c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 11, 2021 13:43:36 GMT
As for hydrogen for aircraft, then in a previous post it was mentioned that it had very good energy density by weight, but poor by volume. Absolutely true, but the latter is compensated by either pressurising it as a gas, or liquefaction at cryogenic temperatures. Problem with the former is the weight of the necessary tanks - rather negating the good energy density by weight - whilst the latter brings a host of other problems. What's important is not the enrgy density of the fuel, but energy density of the fuel plus associated tank.Yes, trying to cope with the energy density problem can create extra problems. This doesn’t negate the highlighting of energy density as an issue but rather reinforces it. (Incidentally it’s not just the weight of the tanks that can be an issue but the bulk). |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 11, 2021 14:07:56 GMT
Thanks for the link Trev, the difference in infrastructure costs is quite notable. Interesting too that airlines and others like JCB are investing in hydrogen. On the JCB site they state that “Batteries are not practical for equipment with high power demands, and for machines that work in remote locations, such as backhoe loaders and large excavators. Batteries would weigh too much, cost too much and there would not be enough time to charge them, even if on-site charging infrastructure was in place.” In the Dubai report you linked, interesting that ammonia might be suited to shipping. “Similarly, hydrogen can play a vital role in decarbonising the shipping industry, through fuel cells, combustion, or green-hydrogen-based ammonia. In considering low-carbon fuels for ships, ammonia is often preferred over hydrogen because of its high energy density, proven technology, ease and economy of storage, and an existing global distribution network.” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 15:22:18 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Lots of progress being made in hydrogen and other (related) areas but investment still massively lags batteries, hence my comment that it is 'bleeding edge'[1] still and needs a few big backers (eg the other fella down under) to 'break the dam'. I mentioned France back on the UKPR so a few more links for the progress they are making on the tanks issue: www.faurecia.com/en/newsroom/faurecia-creates-france-its-global-center-expertise-dedicated-hydrogen-fuel-tanksWe discussed the UK versions of those global centres of expertise, University Enterprise Zones, etc some time ago back on UKPR. I'm quite happy to see lots of countries push the R&D, some as collaborations and some as competition is a good thing. As well as Hyundai, Toyota, JLR, JCB (not an exhaustive list) then Renault also taking a look at hydrogen for larger vehicles: fuelcellsworks.com/news/france-plastic-omnium-will-create-a-new-plant-if-it-signs-with-renault-on-hydrogen-tanks/The infrastructure will be the challenge there (as per the previous article from t'other day) and battery charging has a significant head start. Could possibly see both techs as IMO the market is big enough to support 'betamax and VHS' for fueling stations[2] but TBC of course. Faster charging batteries are solving one of their detriments but BEVs are going to cause some grid balancing concerns, which are solvable but might well smarter metres that 'ration' electricity to avoid 'panic charging' risks, etc (all discussed in the past but simply re-highlighting a lot of the problems are 'known-knowns' so can be anticipated and planned for although modest 'leaps of faith' are required on the tech and govts should not be afraid to have some failures (learn by doing) - we discussed the OxAZ model back on the UKPR) [1] As in lose making currently due to current costs and/or low sales. Huge R&D investment required that takes years/decades before it becomes profitable with risk that it never becomes profitable. Batteries are quite a bit ahead and will almost certainly dominate small-medium land vehicles but the future is not set on other sectors. [2] EG could have hydrogen more for LGV and up with specific service station or 'home company' run sites for those whilst BEVs and home/local charging dominates the private use smaller vehicle subsector (that would be my inspired guess but of course... the future is not set)
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 11, 2021 23:48:55 GMT
On the JCB site they state that “Batteries are not practical for equipment with high power demands, and for machines that work in remote locations, such as backhoe loaders and large excavators. Batteries would weigh too much, cost too much and there would not be enough time to charge them, even if on-site charging infrastructure was in place.” The problem for JCB is that if batteries aren't suitable - is hydrogen? I'd argue not - especially in any remote locations they talk about. It's tempting to gloss over issues of getting hydrogen to such locations - think it's going to be the same as getting diesel there now. It isn't. For one thing, diesel needs a fairly simple pump, or could even be poured straight from a jerrycan into the vehicles tank in extremis! Hydrogen needs a compressor - and a pretty complex one at that, capable of giving 350 or 700 bar whilst maintaining high purity and high safety standards. You also have to think about getting the hydrogen to this remote location. Like for like it's long been acknowledged that it's far more challenging than such as diesel, and I can't do better than quote from the Bossel-Elliason report. (Getting a bit old now, but the physics hasn't changed.) Original is a bit heavy reading, but a good summary at planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html . Quote: ------
"How do you transport hydrogen?
A 40 ton truck can deliver 26 tons of gasoline to a conventional gasoline filling station. One daily delivery is sufficient for busy station. A 40 ton truck carrying compressed hydrogen can deliver only 400 kilograms. That is because of the weight of the tank capable of holding 200 atmospheres of pressure. An empty truck will weigh almost as much as a full one."------- And whilst JCB may rightly say that batteries would be heavy, then errr - don't let's forget how heavy hydrogen pressure tanks are! State of the art for road vehicles are 700 bar carbon fibre, but even for such (to a first approximation) they weigh about 20x the mass of the hydrogen they contain, and there are very good reasons why that figure is unlikely to be much improved on in the future. (Especially wrt pressure, and the break down of Boyle's Law. At lower pressures then doubling the pressure means a doubling of the mass of the gas within a given volume, but there comes a point where that ceases to apply - the molecules are so close together that in this respect it begins to behave more like a liquid.) And...... "not enough time to charge them"?? I really think JCB need to start looking at what's happening with charge speeds in the car industry, and what Elon Musk is saying about such for his semi-truck! What about overnight charging when they may be idle anyway? It's now routine for cars to charge between about 20-80% SOC in about 30 minutes - when the driver could be taking his break? Or why not think about battery swap solutions possibly? It's tempting to think that such problems can be overcome with time, research and investment. But the problem for hydrogen is that too many of the issues are down to "laws of physics", whereas battery issues are far more down to engineering. (As an analogy, if I took a litre of water, then under standard conditions, no matter how money I spent or research I did, I'm never going to make it weigh less than a kilogram, or occupy less than a litre volume. At atmospheric pressure it's always going to require a given amount of energy to raise the temperature from (say) 20 to 100C. I could never invent a machine to boil it with half the energy input.) In the conclusions of the B&E report they say "Many of the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts." Exactly. Where JCB may be correct is that such as batteries may not be suitable for such as remote locations. But I just don't see hydrogen being the answer. The more you look at it, the more attractive liquid solutions become as a fuel for such cases - and liquid at normal temperatures, not cryogenic. If we want to move away from such as diesel, then ammonia, methanol and suchlike are far more sensible, ideally made from renewable energy. And interestingly, then when the Bossel-Elliason report was written, that was the conclusion they came to generally - but that was when batteries were prohibitively expensive for transportation usage. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 5:57:30 GMT
On the JCB site they state that “Batteries are not practical for equipment with high power demands, and for machines that work in remote locations, such as backhoe loaders and large excavators. Batteries would weigh too much, cost too much and there would not be enough time to charge them, even if on-site charging infrastructure was in place.”
but you then have to take into account how hydrogen has about 3 times more energy than diesel per Kilo. Also the diesel may have to be shipped halfway round the world whereas the hydrogen may be produced from spare renewable energy more locally. Then there is the efficiency of the fuel cell versus a Diesel engine. Then any carbon taxes that may be applied in future etc. etc. JCB are comparing with batteries rather than diesel, presumably anticipating a time when diesel becomes increasingly less acceptable. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:02:53 GMT
On the JCB site they state that “Batteries are not practical for equipment with high power demands, and for machines that work in remote locations, such as backhoe loaders and large excavators. Batteries would weigh too much, cost too much and there would not be enough time to charge them, even if on-site charging infrastructure was in place.” And...... "not enough time to charge them"?? I really think JCB need to start looking at what's happening with charge speeds in the car industry, and what Elon Musk is saying about such for his semi-truck! What about overnight charging when they may be idle anyway? It's now routine for cars to charge between about 20-80% SOC in about 30 minutes - when the driver could be taking his break? sure, I’ve mentioned the improvement in charging times myself before now. But it’s possible when JCB mention infrastructure issues, they may also be taking into account the lack of power lines to remote areas to charge the batteries. Or the cost of transporting batteries to swap in. (this is without considering whether demand will be such that batteries and leccy alone may struggle to meet it all). |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:06:23 GMT
On the JCB site they state that “Batteries are not practical for equipment with high power demands, and for machines that work in remote locations, such as backhoe loaders and large excavators. Batteries would weigh too much, cost too much and there would not be enough time to charge them, even if on-site charging infrastructure was in place.” Hydrogen needs a compressor - and a pretty complex one at that, capable of giving 350 or 700 bar whilst maintaining high purity and high safety standards. well there are also alternative technologies in development that do not require such high pressures, or cryogenic freezing, e.g. hydrides, so we shall see how far they get with that. Then there is ammonia etc… |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:10:01 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Lots of progress being made in hydrogen and other (related) areas but investment still massively lags batteries, hence my comment that it is 'bleeding edge'[1] still and needs a few big backers (eg the other fella down under) to 'break the dam'. I mentioned France back on the UKPR so a few more links for the progress they are making on the tanks issue: yes, hydrogen has numerous uses but batteries possibly more so, so they attract more investment. But now that the potential hydrogen demand in the future is recognised, maybe it’s getting a bit more investment? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 12, 2021 6:15:36 GMT
The infrastructure will be the challenge there (as per the previous article from t'other day) and battery charging has a significant head start. Could possibly see both techs as IMO the market is big enough to support 'betamax and VHS' for fueling stations[2] but TBC of course. Faster charging batteries are solving one of their detriments but BEVs are going to cause some grid balancing concerns, which are solvable but might well smarter metres that 'ration' electricity to avoid 'panic charging' risks, etc (all discussed in the past but simply re-highlighting a lot of the problems are 'known-knowns' so can be anticipated and planned for although modest 'leaps of faith' are required on the tech and govts should not be afraid to have some failures (learn by doing) - we discussed the OxAZ model back on the UKPR) it’s hard to gauge, but the more demand there is for energy, then the more difficult it may be for batteries and grid etc. to meet all the demand without alternatives like hydrogen etc. of course greater demand may also in turn attract more investment in grid and batteries, so it’s not trivially easy to see the outcome. But as gigastacks may be sited near alternative uses for hydrogen, industrial processes etc. any success of batteries etc. may not matter so much in these cases. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 18:58:12 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w The 'chemistry' aspects of hydrogen are something I posted on back on the UKPR but I'll (re?)post one link that covers some of the R&D being taken place to solve a 'known known' www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-gets-real/3010794.article#/Hydrogen 'tech' is currently as if battery tech was still using lead-acid! Whether or not they solve all of the issues for hydrogen or not is TBC but on cost as well then hydrogen is nowhere near the critical mass and sales volumes of BEVs that has finally made Tesla profitable (although not if you remove the 'bungs'[1]) The future is not set but hydrogen has some catching up to do! The big boost will be if/when we (UK and elsewhere) move to periods of excess supply of electricity that create significant amounts of 'free' electricity. As mentioned many times the 'chicken+egg' conundrum requires a bit of a leap of faith and significant govt (UK+others) assistance but 'crowding in' is happening elsewhere (from Australia to Japan to US, etc and to a small extent in UK) [1] Fair play to Musk. So many doom+gloomers expect him to fail (run out of money) but his stock is valued as a 'tech stock' and investors took the long-term view. Whether or not similar for some hydrogen entrepreneurs or not is TBC of course (ie the future is not set) www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/investing/tesla-profitability/index.html
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 12, 2021 22:49:10 GMT
@tw - "The future is not set but hydrogen has some catching up to do! The big boost will be if/when we (UK and elsewhere) move to periods of excess supply of electricity that create significant amounts of 'free' electricity."
You really need to unblock people - you could learn so much!
As I've already informed you, UK wind farms have received an average of £1bn per year of constraint payments for the last decade to switch off production. We have been in the era of 'periods of excess supply of electricity that create significant amounts of 'free' electricity' for years already. In October this year there was a record £153m of constraint payments made, and the amount is increasing year on year.
It is all there already, should anyone wish to use the excess ofr hydrogen production.
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 13, 2021 1:04:57 GMT
but you then have to take into account how hydrogen has about 3 times more energy than diesel per Kilo. Also the diesel may have to be shipped halfway round the world whereas the hydrogen may be produced from spare renewable energy more locally. Then there is the efficiency of the fuel cell versus a Diesel engine. If you refer to the reference I linked to, it takes that into account. Following directly on from my previous quote it says: " Hydrogen is more energy dense than gasoline (by weight) and hydrogen powered transportation is more energy efficient. Yet the hydrogen filling station will require 15 deliveries every day, everything else being equal. The energy cost of truck transport becomes unacceptable unless the source of hydrogen is very close to the point of use. A cryogenic truck could carry more hydrogen but recall that the energy cost to liquefy hydrogen makes this infeasible in most cases."Yes, by weight such a hydrogen tanker would only carry about 1/60 of the weight of a diesel tanker - but higher energy density by weight and use of a fuel cell would alter that in hydrogens favour by a factor of about 4. But as the B-E report says, like for like, you'll still need about 15 x as many tanker deliveries as for diesel. (Or for most other liquid fuels such as methanol for that matter.) well there are also alternative technologies in development that do not require such high pressures, or cryogenic freezing, e.g. hydrides . I think it's stretching a point to say that such as hydride storage is "in development"! It's been spoken about theoretically for decades, and there is research going on, but by and large it's looking like a technological dead end for a land vehicle. (Though it may well have very specialist niche uses.) As I understand it, the fundamental problem is that such as hydrides have a high temperature differential between absorption and release, and typically would need the tank to be heated to release the hydrogen. Hardly very convenient for a fast getaway on a cold morning! OK, never say never, and may have been worth persuing 20 years ago when there didn't seem to be any alternative. But with batteries now at the price and development they are, it's virtually impossible to see such hydrogen technologies catching up. It's basically down to (as B&E put it) the fundamental physics and chemistry of hydrogen. As an energy carrier, physically it's nowhere near what you'd look for out of choice - it's being pursued purely because of the desirability of when combined with oxygen it produces water. Comparison with LPG is very interesting - which has very desirable properties physically as a fuel choice. It's liquid under moderate pressure at a wide range of ambient temperatures - pressures far, far lower than the 350/700 bar necessary for hydrogen gas, so far simpler and lighter tanks. But open the tap and the liquid will boil to maintain tank pressure, so you get the very desirable properties of simple liquid storage but gas delivery. Just a shame it's use produces CO2.......  |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 13, 2021 1:11:50 GMT
It is all there already, should anyone wish to use the excess ofr hydrogen production. The flaw in the argument of using "free" excess renewable electricity to produce hydrogen is that it means electrolysis etc equipment sitting idle for long periods waiting for such periods of this excess. You get stuck between the economics of wanting high utilisation of (expensive) plant, and wanting to only use the cheapest electricity. The two are contradictory. That's not to say hydrogen won't get produced in such a green way - it's just that it won't be as cheap as some assume if they only look at electricity costs and ignore capital spend. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 13, 2021 1:25:59 GMT
lens You might have mentioned the energy by weight, but you didn’t seem to add it to your calculation, that’s all. If the report did, then fair enough, but it’s not a big deal because like I said, JCB are comparing with batteries, and to restate the point, you have to consider how diesel might not be a good comparison in the future for reasons I outlined, e.g. if they whack a load of carbon tax on it. Or investors shun companies that aren’t green enough etc. (Of course, if they make carbon neutral synthetic biofuels maybe that can work, though hydrogen might also be useful for making those). I agree hydrides are far from a given. I just gave them as an example that doesn’t need high pressure or cryogenics. And also because one doesn’t like to rule things out needlessly. Graphene was discovered years ago but they say it’s typical for things like that to take three decades or more to take off. Solar panels were around in the Seventies, but it’s only recently they’ve really taken off. Battery cars themselves, batteries have been around for over a hundred years but it’s only recently battery-powered cars have become realistic for mass adoption beyond things like milk floats etc. regarding heating hydrides, and how it might not be great for cars, I wasn’t necessarily advocating them for cars. JCB may require power for the heavy equipment, not just the transport. And regarding how hydrogen tends to require pressure or cooling, don’t forget I offered up ammonia for consideration as something that works in more everyday conditions. regarding hydrogen not catching up with battery tech, several of us in here have noted battery efficiency advantages etc., but it may be there’s a place for hydrogen despite poorer performance if batteries can’t meet all the demand. But anyway, as pointed out, JCB were considering scenarios where batteries might be problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 13, 2021 7:57:22 GMT
lens - "The flaw in the argument of using "free" excess renewable electricity to produce hydrogen is that it means electrolysis etc equipment sitting idle for long periods waiting for such periods of this excess." Indeed. I regularly made this point on UKPR1. It would need substantial market equalizing moves by the government and would lead to permanent structural price increases.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 13, 2021 8:29:06 GMT
lens - "The flaw in the argument of using "free" excess renewable electricity to produce hydrogen is that it means electrolysis etc equipment sitting idle for long periods waiting for such periods of this excess." Indeed. I regularly made this point on UKPR1. It would need substantial market equalizing moves by the government and would lead to permanent structural price increases. Did you? Anyway, some of us have argued that we might be aiming for a lot more surplus leccy so the electrolysers could be running much more of the time. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 13, 2021 8:32:48 GMT
alec btw, while you’re here, what’s this about you being cut off without power for days on end? Reduced to candies and tinned food and burning wood?? All worryingly Scott of the Antarctic. One would have thought that you of all people might have numerous forms of alternative leccy sources at your disposal. Turns out not even a hamster wheel with a Dynamo. It’s like finding out Father Xmas isn’t real.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 13, 2021 9:26:37 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I do have home generation, but as per previous discussions, going off grid isn't worthwhile. I could use a battery store to give me a limited period off grid, but it wouldn't last that long and I would need to install some fairly expensive switch gear to enable island mode operation. I have more relevant things to spend my cash on, and we have good back up systems for the basic necessities. It still wasn't much fun though.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 13, 2021 9:36:11 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - I do have home generation, but as per previous discussions, going off grid isn't worthwhile. I could use a battery store to give me a limited period off grid, but it wouldn't last that long and I would need to install some fairly expensive switch gear to enable island mode operation. I have more relevant things to spend my cash on, and we have good back up systems for the basic necessities. It still wasn't much fun though. Not entirely reassured, but anyway, you said you lost your internet as well. As it happens, remember the One Web thing some of you gave UK stick over investing in? Looks like they’ll be doing something similar to Musk and creating a web of satellites for internet access. (There was an article in one of the papers saying the EU might even buy into it!) Anyway, when they get it up and running you could use that to give you internet access when the grid goes down… |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 13, 2021 14:02:19 GMT
Anyway, some of us have argued that we might be aiming for a lot more surplus leccy so the electrolysers could be running much more of the time. That is very likely to come to pass (and I hope it does, at least to produce green hydrogen to displace the dirty hydrogen used now in industrial processes), but...... it then isn't "surplus" any more? Surely it's become part of the base load? The relevance is that hydrogen advocates can't have it both ways. They can't say it will work because it uses "free" surplus electricity, then when the capital plant utilisation factor is brought up say that more capacity will be built to give more "free" electricity...... A lot more generation capacity may well be built to generate hydrogen - but such electricity won't be a "free" surplus anymore. It'll have to be paid for at the market rate. And.... increasingly I foresee other factors acting to smooth out "peak surpluses" anyway. Such as tariffs designed to discourage peak usage, and smart metering to encourage consumption when the generator would prefer it. (Such as home electric car charging - plug your car in and tell the charger "I need it full by 8am", then let it schedule exactly when it happens.) If the report did, then fair enough, but it’s not a big deal because like I said, JCB are comparing with batteries, ........ It really is worth reading at least a full precis of the B-E report (the original is heavy reading) and I've not found any better than planetforlife.com/h2/index.html - the original link I gave was was one page of that. Yes, it's about 18 years old, and was predominantly written after the Bush administration spoke about hydrogen as the "Freedom Fuel", and how it would free America from the tyranny of fossil fuel imports from abroad. (See georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/chap2.html - which strangely makes no mention of where the "Freedom Fuel" will come from......  ) Most interesting is how B-E makes little mention of batteries for such as cars - a sign of how much they have progressed in that time. (Largely thanks to Elon Musk seeing the future potential.) What they DO give as the alternative to hydrogen (for road transport) is alternative LIQUID fuels, ideally made renewably, and ideally such as can be directly used in a fuel cell. And maybe such is exactly what JCB should be comparing current diesel with? It's no use complaining about acknowledged issues with batteries, only to produce a "solution" with as many issues, even if different. Where's the mention in what they say about the difficulties in supplying the remote sites with hydrogen? Where's the mention about needing a complex compressor to dispense instead of a simple hand pump? And no mention that their tech isn't even using a fuel cell - just burning the hydrogen in a combustion engine. No CO2 out the tail pipe - but there will be oxides of nitrogen. Could it be that JCBs battery technology and supply is so far behind that they know they can't compete, but don't want to appear "non-green" so are throwing "look at us with hydrogen" in as a PR red herring? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2021 22:19:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2021 22:37:24 GMT
One reason some folks might state nuclear 'produces moderate or high levels of carbon emissions' is 'embodied' carbon (ie carbon emissions from the construction of the plant) which is also relevant to hydro (pumped or normal) and would be relevant to tidal lagoons (less so other tidal power still in prototype stage). As below article highlights there are huge variation depending on the project (and FWIU then SMR nuclear will be significantly lower than plants such as Hinkley C) but some general comparisons can still be made. www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprintsNB I'm not endorsing all the numbers in the link, just putting it out there as it is a well written piece covering the issues and making some comparisons. Also of note different countries will have different 'natural' or developed comparative advantages. Clearly UK has a natural advantage for wind and less so for solar where as other countries will have that t'other way round. For hydro or tidal lagoons then there are significant rEnvironment and political issues as well as topography/natural advantages (or not). So no two countries are the same but that it is then where trade (interconnectors or 'conervstion' and transport) can play a role (longer discussion on that one day perhaps) |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Dec 16, 2021 22:22:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 17, 2021 11:57:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 17, 2021 12:32:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Dec 18, 2021 10:57:08 GMT
Doesnt look good for us then being dependant on French Nukes to maintain full UK supply via the interconnector. Mind you I wonder what will happen if we get a January high pressure system as often happens and with no wind blowing.
But back to the main issue. I dont see net zero in the UK or indeed the world. The issue isnt nukes vs hydrogen vs diesel. Its much more about carbon absorption, how to do it and where to put it. We cant escape the fact that every animal, and that includes us, generates CO2 so even if we were to shut down all energy useage, we would still not be net zero. And its as much an economic and political question as a technical one. It requires all the world to use carbon capture technology. How can they afford it? How can many countries even run it? How honest will nations be?
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 18, 2021 16:11:31 GMT
leftieliberal - "It obviously also raises the question whether biomass electricity generation also increases air pollution and cancer risk. perhaps we need a study to monitor air pollution downwind from Drax power station. Biomass-burning power stations may need to be fitted with scrubbers to remove the toxic gases." Very unlikely, to be honest. The problem with wood burners is improper use, poor fuel and low temperature burn. Most people don't have a clue how to use a woodburner properly, and that's the real problem. For larger biomass boilers the particulate emissions issues really are minor. Even stepping up to a large domestic log or woodchip boiler, the differences are substantial, with forced air draught that guarantees secondary burning. These can be as small as 20kW output systems, but they are far batter than the natural airflow wood burners. Once you get to the Drax scale you'll be looking at fluidized bed combustion systems, and I think I'm correct in saying that when Drax uses pellets, they actually mill the pellets to dust prior to combustion, precisely to ensure clean burning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Dec 27, 2021 9:23:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 27, 2021 10:32:50 GMT
jib - but not at all unexpected. On UKPR previously I tried to get @tw to understand that the government's strategy papers, including the energy mix scenarios, were not a delivery strategy. The UK has very good targets, but very little delivery, and this is another example of that. When it comes to it, ministers don't have the will to push the necessary buttons, and as with so much else of Johnson's administration, it is based on bluster and rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 27, 2021 14:11:42 GMT
It’s important not to get hung up on simple solutions to complex problems, and also not to be too binary or absolutist - these things are not all or nothing. Effective delivery plans need to acknowledge practical difficulties and differences from one context to another. They also need transitional actions, as this is a process, which is going to take a long time. And of course your delivery plan will need constant adjustment in the light of experience. Your delivery plan also will seek to achieve the objective - in this case net zero carbon emissions - with the minimum disruption of people’s lives and standards of living. No-one ever said this was easy.
However we can all agree that our government (and pretty much every other) does not right now have a delivery plan. It’s going to require a cabinet minister and a department to construct, monitor, and deliver one. At the moment there is just Alok Sharma, with no permanent institutional back up, and limited political power. And there remains strong ideological resistance from significant chunks of the Conservative Party to required measures, as well as the inevitable short termism of democratic politics.
|
|
)
