Energy Markets and Net Zero

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

Aug 22, 2023 17:32:18 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:24:36 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

@trev

If energy is cheap and available enough, then you don’t have to worry as much about insulation and you can supplement a heat pump output on days it isn’t quite enough. I do think making lots more green energy available remedies a lot of issues more generally.

Best not to go down that route chez nous. Not now I've sold all my shares in likes of Centrica for sure (1/2 joking!   )

Cutting energy demand is IMO v.v.v.important. Being able to supply lots of cheap, carbon neutral/-ve, energy is also v.v.v.important but IMO we need to do both and it's a separate discussion for how to reduce demand (eg better insulation) versus the supply mix. 

That 'confusion' was an issue back on the ol' UKPR but let's not drag that back up.

On the other hand, if you have lots of cheap energy you can look for more cool ways to use it. 

[Mr Poppy]

Aug 22, 2023 17:34:25 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:32:18 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Best not to go down that route chez nous. Not now I've sold all my shares in likes of Centrica for sure (1/2 joking!   )

Cutting energy demand is IMO v.v.v.important. Being able to supply lots of cheap, carbon neutral/-ve, energy is also v.v.v.important but IMO we need to do both and it's a separate discussion for how to reduce demand (eg better insulation) versus the supply mix. 

That 'confusion' was an issue back on the ol' UKPR but let's not drag that back up.

On the other hand, if you have lots of cheap energy you can look for more cool ways to use it. 

We agree on the need for lots of cheap energy. Two hands: with the need for the demand hand to go down; and the carbon zero/-ve supply hand to up 

PS The most 'uncool' thing you can with energy is use it for 'heating' a poorly insulated home   

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

Aug 22, 2023 17:47:27 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:34:25 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

On the other hand, if you have lots of cheap energy you can look for more cool ways to use it. 

We agree on the need for lots of cheap energy. Two hands: with the need for the demand hand to go down; and the carbon zero/-ve supply hand to up 

PS The most 'uncool' thing you can with energy is use it for 'heating' a poorly insulated home   

Though we may not always want demand to go down. If we made healthier food cheaper and demand for it went up, might not be such a bad thing.

 

[leftieliberal]

Aug 22, 2023 17:06:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 22, 2023 16:42:39 GMT leftieliberal said:

I wouldn't trust anything I read in the Daily Telegraph. The most efficient thermodynamic cycle is the Carnot cycle and its efficiency as a heat pump is
T_hot/(T_hot-T_cold) where the temperatures are in Kelvin. It is not even theoretically possible to convert one unit of electricity to four units of heat if your cold reservoir is at 273 K and your hot reservoir is at 373 K (this is why radiators with heat pumps are cooler than radiators with gas boilers). As you are most likely to need heating in the winter that cold reservoir could be as low as 260K (and I'm not thinking of the Scottish Highlands). Heat pumps work better with air heating than with radiators because with the latter you have to transfer heat from the working fluid to the water and then from the water in the radiators to the air in the room.

Yeah I know, I’ve talked about it before in a different context: it’s why using molten salt is more efficient than pressurised water for cooling nuclear reactors, because the molten salt is at a higher temp.

(The Carnot cycle doesn’t always quite apply - I talked about the Otto cycle when we were discussing the efficiency of piston engines etc. - In this instance efficiency is in part limited because you can’t keep raising the temp. without melting the engine etc.)

The numbers you picked give about 3.7 which isn’t so far off four. With some slightly different numbers you might get it to four times. 

p.s. I do find it of interest how the press convey such things, what they get right and what they struggle with. Very notable during the pandemic. They did tend to improve a bit over time it seemed…

The Carnot Cycle is still the most efficient with a working fluid that is not ejected at the end of the cycle (unlike the Otto cycle).
A CoP of 3.7 theoretical probably translates to somewhere in the range 3-3.5 in practice. To get it to 4 you need a lower T_hot or a higher T_cold. The closer T_hot and T_cold are together, the higher the theoretical ratio, but in practice what happens is that heat losses within the cycle become more important. In the end you are unlikely to see heat pumps with a CoP of greater than 4 simply because of the cost of manufacturing them. 

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

Aug 22, 2023 19:01:35 GMT leftieliberal said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:06:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah I know, I’ve talked about it before in a different context: it’s why using molten salt is more efficient than pressurised water for cooling nuclear reactors, because the molten salt is at a higher temp.

(The Carnot cycle doesn’t always quite apply - I talked about the Otto cycle when we were discussing the efficiency of piston engines etc. - In this instance efficiency is in part limited because you can’t keep raising the temp. without melting the engine etc.)

The numbers you picked give about 3.7 which isn’t so far off four. With some slightly different numbers you might get it to four times. 

p.s. I do find it of interest how the press convey such things, what they get right and what they struggle with. Very notable during the pandemic. They did tend to improve a bit over time it seemed…

The Carnot Cycle is still the most efficient with a working fluid that is not ejected at the end of the cycle (unlike the Otto cycle).
A CoP of 3.7 theoretical probably translates to somewhere in the range 3-3.5 in practice. To get it to 4 you need a lower T_hot or a higher T_cold. The closer T_hot and T_cold are together, the higher the theoretical ratio, but in practice what happens is that heat losses within the cycle become more important. In the end you are unlikely to see heat pumps with a CoP of greater than 4 simply because of the cost of manufacturing them. 

Yes, I wasn’t claiming the Otto cycle to be more efficient, but simply using it as an acknowledgement of how practical limitations can restrict efficiency gains, and how another cycle might sometimes be a better fit than Carnot. (In this instance, strictly speaking, we are not talking about the Carnot cycle so much as the reversed Carnot cycle, as a heat pump is not a heat engine). As for the effect of the difference in temps on efficiency, of course the ambient temp. may vary throughout the year, so it’s possible that the rate may be above 4 some of the time, and below at others. Interestingly the International Energy Agency say it is around four:

www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-heat-pumps/how-a-heat-pump-works

“The output of energy in the form of heat is normally several times greater than that required to power the heat pump, normally in the form of electricity. For example, the coefficient of performance (COP) for a typical household heat pump is around four, i.e. the energy output is four times greater than the electrical energy used to run it.”

[Mr Poppy]

Aug 22, 2023 18:58:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:47:27 GMT Mr Poppy said:

We agree on the need for lots of cheap energy. Two hands: with the need for the demand hand to go down; and the carbon zero/-ve supply hand to up 

PS The most 'uncool' thing you can with energy is use it for 'heating' a poorly insulated home   

Though we may not always want demand to go down. If we made healthier food cheaper and demand for it went up, might not be such a bad thing.

 

Vertical farms and 'printing protein' uses a lot of energy but that is 'future' demand and not wasting energy heating poorly insulated houses as we 'currently' do.  

I'm a big fan of the 'cool stuff' (but just to be clear that does not mean 'air conditioning' - don't get me started on the people who can't cope with anything >22C as well as the people who need to heat their house to 22C in the Winter)

PS Reducing 'food miles' and eating a more seasonal diet would reduce current energy demands and be healthier but I get your point and some current farming techniques that are designed to 'max' yield are not good for the planet but that is also a tangent onto 'land usage'.

PPS A lot of food processing is unhealthy and uses a lot of energy and hence why I'm guessing you meant vertical farms and 'printing protein'?

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

Aug 22, 2023 20:28:58 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Aug 22, 2023 18:58:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Though we may not always want demand to go down. If we made healthier food cheaper and demand for it went up, might not be such a bad thing.

 

Vertical farms and 'printing protein' uses a lot of energy but that is 'future' demand and not wasting energy heating poorly insulated houses as we 'currently' do.  

I'm a big fan of the 'cool stuff' (but just to be clear that does not mean 'air conditioning' - don't get me started on the people who can't cope with anything >22C as well as the people who need to heat their house to 22C in the Winter)

So what do you think of the people who can’t cope with anything greater than 22 degC or who need to heat their house to 22 degC in winter? 😇

[Mr Poppy]

Better late* than never and yes, WTF took them so long?!?

UK power plants barred from charging extreme prices this winter
www.standard.co.uk/business/uk-power-plants-barred-charging-extreme-prices-winter-energy-ofgem-price-cap-costs-bills-b1104077.html

Plenty of other areas where bill payers are being 'ripped off' that need Ofgem to bear their teeth (eg over use of international interconnectors and using that over use to justify even more international interconnectors, whilst at the same time NG (who often have a stake in international interconnectors) drag their heels on connecting up parts of UK)

* NG were supposed to have investigated the 'profiteering' years ago. This from 2021:
National Grid to probe high prices in key electricity market
www.ft.com/content/2afd9082-9625-4505-880c-56251975b4b8

[Mr Poppy]

The electricity grid is nowhere near ready for heat pumps in every rural* home so some form of 'delay' is not a surprise and I doubt this will be last 'change'. As a 'transition' option then "HVO produces 90% less carbon emissions when compared with Kerosene28 (heating oil)" BUT some countries now also want to use HVO to partially replace diesel* in order to push back fully 'zero carbon' vehicles. The potential demand for HVO will be massive and if it's labelled as 'low carbon' then it will get low/zero taxes - but has anyone considered where the supply is all going to come from (ie did we learn nothing from ethanol production?). Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil can use 'waste cooking oil' (eg McDonalds boast about that) but if demand sky rockets then the supply will need 'original' feedstocks (eg a lot more rapeseed or similar oil from a lot more land dedicated to growing those crops).   

UK rural households set for help with converting oil boilers
www.ft.com/content/aae28861-c2b7-4fbc-bd98-aee616125d0c

* Grid upgrades for urban homes would be challenging and they also have other issues (eg space) but it's only 'rural' ('off (gas) grid') homes that use oil boilers so the above is specific to the current 2026 cut off date for NEW oil boilers. The implications of CON winning U&SR by-election rumble on as comparisons to ULEZ are used..
"Plans for oil boiler ban from 2026 dubbed a 'ULEZ' for rural households"
www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/oil-boiler-ban#
** EC-EU heading in that direction. Below covers some of the details on feedstocks, production process and applications
www.etipbioenergy.eu/images/ETIP_B_Factsheet_HVO_feb2020.pdf

[leftieliberal]

A letter in the latest issue of Physics Today, the American Institute of Physics house journal

Hope for CO2 air capture

John Tanner’s summary of carbon dioxide air-capture costs (PHYSICS TODAY, February 2023, page 12) takes the glass- half- empty approach to an extreme. At the average US retail price for electricity (12¢/kWh), the thermodynamic energy demand of direct air capture¹ would indeed add $15 to the cost of collecting a metric ton of CO2 from air. But large power consumers, such as aluminum smelters, get much better pricing.²  Moreover, removing 8 billion metric tons of CO2 for a mere $120 billion would be a good deal. It would cancel past emissions from about 20 billion barrels of oil. The world buys that much oil every 200 days for $1.6 trillion. Prices for such a quantity have fluctuated between $200 billion and $3 trillion over the years. The implied surcharge of $6 per barrel seems cheap for fixing the climate.

Can air capture achieve such economics? The bad news is that current costs are above $500 per metric ton of CO2. I agree with Tanner that thermodynamic limits plus unavoidable raw-material inputs set a lower bound around $10–$20 per metric ton.³ The good news is that no physical law prevents approaching that bound through learning by doing. Betting against an order- of- magnitude cost reduction ignores the two-orders-of-magnitude reduction in wind and solar. It collides with the frequently expressed optimism that batteries will get cheaper if we produce a lot of them. Mass production has proven over and over that costs can drop 10-fold if cumulative capacity increases 1000-fold.⁴ For air capture, which needs to grow more than a millionfold, that represents just the beginning of the growth curve.⁵ Obviously, success is not guaranteed, but closing the door to the opportunity without trying is self-defeating.

References
1. K. S. Lackner, Energy 50, 38 (2013).
2. See, for instance, “Power costs in the production of primary aluminum,” Metal-Miner, 26 February 2009, reposted 24 November 2015, agmetalminer.com/?s = power+costs.
3. K. Lackner, H.-J. Ziock, P. Grimes, Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air: Is It an Option?, rep. no. LA- UR-99-583, US Department of Energy (1 February 1999).
4. E. Dahlgren et al., Eng. Econ. 58, 231 (2013).
5. K. S. Lackner, H. Azarabadi, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60, 8196 (2021).

Klaus S. Lackner
([e-mail])
Arizona State University
Tempe

I think he makes a good point that while atmospheric carbon dioxide removal is not economic at present, its current cost is only a factor of 25-50 above the theoretical limit and if it is scalable at the same rate as batteries (increasing manufacturing capacity by  a factor of 1000 reduces cost by a factor of 10) then the need to multiply it by a factor of 10⁶ implies that it should be close to the thermodynamic limit at that scale.

[Mr Poppy]

Press* seem to have picked up the old news that AR5 might be a "flop". Some background from July.

'Race to the bottom' Britain risks offshore wind flop, Shapps warned
www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/race-to-the-bottom-britain-risks-offshore-wind-flop-shapps-warned/2-1-1480552

The CfD mechanism WAS great but for many reasons it no longer is. Folks can look up what "blind Dutch auction (with a cap)" means but it is hopefully obvious that if HMG want AR5 to secure bids then they can re-run the auction with a higher cap. 

I could offer my 2c on why IMO it would be better to change the mechanism first, post links for the prices obtained by other countries in the North/Irish Sea but £44/MWh (for increasingly limited 'fixed bottom'** sites) is now too low a 'cap' and that is not "new" news. Bit cheeky to see if anyone goes for <=£44/MWh but if you don't ask you don't get. 

* Short answer to below is "no". Longer answer is that it needs a "reset" and then a "do over" (IMO). I can't see the future but the "do over" hopefully won't take too long and AR5 is still a long way off providing lecky anyway. Shapps was an idiot "dither+delayer" IMO. TBC on Coutinho - she doesn't need to be an expert on the detail - just don't be a "dither or delayer" - at least not for long!  

Is UK’s green energy auction on the brink?
www.energylivenews.com/2023/09/07/is-uks-green-energy-auction-on-the-brink/

** Floating sites obviously are set at a higher price as that is more expensive for the supplier to install. There will obviously become a point when stuff like more nuclear is cheaper (and obviously onshore wind is a lot cheaper). That doesn't mean we've given up on offshore wind - just that HMG are, rightly IMO, looking for the best value for money and the whole issue is way more complex than £X/MWh when your considering 'intermittent' supply and how to connect that up to our national grid. 

[Mr Poppy]

Oh dear 🤦‍♂️

Simple question for Ben. How long does it take for a license to turn into connected up lecky? (ie why did he ignore the already approved pipeline* of projects?)

There is well over 4.5GW/yr currently being built from previous license rounds. The revised 50GW target without also scaling up the grid handling capacity and a massive increase in medium-long term storage is a 🤦‍♂️ target anyway - especially given most of the projects in UK (and our interconnected neighbours) are very near each other with similar intermittent weather.

I expect they'll redo the AR5 round soon BUT they need to get the rest of the ducks in line first AND seriously reconsider the current mechanism for wind farm contracts. What worked for 'start-up' and fairly small capacity installations is not optimal for the scale of wind power we will likely achieve in the coming decades - over 100GW if 'floating' wind farm comes in cheap enough once all the factors WRT grid connection and storage are also dealt with. The stupid thing to do would be just to raise the cap price and redo the auction in a few weeks. The price was set too low but the 'buyers' talk amongst themselves and can influence the outcome by going on strike, if they think the govt will cave in!

I do think we need to up the urgency and 'run' rather than 'walk' but if you try to run with your shoelaces not tied up then you'll fall on your face. A brief pause of license approval (which will have no impact on when that capacity could actually be connected to 'homes') while we tie our shoelaces and get our ducks in line is needed - IMO of course! 

* See: www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/4213/overview-of-uk-offshore-wind-portfolio.pdf

[alec]

Despite Trevor's best efforts, there is no way to read the disastrous failure of the latest auction as anything other than a humiliating failure.

[Mr Poppy]

Unlikely to get as much press attention but FWIW the 'other' results from AR5:

Onshore wind nets 1.5GW in UK auction
A total of 24 wind farms secured capacity in AR5 at a £52.29*/MWh strike price
renews.biz/88015/onshore-wind-secures-near-15gw-in-contracts-for-difference-round-5/#

Solar was even higher at 1.9GW with a slightly lower strike price** and some 'start-up' tech (tidal and geothermal) that has a much higher price as it's still in the pre-scale up stage. Tidal and geothermal are also 'better' as they are more reliable. TBC how big a role they have in the future and how much impact economies of scale will have on the price.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1183230/cfd-ar5-results.pdf

* Higher than the 'cap' for offshore wind that achieved 0GW. It might seem odd to the casual observer why the offshore strike price was set so low but the onshore wind farm locations are far easier to connect up to the grid and have higher dispersion compared to simply adding more offshore wind farms in the N.Sea - so it was worth paying a bit more to get that being built. It's not as simples as just looking at the strike prices, although I appreciate a clickbait press headline isn't going to be explain the technical aspects. The new onshore wind licences are all in Scotland and Wales - with belated changes made to England's rules then should be a lot more onshore wind coming to a more highly dispersed UK renewable lecky grid soon. 

** £47/MWh. Solar PV (>5MW) is the 'worst' renewable due the mismatch to our seasonal needs. Hence it should be the lowest price. IMO the price is too high and some of the land being used could serve a better purpose. I'd have liked to see that number lower. Solar <5MW is not part of the Allocation Round process but it is even cheaper and, with batteries and preferably on new/existing buildings, is a better match to local needs. 

[Mr Poppy]

and just FWIW here's the link for AR4 results (7Jul'22). Skimmers can jump to p8 and see:

Offshore Wind:

2023/24 NA (as those are already being built from licenses already approved)
2024/5 as above
2025/6 -
2026/7 clearing price of £37.35/MWh for 6,994.34MW

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1103022/contracts-for-difference-allocation-round-4-results.pdf

The AR5 cap was set at £44/MWh and whilst we shouldn't really make 'apples v pears' comparisons then judging by the price Germany/others have effectively paid then the companies who would be interested in building more 'fixed bottom' wind farms in UK's bit of N.Sea would probably want a strike price of £60+/MWh to produce more intermittent power in locations very close to where we're already building a lot of intermittent power at a much lower price.

I appreciate the issues are not 'simples' but if AR5 is to be redone (ie AR5b) then it would be a 🤦‍♂️ to just up the cap to say £65/MWh. I assume people that are interested in these issues at least understand the implications of a £65/MWh strike price for intermittent power (coming from very close to where we're already building a lot of cheaper wind farms that are going to have grid connection and storage issues as we've failed to ensure the other pieces of the puzzle are also being scaled up).

Anyway, TBC. The box for 'offshore wind 2027/8' was 0GW in AR5(a) and hence omitted from the link provided earlier. That box might get filled in later but if prices move significantly, as they have, then the 'plan' should change - obviously. 

[Mr Poppy]

The official blurb strongly suggests a "reform" before a do-over. The do-over looking unlikely to be AR5b but just rolled into AR6 next Autumn (which 'cynics' might claim is convenient timing ahead of a GE a few months later)

First one is not the headlines that the press picked up. Whilst factually correct then in MWh terms AR5 was smaller than AR4 as AR4 had some very big individual projects (links already provided)

Record number of renewables projects awarded government funding
www.gov.uk/government/news/record-number-of-renewables-projects-awarded-government-funding

The reasons for letting the offshore wind component of AR5 fail and ensuring the CfD process is reformed, before we commit to more offshore wind farms mostly in the same area as we already secured much cheaper contracts, is partially explained in:

Introducing non-price factors into the Contracts for Difference scheme: call for evidence
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-non-price-factors-into-the-contracts-for-difference-scheme-call-for-evidence

It's not just about £X/MWh - obviously. I don't know what they'll do and I'm aware of Morocco-UK option that is cheaper and more 'dispersed' (so on paper much better than more offshore wind farms in our bit of the N.Sea). 

NB We can't "dither+delay" for long. We're still waiting for site/deal details for SMR nuclear. Of far greater importance is looking at the UK grid and our medium and long-term energy storage - which is a significant additional ££ per MWh to add when considering how many wind farms we want in/near Dogger Bank (noting our interconnected near neighbours have also now started to build loads of wind farms in the same area). 

[leftieliberal]

Orkney islands to trial electric ferries: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/orkney-islands-to-trial-electric-ferries-to-cut-carbon-emissions

The Orkney islands are to test two electric ferries for commuting between its outlying islands as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions from shipping.

The battery-powered hydrofoil ferries, whose hulls are raised above the water, are part of a three-year, £15.5m demonstration project funded by the UK government due to start in March 2024.

Councillors and MSPs in Orkney and Shetland, the archipelago north of Orkney, have been pressing the UK and Scottish governments for help in replacing their ageing and highly polluting inter-island ferries.

Unlike the state-owned ferry service CalMac, which serves the Hebrides, their inter-island ferries are council-owned and operated. Scottish ministers have rejected their pleas for support to replace them.

It's hardly surprising that the Orcadians don't want any part of an independent Scotland.

www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/orkney-and-norway-relationship-explained-4214819

It is also not the first time that Orkney has campaigned for more autonomy in the wake of Brexit. In 2017, councillors supported calls to investigate “whether the people of Orkney could exercise self-determination if faced with further national or international constitutional changes”.

[Mr Poppy]

From the other side of the pond an article with some $/MWh numbers showing it's not just in UK where the tailwind that was boosting Wind Power is loosing some of its puff as that particular option now faces inflationary and supply chain headwinds.

Factbox: US offshore wind projects facing inflation headwinds
www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-offshore-wind-projects-facing-inflation-headwinds-2023-09-11/#

Some of the strike prices are set to be renegotiated. EG "1,230-MW Beacon Wind 1 project... NYSERDA estimated that the request would result in the strike price increasing by 62% to $190.82" (£152.66/MWh)

As with UK then US should perhaps take another look at tidal lagoons. There are many ways to get to Net Zero. Offshore wind being intermittent needs a lot more power line capacity and storage compared to nuclear, tidal, etc. A good mix of different options is the key but thankfully UK did lock in a lot of offshore wind at very good prices in AR4 and hopefully once some of the inflation and supply chain bottlenecks are resolved we can lock-in a lot more offshore wind in the coming years - but not at 'any price'. 

[leftieliberal]

Sept 12, 2023 7:28:21 GMT Mr Poppy said:

From the other side of the pond an article with some $/MWh numbers showing it's not just in UK where the tailwind that was boosting Wind Power is loosing some of its puff as that particular option now faces inflationary and supply chain headwinds.

Factbox: US offshore wind projects facing inflation headwinds
www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-offshore-wind-projects-facing-inflation-headwinds-2023-09-11/#

Some of the strike prices are set to be renegotiated. EG "1,230-MW Beacon Wind 1 project... NYSERDA estimated that the request would result in the strike price increasing by 62% to $190.82" (£152.66/MWh)

As with UK then US should perhaps take another look at tidal lagoons. There are many ways to get to Net Zero. Offshore wind being intermittent needs a lot more power line capacity and storage compared to nuclear, tidal, etc. A good mix of different options is the key but thankfully UK did lock in a lot of offshore wind at very good prices in AR4 and hopefully once some of the inflation and supply chain bottlenecks are resolved we can lock-in a lot more offshore wind in the coming years - but not at 'any price'. 

There is much to be said for tidal lagoons but suitable locations are limited and ebb tides in Morecambe Bay are at the same time as flood tides in the Severn Estuary. Tidal lagoons really need short-term (~3 hour) pumped-storage capacity to smooth their output. Although there are some places like the Bay of Fundy and Cook Inlet in Alaska where there are big tidal ranges, I suspect most of the US coast has too small tides to be usable for tidal power (7 ft range for San Francisco Bay and just 4 ft range at New York).

Here's a useful explanation of the tides and why they vary so much in amplitude: stabmag.com/news/why-are-tides-so-tiny-in-hawaii-and-enormous-in-europe/

[leftieliberal]

Solar Panel fires: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/solar-panel-fires-safety-fears-energy-bills-b2407950.html

The number of fires involving solar panels has soared amid a boom in solar energy driven by energy bill hikes, The Independent can reveal.

Data obtained under freedom of information rules show that there were six times the number of fires involving solar panels last year compared with 10 years ago.

The rate has increased sharply with 66 fires already recorded up until July this year compared with 63 for the whole of 2019, prompting concern from safety experts who are concerned about a lack of regulation on who can install them.

Apparently the problem is that cells in solar panels are wired in series so that a panel produces a high voltage (600V DC) but a low current (which means that the wiring connecting them can be thinner) and the output goes to a single inverter. This voltage is high enough for arcing (London's Tube trains use 750V DC) and that means that the installation process is critical for fire safety. Something to be aware of when installing solar panels on your house.

[leftieliberal]

France cut their electricity usage by 10% last winter
theconversation.com/france-used-10-less-electricity-last-winter-three-valuable-lessons-in-fighting-climate-change-206878

[Mr Poppy]

Mentioned on the main thread and below doesn't cover all the issues that get me wound up but shows some of the reasons why people end up installing 'over capacity' systems that are obviously more expensive and then cause grid capacity issues for their neighbours. See:

"3.0 – Sizing the Heat Pump...
However, in practice they may be required to produce water at approximately 55C* with design ambient temperatures of circa -2C"

mcscertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Heat-Pump-Guide.pdf

Do a word search for 'stove' to see that incorporating the heat provided by a wood burning stove is complicated and ignored in the calcs. Obviously solar panels and batteries are ignored (and fair enough as we do get quite long periods with very little sun in Winter). Wind is also ignored but good luck getting any contractor to connect up a wind turbine to your system anyway and you really shouldn't install your own stuff these days (or bribe someone with beer to say they installed it!)

NB However, if/when you come to want to sell your house then any would-be buyer will be given a report based on the same OTT requirements. So if you did the maths yourself and don't feel the need to bask at 22C in Winter and/or have a wood burning stove that can do a quite a lot of the heating, then convincing buyers the report they've been given saying they'll need to install a much bigger heat pump and new radiators (and quite possibly that the DNO won't allow any more power taken off the grid for your house) is.. well.. 'frustrating' to put it mildly   

* which means a bigger heat pump than required and probably being talked into changing your radiators

[Mr Poppy]

If UK one ends differing from the consultation document I'll edit this post but AFAIK the UK and EC-EU plans to phase out petrol/diesel vehicles are:

UK: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-zero-emission-vehicle-zev-mandate-and-co2-emissions-regulation-for-new-cars-and-vans-in-the-uk

EC-EU: climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehicles/co2-emission-performance-standards-cars-and-vans_en

Comparison are tricky due to different methodology. I'm not exactly sure how EC-EU's calculation for the various types of hybrid EVs works. UK state a minimum range (120miles*) to be considered a ZEV, which is a bit naughty given most people aren't going to drive a hybrid just with the 'Zero Emissisons' bit doing all the miles. Some average "g CO2/km" could be used but does anyone really trust car manufactures to be honest about that calculation after 'dieselgate'!

* A selection of cars that are well below the UK 'minimum range' definition which means it's quite tricky to split out the data to see exactly where each 'brand' is WRT current sales in UK (or EU). I wouldn't be surprised to see some 'tweaks' to minimum range criteria in any updated UK plan. 

leasing.com/top-picks/best-hybrids-for-electric-range-plug-in/

[Mr Poppy]

We've covered 'grid capacity' issues for heat pumps but it also becomes an issue for EVs. A few links:

How to notify the DNO of an EV charger installation?
wepoweryourcar.com/how-to-notify-dno-of-ev-charger-installation/#

I can't speak for everyone's locality but some DNOs just signed off on everything in the past then suddenly realised they had problems with supply - so now are ultra cautious (and/or will claim to have a huge backlog).

Preparing for Installation: EV Charger Requirements
electriccarguide.co.uk/ev-charger-installation-requirements/

I've covered the extreme cases of how EVs could be either very helpful (demand smoothing) or a huge problem (panic charging) for electricity supply and obviously DNO/NG will err on the side of caution.

IMO we'll have to have a form of 'rationing' in the future (at least that is how the Sun will phase it). The 'Smart' use of the network will need to be coordinated at a DNO/national level (eg someone's EV charger will NOT allow them to draw current at certain times when the grid is at risk of being overloaded but will likely allow them quite a lot of periods when lecky is 'free' and you can charge/heat/store as much as you want).  

A problem for the future - foreseeable today!

PS Did anyone mention hydrogen and how that could deal with a lot of the lecky grid issue? 

[lens]

Sept 24, 2023 9:17:11 GMT Mr Poppy said:

IMO we'll have to have a form of 'rationing' in the future (at least that is how the Sun will call it). The 'Smart' use of the network will need to be coordinated at a DNO/national level (eg you're EV charger will only allow you to draw current at certain times when the grid is at risk of being overloaded but you will likely get quite a lot of periods when lecky is 'free' and you can charge/heat/store as much as you want).  

A problem for the future - foreseeable today!

PS Did anyone mention hydrogen and how that could deal with a lot of the lecky grid issue? 

I agree that upgrading the electricity grid is probably a bigger issue than actually building more wind farms etc, but on that issue hydrogen may not help much - just exchange issues with getting electricity from where produced to where needed, to getting hydrogen from where produced to where needed?

The problem with hydrogen is that it's far more difficult to transport than such as petrol/diesel, or pretty well any liquid chemical fuel for that matter. Yes, it can be liquefied, but that just brings up other issues, whilst solving others.

[Mr Poppy]

Some info on ways company car schemes can provide huge savings on leasing a new EV. See FAQ:

"What is an electric car salary sacrifice scheme?
The Electric Car Scheme allows your company to lease an electric car for you, and they'll pay for it. In exchange, you agree to give up part of your gross salary to cover the monthly lease cost. This means you can enjoy your dream electric car while saving 30-60%"

www.electriccarscheme.com/companies/how-salary-sacrifice-works-for-companies?

For vans and other vehicles then also:

www.gov.uk/plug-in-vehicle-grants/vans

Noting for Small Vans: "To be eligible for a grant, the vehicle must... be able to travel at least 96km (60 miles) without any emissions"
and that there is currently no way to know if the person using the vehicle ever bothers to charge it or just uses it as a conventional petrol/diesel van

NB I'm not opposed to these schemes and fair play to anyone taking advantage of the generous schemes available. Also it is quite possible that some people use a hybrid in the way it was intended to be used (ie short 'all electric' journeys most days with just the very occasional longer mostly petrol/diesel journey - possibly with a 'top-up' charge en-route)

[Mr Poppy]

Congrats to Nissan given the UK and EU targets. Not sure everyone else will follow their lead but that is really good marketing for Nissan

Nissan vows to go all-electric by 2030 despite Sunak delay on petrol ban
www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/25/nissan-all-electric-by-2030-rishi-sunak-petrol-ban-europe

Nissan can also benefit from 'trading' their extra %s in UK sales with other brands. The £15k/car 'comment' is misleading as that is the 'marginal car'.

However, in a simples* example then if Nissan are 100% in UK and someone else with the same volume is 60% then average = 80%. The brand on 60% can pay £15k x 20% = £3k per car to Nissan from 2030 until 2035.

* Ahead of 2030 the Nissan exceeding targets early might be something they 'sell' to other brands as well. Using plausible differences in %s the fair price of the 'credit' would likely be £1-3k per car. Nice little boost for Nissan and an incentive for 'others' not follow their lead. Obviously no manufacture wants a 'cliff edge' in their production but some might like to max sales of petrol/diesel into the dates when the %s change - creating some potentially 'lumpy' registration data and bit of choppiness in pricing. 

[birdseye]

Aug 22, 2023 18:58:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 22, 2023 17:47:27 GMT Mr Poppy said:

We agree on the need for lots of cheap energy. Two hands: with the need for the demand hand to go down; and the carbon zero/-ve supply hand to up 

PS The most 'uncool' thing you can with energy is use it for 'heating' a poorly insulated home   

Though we may not always want demand to go down. If we made healthier food cheaper and demand for it went up, might not be such a bad thing.

 

For the most part, "healthy" food is cheaper than the unhealthy type like takeaways and buns and CREAM FILLED CAKES

As for energy, our wealth /prosperity is based on lots of freely available cheap energy. I dont want to go back to the peasant economy

[Mr Poppy]

Good to see CON HMG getting on with providing all the license we'll need for "just transition"

Rosebank oil field given go-ahead by regulator
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-66933346

SMR nuclear announcement due soon (I hope) although has been a painfully slow process and might just be a short-list of companies and potential sites rather than actual decision!

An article covering the need to sort out the details for the failed AR5 offshore wind farm auction and ensure AR6 is a 'record breaker' (a cynic perhaps pointing out the timing leading into GE'24)

AR5: Urgent government response needed to rebuild leadership in UK offshore wind
www.regen.co.uk/ar5-urgent-government-response-needed-to-rebuild-leadership-in-uk-offshore-wind/

NB They'll need to announce changes early in 2024 for an auction later that year. I obviously don't know if they will but they have no excuse for further 'dither+delay' and whilst missing one year was unfortunate it can be 'filled in'. Missing two years will create a 'gap' that is not good for the companies who build the projects or our Energy Security and Net Zero plans.

[leftieliberal]

National Grid ESO says that reaching net zero in the energy network will cost £3 trillion.
www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/ (I know the link says 3bn, but it really is 3tn)

So we are talking about 1.3x annual GDP over the next 27 years, or about 5% of the total GDP over that time (I'm assuming that all their costs are in current prices).