Energy Markets and Net Zero

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 13, 2023 13:36:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

As the board descends ever further toward the realms of the Mail, any thoughts on the news of Tesla entering the energy market here? 

I'll quote a small snippet from CityAM:

"It’s likely that Tesla has made this commitment without really thinking through this plan."

www.cityam.com/elon-musk-poised-to-disrupt-uk-energy-market-with-new-tesla-supplier/

I'm certainly not opposed to 'new entrants' provided they are adequately funded and Ofgem does it's job and ensures they hedge properly, etc (and the only losers if they screw up are shareholders in the company, not taxpayers). However, with Musk, then like his plans to enter UK insurance and build a gigafactory in every country on this planet (and Mars) then I'll wait and see if he bothers to fully think all his "ideas" through. 

PS Link for Tesla's existing presence in UK electricity market. 
www.tesla.com/en_gb/support/tesla-energy-plan

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

Jun 12, 2023 15:34:11 GMT alec said:

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.

Thanks for this response Alec and sorry I forgot to reply! Something occurred to me, recalling a previous exchange on the old board when you mentioned there could be issues with the mine water picking up toxins?

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

Jul 13, 2023 14:12:35 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 13, 2023 13:36:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

As the board descends ever further toward the realms of the Mail, any thoughts on the news of Tesla entering the energy market here? 

I'll quote a small snippet from CityAM:

"It’s likely that Tesla has made this commitment without really thinking through this plan."

www.cityam.com/elon-musk-poised-to-disrupt-uk-energy-market-with-new-tesla-supplier/

I'm certainly not opposed to 'new entrants' provided they are adequately funded and Ofgem does it's job and ensures they hedge properly, etc (and the only losers if they screw up are shareholders in the company, not taxpayers). However, with Musk, then like his plans to enter UK insurance and build a gigafactory in every country on this planet (and Mars) then I'll wait and see if he bothers to fully think all his "ideas" through. 

PS Link for Tesla's existing presence in UK electricity market. 
www.tesla.com/en_gb/support/tesla-energy-plan

Well it’s quite often the case when we post a heads-up about something relatively new, that there’s an element of waiting to see if it’ll happen in practice. In this instance though, there isn’t really much of a practical objection: Musk sells batteries and cars with batteries, both of which can be used to store energy and return it to the grid and they do it in Texas already I think?

The objection appears to be regulatory, but of course regulations may be changed. Alternatively, as the article states, there’s a workaround in aggregating the energy. Musk is quite handy at making things happen and at overcoming regulatory hurdles, including in the regulation-tastic space industry, so might not bet too much against it.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 14, 2023 14:28:53 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jul 13, 2023 14:12:35 GMT Mr Poppy said:

I'll quote a small snippet from CityAM:

"It’s likely that Tesla has made this commitment without really thinking through this plan."

www.cityam.com/elon-musk-poised-to-disrupt-uk-energy-market-with-new-tesla-supplier/

I'm certainly not opposed to 'new entrants' provided they are adequately funded and Ofgem does it's job and ensures they hedge properly, etc (and the only losers if they screw up are shareholders in the company, not taxpayers). However, with Musk, then like his plans to enter UK insurance and build a gigafactory in every country on this planet (and Mars) then I'll wait and see if he bothers to fully think all his "ideas" through. 

PS Link for Tesla's existing presence in UK electricity market. 
www.tesla.com/en_gb/support/tesla-energy-plan

Well it’s quite often the case when we post a heads-up about something relatively new, that there’s an element of waiting to see if it’ll happen in practice. In this instance though, there isn’t really much of a practical objection: Musk sells batteries and cars with batteries, both of which can be used to store energy and return it to the grid and they do it in Texas already I think?

The objection appears to be regulatory, but of course regulations may be changed. Alternatively, as the article states, there’s a workaround in aggregating the energy. Musk is quite handy at making things happen and at overcoming regulatory hurdles, including in the regulation-tastic space industry, so might not bet too much against it.

Some people in UK sell lecky back to the grid (and use batteries to 'buy' lecky when cheap and 'sell' when expensive). Nothing new in that. Also see the link that shows Tesla already has a presence in UK.

I hope he/others do take a larger/'new entrant' role in UK. There are regulations but the regulators haven't objected.

TBC. Musk is always coming up with ideas and saying he'll do this, that and the other. Not all of them come to pass. I wouldn't bet against him but I wouldn't bet on everything he says he'll do actually being something he will then do.  

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - re minewater heating schemes, yes, the toxins issues can be serious, usually heavy metals plus other nasties. I open loop systems you discharge the water on surface after extracting the heat, and this is where the problems will arise. You usually need to construct a series of settlement ponds and reed beds or something similar, and in due course you'll have to dredge these and find somewhere that can accept toxic waste, so you end up with an ongoing management issue (although reed beds can be attractive wildlife features, even when treating waste).

The other option is the closed loop system, which has twin boreholes, one to extract the water and one to return it. This is easier that open loop as you don't have the pollution issue, but means you nearly double your starting costs as you have to drill two boreholes, which is expensive. It's not quite double as you normally extract from deeper levels (warmer) and inject the spent water into shallower seams, so it has time to rewarm before extraction and you don't end up cooling your extraction point. While more capital intensive, this option takes less land and would allow a reversible system where you can use the system for summer cooling, dumping heat back into the mineworkings.

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

Jul 14, 2023 14:57:04 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 14, 2023 14:28:53 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Well it’s quite often the case when we post a heads-up about something relatively new, that there’s an element of waiting to see if it’ll happen in practice. In this instance though, there isn’t really much of a practical objection: Musk sells batteries and cars with batteries, both of which can be used to store energy and return it to the grid and they do it in Texas already I think?

The objection appears to be regulatory, but of course regulations may be changed. Alternatively, as the article states, there’s a workaround in aggregating the energy. Musk is quite handy at making things happen and at overcoming regulatory hurdles, including in the regulation-tastic space industry, so might not bet too much against it.

Some people in UK sell lecky back to the grid (and use batteries to 'buy' lecky when cheap and 'sell' when expensive). Nothing new in that. Also see the link that shows Tesla already has a presence in UK.

I hope he/others do take a larger/'new entrant' role in UK. There are regulations but the regulators haven't objected.

TBC. Musk is always coming up with ideas and saying he'll do this, that and the other. Not all of them come to pass. I wouldn't bet against him but I wouldn't bet on everything he says he'll do actually being something he will then do.  

Yes, obviously that is nothing new - I don’t know if you read the article you linked to, but the sticking point appears to be the universal service obligation*, where you have to offer it to everyone, whereas Tesla might want to confine it to customers using Tesla power walls and cars. And sure, lots of business folk explore options then decide not to bother. Musk does seem quite keen to promote the green thing though.

* though as the article suggests there might be a work around 

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

Jul 14, 2023 15:05:05 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - re minewater heating schemes, yes, the toxins issues can be serious, usually heavy metals plus other nasties. I open loop systems you discharge the water on surface after extracting the heat, and this is where the problems will arise. You usually need to construct a series of settlement ponds and reed beds or something similar, and in due course you'll have to dredge these and find somewhere that can accept toxic waste, so you end up with an ongoing management issue (although reed beds can be attractive wildlife features, even when treating waste).

The other option is the closed loop system, which has twin boreholes, one to extract the water and one to return it. This is easier that open loop as you don't have the pollution issue, but means you nearly double your starting costs as you have to drill two boreholes, which is expensive. It's not quite double as you normally extract from deeper levels (warmer) and inject the spent water into shallower seams, so it has time to rewarm before extraction and you don't end up cooling your extraction point. While more capital intensive, this option takes less land and would allow a reversible system where you can use the system for summer cooling, dumping heat back into the mineworkings.

thanks, interesting stuff. The borehole thing is something worth reducing in cost, it has other uses, like storing nuclear waste. Instead of storing it in big underground spaces, where it may leak into the water or be affected by earthquakes, another approach is to store it really deep, using standard methods to drill boreholes about eighteen inches across, which can be drilled much deeper, well below water tables and geological activity. 

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 14, 2023 17:33:40 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jul 14, 2023 14:57:04 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Some people in UK sell lecky back to the grid (and use batteries to 'buy' lecky when cheap and 'sell' when expensive). Nothing new in that. Also see the link that shows Tesla already has a presence in UK.

I hope he/others do take a larger/'new entrant' role in UK. There are regulations but the regulators haven't objected.

TBC. Musk is always coming up with ideas and saying he'll do this, that and the other. Not all of them come to pass. I wouldn't bet against him but I wouldn't bet on everything he says he'll do actually being something he will then do.  

Yes, obviously that is nothing new - I don’t know if you read the article you linked to, but the sticking point appears to be the universal service obligation*, where you have to offer it to everyone, whereas Tesla might want to confine it to customers using Tesla power walls and cars. And sure, lots of business folk explore options then decide not to bother. Musk does seem quite keen to promote the green thing though.

* though as the article suggests there might be a work around 

Some more info on the 'work around' in the article that I linked (which, unlike some others, I did actually read before I posted it!)

www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/smart-export-guarantee-seg

You'll need to open the additional links to see how Tesla could offer tariffs for 'Brown Export'

"3.7. SEG licensees are not obligated to make SEG payments in a number of situations:
 for any ‘Brown Export’ - exported electricity not generated by the eligible installation (including standby generators, batteries, technologies not supported by SEG)"

and note the size issue aspect, which puts numbers on the point made in the article  

NB A future HMG could reduce the size threshold but unless/until then we'll wait and see if Tesla can find a cunning way to aggregate power wall (and other battery) users that Ofgem accept. 

UK has been (and is) building a load of short-term storage that is above the size threshold and I wouldn't get my hopes up that the size threshold will be dropped to let a load of fairly unpredictable users to 'arbitrage' the intra-day price swings as that causes a bit of a problem already (and was a large part of the reason that the FIT schemes ended). Of course anyone with a battery can still supply themselves, or their workers, etc. and draw cheap lecky from the grid to charge their batteries when the lecky is cheap (or occasionally -ve, although haven't had much of that recently   )

[alec]

Trevor - "NB A future HMG could reduce the size threshold but unless/until then we'll wait and see if Tesla can find a cunning way to aggregate power wall (and other battery) users that Ofgem accept."

It's already happening. In the UK it's usually referred to as a 'Virtual Power Plant', which is simply a fancy way of describing multiple generators/battery banks operated in a linked fashion to take advantage of differential rates and the balancing markets.

I'm involved with one small project in the north of England doing this in a series of community properties spread across a wide geographical area but there are many other larger schemes active and under development.

To be honest, I've been surprised Tesla have taken so long to get round to this. The Powerwall had relatively large reach at one point, and I had been expecting Musk to try to capitalise o this before now, so he's a bit behind the curve in many ways.

[Mercian as guest]

I've just been watching youtube videos of the Just Stop Oil knobheads in London. I'm amazed that there isn't serious violence from the innocent people just trying to get to work or whatever. We can all sympathise with the idea that fossil fuels should be gradually reduced, but these people are complete idiots. Do they think that if the UK miraculously ceased all carbon emissions instantly that it would have any measurable effect on world figures?

They are just alienating people who might be persuadable.

[Mr Poppy]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w As you might well know then the 'Lone Star State' (Texas) goes it alone with its own grid. Tesla Electric only currently operate in Texas. I'm not an expert on the US regs but it is (IMO) surprising they don't operate in other States*

www.tesla.com/electric

If/when you hear more about Tesla's plans in UK (assuming Musk doesn't 'move on' as he so often does) then please post the info. IMO Powerwall is a great product but it's pretty pricey compared to other manus. EV owners might also want a smallish battery if they have solar but in some cases a cheapish 2nd hand EV makes an excellent battery choice (with the Brucie Bonus of being to use it for short-medium journeys if you're a 2car family). 

V2G** can be also be a cumbersome faff but that is IMO largely due to UK Power Networks being a bit shit and stupidly expensive in charges (which they can get away with as a regional monopoly). Everyone's circumstances will vary of course and this is not the place for 'personalised' advice but other than some free advertising via 'click-bait' then.. well... we'll see if Tesla Electric comes to GB anytime soon or not. 

* California would seem the obvious one but they have a lot of capacity issues in Tesla's home state and are part of 'Western Interconnection' (which, like the Western Conference for NHL, extends into Canada). Some states certainly offer specific incentives to buy Tesla products but electricity grids is a whole different kettle of fish. 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmission_grid

** www.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/electricity/electric-vehicle-charging-point/vehicle-to-grid

[alec]

mercian as guest - what's an Oil Knobhead?

[John Chanin]

Jul 15, 2023 16:51:29 GMT alec said:

mercian as guest - what's an Oil Knobhead?

Virtue signallers whose grasp on reality is severely limited.

[alec]

@john Chanin - "Virtue signallers whose grasp on reality is severely limited."

While my post was originally in jest, with record sea temperatures around the world, Europe on the cusp of breaking it's 48.8C temperature record (set in 2021) the UK having it's hottest June on record and global temperatures recording their hottest ever single day in modern recorded history in the last couple of weeks, I'd ask if you're absolutely sure that you're not the one who has lost their grasp of reality?

Do you not understand what's happening with the climate, and if you do, why do you dismiss protestors against the primary cause as virtue signalers?

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 15, 2023 18:32:53 GMT John Chanin said:

Jul 15, 2023 16:51:29 GMT alec said:

mercian as guest - what's an Oil Knobhead?

Virtue signallers whose grasp on reality is severely limited.

Last of the big 'Oil Knobheads' came round a while ago:

Exxon says its decarbonization business could outgrow oil, in multi-trillion market
www.reuters.com/business/energy/decarbonization-business-could-outgrow-oil-exxon-executive-2023-04-04/

However, mercian stated 'Just Stop Oil' Knobheads noting "They are just alienating people who might be persuadable."
ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/92128/thread

Similar to 'Insulate Britain'*. Worthy causes but their methods are where the 'knobhead' behaviour comes in. They might well be totally oblivious to polling but politicians are not. So if their methods alienate voters then it makes it hard for any political party to support them (even Green Party of E&W have objected to their 'tactics'**)

I'll repost YG's polling on people's views of 'Just Stop Oil':

On the main thread then there was a discussion about the issues Netherlands is facing in convincing their electorate about the need for change. 

* Covered back in the days when they were pissing people off rather than doing like stuff like wrapping some cling film on single glazed windows of council buildings over the weekend with signs saying (EG) "Insulating this building would save £5,000pa of taxpayer money". Folks might then have rallied to their cause but delaying their journeys, trying to ruin sporting events, etc is a massive own goal in terms of trying to get people to support you - hence 'knobheads' is a fair description IMO.

** Just Stop Oil: Greens co-leader Carla Denyer criticises some of activists' tactics
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63598138

[leftieliberal]

I wouldn't normally recommend anything to do with Musk, but his Master Plan 3 makes a lot of sense (or at least the figures do, whether he can actually achieve this based on his inability to run Twitter is another matter).

Well-thought out

When the MP3 was published on the Tesla website in early April, an initial skim read suggested a well-thought plan that covered all the bases. But when I examined it in more detail on holiday, I was extremely impressed. Using data from the International Energy Agency, the plan reminds us that the world currently uses about 165 petawatt-hours of energy per year (PWh/yr), of which 80% is from fossil fuels. Losses and inefficiencies, however, mean that barely 36% of the total energy is actually used for the purpose intended (59 PWh/yr).

But because electrically-driven power sources are far more efficient than combustion engines, the “electric economy” only needs 82 PWh/yr to do the same work. A Tesla Model 3, for example, is 3.9 times more energy efficient than a petrol-powered Toyota Corolla, while a heat pump is 3–4 times better than a gas boiler. Of course, a truly electric economy will need vast amounts of materials to build solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and so on.

What’s more, as the MP3 report estimates, we’d need 240 TWh/yr of battery storage to manage the 30 TW power generated from solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources. That in turn would require us to spend up to $10 trillion mining, refining and manufacturing everything from concrete, glass and steel to all sorts of rare-earth elements needed in batteries.

It is an eye-watering figure but, according to the MP3 analysis, it’s actually less than the $14 trillion the world is projected to spend over the next two decades on fossil fuels. What’s more if the $10 trillion were spread out over 10 years, it would be only 1% of the world’s total GDP (currently $100 trillion) and only 0.5% if spread out over 20 years. It doesn’t sound implausible if we put our minds to it, especially when you realize that fossil-fuel firms made a total of $4 trillion in profits last year.

The challenge will be to persuade oil and gas companies to rethink their strategies because without any compunction, nothing will change how money is invested

In fact, we’d need to turn over less than 0.21% of the global land mass to build enough wind and solar power plants. Another advantage is that less mining would be required in an electrical economy than in a combustion economy. The challenge, I suspect, will be to persuade oil and gas companies to rethink their strategies because without any compunction, nothing will change how money is invested.

Five steps to success

MP3 outlines five steps we need to take to reach an all-electrical economy. First, we need to switch to renewable power, which would cut our use of fossil fuels by 35%. Second, move to electrically-powered vehicles (a 21% reduction). Third, install heat pumps (a 22% saving). Fourth, get industry to switch to “green” hydrogen for processing metals and other high-temperature operations (a 17% cut). Finally, sustainably fuel planes and boats (a 5% saving).

Of course, none of this is new. Many companies, governments and institutions around the world have been talking about the need to expand renewable energy production, while many car firms already plan to move mostly (or completely) to electric vehicles at some point in the future. But Musk – and Tesla – make the case much more clearly than most in one well-presented report. Sure, you could challenge some of the assumptions outlined in MP3, but I don’t believe anything would fundamentally change what he has to say.

The world, for example, might adopt more nuclear, geothermal or hydroelectric power. True, but that would only mean it takes us less time to get there. It could also turn out harder than we think to remove rare-earth metals for the batteries and motors inside electric vehicles while still retaining their efficiency. But there are a lot of people working on this problem and who knows what technological breakthroughs lie round the corner?

Some have argued that the investment costs may be higher by 30–50% in certain areas. Yes, but whatever the precise figure, it will not materially change the points eloquently made by Musk at the end of the MP3 presentation. Tesla’s plans are entirely feasible and bring hope and optimism – not just for those who are investors in the company – but for all of us who are, ultimately, investors in the Earth.

From James McKenzie's article in the latest Physics World, the house magazine of the Institute of Physics.

[lens]

No, not the same as was being discussed a few posts back, but I think it's worth mentioning the impact Tesla and Musk are already having on the UK (and world) energy infrastructure via megapacks and grid storage.

www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/uk-builds-europes-biggest-battery-out-of-tesla-megapacks/

Quote: "The UK has switched on what is described as "Europe's largest battery" in Yorkshire.

The Pillswood project, near Hill in East Yorkshire, holds 196MWh of energy, and can deliver 98MW of power, so it could supply 300,000 homes for two hours. It is intended to balance the grid and enable full usage of the output of the Dogger Bank wind farm, a giant project scheduled to eventually deliver 4.8GW of electricity, when it goes live in 2023.


Tesla built the system for Harmony Energy Limited and it is designed to allow the British electricity grid to store renewable energy so peaks of demand can be met with......."

Read the link and that's far from the only project Tesla are involved with. Musk is certainly a divisive character, but I'm forced to agree that perhaps more than any other single human being he is doing one hell of a lot to attempt to mitigate climate change. Better that than other (non-tweeting) more anonymous CEOs of car companies who are only interested in the pure bottom line, and to hell with the environment?

[alec]

lens - would be interesting to know the contractual basis for Pillswood project. In the week that saw the UK's showcase hydrogen domestic heating trials scrapped, in large part due to poor economic outlooks, it's interesting to see a very big battery project come through under existing market conditions.

[lens]

Jul 17, 2023 21:14:38 GMT alec said:

In the week that saw the UK's showcase hydrogen domestic heating trials scrapped, in large part due to poor economic outlooks,...............

Really? Do you have a reference for that? I hadn't heard.

I find it hardly surprising. Ignoring subsidisation etc, if electricity is made from coal or gas, it's inevitable a kWh of electricity will cost more than a kWh of coal/gas. But people will pay for the convenience of electricity and versatility. I've yet to see a gas powered television or vacuum cleaner.......

But make gas (hydrogen) from electricity and it's inevitable the economics will be the other way round. A kWh of gas must then cost more than a kWh of electricity. The only reason for going down the hydrogen domestic heating route is existing boilers, and gas boilers (currently) being cheaper than heat pumps.

Heat pumps may currently have issues, but if the kWh price of electricity becomes cheaper than the kWh price of gas, then simple resistive electric heating becomes cheaper per kWh than gas! The only issue then being that supply current to houses may need to be higher than currently? Which shouldn't be too difficult in new builds..... There's also a lot of scope for replacing gas for cooking with induction hobs.

I really wish the hydrogen efforts could be concentrated where they are really needed - greening hydrogen for industrial processes where there is no alternative.

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

May be filed under “believe it when I see it” if you like, but it was in the news, so…

“Ministers will commit £20 billion of taxpayers’ money to fund the development of a network of small nuclear power stations, in an effort to meet the government’s 2035 net-zero target.

In one of the largest ever direct government investments in civil nuclear power, Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, will announce plans to directly fund the development of up to eight small modular reactors (SMRs) in the UK.

This is expected to unlock billions of pounds of private investment in the technology with an ambition for the first reactors to go into service in the early 2030s, ahead of the government’s target to decarbonise electricity generation by 2035.”

…

But there is criticism: 

“But Dr Paul Dorfman, visiting fellow at the science policy research unit at the University of Sussex, said like previous nuclear projects it could prove economically impossible.

“The problem with nuclear isn’t that we’ve been doing it wrong or haven’t tried hard enough, it’s with nuclear itself — which even after more than 60 years of commercial development is nowhere near an economically viable technology,” he said.

Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, added that the “hype” around SMRs was overstated and that they remained a “bad bet” to create renewable energy.

“SMRs have no track record, but initial indications are that the familiar problems of cost overruns and delays will be repeated, and the accumulation of unmanageable waste will continue,” he said.”


Times

[alec]

lens - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66165484

[John Chanin]

Jul 15, 2023 21:20:51 GMT alec said:

@john Chanin - "Virtue signallers whose grasp on reality is severely limited."

While my post was originally in jest, with record sea temperatures around the world, Europe on the cusp of breaking it's 48.8C temperature record (set in 2021) the UK having it's hottest June on record and global temperatures recording their hottest ever single day in modern recorded history in the last couple of weeks, I'd ask if you're absolutely sure that you're not the one who has lost their grasp of reality?

Do you not understand what's happening with the climate, and if you do, why do you dismiss protestors against the primary cause as virtue signalers?

Because I do take climate change very seriously, and see it as the major problem of our time, which governments are not doing enough about.  But these people are deluded.  You can't just stop anything without wrecking people's lives. They understand very little about climate change, let alone economics or politics, and their only effect is to piss people off, and make serious change less likely as a result.

So yes, basically, they are virtue signallers, or as mercian unpolitely puts it "knobheads".

Governments need to take some hard decisions, which cost money, and be prepared to defend them, and they need a good chunk of the public on their side.

[alec]

John Chanin - I do have some sympathy with this view, and there are always difficult decisions about how far protest needs to balance public opinion, especially when you are in the face of extreme danger. The Sufferagettes were bloddy annoying to a lot of people, but they took such tactics only after decades of being ignored and having mainstream politicians pay lip service to their cause. That was only about the right to vote. This is about the survivability of the planet for humanity, so those dismissing JSO as 'knobheads' or virtue signalers really better be absolutely sure they haven't underestimated the climate heating challenge. Everyone probably thought Noah was a twat too, until it started raining.

I am sort of with you though on the effectiveness of some of the tactics. Some of the disruptions are probably counter productive, but less, I think, than many people believe. We're regularly talking about this issue as a crisis - and that's the first step required. Much of that will be down to JSO, and I suspect that like it or not, their aggressive tactics are having an impact.

[lens]

Jul 18, 2023 9:53:36 GMT alec said:

I am sort of with you though on the effectiveness of some of the tactics. Some of the disruptions are probably counter productive, but less, I think, than many people believe. We're regularly talking about this issue as a crisis - and that's the first step required. Much of that will be down to JSO, and I suspect that like it or not, their aggressive tactics are having an impact.

The point of every demonstration is to get increasing support to your side - or should be. The first element is to gain widespread publicity - get yourself noticed - the second is to make people think you are right.

And one of the first lessons of media training is to think of the wider audience - not the immediate "enemy", be they a company or just a journalist interviewing you. A core mistake that is warned against is to beware of thinking "hah! I won that argument!" as an end all. It is simply stupid to think that apparently besting your immediate opponent is clever if the wider audience is thinking "what an arrogant little knobhead they are!" Jso may be successful in their "battle" to stop traffic on the M25 for a few hours - but that's stupid if it acts to turn people AWAY from their cause?

And that is the pit that JSO are falling right into. Yes, they are succeeding in gaining publicity - but in the process alienating people. Including people who may already be inclined to be sympathetic to the underlying message. That's just stupid. It's important to separate fundamental issues from those who claim to be acting for such. I've no problem with considering climate change to be the most important issue facing the planet today - but also considering JSO to be knobheads. ( 😉 )

As example of getting it right, I may quote Greenpeace. They were arguably the masters of the "spectacular" demonstration - but one which was targeted to cause inconvenience to their adversary but not to the public at large. JSO could learn a lot from them.

You quote the suffragettes, and I'm not sure they are a good example. I'd argue that if anything the single most important factor in gaining the vote for women was the First World War. As with many wars, nothing was the same after, and women having done so much work that previously was male only was arguably the main reason for changing attitudes. I believe a school of thought at the time was that whilst many basically were in favour of giving women the vote, they strongly disapproved of the more militant attitudes of some suffragettes, and it's arguable that such *delayed* the inevitable?

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 17, 2023 13:02:52 GMT leftieliberal said:

...
What’s more, as the MP3 report estimates, we’d need 240 TWh/yr of battery storage to manage the 30 TW power generated from solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources. That in turn would require us to spend up to $10 trillion mining, refining and manufacturing everything from concrete, glass and steel to all sorts of rare-earth elements needed in batteries.
...

Thank you for the post. There are of course other forms of storage but it was certainly interesting analysis. As stated previously we need a lot of everything (it's not a betamax v VHS contest) but it is great that Musk is pushing his 'speciality' and looking into other pieces of the puzzle. 

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 17, 2023 23:20:54 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May be filed under “believe it when I see it” if you like, but it was in the news, so…

Official blurb:

www.gov.uk/government/news/british-nuclear-revival-to-move-towards-energy-independence#

Might seem confusion on the £20billion. That is 'coincidentally'?? the same amount as Sizewell C but UK's 'special share' that shut out China is not £20bn.

Anyway, about bloody time from Shapps on the SMR news. 

[lens]

Jul 18, 2023 6:39:54 GMT alec said:

lens - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66165484

Hmmm. Interesting how they are putting the reasons for the abandonment squarely on the residents. I wonder if that happens to be convenient, and to excuse a more general realisation that it just doesn't make sense?

Quote: "Justin Madders, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said: "It is clear that asking people to try experimental new forms of energy consumption for their homes will not work unless basic questions about safety, efficacy and cost can be answered from the start."

And really, if asked to take part in such a trial, I'd expect at the very least a pretty good guarantee that I wouldn't have any risk of being worse off financially? Hardly surprising the residents aren't happy? "We want you to be part of an experiment, oh, and by the way, part of it will mean you taking financial risk for us"?

I wonder if the Redcar trial will go the same way?

[alec]

lens - going the same way - www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/extremely-concerned-future-of-uk-hydrogen-heating-trials-hangs-in-the-balance-as-opposition-grows-in-redcar/2-1-1486630

The Conservatives have spaffed around, wasting a great deal of time on H2 for domestic heating, while Europe is getting on with the job of insulating and installing heat pumps 10 times faster than we're managing. There have also been recent reports flagging the risks of the small nuclear options too, with no sign that they will ever be competitive and that the fundamental problems of nuclear of cost and waste remain unresolved, against which background the idea that smaller would be more cost effective was always a bit of PR puff.

All governments I think are prone to falling for the high tech promises, but this government more than most, because they are desperate to believe someone can deliver a tech answer that spares them from doing the grunt work.

[John Chanin]

Jul 18, 2023 19:16:41 GMT alec said:

lens - going the same way - www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/extremely-concerned-future-of-uk-hydrogen-heating-trials-hangs-in-the-balance-as-opposition-grows-in-redcar/2-1-1486630

The Conservatives have spaffed around, wasting a great deal of time on H2 for domestic heating, while Europe is getting on with the job of insulating and installing heat pumps 10 times faster than we're managing. There have also been recent reports flagging the risks of the small nuclear options too, with no sign that they will ever be competitive and that the fundamental problems of nuclear of cost and waste remain unresolved, against which background the idea that smaller would be more cost effective was always a bit of PR puff.

All governments I think are prone to falling for the high tech promises, but this government more than most, because they are desperate to believe someone can deliver a tech answer that spares them from doing the grunt work.

I have an element of sympathy for this view, but it is also correct that new technological possibilities need to be explored, and that will cost money - public money.  The private sector will take over if and when the feasibility is proven.   Hydrogen as a fuel for standard domestic use definitely looks like a non-starter, but it may have applications in bulk, and pilot studies seem worthwhile. Small modular reactors are well worth investing in. They are less of a longshot, and could also have export possibilities. There remains a surprising level of hostility to nuclear power on principle, which it appears you may subscribe to.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 19, 2023 7:39:34 GMT John Chanin said:

Jul 18, 2023 19:16:41 GMT alec said:

lens - going the same way - www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/extremely-concerned-future-of-uk-hydrogen-heating-trials-hangs-in-the-balance-as-opposition-grows-in-redcar/2-1-1486630

The Conservatives have spaffed around, wasting a great deal of time on H2 for domestic heating, while Europe is getting on with the job of insulating and installing heat pumps 10 times faster than we're managing. There have also been recent reports flagging the risks of the small nuclear options too, with no sign that they will ever be competitive and that the fundamental problems of nuclear of cost and waste remain unresolved, against which background the idea that smaller would be more cost effective was always a bit of PR puff.

All governments I think are prone to falling for the high tech promises, but this government more than most, because they are desperate to believe someone can deliver a tech answer that spares them from doing the grunt work.

I have an element of sympathy for this view, but it is also correct that new technological possibilities need to be explored, and that will cost money - public money.  The private sector will take over if and when the feasibility is proven.   Hydrogen as a fuel for standard domestic use definitely looks like a non-starter, but it may have applications in bulk, and pilot studies seem worthwhile. Small modular reactors are well worth investing in. They are less of a longshot, and could also have export possibilities. There remains a surprising level of hostility to nuclear power on principle, which it appears you may subscribe to.

I appreciate some people rarely actually look at what is happening elsewhere but FWIW then Germany, Italy, etc are progressing with adoption of hydrogen in a variety of roles. EG blending "Hydrogen as a fuel for standard domestic use"

German gas operator says 20% hydrogen blending trial in 100 homes has been ‘100% trouble-free’ after six months
www.hydrogeninsight.com/innovation/german-gas-operator-says-20-hydrogen-blending-trial-in-100-homes-has-been-100-trouble-free-after-six-months/2-1-1455488#

I'm not unhiding posts of ignornant partisan drivel but I am disappointed UK are perhaps waiting to 'copy' others who are doing the testing that UK could+should be doing. Whilst the 'cutting edge' is sometimes called the 'bleeding edge' as it is expensive and anyone/everyone can copy good ideas once they've seen they work, then if everyone waits for someone else to try stuff out that is 'climate delaying'. 

The only way we'll find out how big a role H2 will have is by building massive H2 capacity (to reduce the costs) and, in parallel, testing out the roles it could do.

I've ANFIW in a "GroundHog Day" on H2 but others have 'started' and are progressing much faster than UK - not that some will have noticed that of course.