Energy Markets and Net Zero

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

I have at times complained that we should have long been aiming at securing energy as cheap (and sustainable) as possible, given it affects many other things, but wasn’t quite ready to hear Shapps selling the idea in the Times last weekend: 

“Grant Shapps has had less than a fortnight to get to grips with his new-look department but the energy secretary is buzzing with ambition.

“My very simple objective is to create the economy with the cheapest wholesale electricity price by 2035,” he says. “That’s what I’m going to be all about. Let’s have Britain with the cheapest energy in Europe.”


Of course it doesn’t mean he will necessarily deliver, but what with many Tories being keen on some nationalisations, things still seem to be shifting left a bit at least in terms of perception. 

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 26, 2023 5:10:23 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

I have at times complained that we should have long been aiming at securing energy as cheap (and sustainable) as possible, given it affects many other things, but wasn’t quite ready to hear Shapps selling the idea in the Times last weekend: 

“Grant Shapps has had less than a fortnight to get to grips with his new-look department but the energy secretary is buzzing with ambition.

“My very simple objective is to create the economy with the cheapest wholesale electricity price by 2035,” he says. “That’s what I’m going to be all about. Let’s have Britain with the cheapest energy in Europe.”


Of course it doesn’t mean he will necessarily deliver, but what with many Tories being keen on some nationalisations, things still seem to be shifting left a bit at least in terms of perception. 

That was a stupid thing for him to say as 'cheapest energy in Europe' (which includes places like Norway, etc with massive hydro power) can't be delivered and was even more daft that Starmer's pledge mission for UK to be #1 in G7. We can become 'Energy Independent' (ie Energy Security) but Shapps has, IMO, demonstrated how unsuited he is to the job. 'Words are wind' and Shapps is full of hot air. 

EDIT: There will very likely be some times when GB has the cheapest wholesale electricity in Europe (eg when it is warm+windy prices will often be -ve in GB in the coming years) and there is a scenario whereby GB electricity is 'usually' cheapest in Europe (ie 'on average') but for that to happen would require several unlikely things to happen. In rough order of relevance, with the aim of showing how unlikely they are to occur:

1/ Places like Norway build massive amount of interconnectors (ie the current 'cheapest' places increase their domestic prices)
2/ GB builds out the full pipeline that it intend to build BUT also provides massive subsidies for 'generate it in Britain' (and reduces demand) - ie GB electricity becomes a lot cheaper
3/ We stop building interconnectors to rEurope but instead focus on massive domestic storage (mostly medium-long term) - ie opposite of #1 and we don't sell our excess electricity on the cheap to others but keep it in GB for GB.
4/ We decouple electricity prices from gas prices in GB but rEurope does not (although the price of nat.gas has dropped massively and using forward prices then the benefit of 'decoupling' won't have the impact that it would have if we 'got on with it' now)

Another 'theoretical option' that would break the 2nd part of Shapps job title is that we 'dither+delay' the move towards Net Zero but everyone else speeds up (ie nat.gas and other fossil fuels become a lot cheaper due to massive drop in global demand and we burn the cheap stuff). We also interconnect to everyone we can to import their excess supply when their prices go -ve. IE We 'outsource' zero carbon electricity generation, hope others build massive amounts of intermittent renewables and use GB CCGT when rEurope prices are high (eg when it's not windy in NW Europe). Sadly, this second option is a return to 'Old Model Tory' mindset, would break both parts of Shapps job title and hence might be what Shapps is thinking? 

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

Feb 26, 2023 9:12:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 26, 2023 5:10:23 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

I have at times complained that we should have long been aiming at securing energy as cheap (and sustainable) as possible, given it affects many other things, but wasn’t quite ready to hear Shapps selling the idea in the Times last weekend: 

“Grant Shapps has had less than a fortnight to get to grips with his new-look department but the energy secretary is buzzing with ambition.

“My very simple objective is to create the economy with the cheapest wholesale electricity price by 2035,” he says. “That’s what I’m going to be all about. Let’s have Britain with the cheapest energy in Europe.”


Of course it doesn’t mean he will necessarily deliver, but what with many Tories being keen on some nationalisations, things still seem to be shifting left a bit at least in terms of perception. 

That was a stupid thing for him to say as 'cheapest energy in Europe' (which includes places like Norway, etc with massive hydro power) can't be delivered and was even more daft that Starmer's pledge mission for UK to be #1 in G7. We can become 'Energy Independent' (ie Energy Security) but Shapps has, IMO, demonstrated how unsuited he is to the job. 'Words are wind' and Shapps is full of hot air. 

EDIT: There will very likely be some times when GB has the cheapest wholesale electricity in Europe (eg when it is warm+windy prices will often be -ve in GB in the coming years) and there is a scenario whereby GB electricity is 'usually' cheapest in Europe (ie 'on average') but for that to happen would require several unlikely things to happen. In rough order of relevance, with the aim of showing how unlikely they are to occur:

1/ Places like Norway build massive amount of interconnectors (ie the current 'cheapest' places increase their domestic prices)
2/ GB builds out the full pipeline that it intend to build BUT also provides massive subsidies for 'generate it in Britain' (and reduces demand) - ie GB electricity becomes a lot cheaper
3/ We stop building interconnectors to rEurope but instead focus on massive domestic storage (mostly medium-long term) - ie opposite of #1 and we don't sell our excess electricity on the cheap to others but keep it in GB for GB.
4/ We decouple electricity prices from gas prices in GB but rEurope does not (although the price of nat.gas has dropped massively and using forward prices then the benefit of 'decoupling' won't have the impact that it would have if we 'got on with it' now)

Another 'theoretical option' that would break the 2nd part of Shapps job title is that we 'dither+delay' the move towards Net Zero but everyone else speeds up (ie nat.gas and other fossil fuels become a lot cheaper due to massive drop in global demand and we burn the cheap stuff). We also interconnect to everyone we can to import their excess supply when their prices go -ve. IE We 'outsource' zero carbon electricity generation, hope others build massive amounts of intermittent renewables and use GB CCGT when rEurope prices are high (eg when it's not windy in NW Europe). Sadly, this second option is a return to 'Old Model Tory' mindset, would break both parts of Shapps job title and hence might be what Shapps is thinking? 

Yeah I’m not sure how he’s going to do it, but for now I’m just pleased it’s being recognised as a goal. “I have had this conversation with the prime minister and chancellor many times,” he says. “The most successful economies in the world are the ones that have cheap energy prices.”

In the Times he was talking about more nuclear, solar, and offshore wind turbines, nothing very radical. He didn’t even mention modular reactors IIRC, let alone things like the connector to the Sahara, or Solar Space arrays, or Thorium. 

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 26, 2023 11:26:05 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 26, 2023 9:12:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Yeah I’m not sure (1) how he’s going to do it, but for now I’m just pleased it’s being recognised as a goal. “I have had this conversation with the prime minister and chancellor many times,” he says. (2) “The most successful economies in the world are the ones that have cheap energy prices.”

(3) In the Times he was talking about more nuclear, solar, and offshore wind turbines, nothing very radical. He didn’t even mention modular reactors IIRC, let alone things like the connector to the Sahara, or Solar Space arrays, or Thorium. 

1 - I gave the only two ways he could achieve the daft 'goal', both are unrealistic and the 2nd option breaks both 'Energy Security' and 'Net Zero' objectives

2* - Places like Libya, Angola and Sudan are the cheapest. Not far behind are places like Russia and the Middle East. Not places that I think we want to copy. Within Europe then Germany's approach of relying on cheap Russian energy is why 'Energy Security' is so important. Cheap+Dirty imports did give some countries a 'competitive advantage' but depends what you think is meant by "successful" I suppose as funding regimes like Russia, Qatar, Saudi would not IMO warrant use of the word "successful".

3 - We currently have a very realistic plan of how we can become 'Energy Independent' (ie Secure) and move towards Net Zero. The issue now is Shapps getting his pen out and signing off on stuff like RR's SMRs. After over a decade of 'dither+delay' then instead of daft goals, pledges, missions, etc then we need ACTION.

ACTION speaks louder than words. 

Perhaps Shapps knows that LAB will have to do the bulk of delivery so is setting then an unrealistic target? However it is best of 2yrs before LAB take over and until then Shapps needs to get on with his job and end the 'dither+delay'. 

* Some methodology and 'timing' issues but below is a useful source. Small Island nation who might heavily subsidise electricity should probably be excluded from comparison to somewhere like GB but I'd suggest folks look at European nations (given Shapps stated that) and hover over Norway and Russia just to see why some historic issues came about (eg Germany's economic model but also why GB is very unlikely to ever get down to Norwegian prices, unless Norway wants to 'level-up' its lecky price via massively increasing it's interconnector exports)
www.cable.co.uk/energy/worldwide-pricing/#pricing

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 26, 2023 11:26:05 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 26, 2023 9:12:41 GMT Mr Poppy said:

.... He didn’t even mention modular reactors IIRC, let alone things like the connector to the Sahara, or Solar Space arrays, or Thorium. 

Something I've mentioned before is the XLinks project. Note, like RR's SMRs, it is another example of something sat waiting as they have pretty much everything else ready to go:

Attachment Deleted

xlinks.co/faq/

If the main priority is 'cheapest' then Shapps should sign that off. Obviously other "European" countries are closer to N.Africa so wouldn't need such long cables and could do similar at lower €/MWh, assuming no subsidies. rEurope is not our polity and it is possible that Spain might object as Spain is keen on providing similar to EU.  

XLinks would be cheaper and more 'predictable' than floating offshore wind farms in the N.Sea (which would need their own very long cables and isn't yet 'proven' tech at large scale). Morocco solar+wind combo with batteries is also 'better' in terms of diversification, with low weather correlation compared to a high concentration of wind farm in the N.Sea. Seasonal aspect isn't too bad and could be dealt with*. However, it's not 'Energy independence' so isn't a full tick in the 'Energy Security' box.

I'm not against the XLinks project provided it is "yes, and" but I'm highlighting that we can't have "cake and eat it". Some trade offs have to made. If the sole objective is (amongst** the) "cheapest in Europe" then it will either be less "secure" (eg coming from N.Africa) and/or it will be sticking with fossil fuels hoping everyone else moves away from fossil fuels (and hence the price drops even further). 

* Obvious way would be to not sign a box standard CfD for a very long period but perhaps lock in higher volumes for Winter months, use a 'revenue floor/cap' and leave the developers or someone on GB side to consider green hydrogen production during the Summer months and other 'excess supply' periods. 

** Covered previously. We can certainly do a lot better than our current high prices compared to most of Europe and I'd be happy with "amongst the cheapest" but to tick the "Energy Security" box then IMO we need to generate/buy/sell most of our electricity in GB. Signing off a generous deal for XLinks MIGHT create a disincentive to other 'home grown' projects which would be more expensive in terms of £MWh (and require larger medium-long term storage) 

[Mr Poppy]

UK has similar issues to EC-EU27 (given we we're recently part of EU), although we've been making more extensive use of CfDs and PPA. Since we will continue to be interconnected to rEurope then what happens with our near neighbours will have some relevance to us - although that should not be an excuse for Shapps to 'wait and see' what they do as they usually take ages to agree anything and when they do it's a "fudge". Shapps can and should be making these decisions (eg rewriting some energy contracts to "decouple" electricity prices from gas prices; and writing lots of new CfDs/PPAs/contracts for those waiting a decision) now.

As mentioned before then France and Spain have (IMO) the right view but Germany and others "oppose a deep reform". Anyway, a background "Explainer" piece:

Explainer: Europe gets ready to revamp its electricity market
www.reuters.com/business/energy/europe-gets-ready-revamp-its-electricity-market-2023-02-27/

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

Feb 26, 2023 12:07:59 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 26, 2023 11:26:05 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah I’m not sure (1) how he’s going to do it, but for now I’m just pleased it’s being recognised as a goal. “I have had this conversation with the prime minister and chancellor many times,” he says. (2) “The most successful economies in the world are the ones that have cheap energy prices.”

(3) In the Times he was talking about more nuclear, solar, and offshore wind turbines, nothing very radical. He didn’t even mention modular reactors IIRC, let alone things like the connector to the Sahara, or Solar Space arrays, or Thorium. 

1 - I gave the only two ways he could achieve the daft 'goal', both are unrealistic and the 2nd option breaks both 'Energy Security' and 'Net Zero' objectives

2* - Places like Libya, Angola and Sudan are the cheapest. Not far behind are places like Russia and the Middle East. Not places that I think we want to copy. Within Europe then Germany's approach of relying on cheap Russian energy is why 'Energy Security' is so important. Cheap+Dirty imports did give some countries a 'competitive advantage' but depends what you think is meant by "successful" I suppose as funding regimes like Russia, Qatar, Saudi would not IMO warrant use of the word "successful".

Well he said best in Europe, but yes, even that is a tall order. Having had a quick look, it seems that offshore wind is falling in price at a similar rate to solar, though solar is already a bit cheaper. Onshore wind cheaper than solar though. 

It isn’t necessarily just the price of generating the leccy though, because in these increasingly left wing times one can pull prices down further with subsidy. 

The potential off offshore wind is such that we might end up with a lot more leccy than we need, and we could sell some of that to others and use theincome to fund cheaper energy for us. Or if it’s worth more, we could make hydrogen and sell that. Might make more money than sending the leccy abroad over an interconnector. 

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

Feb 26, 2023 17:34:12 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 26, 2023 11:26:05 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

.... He didn’t even mention modular reactors IIRC, let alone things like the connector to the Sahara, or Solar Space arrays, or Thorium. 

Something I've mentioned before is the XLinks project. Note, like RR's SMRs, it is another example of something sat waiting as they have pretty much everything else ready to go:

View Attachment

xlinks.co/faq/

If the main priority is 'cheapest' then Shapps should sign that off. Obviously other "European" countries are closer to N.Africa so wouldn't need such long cables and could do similar at lower €/MWh, assuming no subsidies. rEurope is not our polity and it is possible that Spain might object as Spain is keen on providing similar to EU.  

XLinks would be cheaper and more 'predictable' than floating offshore wind farms in the N.Sea (which would need their own very long cables and isn't yet 'proven' tech at large scale). Morocco solar+wind combo with batteries is also 'better' in terms of diversification, with low weather correlation compared to a high concentration of wind farm in the N.Sea. Seasonal aspect isn't too bad and could be dealt with*. However, it's not 'Energy independence' so isn't a full tick in the 'Energy Security' box.

I'm not against the XLinks project provided it is "yes, and" but I'm highlighting that we can't have "cake and eat it". Some trade offs have to made. If the sole objective is (amongst** the) "cheapest in Europe" then it will either be less "secure" (eg coming from N.Africa) and/or it will be sticking with fossil fuels hoping everyone else moves away from fossil fuels (and hence the price drops even further). 

* Obvious way would be to not sign a box standard CfD for a very long period but perhaps lock in higher volumes for Winter months, use a 'revenue floor/cap' and leave the developers or someone on GB side to consider green hydrogen production during the Summer months and other 'excess supply' periods. 

** Covered previously. We can certainly do a lot better than our current high prices compared to most of Europe and I'd be happy with "amongst the cheapest" but to tick the "Energy Security" box then IMO we need to generate/buy/sell most of our electricity in GB. Signing off a generous deal for XLinks MIGHT create a disincentive to other 'home grown' projects which would be more expensive in terms of £MWh (and require larger medium-long term storage) 

I had posted about the Saharan thing myself recently - hadn’t spotted you were already posting about it so apols. 

Regarding energy security one might make it so our own needs are met by leccy generated here, and the leccy that comes from elsewhere might get sold on after adding some value (e.g. hydrogen).

[Mr Poppy]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w I think we generally agree. At some point it might be worth a discussion on why onshore wind and solar are so "cheap" (£/MWh) but why the numbers are not truly comparable between different types of electricity generation as we move to 'Net Zero'. Briefly:

Nuclear is 'always on' (unless it's 'old-old' nuclear or 'not yet on' 'new-old' nuclear) so a fixed £/MWh makes sense and is obviously worth more than an 'intermittent' generation.

Onshore wind and solar only work on CfDs (fixed £/MWh) if there is something like CCGT to fill in the gaps. Otherwise the 'excess demand' gaps are very expensive to fill and we'll soon have a lot more 'excess supply' periods to do something about (and NW Europe usually gets similar weather)

Super flexible stuff (eg hydro) is very handy to have - and why everyone wants to interconnect to Norway and why leftieliberal and I are so keen on seeing more of it built in GB (just that I'm less optimistic that it will be). 

So any 'intermittent' source either needs to be paired to highly flexible supply (eg CCGT or Norway's "green battery") or will need to include a lot more 'storage' (ideally temporal, but possibly 'geographic' as it is via Norway's hydro). CCGT peaker plants could be repurposed to use H2 (trials are being run) and IMO that will provide some help. A lot more storage* (or curtailment fees if we massively overbuild capacity) is the bigger component IMO and those costs need to be factored in before saying "onshore wind / solar" is cheap as chips. 

Solar in particular has a seasonal supply-demand mismatch with very low 'load factors' (periods of supply) in most of GB. So to say solar is "cheap as chips" misses the 'what about when it isn't sunny or is too sunny' issue. Plenty of stuff we could do with -ve priced electricity but bear in mind that the generator is probably on a CfD contract. It is better to do something with the 'excess supply' than pay a curtailment fee but the maths is not simples.   

IIRC then some info on 'life after CfDs' has been posted on this thread and I don't want 'dither+delay' on new CfDs but we do need to reform the way we (HMG via contracts, via Ofgem, managed by NG) pay for supply and/or the way consumers pay for electricity.

* Of varying timescales but H2 can certainly provide the longer term (inter seasonal) component and also form a 'strategic reserve' (all covered in the past). 

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

Feb 21, 2023 0:10:49 GMT lens said:

Feb 20, 2023 18:15:45 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Regarding Solar, don’t know the details about how effective it is; the article just says “...a household who cut their monthly bills by 90pc by installing both”

Well, you've forced me to dig out my records (and I find I had the installation 15 years ago..... time flies) and directly compare generation figures from June 2022 and January 2023. The June figure is over 10x the January one.

And bear in mind that heating is by far greatest in winter - solar generation far greater in summer.

Solar panels may indeed be worthwhile, but I'd argue that the primary household savings are likely to come from offsetting electricity used from the grid in the summer months (so mostly non-heating) - not from the winter. Solar generation may be a good thing - but I don't see how it ties in with heat pumps, makes them more viable?

Re about 50% using solid fuel from heating, then the question remains about the other 50%? Do they use gas - or primarily electricity generated from coal? If the latter, well, that's 50% of the population as prime candidates for replacement with heat pumps. But will the other 50% find it cheaper to stay with solid fuel.......

regarding the energy mix for heating I saw a graphic showing it was about 50% coal, 20% each from natural gas and biomass and about 7% electricity. So it’s not a case that the heat pumps would be replacing that much electric heating of other kinds. 

regarding using solar alongside heat pumps, sure, it may be that the solar produces more leccy when it isn’t winter, but I think Poland had a rather generous feed in tariff,  so it may still work out economically in that the money you make feeding into the grid in summer might offset some heat pump costs in winter.

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

“Grass-powered gas is set to heat thousands of homes for the first time in the coming weeks.

Green energy firm Ecotricity is expected to begin supplying 5,300 homes from its plant near Reading in April.

Research has estimated that the grass biogas can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 90 per cent.

It is hoped the scheme can be scaled up to supply fuel to more homes around the country.

The £11 million mill uses bacteria to break down grasses and herbs, which absorb carbon dioxide while growing, in an anaerobic digester.

This produces biogas which is then “scrubbed” to remove some carbon dioxide and upgraded to biomethane for use in the gas network.

An organic fertiliser, which is intended to help grow more grass, is also produced.”

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

Mr Poppy

The interesting thing for me is if we seek to get a lot of energy from different sources. The more we can do that, the more time we may spend with more leccy than the grid needs. This means we need less batteries etc., and then we have to decide what to do with the leccy not needed by the grid. We might sell it, or we can use it to produce something rather more valuable than the leccy itself, add some value.

Crucially, some uses don’t necessarily require putting the leccy through the grid, e.g. various industrial processes etc., which means we can scale up leccy quite a lot. 

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 27, 2023 11:28:53 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mr Poppy

The interesting thing for me is if we seek to get a lot of energy from different sources. The more we can do that, the more time we may spend with more leccy than the grid needs. This means we need less batteries etc., and then we have to decide what to do with the leccy not needed by the grid. We might sell it, or we can use it to produce something rather more valuable than the leccy itself, add some value.

Crucially, some uses don’t necessarily require putting the leccy through the grid, e.g. various industrial processes etc., which means we can scale up leccy quite a lot. 

We'll still need a lot of short-term batteries* and I've mentioned the 'Green Team' in the past (also see the 'Battolyser' ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/64017/thread).  Short-term storage helps smooth the short-term supply-demand imbalances to allow electrolysers to be 'mostly on' for longer periods and avoid network constraint costs. We do seem to being focusing very heavily on short-term storage (even the limited extra pumped hydro projects are 'short-term') - the 'pipeline' should easily meet gov.uk's 20GW target by 2030 which will be more than enough by then. Other components (eg 'new-new' nuclear) need to be sped up.

However, as we discussed before, then could well be less need for quite as much 'long-term'** storage (which wouldn't be via current battery tech) if some electricity generation can be 'switched' between say green/pink hydrogen in the Summer and mostly lecky in the Winter. The 'chicken+egg' issue meaning we also need to find used for the hydrogen (and store it). 

* Also covered the tricky issue of BEVs (playing devil's advocate from both sides as they help but they might also hinder balancing supply and demand): ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/61561/thread

** WRT to 'geographic' components as I doubt Norway will be the "green battery" for the whole of Europe. Also the very low 'cycle rate' for inter-seasonal and strategic reserves doesn't suit the high capital cost of any form of battery or new hydro. However, we know how to store gas - just that the 'green' one isn't stored in fossil form in places like the N.Sea, but can be stored in salt caverns or in other forms (eg ammonia).  

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

Hydrogen is fuelling the dream at German carmaker BMW

“BMW is set to be the first big European carmaker to take the hydrogen plunge and go into production by the end of the decade on a fuel-cell zero emission passenger car.

Up to 100 BMW iX5 Hydrogen SUVs are being built at a research facility at the German car company’s headquarters in Munich. They will be sent to dealerships and handpicked customers worldwide as demonstration vehicles in the next few weeks.

It is a similar plan to BMW’s testing of the original Mini E electric concept that went into private-use field trials before being given a showcase at the London 2012 Olympic Games. The electric Mini went into mass production at Cowley in Oxford in 2019.

“We will go into production in the second half of this decade,” Jürgen Guldner, BMW’s hydrogen programme manager, said of the iX5 Hydrogen. “I am convinced — I am not saying ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’ but that I am convinced — that hydrogen is the future.””

the arguments appear to be:

“the need to decarbonise heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals would ensure the long-awaited arrival of the “hydrogen economy” and that the mass production of hydrogen was coming sooner rather than later.


“For trucks and buses and coaches, it is already becoming accepted that, operationally, hydrogen works better,” he said, adding that refuelling infrastructure would need to be rolled out for heavier-duty road vehicles and that private users of fuel-cell cars would be able to piggyback that network.

“For most passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, battery electric will fulfil most of the needs and demand, but not all,” he said. Because of the size and weight of batteries needed on larger vehicles, hydrogen could be a better alternative for larger SUVs.

“Who will buy a hydrogen fuel-cell car? Those who cannot charge an electric car at home; those in big cities where there is not enough public recharging; those who have trailers and who find public electric car-charging impossible to use; those who travel a lot; those who want to run a car much as they might do today except that it is a zero emission car. This is not a fight of battery electric versus hydrogen fuel-cell . . . [It] is a second leg on the path to decarbonisation of transportation. Battery and fuel-cell are complementary technologies, just as we have diesel and petrol today.”

Also driving BMW’s hydrogen commitment is the realisation that the scarcity and demand for metals such as lithium is making battery electric cars very expensive and that it is reckoned at least four Chinese automotive groups are also going down the hydrogen route.”

Times
.

[lens]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I can only copy the response made on the main thread. In particular that "news" is very old, and does not show BMW "going into production" - rather continuing basic R&D to keep up to date. In the wider picture, more recent news such as Toyota pivoting towards battery for cars is seen as much more significant.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Talking of EVs etc., Just in case you were thinking Hydrogen for vehicles is dead, not everyone seems to agree: an article in the Times…

Hydrogen is fuelling the dream at German carmaker BMW

“BMW is set to be the first big European carmaker to take the hydrogen plunge and go into production by the end of the decade on a fuel-cell zero emission passenger car.

Up to 100 BMW iX5 Hydrogen SUVs are being built at a research facility at the German car company’s .............

I don't know if you've been sorting out old papers, but that news is at least 18 months old - just see insideevs.com/news/540663/automakers-still-planning-hydrogen-boom/ from October 2021. And nothing has changed since then. If it's from a recent paper, I have simply no idea why The Times have published it now.

And they are not "going into production". Read my link and all they are committing to are "plans to build a test fleet of 100 cars in 2022". IT's not with any imminent or firm plans for selling such any time soon, as the link says, it's a case of hedging bets for now and doing basic R&D - just in case. "Hydrogen for cars" may not be quite dead, but with even Toyota pivoting towards battery with the departure of Toyoda as CEO, and Shell closing their UK hydrogen stations for cars recently, it's long term future for is looking even more unhealthy than ever.

And bringing up an 18 month old story doesn't change that.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

the arguments appear to be:

“the need to decarbonise heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals would ensure the long-awaited arrival of the “hydrogen economy” and that the mass production of hydrogen was coming sooner rather than later.


“For trucks and buses and coaches, it is already becoming accepted that, operationally, hydrogen works better,”

Hydrogen is already used in huge quantities in the chemical industry - that will continue and hopefully be become more and more "green". That does not therefore mean it must then be used for uses it currently isn't. It's already "mass produced"! In huge quantities - albeit unfortunately little at present in a green manner.

As for "works better" for trucks, buses and coaches, then certainly for buses that is a ridiculous statement. If anyone disagrees then please take it up with Transport for London. They were trialling hydrogen buses nearly 20 years ago - the first battery buses only a few years ago. I believe they still have a few hydrogen buses still in service from the most recent trial, but the huge orders recently have all been for battery.

Moving shipping to hydrogen is certainly a possibility, and possibly some rail, where traffic doesn't justify full line electrification. Cars - no.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Also driving BMW’s hydrogen commitment is the realisation that the scarcity and demand for metals such as lithium is making battery electric cars very expensive and that it is reckoned at least four Chinese automotive groups are also going down the hydrogen route.”

Oh for heaven's sake! Not again! Lithium simply is not "rare". Any short term scarcity is down to demand having recently soared and ramping up production lagging behind. That's a temporary issue, and only giving any problem as demand is just going up and up faster than production can keep up. As for other manufacturers, the big news is the Toyota pivot more in FAVOUR of battery - insideevs.com/news/633449/toyota-said-to-develop-ev-only-platform-just-as-ceo-steps-down/ Of all the manufacturers, Toyota has previously been by far the main voice in favour of fuel cell cars.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 27, 2023 12:18:28 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Hydrogen is fuelling the dream at German carmaker BMW

Quite a big network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Germany* already so see how the 'trial run' goes. BMW announcement and Auto Express review:

www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0408839EN/bmw-group-brings-hydrogen-cars-to-the-road:-bmw-ix5-hydrogen-pilot-fleet-launches
www.autoexpress.co.uk/bmw/x5/359704/new-bmw-ix5-hydrogen-2023-review

* h2.live/en/

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

Feb 27, 2023 17:57:40 GMT lens said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I can only copy the response made on the main thread. In particular that "news" is very old, and does not show BMW "going into production" - rather continuing basic R&D to keep up to date. In the wider picture, more recent news such as Toyota pivoting towards battery for cars is seen as much more significant.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Talking of EVs etc., Just in case you were thinking Hydrogen for vehicles is dead, not everyone seems to agree: an article in the Times…

Hydrogen is fuelling the dream at German carmaker BMW

“BMW is set to be the first big European carmaker to take the hydrogen plunge and go into production by the end of the decade on a fuel-cell zero emission passenger car.

Up to 100 BMW iX5 Hydrogen SUVs are being built at a research facility at the German car company’s .............

I don't know if you've been sorting out old papers, but that news is at least 18 months old - just see insideevs.com/news/540663/automakers-still-planning-hydrogen-boom/ from October 2021. And nothing has changed since then. If it's from a recent paper, I have simply no idea why The Times have published it now.

And they are not "going into production". Read my link and all they are committing to are "plans to build a test fleet of 100 cars in 2022". IT's not with any imminent or firm plans for selling such any time soon, as the link says, it's a case of hedging bets for now and doing basic R&D - just in case. "Hydrogen for cars" may not be quite dead, but with even Toyota pivoting towards battery with the departure of Toyoda as CEO, and Shell closing their UK hydrogen stations for cars recently, it's long term future for is looking even more unhealthy than ever.

And bringing up an 18 month old story doesn't change that.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

the arguments appear to be:

“the need to decarbonise heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals would ensure the long-awaited arrival of the “hydrogen economy” and that the mass production of hydrogen was coming sooner rather than later.


“For trucks and buses and coaches, it is already becoming accepted that, operationally, hydrogen works better,”

Hydrogen is already used in huge quantities in the chemical industry - that will continue and hopefully be become more and more "green". That does not therefore mean it must then be used for uses it currently isn't. It's already "mass produced"! In huge quantities - albeit unfortunately little at present in a green manner.

As for "works better" for trucks, buses and coaches, then certainly for buses that is a ridiculous statement. If anyone disagrees then please take it up with Transport for London. They were trialling hydrogen buses nearly 20 years ago - the first battery buses only a few years ago. I believe they still have a few hydrogen buses still in service from the most recent trial, but the huge orders recently have all been for battery.

Moving shipping to hydrogen is certainly a possibility, and possibly some rail, where traffic doesn't justify full line electrification. Cars - no.

Feb 27, 2023 12:02:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Also driving BMW’s hydrogen commitment is the realisation that the scarcity and demand for metals such as lithium is making battery electric cars very expensive and that it is reckoned at least four Chinese automotive groups are also going down the hydrogen route.”

Oh for heaven's sake! Not again! Lithium simply is not "rare". Any short term scarcity is down to demand having recently soared and ramping up production lagging behind. That's a temporary issue, and only giving any problem as demand is just going up and up faster than production can keep up. As for other manufacturers, the big news is the Toyota pivot more in FAVOUR of battery - insideevs.com/news/633449/toyota-said-to-develop-ev-only-platform-just-as-ceo-steps-down/ Of all the manufacturers, Toyota has previously been by far the main voice in favour of fuel cell cars.

lens

Well your reply isn’t really aimed at me very much is it. You answer as if I wasn’t aware it’s a trial (after clipping out the bit from my post that shows it was a trial), as if I’m not aware of industry uses of hydrogen when I pointed it out to you in the first place in explaining potential demand for electrolysers, and as if I’m arguing for rarity when I’m not doing that either. 

Then you gloss over the real question of production: whether production issues will necessarily be temporary and whether Lithium will be superseded before any production issues really bite. 

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

Feb 27, 2023 12:05:25 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 27, 2023 11:28:53 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mr Poppy

The interesting thing for me is if we seek to get a lot of energy from different sources. The more we can do that, the more time we may spend with more leccy than the grid needs. This means we need less batteries etc., and then we have to decide what to do with the leccy not needed by the grid. We might sell it, or we can use it to produce something rather more valuable than the leccy itself, add some value.

Crucially, some uses don’t necessarily require putting the leccy through the grid, e.g. various industrial processes etc., which means we can scale up leccy quite a lot. 

We'll still need a lot of short-term batteries* and I've mentioned the 'Green Team' in the past (also see the 'Battolyser' ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/64017/thread).  Short-term storage helps smooth the short-term supply-demand imbalances to allow electrolysers to be 'mostly on' for longer periods and avoid network constraint costs. We do seem to being focusing very heavily on short-term storage (even the limited extra pumped hydro projects are 'short-term') - the 'pipeline' should easily meet gov.uk's 20GW target by 2030 which will be more than enough by then. Other components (eg 'new-new' nuclear) need to be sped up.

That’s an interesting question. If you have some leccy you aren’t using for the grid, you might store it in a battery for when electrolyses are about to be idle. But then at other times the battery might be idle or only partially charged. Partly depends on relative costs of batteries and electrolysers etc., but least an electrolyser can produce something. Or you might use interconnectors instead, but then if the folks we sell the leccy to make more money by using the leccy to make hydrogen or summat else, maybe we might do that ourselves instead. Esp. if leccy prices fall quite a lot. 

[lens]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I've answered in more detail on the more thread, and not going to duplicate here. But in essence my response wasn't directly aimed at you personally - though was in rebuttal of the quotes you made from the Times article.

As for the last comments about storing "excess" electricity in a battery just to use in an electrolyser to try to reduce electrolyser down time, then why not just use the battery stored electricity to feed the grid? That's the whole point of building out battery grid storage! It's hardly likely to be viable to build out batteries to improve electrolyser usage, just so hydrogen can be made with "free" electricity - just swapping one bit of capital spend for another.

Note this is a COMPLETELY different point to the use of electrolysis and hydrogen at all. Point being that green hydrogen production with as close to 100% plant usage is one thing - although the going rate for the electricity will have to be paid. But pretending it can just be done with "free" surplus electricity and ignoring such meaning poor plant utilisation - be it electrolysis, battery, or both - just doesn't hold up. In practice there will be an equilibrium between plant usage and electricity cost, and all I'm going to say is to be viable the average electricity cost is going to be more than zero.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 27, 2023 20:26:35 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 27, 2023 12:05:25 GMT Mr Poppy said:

We'll still need a lot of short-term batteries* and I've mentioned the 'Green Team' in the past (also see the 'Battolyser' ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/64017/thread).  Short-term storage helps smooth the short-term supply-demand imbalances to allow electrolysers to be 'mostly on' for longer periods and avoid network constraint costs. We do seem to being focusing very heavily on short-term storage (even the limited extra pumped hydro projects are 'short-term') - the 'pipeline' should easily meet gov.uk's 20GW target by 2030 which will be more than enough by then. Other components (eg 'new-new' nuclear) need to be sped up.

That’s an interesting question. If you have some leccy you aren’t using for the grid, you might store it in a battery for when electrolyses are about to be idle. But then at other times the battery might be idle or only partially charged. Partly depends on relative costs of batteries and electrolysers etc., but least an electrolyser can produce something. Or you might use interconnectors instead, but then if the folks we sell the leccy to make more money by using the leccy to make hydrogen or summat else, maybe we might do that ourselves instead. Esp. if leccy prices fall quite a lot. 

Using interconnectors adds to the 'cost' so, assuming no/equal subsidies, then it would be better for any country* to use a lot of it's own surplus for domestic industry (eg green steel for domestic use or export) or 'value-add' exports like green hydrogen (in whatever form) rather than export 'raw' leccy.

The reason being that we'd 'usually' be trying to export 'raw' leccy (a highly perishable good it's in 'raw' form) at the same time as likes of Denmark+co have surplus leccy on their grid (given we're all looking to build loads more wind farms in the Dogger Bank area of the Southern N.Sea). Leccy prices are likely to be very choppy in the future** and I'm looking forward to seeing some more frequent -ve prices again later this year.

A few days (bunched together as they often are) in early-mid Jan. Very few oppos last year. 
agileprices.co.uk/?region=A&fromdate=20230131

* That is why IMO Norway is unlikely to want to be the "green battery" flowing pretty much always in 'raw leccy' export mode to rEurope. Why let other countries get more of your cheap hydro leccy when you can add some value at home and export 'value-add' stuff instead? I hope we do increase interconnectors to Norway but so does everyone else. 

** The recent high and fairly choppy prices due to several factors: French nuclear (far less of it 'always on' than expected); some folks going back to 'flexible' stuff like coal; still high use of nat.gas CCGTs. As well as reducing the more flexible fossil fuels then French nuclear is likely to be 'more often on' in the future and we're all rolling out loads more intermittent renewables. 'Average' price should drop more as nat.gas price has been dropping but leccy price is going to very choppy in the future.  

[Mr Poppy]

Speaking of electricity prices then:

Ofgem announces latest quarterly price cap update
www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/ofgem-announces-latest-quarterly-price-cap-update

Best place (IMO) to read implications and see future forecasts is: twitter.com/CornwallInsight

Keeping the EPG at £2,500 would 'cost' Hunt £2.5bn but note that is a massive saving compared to the 'budgeted' cost of the EPG and the Ofgem price cap is almost certain to drop quite a bit below £2,500 from July so Hunt would be daft to dish out more pain to gen.pub by sticking with the planned increase to £3,000.

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

Feb 27, 2023 21:03:36 GMT lens said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I've answered in more detail on the more thread, and not going to duplicate here. But in essence my response wasn't directly aimed at you personally - though was in rebuttal of the quotes you made from the Times article.

As for the last comments about storing "excess" electricity in a battery just to use in an electrolyser to try to reduce electrolyser down time, then why not just use the battery stored electricity to feed the grid? That's the whole point of building out battery grid storage! It's hardly likely to be viable to build out batteries to improve electrolyser usage, just so hydrogen can be made with "free" electricity - just swapping one bit of capital spend for another.

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 

Of course, it may well be that we do have to build out the grid to an appreciable extent, for things like EVs and heat pumps etc., but once we have catered to that demand, are we just going to waste any more energy available offshore? Or instead use it for off-grid purposes that don’t require building more grid.

You seem to be arbitrarily choosing some unhelpful interpretation of “surplus”, concerned about whether anyone thinks it might be “free” etc.; I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

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

lens

if we later add things like wave, tidal, interconnectors from the desert, Thorium, space solar etc., that might be even more challenging for the grid if we want to use all energy resources available.

Another reason to avoid building out the grid needlessly and siting things inland etc. is to avoid grid losses. And this doesn’t have to apply to just offshore wind. I posted recently the article about the idea of using a nuclear reactor primarily to make hydrogen off-grid, which may then briefly switch to feeding the grid when it has a shortfall.

making the hydrogen off-grid reduces costs and grid losses.

There is a shed load of energy potentially available, and it can be more efficient to use it without the grid where possible. In fact even some uses of batteries can at times be about avoiding extra load on the grid, e.g. some uses of power walls.

[lens]

Feb 27, 2023 22:03:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 27, 2023 21:03:36 GMT lens said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I've answered in more detail on the more thread, and not going to duplicate here. But in essence my response wasn't directly aimed at you personally - though was in rebuttal of the quotes you made from the Times article.

As for the last comments about storing "excess" electricity in a battery just to use in an electrolyser to try to reduce electrolyser down time, then why not just use the battery stored electricity to feed the grid? That's the whole point of building out battery grid storage! It's hardly likely to be viable to build out batteries to improve electrolyser usage, just so hydrogen can be made with "free" electricity - just swapping one bit of capital spend for another.

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 


I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

In answer to your "reasonable interpretation", then in essence are we not now talking about more or less a similar thing? I'll repeat in bold what I said before. "In practice there will be an equilibrium between plant usage and electricity cost, and all I'm going to say is to be viable the average electricity cost is going to be more than zero." There are two issues - one regarding a pricing mechanism ("paying to chuck away"), the other regarding more practical matters. The former is more a matter of politics and legislation, the latter a matter of accepting that a compromise somewhere has to be made between different types of inefficiencies. Do you "waste" electricity, or do you "waste" capital plant utilisation? (Be that electrolyser time, interconnect capacity, battery capacity or whatever.)

It's not sensible to be worried about "some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore......" if the cost of occasionally being able to stop such wastage exceeds the value of saving it. Surely that's obvious? Regarding siting, then never forget that hydrogen is difficult to transport. Put electrolysis and compression equipment offshore and you have to arrange for offshore maintenance - and the extra costs associated. What about temporary storage and transport? Do you handle it in the gaseous form - where pressure containers weigh many times more than the hydrogen contained? Or in liquid cryogenic form, with all the extra losses and issues of a liquefaction plant having to be operated offshore? It *MAY* be worthwhile going down such a route - but never let's forget the difficulties.

As regards "....build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes.....", then in principle yes! Absolutely! And I've never argued differently, about such dedicated facilities! It will be needed to (hopefully) provide green hydrogen to replace dirty hydrogen already being used by industry. But that's a completely different story to these dreams of getting really cheap hydrogen from "surplus" electricity! And let's worry about enough green electricity to the grid first.

You are purpose building a wind farm, whose output is dedicated to electrolysers, so the latter can be run (efficiently) as near 24/7 as possible. But it will no longer be "surplus" (hence cheap) electricity. It's cost will be determined by the total cost of building and running the wind farm. Conceivably, a business model could be that *normally* it's output goes to the electrolysers, but may be diverted to the grid at times of peak demand - when electricity prices are highest? Exactly the opposite to talking about output normally going to grid, and only making hydrogen in periods when demand is very low.

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

Feb 27, 2023 23:59:37 GMT lens said:

Feb 27, 2023 22:03:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 


I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

It's not sensible to be worried about "some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore......" if the cost of occasionally being able to stop such wastage exceeds the value of saving it. Surely that's obvious?

Of course it’s obvious, that’s why no one is contesting it. That’s why I said earlier that they would likely do it if it is economic. That is why I said earlier it depends on whether the economics add up, and how much electrolysers might fall in price, how much hydrogen might be worth (hence posting the graph of projected demand etc.

Amazingly, while stressing costs no one is disputing, meanwhile you ignored potential grid costs, costs of under-utilised batteries etc.

I mentioned previously how costs of hydrogen electrolysers might fall as more get built. That is a pretty strong indication of someone who is aware that they might not be free. My argument has always involved costs and revenue. That if electrolysers fall in price and hydrogen becomes more vaiuable given projected demand, it becomes more attractive. You however haven’t been mentioning such things for your argument. 

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

Feb 27, 2023 23:59:37 GMT lens said:

Feb 27, 2023 22:03:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 


I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

It's not sensible to be worried about "some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore......" if the cost of occasionally being able to stop such wastage exceeds the value of saving it. Surely that's obvious? Regarding siting, then never forget that hydrogen is difficult to transport. Put electrolysis and compression equipment offshore and you have to arrange for offshore maintenance - and the extra costs associated. What about temporary storage and transport? Do you handle it in the gaseous form - where pressure containers weigh many times more than the hydrogen contained? Or in liquid cryogenic form, with all the extra losses and issues of a liquefaction plant having to be operated offshore? It *MAY* be worthwhile going down such a route - but never let's forget the difficulties.

Yes, one is aware that it isn’t a trivial matter doing such things offshore in the wilds of the seas and that it won’t be free, however, remarkably they are overcoming these obstacles and giving it a go. Bloomberg argue that by 2030 costs etc. will favour offshore production of hydrogen. Currently we have a test facility underway supposed to start production in a couple of years:

World’s first hydrogen-producing offshore wind turbine gets £9.3million funding boost


group.vattenfall.com/uk/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/aberdeen-hydrogen

Regarding costs, one reason it might be cheaper to build the electrolyser by the turbine, is that it can be cheaper to transport the hydrogen to shore in a gas pipe, than to transfer the leccy to an onshore electrolyser through an expensive leccy cable - you might take note of the fact leccy cables aren’t so often free - and this becomes a greater issue as we build turbines further out. 

you don’t seem aware there might be ways to additionally cut costs, eg using existing infrastructure, like gas pipes. In the end, if they can continue to cut costs and the value of hydrogen is sufficient then they may do it (but then there is the question of if something more lucrative comes along…)

Also, you are hyping the costs by including compression etc. offshore. Instead you can put the electrolyser by the turbine and put the compressor onshore.

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

Feb 27, 2023 23:59:37 GMT lens said:

Feb 27, 2023 22:03:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 


I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

As regards "....build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes.....", then in principle yes! Absolutely! And I've never argued differently, about such dedicated facilities! It will be needed to (hopefully) provide green hydrogen to replace dirty hydrogen already being used by industry. But that's a completely different story to these dreams of getting really cheap hydrogen from "surplus" electricity! And let's worry about enough green electricity to the grid first.

You are wasting our time. I didn’t argue that surplus meant free, and that there would be no equipment and other costs. As I have already made clear I meant surplus to grid requirements. Funnily enough, you seem to argue as though batteries are free, given you don’t tend to take into account the cost of them lying around unused some of the time, nor do you take into account the cost of leaving Wind Turbines lying around unused when we have to pay them not to generate. 

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

Feb 27, 2023 23:59:37 GMT lens said:

Feb 27, 2023 22:03:37 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well, part of the problem of building out the grid is that it adds to the cost and delay. If you have some leccy going to waste you can alternatively use it in situ, on an offshore platform, or where it comes ashore, which is why some industry benefits from siting near the coast, where the interconnectors land. (Electrolysers can likewise benefit from avoiding the grid). 


I am talking about the reasonable interpretation, where we don’t pay to chuck away energy we are already wasting. And where we might exploit wind resources available to build extra turbines beyond grid needs, to serve additional industrial processes and hydrogen etc. that can make more money and decarbonise some more.

In answer to your "reasonable interpretation", then in essence are we not now talking about more or less a similar thing? I'll repeat in bold what I said before. "In practice there will be an equilibrium between plant usage and electricity cost, and all I'm going to say is to be viable the average electricity cost is going to be more than zero." There are two issues - one regarding a pricing mechanism ("paying to chuck away"), the other regarding more practical matters. The former is more a matter of politics and legislation, the latter a matter of accepting that a compromise somewhere has to be made between different types of inefficiencies. Do you "waste" electricity, or do you "waste" capital plant utilisation? (Be that electrolyser time, interconnect capacity, battery capacity or whatever.)

Yes, you can now see my point about why we might not just use the grid, and now you are trying to make it sound like I was talking about some mythical free energy instead. Again.

In short, to your original concern about why we might bother with hydrogen when we have batteries which are much more efficient, I have pointed out a variety of cases where hydrogen might be preferred, which it seems you now might accept. And to your more recent concern about why we wouldn’t just use the grid, I have pointed out cases where the grid might not be ideal. You also now know why they might put electrolysers offshore despite the costs: because the cost of keeping them onshore might at times be higher.

Even when energy isn’t free!! Incidentally here is the Scots Gov assessment about falling costs regarding using offshore wind for green hydrogen, and possibility of reusing infrastructure.

www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-offshore-wind-green-hydrogen-opportunity-assessment/

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - just caught up with your post on biogas grid injection. It's not actually new, although this might be the first time we've put grass into the mix. There was a trial in Cambridge looking at manure and straw a few years back and I think there have been some others since. The grass issue raises concerns over food supply and energy conflicts though; should we use agricultural land to feed energy supplies? Most biogas to date has come from waste, typically food industry waste, sewage and manure and farm by products, and is digested and then burned to provide electricity. We looked at a community biogas scheme around 2010, and were in negotiations with a water company to take their sewage waste from a local water treatment works, but the deal fell through when the company realised that there was big money to be made from brewing shit, and now you really need your own guaranteed feedstock supply to made biogas a viable option.

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

Feb 28, 2023 8:39:46 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - just caught up with your post on biogas grid injection. It's not actually new, although this might be the first time we've put grass into the mix. There was a trial in Cambridge looking at manure and straw a few years back and I think there have been some others since. The grass issue raises concerns over food supply and energy conflicts though; should we use agricultural land to feed energy supplies? Most biogas to date has come from waste, typically food industry waste, sewage and manure and farm by products, and is digested and then burned to provide electricity. We looked at a community biogas scheme around 2010, and were in negotiations with a water company to take their sewage waste from a local water treatment works, but the deal fell through when the company realised that there was big money to be made from brewing shit, and now you really need your own guaranteed feedstock supply to made biogas a viable option.

Thanks Alec, the grass thing is new to me and was wondering what you might think. The use of land is a worry - we might alternatively consider using algae in tanks for the biofuel to reduce the footprint…