Energy Markets and Net Zero

[lens]

Mar 8, 2023 14:46:57 GMT leftieliberal said:

Mar 8, 2023 12:48:03 GMT lens said:

I urge caution with such announcements, if I had a pound for every "battery breakthrough" there's been a press release about i'd be a very rich man.

I am *not* saying that is the case here, and the same with the great majority of such announcements, but...... I urge caution against getting hopes up too high from a single press release

I assume that you know what the words peer-reviewed academic journal mean.

I can assure you I do, and all I originally was saying was to "urge caution" over reading too many conclusions from any single report (not just the one quoted) - be such in journals, press releases or whatever. Solid state and lithium air have been a research topic for a number of years, and even if this does indeed represent a step forward, it does not necessarily mean meaningful large scale commercialisation any time soon. (Unfortunately.) It may - but just let's be cautious? That may be obvious to you - it won't be to everybody on a general public forum.

I could also say that companies do have to use caution on press releases regarding new tech they have developed, nothing untrue - but it can be what's left out that can be most relevant. And to an extent that can be true of scientific papers. Academics are reliant on funding for future research and optimism may be thought of as helpful.....? And the trouble with the Nikola release I quoted was that it crossed well over the line between "optimism" and downright falsehood. Which is why Trevor Milton is now awaiting sentencing and prison. (And I do stress such blatant deception is very rare, which is why the story is noteworthy.)

[leftieliberal]

It is interesting how some Greens are now coming round to accepting nuclear power and genetic modification after decades of treating them as works of the devil: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/a-long-overdue-moment-the-uk-greens-pushing-for-the-nuclear-option

Even more interesting is how it is some of the most extreme Greens: Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain members who are leading the way.

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 10, 2023 15:34:26 GMT leftieliberal said:

It is interesting how some Greens are now coming round to accepting nuclear power and genetic modification after decades of treating them as works of the devil: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/a-long-overdue-moment-the-uk-greens-pushing-for-the-nuclear-option

Even more interesting is how it is some of the most extreme Greens: Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain members who are leading the way.

Great to see. I prefer the term "Eco-realist" but "Eco-modernist" is a welcome shift.

I don't know if you watched the Macron-Rishi presser but I'm glad I didn't have anything in my hand to throw at the TV when Rishi mentioned EDF. EDF are building 'old' nuclear and hence there is merit in the comments from one "Eco-dinosaur":

"“The new plant at Hinkley C is over a decade behind schedule and billions over budget. The next one in line, at Sizewell C, may not even start generating energy until today’s newborns turn teenagers.."

We don't need 'old' nuclear when stuff like SMRs are so much more promising - although until we start building them we can't be sure they'll live up to the promises! Whilst I thought Miliband was correct at the time WRT to building loads more nuclear then thankfully we didn't commit to loads more EDF projects as the Hinkley C disaster would have been 5-10x as bad. 

I have a wager with a friend that we'll have SMRs providing power to the grid before Sizewell C does but we still haven't signed off on the first of those  🤦‍♂️

I'd obviously prefer RR are the chosen supplier but it might be wise to spread the contracts out between a few different companies rather than give one nuclear supplier a monopoly on UK nuclear plants (as we have done with EDF)

[leftieliberal]

Mr Poppy Not quite your sea farming but doing the same thing on a small scale: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/steve-allnutt-rewilding-kelp-forests-west-sussex-from-his-garage

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

UK Space Agency Funds Rolls-Royce Nuclear Reactor Project to Power Moon Bases
The federal funding amounted to $3.5 million, with Rolls-Royce Holdings hoping to have the reactor ready for launch to the Moon by 2029.

The U.K. Space Agency provided Rolls-Royce Holdings with £2.9 million, which is about $3.5 million USD, according to a press release from the agency. Rolls-Royce elaborated in its release that the funding will be to specifically study the fuel that the reactor will use to generate heat, study ways to transfer that heat, and evaluate the technologies needed to transform that heat into electricity. The reactor could be used to power rovers, communications systems, and science experiments on the lunar surface. Rolls-Royce hopes to have the nuclear reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029.

…

Rolls-Royce teased the design of a nuclear reactor for spaceflight on Twitter early last month. Nuclear reactors have been used to power things like submarines for years, but the tech’s application for spaceflight has been oft overlooked in favor of chemical-based propulsion. A functional version of the recently unveiled micro-reactor mockup would be primarily used for spaceflight, but the company did mention at the time that the design could be used for bases on the Moon.

Gizmodo

gizmodo.com/uk-space-agency-funds-rolls-royce-nuclear-reactor-moon-1850236591

[lens]

Mar 18, 2023 16:23:36 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Rolls-Royce teased the design of a nuclear reactor for spaceflight on Twitter early last month. Nuclear reactors have been used to power things like submarines for years, but the tech’s application for spaceflight has been oft overlooked in favor of chemical-based propulsion. A functional version of the recently unveiled micro-reactor mockup would be primarily used for spaceflight, but the company did mention at the time that the design could be used for bases on the Moon.

Gizmodo

gizmodo.com/uk-space-agency-funds-rolls-royce-nuclear-reactor-moon-1850236591

I'd be more sceptical about using a reactor for space propulsion, than as a fixed power source for a moonbase. For starters, to propel a rocket in space you need to expel "something" in the opposite direction to which you want an acceleration. You can no longer rely on friction against air, water or land. Secondly, for a manned craft there's the issue of reactor shielding to protect the crew in flight - and shielding means weight (or rather mass, in space!)

For supplying power to a moonbase, I'd hope the latter issue is minimised - little radiation until the reactor was to go critical, so much less need for shielding (and hence mass) on the journey. And on site the possibility of using local materials, and siting the reactor a little distance from the base.

Solar panels would seem the obvious choice at first for power, but presumably the problem is 14 days of sun and 14 of darkness? With storage batteries being far too heavy to make up the difference during lunar night? Be interesting to see the sums as to what battery energy density would be needed to achieve weight parity between such a reactor and solar/storage.

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

Mar 18, 2023 17:49:58 GMT lens said:

Mar 18, 2023 16:23:36 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Rolls-Royce teased the design of a nuclear reactor for spaceflight on Twitter early last month. Nuclear reactors have been used to power things like submarines for years, but the tech’s application for spaceflight has been oft overlooked in favor of chemical-based propulsion. A functional version of the recently unveiled micro-reactor mockup would be primarily used for spaceflight, but the company did mention at the time that the design could be used for bases on the Moon.

Gizmodo

gizmodo.com/uk-space-agency-funds-rolls-royce-nuclear-reactor-moon-1850236591

I'd be more sceptical about using a reactor for space propulsion, than as a fixed power source for a moonbase. For starters, to propel a rocket in space you need to expel "something" in the opposite direction to which you want an acceleration. You can no longer rely on friction against air, water or land. Secondly, for a manned craft there's the issue of reactor shielding to protect the crew in flight - and shielding means weight (or rather mass, in space!)

For supplying power to a moonbase, I'd hope the latter issue is minimised - little radiation until the reactor was to go critical, so much less need for shielding (and hence mass) on the journey. And on site the possibility of using local materials, and siting the reactor a little distance from the base.

Solar panels would seem the obvious choice at first for power, but presumably the problem is 14 days of sun and 14 of darkness? With storage batteries being far too heavy to make up the difference during lunar night? Be interesting to see the sums as to what battery energy density would be needed to achieve weight parity between such a reactor and solar/storage.

well nuclear thermal propulsion can be roughly three times more efficient than chemical thermal propulsion. Shielding is an issue, but on the plus side you can get somewhere quite a lot quicker so less exposure to space radiation, and to other health issues to do with longer duration space travel. They are trying to develop suitable shielding materials, which involves overcoming various issues (e.g Tungsten can be good at stopping gamma rays, but when it’s struck by neutrons it results in secondary gamma rays), perhaps by combining materials.

Regarding using reactors on the moon, you might be ok with solar power for some things, but if you want to do some serious mining etc., maybe wouid need more power. As well as the problem of the lunar night, you might want to power some things in craters and anyway they might be trialling the reactor on the moon for deployment further afield like Mars and beyond where there is rather less sunlight.

[Mr Poppy]

Entente extends to the Energy sector:

Lhyfe, Centrica Unveil Joint Offshore Wind-to-Hydrogen Plan in UK
www.offshorewind.biz/2023/03/20/lhyfe-centrica-unveil-joint-offshore-wind-to-hydrogen-plan-in-uk/

Attachment Deleted

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

Competition for Rolls Royce?

US firm agrees to sell 24 mini nuclear reactors to UK customers
The American company’s direct route to market negates the need for government subsidy

Last Energy said the £100m modular units, which are two-thirds the size of a football pitch, can output 20MW of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes. They will be deployed in 2026 with no government funding required.

Several companies are developing small, factory-made nuclear power plants. It is hoped that making smaller units will lead to lower prices through “economies of scale”, by spreading the cost of development over many units.

For heavy energy users with 24-hour operations like steel mills and data centres, nuclear power is attractive because it consistently provides power, compared to wind and solar generation.

Nuclear plants can also provide heat which can be used in many chemical and industrial processes like cement making. Last Energy’s design can output 60MW of thermal energy.

The US company still needs to win UK regulatory approval for its designs and secure suitable sites before the deals are finalised and customers pay up.

But it still expects its first plant to be delivering electricity in about three years.

Last Energy said it has sought no government funding and many of the components will be bought from existing suppliers.

Telegraph

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 20, 2023 21:17:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Competition for Rolls Royce?

US firm agrees to sell 24 mini nuclear reactors to UK customers
The American company’s direct route to market negates the need for government subsidy

Last Energy said the £100m modular units, which are two-thirds the size of a football pitch, can output 20MW of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes. They will be deployed in 2026 with no government funding required.

Several companies are developing small, factory-made nuclear power plants. It is hoped that making smaller units will lead to lower prices through “economies of scale”, by spreading the cost of development over many units.

For heavy energy users with 24-hour operations like steel mills and data centres, nuclear power is attractive because it consistently provides power, compared to wind and solar generation.

Nuclear plants can also provide heat which can be used in many chemical and industrial processes like cement making. Last Energy’s design can output 60MW of thermal energy.

The US company still needs to win UK regulatory approval for its designs and secure suitable sites before the deals are finalised and customers pay up.

But it still expects its first plant to be delivering electricity in about three years.

Last Energy said it has sought no government funding and many of the components will be bought from existing suppliers.

Telegraph

The units are 20MWe 'micro' reactors:

www.lastenergy.com/technology

They are designed for 'off grid' customers and IIRC discussed as an option for somewhere like Channel Islands back when Macron was threatening to cut the power. RR's unit is modular but the units they are proposing are for (on-)'grid' and almost 25x the scale at 470MWe

Another 'micro' US product is: eVinci™ Microreactor
www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor

Westinghouse, who were the original suppliers of reactors to UK's nuclear subs, have also submitted plans for sites such as Wyfla and Gov.UK is dragging out to the decision making process to consider various options (links previously provided).

So, yes, RR has competition from US suppliers but 'Small' is bigger than 'Micro' and the 'Micro' units have a different customer base in mind. 

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

Mar 21, 2023 7:50:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Mar 20, 2023 21:17:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Competition for Rolls Royce?

US firm agrees to sell 24 mini nuclear reactors to UK customers
The American company’s direct route to market negates the need for government subsidy

Last Energy said the £100m modular units, which are two-thirds the size of a football pitch, can output 20MW of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes. They will be deployed in 2026 with no government funding required.

Several companies are developing small, factory-made nuclear power plants. It is hoped that making smaller units will lead to lower prices through “economies of scale”, by spreading the cost of development over many units.

For heavy energy users with 24-hour operations like steel mills and data centres, nuclear power is attractive because it consistently provides power, compared to wind and solar generation.

Nuclear plants can also provide heat which can be used in many chemical and industrial processes like cement making. Last Energy’s design can output 60MW of thermal energy.

The US company still needs to win UK regulatory approval for its designs and secure suitable sites before the deals are finalised and customers pay up.

But it still expects its first plant to be delivering electricity in about three years.

Last Energy said it has sought no government funding and many of the components will be bought from existing suppliers.

Telegraph

The units are 20MWe 'micro' reactors:

www.lastenergy.com/technology

They are designed for 'off grid' customers and IIRC discussed as an option for somewhere like Channel Islands back when Macron was threatening to cut the power. RR's unit is modular but the units they are proposing are for (on-)'grid' and almost 25x the scale at 470MWe

Another 'micro' US product is: eVinci™ Microreactor
www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor

Westinghouse, who were the original suppliers of reactors to UK's nuclear subs, have also submitted plans for sites such as Wyfla and Gov.UK is dragging out to the decision making process to consider various options (links previously provided).

So, yes, RR has competition from US suppliers but 'Small' is bigger than 'Micro' and the 'Micro' units have a different customer base in mind. 

Yeah, I think the Rolls reactors are supposed to cost a billion-plus(?), which gives another indication of the difference in size. I mentioned the competition thing because apparently eyebrows have been raised that the UK is keen on introducing competition, despite having already invested millions in exploring the Rolls option.

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 21, 2023 20:34:35 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 21, 2023 7:50:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

...

Yeah, I think the Rolls reactors are supposed to cost a billion-plus(?), which gives another indication of the difference in size. I mentioned the competition thing because apparently eyebrows have been raised that the UK is keen on introducing competition, despite having already invested millions in exploring the Rolls option.

The investment in RR's SMRs is to keep UK 'in the game' with a domestic manufacturer (see "to develop a domestic smaller-scale power plant technology design"*). RR have other potential countries lining up to buy their SMRs, with yet another one announcing interest:

Rolls-Royce eyes mini-nuke project in Finland as UK drags its feet
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/21/rolls-royce-eyes-mini-nuke-project-finland-uk-drags-feet/

It is appropriate to seek a range of 'bids' to build SMRs in UK but it is the 'drags its feet' bit that is very annoying given the urgency and how many years have already been wasted with 'dither+delay'.

RR and/or Westinghouse are ready but are left waiting. While I'd obviously prefer RR to build British nuclear for British consumers as I expect that would also help them make international sales and create British jobs, help with the trade deficit, etc. then HMG need to make a decision rather than keep dragging it out by asking for new bids, new plans, more consultation.. more 'dither+delay'.

Pick RR, or pick Westinghouse, or pick a few sites for each of them (arguably the best option), but FFS just GET ON WITH IT!!

* Similar 'bungs' for automotive, steel sector, etc. Other countries do the same - we finally realised we needed to!
www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies/advanced-nuclear-technologies

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

Mar 22, 2023 9:38:55 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Mar 21, 2023 20:34:35 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah, I think the Rolls reactors are supposed to cost a billion-plus(?), which gives another indication of the difference in size. I mentioned the competition thing because apparently eyebrows have been raised that the UK is keen on introducing competition, despite having already invested millions in exploring the Rolls option.

The investment in RR's SMRs is to keep UK 'in the game' with a domestic manufacturer (see "to develop a domestic smaller-scale power plant technology design"*). RR have other potential countries lining up to buy their SMRs, with yet another one announcing interest:

Rolls-Royce eyes mini-nuke project in Finland as UK drags its feet
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/21/rolls-royce-eyes-mini-nuke-project-finland-uk-drags-feet/

It is appropriate to seek a range of 'bids' to build SMRs in UK but it is the 'drags its feet' bit that is very annoying given the urgency and how many years have already been wasted with 'dither+delay'.

RR and/or Westinghouse are ready but are left waiting. While I'd obviously prefer RR to build British nuclear for British consumers as I expect that would also help them make international sales and create British jobs, help with the trade deficit, etc. then HMG need to make a decision rather than keep dragging it out by asking for new bids, new plans, more consultation.. more 'dither+delay'.

Pick RR, or pick Westinghouse, or pick a few sites for each of them (arguably the best option), but FFS just GET ON WITH IT!!

* Similar 'bungs' for automotive, steel sector, etc. Other countries do the same - we finally realised we needed to!
www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies/advanced-nuclear-technologies

i know, it’s the same with licensing the space launches. And even when they get around to doing it, will they then agree contracts that make the energy a good deal pricier than it needs to be, like with renewables?

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 22, 2023 21:22:19 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 22, 2023 9:38:55 GMT Mr Poppy said:

...And even when they get around to doing it, will they then agree contracts that make the energy a good deal pricier than it needs to be, like with renewables?

Would you care to elaborate and suggest a better approach?

NB I certainly think there is room for improvement and have posted on the need for splitting out gas from electricity (something EU also agrees on), long-term contracts, etc. All recent renewable and nuclear pricing mechanisms have been long-term contracts.

If you'd prefer 'state-owned' solutions then I note:
"France's state-controlled power company EDF 2022 was a miserable year with record annual losses of €17.9bn (£16bn)."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64674131

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

Mar 23, 2023 9:37:05 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Mar 22, 2023 21:22:19 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

...And even when they get around to doing it, will they then agree contracts that make the energy a good deal pricier than it needs to be, like with renewables?

Would you care to elaborate and suggest a better approach?

NB I certainly think there is room for improvement and have posted on the need for splitting out gas from electricity (something EU also agrees on), long-term contracts, etc. All recent renewable and nuclear pricing mechanisms have been long-term contracts.

If you'd prefer 'state-owned' solutions then I note:
"France's state-controlled power company EDF 2022 was a miserable year with record annual losses of €17.9bn (£16bn)."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64674131

Basically your New Model Tories seem like they might be a variation on the Old Model Tories really. They are now prepared to use public money and do state interventions in the short term, maybe even invest in state facilities, but stuff still gets sold off or allowed to be taken over by foreign companies in the longer term, and they seem quite happy to allow very generous contracts to the private sector too. Meanwhile there are proceduralist issues as well

P.s. little wrong with letting a state owned utility make a loss to keep inflation down. Less damage than the costs of the inflation.

[Mr Poppy]

The 'diesel' price feather is taking a long time to come down. 25p margin on diesel now!! Note the drop in 'diesel delivered wholesale' price would have covered removing the 5p temporary help and allowing fuel duty to rise with inflation. We're being ripped off and Shapps needs to stop mumbling and actually do something for once. I expect as 'wholesale' prices and various costs drop in other sectors they'll be a delay in passing on the benefit to consumers - as businesses increase their margins. Sadly the supermarkets now seem to be acting more like a cartel than a 'good oligopoly' 

Attachment Deleted


www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/fuel-watch/

[leftieliberal]

An interesting approach taken by the Government of the Cape Verde islands with Portugal cancelling their debt in return for it being invested in a climate fund for the islands: www.spiegel.de/international/world/debt-forgiveness-for-cape-verde-a-climate-deal-that-could-become-a-model-for-others-a-685dfb19-d2d1-4bdd-86a0-624b55b9d078

It would be interesting to see a similar deal for slavery reparations to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, who certainly would benefit from a climate fund.

[leftieliberal]

The new Club of Rome report says that population may not be the problem that people like Chris Packham and Sir David Attenborough of "Population Matters" think. www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study

Quotes from the Guardian article:

In the business-as-usual case, it foresees existing policies being enough to limit global population growth to below 9 billion in 2046 and then decline to 7.3 billion in 2100. This, they warn, is too little too late: “Although the scenario does not result in an overt ecological or total climate collapse, the likelihood of regional societal collapses nevertheless rises throughout the decades to 2050, as a result of deepening social divisions both internal to and between societies. The risk is particularly acute in the most vulnerable, badly governed and ecologically vulnerable economies.”

In the second, more optimistic scenario – with governments across the world raising taxes on the wealthy to invest in education, social services and improved equality – it estimates human numbers could hit a high of 8.5 billion as early as 2040 and then fall by about a third to about 6 billion in 2100. Under this pathway, they foresee considerable gains by mid-century for human society and the natural environment.

The Club of Rome were amongst the first to recognise what they referred to back in the 1970s as "Limits to Growth" among which was the rapid growth in population. It is good to see that their latest report is more optimistic on the population issue than the UN Population projections.

[leftieliberal]

Britain Remade - Powerbook www.britainremade.co.uk/powerbook Some useful thinking on what it will take to get to energy security by 2030.

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 27, 2023 15:45:42 GMT leftieliberal said:

Britain Remade - Powerbook www.britainremade.co.uk/powerbook Some useful thinking on what it will take to get to energy security by 2030.

I'll take a more detailed look but at first glance most of their suggestions are current HMG policy. 

[Mr Poppy]

I've commented on 'Insulate Britain'* being very low hanging fruit for LAB before. Nothing new in CON's offering but the pathetic effort they are making is detailed in points 5-7 under

Reducing demand by increasing household and business energy efficiency

www.gov.uk/government/news/shapps-sets-out-plans-to-drive-multi-billion-pound-investment-in-energy-revolution

Lots of other info and some details have been added on other 'vague' stuff but given the advanced notice of 'Green Day' and the very low expectations I admit to being very surprised that LAB had nothing to say beyond "CON are shit". Well, yeah. Happy to agree but WTF are LAB going to do and how are they going to fund it. 

* Not the self-defeating eco-idiots glueing themselves to the M25. They have a good cause but went about it entirely the wrong way. Pick some LA building that is badly insulated and wrap it in some insulation one weekend with a big sign saying something like:

"We spend £350million per week on heating public owned buildings
Let's fund our local NHS instead"

Pretty sure the press and public would get behind that kind of thing and if LAB want to use that then please do - they should have used it today in their LE campaign launch but let another golden opportunity slip by. 🤦‍♂️

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 1, 2023 8:39:27 GMT colin said:

Apr 1, 2023 8:31:53 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Does anyone, in reality, buy a car based on published consumption/range figures. I mean, if so, that's the height of naivety. There are many other factors that affect my car purchasing decisions and those two I mentioned either aren't' even considered, or are way, way down the list.

I guess it depends on whether your driving is local or more long distance.

Range Anxiety is #1 "worry" for those considering an EV but often misplaced:

Electric car range and 5 reasons why your range anxiety is unwarranted
blog.evbox.com/uk-en/eliminate-range-anxiety

Maintenance costs are much lower, "fuel" (electricity) is much cheaper (and should get cheaper in the near future - notably if you can choose when to charge your EV)

Also for jib then whilst there are obviously not that many 2nd hand EVs around yet then you can pick up something like a 2nd hand Nissan Leaf for under £5k*

Realistic range on a 9yr old one at night in Winter (ie worst case) is <=80miles but for someone who rarely does long journeys or has another option (eg renting a car or 'heaven forbid': public transport) then IMO they make an excellent vehicle to own.

In terms of depreciation then the 'battery life' concerns (2nd biggest "worry") means very little further depreciation as they get towards 10yrs+ old - they are pretty close to a "modern classic" 

I appreciate they are pretty ugly and not much "street cred" and that not everyone can install a home charger (although low mileage users should be able to top their battery up enough with a charger in a car park when they do their 'weekly shop' - or a pub, golf course, etc)

* So cheap that some people could even consider them instead of batteries for home solar/wind. Either if they have a 'Feed-In-Tariff' that is about to end and are considering buying a battery or looking to install new solar/wind, in which case they'll likely be spending £2k+ on a 8KW battery when they could get a "Brucie Bonus" additional use out of a cheap 2nd hand EV.

[lens]

Apr 1, 2023 8:39:27 GMT colin said:

Does anyone, in reality, buy a car based on published consumption/range figures. I mean, if so, that's the height of naivety. There are many other factors that affect my car purchasing decisions and those two I mentioned either aren't' even considered, or are way, way down the list

I guess it depends on whether your driving is local or more long distance.

I believe a lot of the trouble comes from the way "range" is measured for BEVs, (and for petrol/diesel for that matter). It's impossible to give one single, accurate figure as it will vary depending on type of journey.

Petrol/diesel are typically worst at slow start/stop journeys, improve to be near optimum at something like a 50 mph cruise, then fall off again at higher speeds due to air resistance. Battery is different - tend to be much BETTER at start/stop slow traffic due to regen, but also fall off at higher speeds due to air resistance. Problem for those defining a range figure is what journey to base it on? I believe it tends to be a mixture of "typical" driving (and at least it gives some sort of comparison between models), but must therefore fall off at higher speeds.

It shouldn't be a surprise - it's aerodynamics and less to do with electric versus fossil fuel. If there's a problem, it may be that range in an EV is of more importance during those long journeys - which are more likely to be at high speed on a motorway. But they *should* update to give you a better "miles remaining" figure and tie it in with available charging points en route *at that rate of power consumption*.

But it's hard to generalise across all the cars on the market........

[leftieliberal]

Article on silvopasture in Aeon: aeon.co/essays/heres-to-reviving-the-ancient-practice-of-silvopasture

Silvopasture is the ancient practice of raising animals, trees and pasture (grasses) on the same piece of land, a form of agriculture that is common in forested parts of the world. There are many forms of agroforestry – farming systems that incorporate trees – but silvopasture is unique among these practices in that trees are integrated with animals.

This agricultural practice was the ninth most emissions-reducing climate solution on their list, ahead of rooftop solar panels, electric vehicles, and every other agricultural technique the scientists analysed. It had the potential to reduce more than 31 gigatons of carbon dioxide, more than three times the emissions reductions possible with a transition to electric cars.

[leftieliberal]

Some good news: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65240094

Now it is all about pushing down emissions from fossil fuel burning as quickly as possible.

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

Apr 6, 2023 18:15:11 GMT leftieliberal said:

Article on silvopasture in Aeon: aeon.co/essays/heres-to-reviving-the-ancient-practice-of-silvopasture

Silvopasture is the ancient practice of raising animals, trees and pasture (grasses) on the same piece of land, a form of agriculture that is common in forested parts of the world. There are many forms of agroforestry – farming systems that incorporate trees – but silvopasture is unique among these practices in that trees are integrated with animals.

This agricultural practice was the ninth most emissions-reducing climate solution on their list, ahead of rooftop solar panels, electric vehicles, and every other agricultural technique the scientists analysed. It had the potential to reduce more than 31 gigatons of carbon dioxide, more than three times the emissions reductions possible with a transition to electric cars.

I’m not sure but didn’t davwel talk about this once? Thought I’d flag it up for him anyways 

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

Apr 12, 2023 8:47:38 GMT leftieliberal said:

Now it is all about pushing down emissions from fossil fuel burning as quickly as possible.

Yep. Fingers crossed. From the article it looks hopeful: 

“…the report says that in 2023, the growth of wind and solar will be greater than the rise in demand - and this will start to turn the tide on warming gases.

…and…

“While the fall in fossil fuel emissions in electricity this year is expected to be small, around 0.3%, the authors believe the drop will continue and accelerate in subsequent years. Key to this is a fall off in the use of gas, which fell slightly last year according to the report, with some countries like Brazil seeing a surge in hydro power which reduced their use of gas by 46% in 2022.”

…

"There is a chance that at the rate that China is building wind and solar and all types of clean generation, that they achieve that peak in coal generation earlier than 2025, which would be significant," said Mr Jones.”

[leftieliberal]

Swedish city using a deep underground cave to store warm water for district heating: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65098792

[leftieliberal]

Good article by Damien Carrington in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/20/down-to-earth-ipcc-emissions

Here is the graph he refers to: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png

"First, solar and wind power are by far the best option, with the potential to cut a staggering 8bn tonnes from annual CO2 emissions by 2030. That is equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today. Even more startling is that most of that potential can be achieved at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems."

“What struck me especially was that wind and solar was so big,” Prof Kornelis Blok, at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told me this week. Blok, who led the work on the chart, identified the winners: “The big five are wind, solar, energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions.”

Obviously there is also the issue of storage (in whatever form we do it) but that is probably in another graph somewhere in the report.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 20, 2023 16:49:39 GMT leftieliberal said:

Good article by Damien Carrington in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/20/down-to-earth-ipcc-emissions

Here is the graph he refers to: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png

"First, solar and wind power are by far the best option, with the potential to cut a staggering 8bn tonnes from annual CO2 emissions by 2030. That is equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today. Even more startling is that most of that potential can be achieved at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems."

“What struck me especially was that wind and solar was so big,” Prof Kornelis Blok, at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told me this week. Blok, who led the work on the chart, identified the winners: “The big five are wind, solar, energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions.”

Obviously there is also the issue of storage (in whatever form we do it) but that is probably in another graph somewhere in the report.

UK is of course well on its way to cut emission by 50% before 2030:

ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom

The already approved pipeline of offshore wind farms will achieve that. We can and should speed some other stuff up a bit as well. 'Insulate Britain' being the #nobrainer area for UK (certainly not massive amounts of grid level solar - which uses up land that would better suited to other purposes).

Every country has the same challenge but different 'advantages' and historic issues to deal with (eg solar would be great for S.Europe/N.Africa and some countries are quite a lot further ahead than UK on 'Insulation' but quite a long way behind on reduction in coal usage). The link c-a-r-f-r-e-w supplied a while ago showed UK is massively down from 'peak coal' where as some other countries haven't even peaked yet and likes of Germany has gone backwards.