Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 4, 2023 10:34:30 GMT
The title of the the piece is horrifically misleading. Far from being "an eco-disaster waiting to happen?" the article covers how some companies "hopes eventually to be able to extract and re-use 99% of a unit's components"However, as with some of the criticism of nuclear then 'total life costs' which include the waste element should be considered and the problem of 'old solar panels' needing to be recycled is something that needs to be addressed. IMO the 'recycling' would very likely pay for itself as the recycled parts would have enough value to cover the recycling cost once tech advances and economies of scale kick in - maybe even make a small net profit?? Anyway, thank you for posting interesting pieces. I agreed with much of Rowan Atkinson's piece (see also a post of mine from a few days ago about the 'good/bad' issues of 1,000km range batteries for cars - doesn't encourage people to buy an existing EV with much longer range now - unless they are a 2car family and/or only do short-city miles on an old diesel) |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 4, 2023 18:54:45 GMT
leftieliberal - Solar panel recycling; it's interesting that in reality, while solar installations typically project their finances over no more than 25 years, many are now extending their working life, and there is also a growing market for 'second life' panels as installations upgrade. It's often more cost effective to use second life panels, especially for community energy projects where start up finance can be harder to access.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 4, 2023 20:02:13 GMT
leftieliberal - Solar panel recycling; it's interesting that in reality, while solar installations typically project their finances over no more than 25 years, many are now extending their working life, and there is also a growing market for 'second life' panels as installations upgrade. It's often more cost effective to use second life panels, especially for community energy projects where start up finance can be harder to access. The Derrill Water solar farm derrilwater-solarfarm.co.uk/ has a projected lifespan of 40 years (that's what they have planning permission for). However that is not the important point. What is important is that new panels will be coming with higher quantum efficiency (essentially adding a perovskite layer to the silicon) and that will drive replacement of existing arrays. At some point you still have to deconstruct the original arrays to have a truly circular economy. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jun 6, 2023 13:31:56 GMT
Sorry, but there is a load of rubbish in that. I see the Gruaniad has already had to put in place a couple of amendments to correct exaggerations, but it's just not true to say that "many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them". Batteries DON'T need "many rare earth metals", and it's been shown many times that although a BEV may indeed need more energy in manufacture than a petrol or diesel model, the energy savings in usage make up for that many times over. And Mr Bean then goes on to talk about hydrogen as a better solution...... Sigh. Doesn't he realise the problems in terms of resources/energy involved with producing the fuel cell and all other components? And how the like for like energy input per equivalent mile is somewhere around 3x as much as for battery? So no recovering energy manufacturing hit with long term usage savings there! And even more so for e-fuels, which he seems to endorse! I don't deny they may have a place to play, but they really aren't a main way forward. Unfortunately, quick searching reveals that the Guardian article has been picked up and repeated uncritically by many other outlets. Hardly surprisingly such as the daily Mail like such an article, but really I'd have thought the Guardian would have been more critical in the first place.....? Not everyone though. One link has taken a more critical eye to the story, and worth taking a look at : thedriven.io/2023/06/05/debunking-mr-beans-electric-tropes-evs-are-far-better-for-the-planet-than-ice-vehicles/A somewhat higher standard of journalism than todays Guardian, I'd suggest? As for the last paragraph quoted, then what about those who do a lot of daily mileage, especially (say) 2-300 miles per day, and returning home each night to recharge there? I know several people in such a category, and for them it's little to do with the environmental benefits and all to do with economics, and vastly lower total cost of ownership. (Especially those who can also save on such as ULEZ charging etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jun 6, 2023 13:41:14 GMT
The title of the the piece is horrifically misleading. Far from being "an eco-disaster waiting to happen?" the article covers how some companies "hopes eventually to be able to extract and re-use 99% of a unit's components"I saw the BBC story on return from holiday, and agree strongly with what you say about the title being "horrifically misleading"! Read the article, and much of what it says (we will need to increasingly be paying attention to solar panel recycling) is quite true. But so what? Isn't that true of many new (and successful) new technologies? Hardly "an eco-disaster waiting to happen" far more a new industry which will need a recycling system establishing. And " solar panels only have a lifespan of up to 25 years."!!? "Only"? Compared with many products, 25 years is pretty good, isn't it? Likewise being eventually able to reuse 99% of the original materials? |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 6, 2023 13:56:34 GMT
Sorry, but there is a load of rubbish in that. I see the Gruaniad has already had to put in place a couple of amendments to correct exaggerations, but it's just not true to say that "many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them". Batteries DON'T need "many rare earth metals", and it's been shown many times that although a BEV may indeed need more energy in manufacture than a petrol or diesel model, the energy savings in usage make up for that many times over. And Mr Bean then goes on to talk about hydrogen as a better solution...... Sigh. Doesn't he realise the problems in terms of resources/energy involved with producing the fuel cell and all other components? And how the like for like energy input per equivalent mile is somewhere around 3x as much as for battery? So no recovering energy manufacturing hit with long term usage savings there! And even more so for e-fuels, which he seems to endorse! I don't deny they may have a place to play, but they really aren't a main way forward. Unfortunately, quick searching reveals that the Guardian article has been picked up and repeated uncritically by many other outlets. Hardly surprisingly such as the daily Mail like such an article, but really I'd have thought the Guardian would have been more critical in the first place.....? Not everyone though. One link has taken a more critical eye to the story, and worth taking a look at : thedriven.io/2023/06/05/debunking-mr-beans-electric-tropes-evs-are-far-better-for-the-planet-than-ice-vehicles/A somewhat higher standard of journalism than todays Guardian, I'd suggest? As for the last paragraph quoted, then what about those who do a lot of daily mileage, especially (say) 2-300 miles per day, and returning home each night to recharge there? I know several people in such a category, and for them it's little to do with the environmental benefits and all to do with economics, and vastly lower total cost of ownership. (Especially those who can also save on such as ULEZ charging etc.) If you have to go all the way to the other side of the world to find an article on a site that promotes electric vehicles for your refutation, that looks pretty desperate to me. Not being able to tell the difference between a comedian and the parts he plays also signals an unwillingness to relate to facts. For a country where new vehicles with internal combustion engines cannot be sold after the end of this decade yet the charging network is pitiful, shows a lack of joined up thinking by the Government, which is why e-fuels may be needed to fill the gap. 300 miles/day at 5 days/week and 50 weeks/year is 75,000 miles a year - you're just writing rubbish as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jun 6, 2023 14:22:52 GMT
I've commented before on the UK's attempt to develop a hydrogen fuel-cell car, the "Rasa" from a company called Riversimple. A company which came into existence at roughly the same time as Tesla - and has so far not sold a single car, and still doesn't seem remotely close to doing such. A company which only seems to remain in existence thanks to grants from the Welsh government. Production has been "just around the corner" for a number of years now, and the car has been heavily slated for lack of performance and lack of space amongst other things, but I've just been made aware of a few interesting facts that are starting to come out. Last year, they finally managed very limited "real" trials in a project in Milford Haven with two prototypes. A very extensive document arose from that, promoting hydrogen for road transport in the area (they would say that, wouldn't they?) but tucked away in about 107 pages are facts about the car performing far worse than they had been advertising. (Average range only 200 miles, instead of the 300 miles given.) That's been picked up on and reported at "Hydrogen Insight" at www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-hydrogen-car-company-riversimple-finds-it-has-vastly-exaggerated-the-range-and-performance-of-its-fcev/2-1-1375637 It raises quite a few questions. Their website is still quoting 300 miles, in spite of the trials showing it never made anything like on any of the trial mileage. Why? They've been quoting the "300 mile range" figure for about 7 years at least now -  Where did it ever come from? Thin air? Did they never even do basic range tests with the prototypes in all that time? It's also noted that they completed a crowdfunding round a couple of months ago - and well after the results of the trials were in. I hope it was made clear to anyone thinking of investing that their recent trials weren't achieving anywhere close to their previous range claims? (Especially when quite a lot had been made of such range in the past?) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jun 6, 2023 15:20:23 GMT
One link has taken a more critical eye to the story, and worth taking a look at : thedriven.io/2023/06/05/debunking-mr-beans-electric-tropes-evs-are-far-better-for-the-planet-than-ice-vehicles/A somewhat higher standard of journalism than todays Guardian, I'd suggest? As for the last paragraph quoted, then what about those who do a lot of daily mileage, especially (say) 2-300 miles per day, and returning home each night to recharge there? I know several people in such a category, and for them it's little to do with the environmental benefits and all to do with economics, and vastly lower total cost of ownership. (Especially those who can also save on such as ULEZ charging etc.) If you have to go all the way to the other side of the world to find an article on a site that promotes electric vehicles for your refutation, that looks pretty desperate to me. Well, it was about the third link that came up on a search, so I didn't bother going any further. Hardly "desperate"? The first was the Daily Mail more or less repeating the story verbatim, hardly a surprise with their agenda. The link quoted seemed to do a pretty good job of pulling apart Rowan Atkinson's claims, so why search any further? But if you think any of what they say in refutation is wrong, well, let's hear it? Not being able to tell the difference between a comedian and the parts he plays also signals an unwillingness to relate to facts. So much of what is written in that article is rubbish that I could only assume he was writing in the persona of Mr Bean! If it's what Atkinson himself believes, fair enough, it's a shame the Guardian let such be published unchallenged though. For a country where new vehicles with internal combustion engines cannot be sold after the end of this decade yet the charging network is pitiful, shows a lack of joined up thinking by the Government, which is why e-fuels may be needed to fill the gap. It is 7 years before the ICE ban comes into effect, and there can - will - be a lot of changes in the charging network before 2030. Likewise that date only signals an end to ICE *SALES*. Substantial numbers of such vehicles will exist well beyond that date, and a petrol/diesel fuelling network will likewise need to exist for a couple of decades after. It's the old case of action never being taken until it's "almost too late" (witness the whole climate change/CO2 situation!). As the link states: "E-fuels sound great until you realise they currently cost literally 100x as much as petrol or diesel and cannot cost less than 5x because of thermodynamics."How much interest do you think an owner of a 2029 diesel is going to have in filling up with an e-fuel with that sort of difference? 300 miles/day at 5 days/week and 50 weeks/year is 75,000 miles a year - you're just writing rubbish as usual. Oh come on! Where did I say 75,000 miles a year? Where did I say 300 miles *every* weekday for 50 weeks of the year!? Checking with a friend who does do a lot of business mileage, he tells me his total mileage is around the 25,000-30,000 mile mark. Many working days are indeed 2-300 miles, but no - not all, and they get 5 weeks holiday a year plus Bank Holidays and base days. But taking the 25,000 mile figure, then diesel fuel comes out around 20p/mile - electric recharging around 5p/mile at home. That's an annual (ball park) "fuel" comparison of £5,000 versus £1,250 by my maths? And that's without taking into account tax breaks, lower servicing etc for an EV? OK, I only do about a quarter that mileage a year, but such mileages (and more) are not uncommon amongst company car drivers who need to do a lot of travelling for work. Which is why they will get a new car every few years. (Just look at the mileages on some quite new, but ex-fleet, secondhand cars.) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 7, 2023 18:40:31 GMT
If you have to go all the way to the other side of the world to find an article on a site that promotes electric vehicles for your refutation, that looks pretty desperate to me. Not being able to tell the difference between a comedian and the parts he plays also signals an unwillingness to relate to facts. For a country where new vehicles with internal combustion engines cannot be sold after the end of this decade yet the charging network is pitiful, shows a lack of joined up thinking by the Government, which is why e-fuels may be needed to fill the gap. 300 miles/day at 5 days/week and 50 weeks/year is 75,000 miles a year - you're just writing rubbish as usual. Sadly that decision is almost probably going to be delayed (as per EU) but Rishi probably wants to leave that to Starmer - who can partially blame CON of course. It's not JUST the pitiful charging network that is the problem but along with the 'cliff edge' for manufactures all the problems are solvable without enough lead time - but we're rapidly running out of enough lead time. IMO a 'phased' end to the sale of fossil fuel ICEs is a better approach than a ON/OFF with various sticks+carrots needed to get the % of new 'green' cars up to 100% rather than one day you can buy petrol/diesel, the next day you can't. PS Depending on what tariff you are on or when/where you need to charge then filling up with diesel/petrol can sometimes be cheaper than charging up with kWhs. Dale Vince OBE, Founder, Ecotricity (of 'Just Stop Oil'/LAB donation fame) has sold his motorway charging network to GridServe. They charge 69p/kWh even for their "up to" 60kW "medium power charger". www.gridserve.com/our-pricing/Also likes of Tesco, where at least someone might be doing a bit of shopping while they wait: "Drivers using Tesco charge points will now pay 44p per kWh at a 7kW charger and 49p per kWh at a 22kW charger.The supermarket's rapid chargers now cost 62p per kWh at a 50kW device and 69p per kWh for the fastest 75kW units."
www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/2023/03/30/tesco-increases-cost-of-ev-charging-at-its-storesCheaper charging is available if you always charge up and home with an 'off-peak' or flexible tariff but not everyone has access to that. I can understand why a lot of people are "waiting" (which IMO was the main point Rowan Atkinson was making) |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 7, 2023 19:03:03 GMT
If you have to go all the way to the other side of the world to find an article on a site that promotes electric vehicles for your refutation, that looks pretty desperate to me. Not being able to tell the difference between a comedian and the parts he plays also signals an unwillingness to relate to facts. For a country where new vehicles with internal combustion engines cannot be sold after the end of this decade yet the charging network is pitiful, shows a lack of joined up thinking by the Government, which is why e-fuels may be needed to fill the gap. 300 miles/day at 5 days/week and 50 weeks/year is 75,000 miles a year - you're just writing rubbish as usual. Sadly that decision is almost probably going to be delayed (as per EU) but Rishi probably wants to leave that to Starmer - who can partially blame CON of course. It's not JUST the pitiful charging network that is the problem but along with the 'cliff edge' for manufactures all the problems are solvable without enough lead time - but we're rapidly running out of enough lead time. IMO a 'phased' end to the sale of fossil fuel ICEs is a better approach than a ON/OFF with various sticks+carrots needed to get the % of new 'green' cars up to 100% rather than one day you can buy petrol/diesel, the next day you can't. It is only new petrol and diesel cars you won't be able to buy. There are a whole series of issues associated with charging points that need to be addressed. people wibble about fitting them in street lamp columns, but I know the power requirements of the lamps are quite small, so they must be single phase; we are probably talking about a similar charging rate to a 13A socket and that's going to mean all-night charging. And there is the capital cost to local councils of retro-fitting millions of street lamps. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 7, 2023 19:33:01 GMT
Sadly that decision is almost probably going to be delayed (as per EU) but Rishi probably wants to leave that to Starmer - who can partially blame CON of course. It's not JUST the pitiful charging network that is the problem but along with the 'cliff edge' for manufactures all the problems are solvable without enough lead time - but we're rapidly running out of enough lead time. IMO a 'phased' end to the sale of fossil fuel ICEs is a better approach than a ON/OFF with various sticks+carrots needed to get the % of new 'green' cars up to 100% rather than one day you can buy petrol/diesel, the next day you can't. It is only new petrol and diesel cars you won't be able to buy. There are a whole series of issues associated with charging points that need to be addressed. people wibble about fitting them in street lamp columns, but I know the power requirements of the lamps are quite small, so they must be single phase; we are probably talking about a similar charging rate to a 13A socket and that's going to mean all-night charging. And there is the capital cost to local councils of retro-fitting millions of street lamps. Specific "current" plan: "Between 2030 and 2035, new cars and vans can be sold if they have the capability to drive a significant distance with zero emissions (for example, plug-in hybrids or full hybrids), and this will be defined through consultation"
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030Fudge #1* is pretty obvious (clues in bold) but what level of 'hybrid' will be the cut-off (eg down to MEVs or even cars that just have a 'stop-start' for when apply the brake at traffic lights??) I added a PS to my last post to cover charging costs. Some folks are making a lot of profit per kWh. As with the 'forecourt' cartel that was ripping off customers with much higher than normal profit margins until recently then someone needs to look into how even likes of Tesco are over-charging per kWh. For now then if you can't charge at home/work at a 'cheap rate' then economics, let alone the convenience, of a full BEV aren't that appealing. However, I get a bit  about PHEVs and MEVs send me as people are lugging around a battery that a lot of them rarely charge (probably some data on that, might check tomorrow unless someone beats me to it). TBC exactly what counts as 'significant distance' and how they'd ever be able to enforce people doing 'significant' zero emission if they have a fossil fuel engine in their vehicle as part of a 'hybrid'. Car sales data which is 'ripe' for misrepresentation WRT to increase %s in EV sales (when you include all the hybrids, even the 'mild' ones) www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/evs-and-afvs-registrations/* Pretty sure they'll be more than just 'fudging' go on nearer the time due to lack of planning, the 'cliff-edge' issues and the 'precedent' set by other polities (eg EU) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 12, 2023 10:14:04 GMT
From Nov'21 so I'd be curious how the 'first' project is going: Renewable geothermal power system will cut carbon footprint by 60%
www.nlg.nhs.uk/news/renewable-geothermal-power-system-will-cut-carbon-footprint-by-60/
Noting a new project where: "IGas was picked through the Carbon and Energy Fund (CEF) framework; a UK Government initiative to fund and manage complex energy infrastructure upgrades to the NHS and wider public sector."www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/508162/igas-gt-energy-geothermal-hospital-salisbury/If the projects deliver on their expected cost savings then they should be rolled out further and faster. IMO the UK HMG role can then step back to 'facilitate' and given the power system projects become 'long term, illiquid assets' then they can be funded by pension and insurance company funds who, once we've 'unshackled' ourselves from EU rules will be able to buy more of such assets. So, doesn't need £28billion/year of taxpayer money - just UK HMG to 'seed' (kick start) the process with some 'proof of concept' (or at least 'proof of being able to deliver to the expected project budget and cost savings in UK') then allow the private sector to fund the roll out. Could put an 'explicit' govt guarantee on the 'bonds' issued to fund the projects if the 'implicit' guarantee demanded too high a risk premium and whoever if CoE might need to tweak the fiscal rules to broaden 'investment' spending but if stuff works then we need to roll it out much faster - and since the 'Magic Money Tree' was chopped down then the private sector needs to be tapped for the funding. |
|
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: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 12, 2023 14:23:33 GMT
“Solar energy has been harvested in space and beamed back to Earth for the first time.
The experiment may have provided an early glimpse of a new type of power station — a solar array that is placed in orbit where it is constantly bathed in sunlight, no matter the weather on Earth or the time of day.
The energy was gathered by a solar panel fixed to a satellite and was transmitted, via microwaves, to a receiver on the satellite and to a laboratory rooftop in California. Only a tiny amount of power — 200 milliwatts — was sent but researchers believe that the results mark an important proof of principle.
The UK is among several countries exploring the feasibility of building solar power plants in space. In April the European Space Agency (ESA), of which Britain is a member, signed contracts for two studies to assess the concept. Advocates picture satellites several miles long assembled by robots in space. They could carry solar panels that would be illuminated by the sun for more than 99 per cent of the time.
The energy would be beamed back to the ground via high-frequency radio waves. Studies have suggested that a single plant could deliver 2GW of power into the grid, roughly comparable to a nuclear power station. The technology could offer “an alternative option to nuclear power”, Dr Sanjay Vijendran, who has been studying it for the ESA, said. He described it as “surprisingly competitive” compared with other energy options.”
Times
|
|
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: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 12, 2023 14:25:20 GMT
Been wondering about geothermal, haven’t really had time to look into it. From your link: “ Across the Trust, the works are expected to save £1,012,653 and 5,036.83 tonnes of carbon every year – that’s the equivalent of 300 typical UK households.
Director of Estates and Facilities and Programme Director, Jug Johal, said: “By taking our heat directly from the ground, we will be able to remove our old, inefficient stream boilers, which will play a large part in reducing our carbon footprint on our Scunthorpe site by approximately 60%.” Sounds useful, but yeah, early days… |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 12, 2023 14:45:09 GMT
Been wondering about geothermal, haven’t really had time to look into it. From your link: “ Across the Trust, the works are expected to save £1,012,653 and 5,036.83 tonnes of carbon every year – that’s the equivalent of 300 typical UK households.
Director of Estates and Facilities and Programme Director, Jug Johal, said: “By taking our heat directly from the ground, we will be able to remove our old, inefficient stream boilers, which will play a large part in reducing our carbon footprint on our Scunthorpe site by approximately 60%.” Sounds useful, but yeah, early days… Other than it obviously being a great option for somewhere like Iceland (the country, not the supermarket chain) then it's not an area I know much about, hence the curiosity in knowing how a UK project from 2021 is going (ie how much did it cost, has it delivered the 'expected' savings, etc). I think we have to take some risks and 'learn by doing'. Same for tidal lagoons where the 'backers' think they can deliver amazingly cheap lecky but until we try one out then we won't really know if they can be a significant part of the solution or not. Some tech (eg SMR nuclear) is fairly new but stuff like geothermal and tidal lagoons are 'proven tech'. The only uncertainty is can we build them in UK on time, on budget, to the 'savings' spec required. As we see with stuff like HS2 then the 'early' numbers are often massively out but, unlike HS2, we're not talking £100billion+ and don't need HMT to provide much of the £££ - just ensure they 'facilitate' the projects with the 'delivery' risk being for the private sector to manage (and cover if they don't deliver on time/to budget). Hopefully leftieliberal knows more about historic UK geothermal projects and Miliband survives a reshuffle to try some stuff out if/when LAB take over. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 12, 2023 15:34:11 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w (and Trevor) - I know a fair bit about geothermal energy projects, or at least, the minewater energy projects that most of the UK versions are. I'm pretty sure the Scunthorpe General project will be based on the old iron ore mines, so not deep geothermal, but not certain of that. It is already a proven technology, with several small UK schemes already operating plus a couple of substantial scale scheme on the continent. It is expensive to set up, if done properly, and realistically will need a variety of actions from government, including finance, if we are to make something of the potential. The potential is huge - around 25% of the entire UK heating demand could be met from minewater schemes, and many of the locations have the added value that you could design a reversible scheme, so heat is dumped in summer, helping to future proof buildings with summer cooling which is added back to the below ground energy storage, thus making winter heating even more cost effective. The two big problems are that you never actually know how big your resource is (both in terms of temperature plus the water volume available) until you have drilled a test borehole and then run a test pump for a lengthy period of time. You can get heat resource assessments done relatively cheaply (around £10,000 for a first stage study from the Coal Authority, more for more detailed work), but that's only theoretical data, so you need to drill. The drilling itself is likely to be £100K - £150K alone, depending on the depth, and ideally you would need an extraction and return borehole (although the return is usually shallower than the extraction point, to ensure separation between exhausted return flows and the heated extraction flow). So you need to spend a lot of cash before you can confirm you have a scheme worth pursuing. The other issue is that the state owns the heat, in the guise of the Coal Authority. At present there is no formal structure for licensing it's use (although the Environment Agency is required to license any water abstraction). Investors should be wary of pouring billions into a venture until there is certainty over the long term regulatory situation. The CA is considering setting up a system of licensing/charging, and that will make a significant different to the economics of such schemes. No progress has been made on designing this system for the last decade, so there isn't yet much chance of major private sector engagement beyond a few public sector flagship schemes. (Although there are some small private sector schemes, such as this one for a specific building at Lanchester Wines' Gateshead Warehouse - staging.lanchesterwines.co.uk/what-we-do/sustainability/ ). The other thing required from government is action to deliver heat networks. These are uncommon in the UK, for a range of technical, legal and public attitude reasons. People don't like to buy homes tied into a networked heating system, preferring instead the old fashioned and inefficient idea of having their own boilers. There are steps that could be taken to break down such barriers, but again, a level of vision is needed. Minewater plus heat networks and you are really on a winner. I'd also suggest that action to regulate power prices for such schemes would also be beneficial, as the systems need a lot of electricity. If business electricity prices spike again like they did last year, that could bankrupt mine/geothermal systems, so action from Ofgen on creating a stable pricing structure for power supplies dedicated to commercial scale heating systems like this would be very helpful. So I'd say geothermal/minewater schemes will continue to need some level of state backed funding, plus a range of other support if it is to become commonplace. But it really is an excellent resource for the UK that ought to be right at the centre of our decarbonisation plans. The technology is simple, it needs no special products, other than pumps and pipes, and is genuinely renewable, providing heat in perpetuity (or at least until the earth's core cools and dies). I see it as another victim of the lack of vision of the current government. The progress made up to 2010 on this form of energy extraction was good, but has been wasted. The obsession with heat pumps suits a government that doesn't want to do anything, so they chose to focus on an individual property system, but connected networks served by underground heat resources, backed by government, would be a very welcome step.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 13, 2023 8:01:11 GMT
Brief search on the status of the Scunthorpe General geothermal project (commissioned in 2021). Some info about exploratory boreholes but can't find much else, notably not whether or not the project was delivered on time, on budget and created the savings it was supposed to. The company commissioned to build the project doesn't list Scunthorpe General in their case studies* breatheenergy.com/casestudies/Perhaps the project was axed? If so then I'd still be curious why, given it might have been to some technical issue of the specific site but might have been because the original costings were out and the plug was pulled before it went way over budget. Either way, be useful to know. * Always a bit risky taking the companies own numbers but it's fairly easy to see how some of the 'upfront cost' of those projects could very easily be packaged as a 'annuity bond' and sold to pension funds (where the annuity payments received from the NHS Trust would perfectly match the payments they make to pensioners). Provided the annual cost savings more than cover the interest+capital payment on the debt and the project lifespan >+ the repayment schedule. Could include some index linking as well. IMO that is not rehashing PFI, well not in the 'bad' way. The important thing is to see these projects as 'investments' and not (upfront) 'costs' from an annual budget. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 13, 2023 8:25:53 GMT
Le Mans 24 hour race to be entirely run using sustainable biofuels this year: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/65874444From this article: At this year's race all 62 cars, including the many privateer entries, run on a sustainable fuel made from vineyard grape skin waste.The wine industry's residue is transformed into ethanol, then converted into useable fuel. Its makers say it reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 65%....The European Union (EU) is reportedly close to amending a proposed plan to outlaw the sale of all new combustion-powered cars by 2035. Instead of electric-only cars, it apparently intends to allow the manufacture of new models that run off carbon-neutral fuel.While an all-electric car charged from renewably-generated electricity is the ideal, the goal has to be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible. There are many parts of the world where all-electric cars cannot be sold because the charging infrastructure doesn't exist and it will cost too much to get it in place world-wide by 2050. At least the EU are beginning to see sense (unlike the Germans over nuclear power - they phased out all their reactors and ended up burning more dirty coal, especially lignite the dirtiest coal of all). |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jun 13, 2023 10:25:26 GMT
E-fuels may help reduce carbon emissions - but it cannot be said enough times that they are EXPENSIVE. For something like Le Mans that is little problem compared to the PR boost they can claim, but for general public motoring - it's a real problem.
Technology is certainly predicted to help and bring costs down, but there are solid limits on how much. They will never be able to compete with standard petrol/diesel without huge subsidy.
And CO2 is only one environmental issue - efuels in a combustion engine do nothing towards cleaning up exhaust emissions.
Using vineyard waste may reduce production cost somewhat, and improve the PR still further in such a (French) case, but there is a limit to how much exists.
The danger with efuels is one of distraction. Now that hydrogen (for cars) is being increasingly abandoned, vested interests are looking for some alternative to hold up to try to protect their vested interests. They are smart enough to realise that simply saying carrying on with the status quo is no longer an option, but also realise they are behind in the EV market. So what to do? Pretend there is an alternative which matches their current business model, and muddy the water with greenwashing.
This is fine for Le Man's, but just as horse racing still exists as a sport, horses are virtually not used in most of the world for general transport.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 13, 2023 13:51:16 GMT
Le Mans 24 hour race to be entirely run using sustainable biofuels this year: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/65874444From this article: At this year's race all 62 cars, including the many privateer entries, run on a sustainable fuel made from vineyard grape skin waste.The wine industry's residue is transformed into ethanol, then converted into useable fuel. Its makers say it reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 65%....The European Union (EU) is reportedly close to amending a proposed plan to outlaw the sale of all new combustion-powered cars by 2035. Instead of electric-only cars, it apparently intends to allow the manufacture of new models that run off carbon-neutral fuel.While an all-electric car charged from renewably-generated electricity is the ideal, the goal has to be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible. There are many parts of the world where all-electric cars cannot be sold because the charging infrastructure doesn't exist and it will cost too much to get it in place world-wide by 2050. At least the EU are beginning to see sense (unlike the Germans over nuclear power - they phased out all their reactors and ended up burning more dirty coal, especially lignite the dirtiest coal of all). There is obviously a limit on the volume of vineyard grape skin waste but below is an article highlighting the impact of using arable land for production of fuels Land used for European biofuels could feed 120 million people dailyEurope wastes land the size of Ireland on biofuels which could be used to produce food or given back to nature to create carbon sinks
www.transportenvironment.org/discover/land-used-for-european-biofuels-could-feed-120-million-people-daily/One to watch will be clauses in any EU-Mercosur deal "to try to assuage concerns in Europe over deforestation in the Amazon"www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-vows-to-conclude-eu-mercosur-deal-by-year-end/There are other ways to create e-fuels and I think they will have a niche/bridging role to play but what resources are used to create them is important. NB Agree with you about the 🤦♂️ decision by Germany to shut down nuclear and instead burn a lot more coal - some of the lecky produced by Germany burning lignite is then indirectly imported into UK (links previously provided by folks can check NG's monthly data on the amount of lecky we've been importing this year and see that Germany is a net exporter of lecky and has increased the % of lecky made from coal). |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 15, 2023 11:01:17 GMT
IIRC there was a lot of gratitude towards US when Biden committed to scale up nat.gas production and LNG exports to help Europe wean itself off Russian gas*. So hopefully the 'Just Stop Oil And Gas' folks wouldn't be so stupid to ignore what is going on in the the global trade of LNG, noting how reliant UK (and rEurope) are on LNG imports. Part of the reason forward gas prices have risen recently is due to 'geo-political' concerns.
Are Moscow And China Aiming To Corner The Gas Market? oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Are-Moscow-And-China-Aiming-To-Corner-The-Gas-Market.htmlNow whilst there is not that much oil and gas left in the UK bit of the N.Sea anyway and at a global level what UK does won't make much difference then is anyone really stupid enough to think 'unilateral just stop oil and gas' will solve the global climate emergency rather than simply risk making UK even more reliant on global energy prices and at the mercy of likes of Russia and China? Did we not just learn the stupidity of being so reliant on imported energy the hard way? We should obviously look to speed up both the reduction of our domestic use of oil and gas as well as increasing alternative sources of energy but oil and gas are needed for "just transition" and unless we want to relearn the lesson of Russia's invasion of Ukraine the hard way again in a few years time then we need to increase permission of new domestic oil and gas production now. * Which US is very happy to be doing. Obviously it's a Captain Obvious good idea to not be a net importer of energy (a lesson UK and rEurope had to learn the hard way) www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53719 |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 18, 2023 16:22:08 GMT
CON's policy is IMO 'crowding in' with local input ("Local Power Plan" being the 3word slogan that LAB will use to also tick 'devolution' box) although Rishi and the useless idiot Shapps aren't singing the praises of their own approach enough IMO. Anyway, as well as the 'clarification' of LAB's mission WRT to (not really) "Just Stop Oil" that we'll get tomorrow then another spoiler alert piece that probably won't make many headlines given Starmer is pushing this out on the final day of the Boris pyschodrama:
GB Energy will invest in thousands of local clean energy projects, says Labourpolicymogul.com/key-updates/29384/gb-energy-will-invest-in-thousands-of-local-clean-energy-projects-says-labour |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 19, 2023 9:30:08 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 19, 2023 11:26:49 GMT
Link for LAB's mission to
"MAKE BRITAIN A CLEAN ENERGY SUPERPOWER"
labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Mission-Climate.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 20, 2023 9:33:55 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jun 24, 2023 7:33:26 GMT
It's a question of priorities so I actually agree with the Green councillors (and would note that if you include all roofspace* + buildings to be built in the next decade then we do have enough roofspace to hit the target).
The Green Party politicians who oppose solar farmswww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756The other issue of course is 'storage' and the smaller projects can DIY that via batteries rather than expect to 'dump' it on the grid (as a dedicated solar farm would). As/when we've scaled up a lot more lecky storage AND run out of roof-spaces then take another look at dedicated solar farms - but maybe put them out to sea or sourced from space? * Some solar over existing car parks included in that (I'm not totally against doing that, although those projects should IMO include batteries/EV charging, and would prefer solar over car parks to large scale solar farms on greenfield sites). |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 26, 2023 14:14:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 4, 2023 13:54:35 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 5, 2023 8:10:06 GMT
As we saw with seaweed discussion then there can be some issues around 'carbon accounting' but there are already some systems in place for 'carbon credits' (that likes of Drax exploit). Extending those to improving soil and reforestation (rewilding) ideally needs globally agreed accounting but it could be multi-lateral agreement amongst 'willing' countries and would IMO be better than the 'COP-out' process of various govts making pledges at COP meetings then pulling out later. A system that is B2B (eg African farming co-ops and Western manufacturing businesses, via a trading platform based in say London) would cut out the middle link in the 'B-G x G-B' arrangement of foreign aid, noting that the G-G link can turn into an 'x' (as in 'cancelled') due to 'COP-out's and there are various issues on the B-G or G-B side whereby Govt involvement reduces the final B2B $$ or adds time+hassle that can be cut out. Any UK party could say we'd start that up 'unilaterally' (to begin with) and invite others to join. Implications for UK - saves UK taxpayers money (and/or HMG's embarrassing 'COP-outs') - reestablishes UK as a leader on climate change initiatives - as 'first mover' (and without need for Brussels interference) then we can host the exchange (trading platform) in London (computers don't employ many people but the prestige and second round implications are helpful) - UK business would be first to access the market from the 'buy' side, lowering the cost of manufacturing in UK (a competitive advantage that our trading partners would find it hard to object to) - Businesses in 'Poorer' countries could sell the credits and avoid any domestic political issues (eg corruption whereby the money intended to go a good cause often doesn't make it to the good cause) I'm not underestimating the 'accounting' issues but in principle it would be great if we broaden the scope of 'carbon credits' and cut out the govts. Unfortunately we need the govts to set it up and I'm not optimistic that Rishi-CON or Starmer-LAB will see the opportunity. Maybe one for LDEM or Greens to promote (and SNP in Scotland)? |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 6, 2023 12:58:53 GMT
|
|
Where did it ever come from? Thin air? Did they never even do basic range tests with the prototypes in all that time?
about PHEVs and MEVs send me 