategy
Poland eases its addiction to coal to become a heat pump utopia in Europe

“Poland was always an unlikely candidate to become a heat pump utopia.

It has a populist, right-wing government and a heavy reliance on coal power. 

But if the primary source of energy is coal, the question is how to get that energy to the home. Coal deliveries to the home and burning in a fireplace (as I remember from childhood) are at best inconvenient - so why not burn it in a powerstation and send the energy to households as electricity?

Accept such, and heat pumps become an obvious next step - a household then only needing about 1/3 to a 1/4 as much electricity for heating usage. But in the UK we have been spoilt with having much gas as our primary energy source, which changes the equation - either send the energy (as gas) directly to the home, or if you use it to produce electricity it *must* be less efficient and dearer - you'll get less than a kWh of electricity per kWh of gas, plus the generation plant costs. People will pay the higher price for being able to power lighting, TVs and other such appliances - but not for pure heating.

Accept an imperative to move to renewables, and it changes again - the primary energy source then becomes electricity (whether from wind or solar), and it then becomes more efficient to use the electricity in the home where possible. Convert such electricity to gas and the basic price per kWh of gas must then be more than per kWh of electricity. Unfortunately, industries in this country have big vested interests in gas, including boiler manufacturers, and don't want to see their nice established market positions eroded.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 20, 2023 15:20:34 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

How populist Poland exposed Britain’s failing heat pump strategy...

Several factors at play as to why UK sales of heat pumps have been crap - most of which could and should be fixed by HMG (notably "the UK “seems to have unusually expensive electricity relative to gas”" which is absurd and needs to change asap)

UK consumers hesitate to install heat pumps
www.ft.com/content/5de1a278-9d49-441d-ab67-fe6aa0f3ec9b

Trained installers and other supply chain issues have also been a problem but FWIU you should be able to get an installation within months rather than 'years' (at least chez nous, might still a problem in other parts of the country and perhaps was less of an issue in other countries?)

Not good enough for sure. We need to up our game. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Feb 20, 2023 15:43:16 GMT lens said:

Feb 20, 2023 15:20:34 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

How populist Poland exposed Britain’s failing heat pump strategy
Poland eases its addiction to coal to become a heat pump utopia in Europe

“Poland was always an unlikely candidate to become a heat pump utopia.

It has a populist, right-wing government and a heavy reliance on coal power. 

But if the primary source of energy is coal, the question is how to get that energy to the home. Coal deliveries to the home and burning in a fireplace (as I remember from childhood) are at best inconvenient - so why not burn it in a powerstation and send the energy to households as electricity?

Accept such, and heat pumps become an obvious next step - a household then only needing about 1/3 to a 1/4 as much electricity for heating usage. But in the UK we have been spoilt with having much gas as our primary energy source, which changes the equation - either send the energy (as gas) directly to the home, or if you use it to produce electricity it *must* be less efficient and dearer - you'll get less than a kWh of electricity per kWh of gas, plus the generation plant costs. People will pay the higher price for being able to power lighting, TVs and other such appliances - but not for pure heating.

Accept an imperative to move to renewables, and it changes again - the primary energy source then becomes electricity (whether from wind or solar), and it then becomes more efficient to use the electricity in the home where possible. Convert such electricity to gas and the basic price per kWh of gas must then be more than per kWh of electricity. Unfortunately, industries in this country have big vested interests in gas, including boiler manufacturers, and don't want to see their nice established market positions eroded.

You tend to look at the downsides for hydrogen, but not for leccy.

Heat pumps have been expensive, they benefit from insulation or else they are not as effective, and then you have the load on the grid. As I cited recently, our gas grid handles seven times as much energy as the leccy grid during winter peaks.

With heat pumps you wouldn’t need to match that, but you still need quite some upgrades.

Poland has gotten around these issues by:

- A big long term funding programme to bring the costs of heat pumps down, much more generous than ours

- plus pressure to migrate away from coal because so polluting. “In at least 16 regions, local governments have set dates when the most polluting heating systems must be phased out. These deadlines have raised awareness with the public, says Rosenow.”

- Many heat pumps are being fitted alongside solar panels which makes them more viable and takes load off the leccy grid

- The homes are already better insulated it would seem:

“There is perhaps another, small, but important reason, why Poland is embracing heat pumps: homes are better prepared.

“I am really surprised when I travel to the UK, you have such poor windows. Many homes have single glazed windows, for me that is just unbelievable – especially as you also have very cold temperatures,” says Maćkowiak Pandera. Double glazing is ubiquitous in Poland, she adds.”

So the Poles addressed many of the downsides with heat pumps.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Feb 20, 2023 16:28:56 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 20, 2023 15:20:34 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

How populist Poland exposed Britain’s failing heat pump strategy...

Several factors at play as to why UK sales of heat pumps have been crap - most of which could and should be fixed by HMG (notably "the UK “seems to have unusually expensive electricity relative to gas”" which is absurd and needs to change asap)

UK consumers hesitate to install heat pumps
www.ft.com/content/5de1a278-9d49-441d-ab67-fe6aa0f3ec9b

Trained installers and other supply chain issues have also been a problem but FWIU you should be able to get an installation within months rather than 'years' (at least chez nous, might still a problem in other parts of the country and perhaps was less of an issue in other countries?)

Not good enough for sure. We need to up our game. 

Regarding installation of heat pumps, Poland has another advantage with the solar panels:

“Solar panels work well hand in hand with heat pumps, which require electricity for around 20pc of their use.

“These people have free electricity they can use for heat pumps,” says Nowak. The combination has also made life easier for installers – they have an existing client base of solar panel users who they can market heat pumps to.“


P.s. sorry I didn’t get around to replying to your earlier posts Trev, been a big busy, but shall reply soonish!

[Mr Poppy]

Cornwall Insights' latest (which covers the absurd situation of electricity being so much expensive than gas, for Oct-Dec forecast 33.02/7.95 = 415%!!!). People are usually fairly rational when spending their own ££ so, sadly, I'm not surprised heat pump sales are much lower than they could and should be:

PS I note they also retweeted Peston. Bit slow to catch on but I expect a lot more people read Peston than me and could well a bit more pressure applied to Hunt to do something about the extra money has stashed down the back of the sofa. It won't be Easter eggs for all but there is the ££ to pull some Easter Bunnies out of the hat next month:

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

A couple more reasons making heat pumps more viable for Poland:

“Much of the coal used to heat Polish homes was imported from Russia. People do not want to support Putin, says Rosenow. “There has been an emotional response.”

Between January and December 2022, the share of Clean Air Program applications made for heat pumps more than tripled from 28pc to 63pc, according to Port PC.

The Polish approach has been somewhat holistic. Funding is also widely available for solar panels. “Nearly all are using photovoltaic panels as well,” says Maćkowiak Pandera. She noted a household who cut their monthly bills by 90pc by installing both.“

...

And... “The Clean Air Programme is not exclusively for heat pump installations; it actually also funds gas boilers. For many households in Poland, this was not a viable option anyway, as homes in many regions do not have access to the gas grid.”

.