Energy Markets and Net Zero

[Mr Poppy]

I've mentioned the Morocco-UK Xlinks* project before and the headline is misleading. However, it has passed the first stage of being approved. If the only factor was £/MWh then Xlinks is a #nobrainer but IMO that should not be the only criteria.

Britain backs undersea cable to tap Moroccan renewable power
www.reuters.com/business/energy/britain-backs-undersea-cable-tap-moroccan-renewable-power-2023-09-29/

Of course if everyone else is getting cheap lecky from Africa/Middle East then UK has to play the 'great game' to ensure British companies are competitive and British consumers also get cheaper green lecky so I'm not vehemently opposed to Xlinks project - just saying we also need to ensure we don't "forget" it is important to generate+store it in Britain as well. In terms of 'priority' then I'd much prefer Xlinks to some of the daft undersea cables we're putting in place to our near neighbours who are putting offshore wind farms in the same part of the N.Sea as we are! However, I'd also like to see UK build tidal lagoons, add more spatially diverse wind farms, speed up SMR nuclear roll-out, invest in 'green hydrogen' (manufacture and storage), etc...

* xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

[alec]

leftieliberal - "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)."

Not really. National Grid ESO is talking about 1.3x annual GDP.....

It's a private company that has been useless at investing in the changes necessary for the green revolution in a timely enough manner, telling government that delivering what the country needs will be very expensive so their shareholders need a lot of looking after in case their massive dividends are affected.

Care needed whenever NG ESO publish anything.

[Mr Poppy]

Sept 29, 2023 13:35:27 GMT leftieliberal said:

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).

I don't normally bother to read your posts anymore but do unhide some posts on the Issue Specific threads. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'll quote from the link you provided:

"Importantly, the Steady Progress scenario cost* £2,930 billion, showing there is no real economic advantage to slower decarbonisation. The annual spend was also fairly similar between 2020 and 2050 for all four scenarios.. The least expensive was Leading the Way, with net zero estimated to cost £2,820 billion"

Big numbers spread over a long time period but the least expensive option, using their analysis, is the one that gets to Net Zero the fastest. 

“It’s the FES Leading the Way scenario which has the lowest overall cost, driven primarily by significant changes to transport and residential heating, with consumers adopting electric or autonomous cars for example, and negative carbon emissions from the power sector.”

I've posted the NG ESO links before but I'll save people the need to spend 30secs on google to find them. Below is the link to NG ESO FES reports where you can read their assumptions and methodology (or choose not to of course):

www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios

* I'm note keen on the word 'cost' being used most of the time when it should IMO be considered as 'investment'. There certainly are other costs that should IMO be factored in:
- cost to the environment if we do little more than 'steady progress'
- cost to British jobs if we do little more than make 'steady progress' and continue to rely on imported energy
- opportunity cost to various 'green' tech being developed elsewhere (or not at all) rather than in UK

[Mr Poppy]

A step forward in a ridiculously slow process. The list of 6 is 'long' in that it is pretty much every company that could possibly build a SMR. I appreciate we want a 'competitive' process and cynically they wanted to announce something during CON conf but FFS.. get on with it!

Six companies through to next stage of nuclear technology competition
www.gov.uk/government/news/six-companies-through-to-next-stage-of-nuclear-technology-competition

[leftieliberal]

Vanuatu, while being one of the countries most at risk from sea-level rise, is also one of the countries that has most registered oil rigs
www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/end-the-licences-vanuatu-oil-rig-registry-sparks-concern-amid-climate-advocacy

Like ships, oil rigs have to be registered by a country that is responsible for inspections and safety. Like ships there is a 'race to the bottom' with operators looking for the best deals and light-touch regulation.

[Mr Poppy]

Oct 10, 2023 9:06:34 GMT Mr Poppy said:

YG's question* suggests it would be a new announcement but just FWIW then

LAB's policy (28Sep'23): "Deliver one hundred percent clean power by 2030"
labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-for-gb-energy/

CON's policy (6Apr'22): "..could see 95% of Great Britain’s electricity set to be low carbon by 2030"
www.gov.uk/government/news/major-acceleration-of-homegrown-power-in-britains-plan-for-greater-energy-independence
...

WRT to 95%-100% then it would be realistic to get to the point of say 110% renewable/low carbon power in UK with say 15% net exports and 5% domestic nat.gas by say 2032ish. That would IMO tick a 95% clean power target as being 'delivered'. Some might argue that we can offset renewable export against domestic nat.gas use further and claim 100% but we're nowhere near being able export that amount of electricity at the moment and 20GW+ of 'new-new' nuclear isn't going to built in 6-7yrs.

Above two links provide quite a lot of numbers. CON's one is already a bit behind schedule (although it was 'vague' on intermediate milestones for nuclear*). If anyone wants to provide their own numbers (nudge, nudge) then they again have the opportunity to do so. 

I'll repost NG's link noting they say: "commitment to operate a decarbonised electricity system by 2035"

www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios

* somewhat simplistic but 'new-old' nuclear (ie Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C) will roughly replace 'old-old' nuclear plants that will be reaching the end of their life, hence it is 'new-new' nuclear that needs to approved and built and even if the sites are announced tomorrow then I can't see them generating much within 6-7yrs (up to about 2GW per year with a 5yr lead time is possible once we actually give approval)

[leftieliberal]

A rather badly misleading article from the BBC on tidal stream power: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67170625

Tidal power, on the other hand, can deliver a steady, reliable stream of energy day in, day out.

The uncertainties associated with wind and solar power mean we need to have alternative power supplies in place, just in case. In the UK that is mostly gas-powered plants. Keeping them on standby is expensive.

Come rain or shine, storm or calm, the tides flow in and out like clockwork. It means tidal generators can deliver guaranteed power without any backup. The tidal industry says that levels up the cost.

Oh dear. Justin Rowlatt doesn't understand the difference between predictability and not needing backup. The problem with tidal lagoons is that there will be four periods of slack water every day and the same must apply to tidal streams. So, in practice, one needs a means of storing the energy generated (e.g. pumped storage) to cover these. Also we have spring and neap tides, because it is not just the Moon but also the Sun that raises tides. If the tidal stream speeds are in the same ratio as the heights of the tides at spring and neap tides (a factor of 1.67) this will mean that the power extractable varies by a factor of 4.7 each week (because for wind turbines the power scales as the cube of the windspeed). Unlike tidal lagoons where the the power generatable at neap tides can be doubled by pumping into the lagoons at high tide, and out at low tide up to spring tide range (MacKay, "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" p313-321) one cannot do anything to improve the power output of tidal stream power. Also the two-lagoon approach does give the possibility of always-on power.

Eleven tidal stream energy projects secured funding from the UK government last month.

Under the deal, the government guarantees it will buy the electricity they produce for an artificially high price - £198 per megawatt hour.

That is far more than it pays for onshore wind (£52MWh) or solar (£47MWh) - more even than for nuclear power (£90MWh).

I can understand the need for the high price, because this is an emergent technology, but there are a limited number of places around the UK coastline where it is practical. The six locations that MacKay deems it feasible are: The English Channel south of the Isle of Wight, The Bristol Channel, north of Anglesey, north of the Isle of Man, between Northern Ireland and South-West Scotland and the Pentland Firth. Of these the power per unit area from the Pentland Firth (Table G 8) is approximately 5 times the rest put together.

So really this only makes sense for the Pentland Firth (and other channels around Orkney) and this means that unless storage is included, its output will suffer from the daily tidal cycle there. 

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

International Energy Agency: Fossil fuel demand will peak by end of decade

“For the first time, the agency sees global demand for all three fossil fuels hitting high points this decade on the basis of stated government policies, rather than relying on climate pledges that may not be backed by concrete action.

“A legacy of the global energy crisis may be to usher in the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era,” the IEA said in its annual World Energy Outlook, predicting that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions should peak by 2025.

However, it reiterated its warnings that a far quicker shift away from fossil fuels was needed if the world was to “keep alive” the goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

…

In the report, it forecasts strong growth in clean energy technologies, with almost ten times as many electric cars on the road by 2030 as today. The IEA said that “thanks largely to the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States”, a huge package of subsidies for clean technologies, it now projected that half of all new car registrations in America would be electric in 2030, up from a projection of only 12 per cent in its outlook two years ago.

It also sees “renewables’ share of the global electricity mix nearing 50 per cent, up from around 30 per cent today; heat pumps and other electric heating systems outselling fossil fuel boilers globally; and three times as much investment going into new offshore wind projects than into new coal and gas-fired power plants”.

However, today’s policies still put the world on track for an average temperature increase of 2.4C this century, far higher than the limit agreed in the Paris climate accord.

…

The IEA’s report suggests that an end is in sight to sky-high gas prices within the next two years. Though markets remain “precarious” for now, from 2025 it sees an “unprecedented surge” in new liquefied natural gas projects that should “ease prices and gas supply concerns”. It forecast a “glut” of LNG that would leave Russia struggling to find new buyers for the gas it previously sold by pipeline to Europe, resulting in Russia’s share of the international gas market declining sharply.”

Times

[alec]

leftieliberal - re intermittent nature of tidal based power, one factor to bear in mind for the UK is that the tide times vary around the country. On a national scale, this would be significant. For example, tonight at Portsmouth, high tide was 20:44, whereas in Skegness the equivalent high tide won't be until 03:41 tomorrow morning. That offers the chance at least of maintaining a much more constant level of power overall if you can locate a number of different generators at the right points around the coast.

[leftieliberal]

Oct 24, 2023 21:13:25 GMT alec said:

leftieliberal - re intermittent nature of tidal based power, one factor to bear in mind for the UK is that the tide times vary around the country. On a national scale, this would be significant. For example, tonight at Portsmouth, high tide was 20:44, whereas in Skegness the equivalent high tide won't be until 03:41 tomorrow morning. That offers the chance at least of maintaining a much more constant level of power overall if you can locate a number of different generators at the right points around the coast.

alec What you need to appreciate is that tidal ranges are not the same all around the coast. In particular they are much smaller in the English Channel and the North Sea than they are in the Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay areas. Look at www.tidetimes.org.uk/ which gives the tidal heights as well as times of high and low tide. For example the tidal range at Skegness today is 3.32 m while at Porthcawl it is 5.03 m. This is one reason for choosing Swansea Bay for the prototype tidal lagoon, because the Bristol Channel tides are the highest. Also you will find that the tides in the Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay are 180 degrees out of phase with each other so the slack water times at high and low tide when there is no electricity generation come at the same time. When it is high tide in the Bristol Channel it is low tide in Morecambe Bay and vice versa. 

Until you understand details like how the shape of the sea-bed affects tidal ranges and that tides are actually a resonance in bodies of water with the gravitational forces of the Moon and Sun pumping the resonance, it is easy to be taken in by the sort of simplistic arguments that you quote. You wouldn't build windfarms where the average wind speed is low; why would you build tidal power stations where the tidal range is low?

[leftieliberal]

An article from MIT on carbon dioxide removal, but from the sea where the concentration is 100 times larger than in the atmosphere.

[leftieliberal]

An article from Sheffield University on improving solar panels using micro-grooves. One of the problems with conventional silicon cells is that the front connection is usually Indium Tin Oxide, a semi-transparent conductor. By putting this conducting contact in the micro-grooves, it can be opaque, so any thin conducting layer can be used. This will also make manufacturing solar cells from perovskites easier as indium tin oxide needs high temperatures for its deposition, which is compatible with silicon processing but not perovskite processing.

[leftieliberal]

Another appallingly bad article on windfarms in The Guardian. The scientific paper they are relying on: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X2300430X says both that wind farm wakes can extend 50 km downwind and that offshore wind farms can lose up to 20% capacity from wakes. Only a newspaper like the Guardian could conflate these two into the statement:

The net result is that downwind blades will not be turning as fast; the energy otherwise available from the wind can be cut 20% as far as 50km away.

It is worth noting that the first two authors out of the five in the scientific paper are in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen, so it is not surprising that they use terms like "wind theft".

[athena]

leftieliberal I've made my feelings about the Guardian's science reporting clear on several occasions. My approach to their science stories is to look for the article on which the story is based, ignore everything else and go straight to source. If the subject is too far outside my expertise for me to be able to read critically, I head to the science media centre and see if there's a round-up of comments on the research. Saves time and a mental rant about scientific illiteracy!

[lens]

Nov 10, 2023 12:33:23 GMT athena said:

leftieliberal I've made my feelings about the Guardian's science reporting clear on several occasions. My approach to their science stories.............

Arguably the most infamous Guardian science story was regarding Blacklight Power - www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science  from nearly 20 years ago. It was seen as being being far too uncritical of what was pretty obviously a scam at the time, and is credited with helping to convince many people to invest - and lose - money into the scheme.

By the time the Guardian article was published, there was enough being said about the scheme that at the very least a far more sceptical tone should have been taken. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power

Also quite interesting that at the end of the article, under the other "Alternative Energy" headings, then neither wind nor solar voltaic get a mention!

[leftieliberal]

Nov 10, 2023 23:17:30 GMT lens said:

Nov 10, 2023 12:33:23 GMT athena said:

leftieliberal I've made my feelings about the Guardian's science reporting clear on several occasions. My approach to their science stories.............

Arguably the most infamous Guardian science story was regarding Blacklight Power - www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science  from nearly 20 years ago. It was seen as being being far too uncritical of what was pretty obviously a scam at the time, and is credited with helping to convince many people to invest - and lose - money into the scheme.

By the time the Guardian article was published, there was enough being said about the scheme that at the very least a far more sceptical tone should have been taken. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power

Also quite interesting that at the end of the article, under the other "Alternative Energy" headings, then neither wind nor solar voltaic get a mention!

It didn't even get an exposé from Ben Goldacre, although as he was writing for the Guardian at the time, it probably would have been spiked even if he had. The Guardian has been trading on its old reputation as a reliable source for too long; it is no more than the Daily Mail for lefties.

[jib]

Interesting article,

Mass imported LNG is far worse for the environment than coal.

www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-smoking-gun-for-bidens-big-climate-decision

[leftieliberal]

I have been following an American called Bob Tipton on LinkedIn. He has some interesting (and unconventional) ideas on how to get to net zero, but I think his assessment of the problem is valid. The following video on YouTube is the index video, which introduces the ideas that he explores in the following videos: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmM7avtj2QU

The problem as Tipton sees it is that our present approach of more solar and more wind will not get us to net zero fast enough. What he is looking at are rather lower-tech solutions that by their nature are cheap to develop and easy to scale. He is looking primarily at the energy in ocean currents. He also has some interesting ideas about storage of energy using supercritical hydrogen in the deep ocean, but that is rather more speculative.

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 15, 2023 22:28:12 GMT jib said:

Interesting article,

Mass imported LNG is far worse for the environment than coal.

www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-smoking-gun-for-bidens-big-climate-decision

Thank you for posting the link. Lots of factors to consider from UK/Europe's perspective but to replace Russia then Europe needed US to expand their LNG exports. 

The Captain Obvious point from UK perspective is that UK pipelined gas from the N.Sea is 'less bad' than imported LNG from Qatar and what is effectively imported brown*-coal electricity from likes of Germany (via the interconnected European grid). 

* Some coal is much worse than other types but IMO the 'worst' type of marginal production is the one to use when looking at imported energy.

Tangent: With CCS then 'clean coal' has a very low carbon footprint and IMO it would be a great export opportunity if UK developed the tech to help likes of India to retrofit coal burning plants to capture a lot of their carbon emissions as part of transitioning to a greener future. Sadly one mention of coal and people start frothing at the mouth but don't seem to mind UK importing dirty coal generated electricity or products made with dirty coal generated electricity from rWorld. 

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/news/a27886/how-does-clean-coal-work/

[leftieliberal]

Predicted battery prices out to 2030 from Goldman Sachs

 
Obviously the rise in price of cathode materials was largely responsible for the increase in prices in 2022 and 2023, but what is interesting to me is that from 2026 onwards the costs of cathode material, anode material and other components are almost constant. That means that battery prices of less than ~$70/kWh are unlikely to arrive. These days Teslas come with 100 kWh battery packs, so that's $7,000 for the battery alone. Other manufacturers will be facing similar constraints. 

[leftieliberal]

Swedish battery company announce new Sodium battery. This is heavier than Lithium batteries for the same capacity (160 Wh/kg compared with up to 265 Wh/kg for Lithium) but excluding transport applications this doesn't really matter. I've seen talk about sodium batteries for some time, but this is the first actual prototype.

[leftieliberal]

A useful article on how much we will need to strengthen the electricity grid to reach net zero.

From next year, engineers will need to roll out more than 100km (62 miles) of electric cabling every day until 2040 if the government hopes to power the UK towards its climate goals, according to new data.

Analysis of Britain’s existing power grids and the country’s predicted electricity demand reveals that within the next 17 years, more than 600,000km of electric lines will need to be either added or upgraded across the UK.

[lens]

Nov 21, 2023 19:30:35 GMT leftieliberal said:

Swedish battery company announce new Sodium battery. This is heavier than Lithium batteries for the same capacity (160 Wh/kg compared with up to 265 Wh/kg for Lithium) but excluding transport applications this doesn't really matter. I've seen talk about sodium batteries for some time, but this is the first actual prototype.

I'd be slightly careful here - the energy density of lithium batteries varies quite a bit depending on composition, and it's the use of more expensive materials (cobalt, nickel etc) that can give the higher energy densities, at the downside of generally higher cost. When used for stationary storage, energy densities with lithium and other chemistries are typically not much higher than you quote for sodium, but it's hard to generalise.

That's not to say sodium doesn't have a future (it has other pros as well as cons) but a lot depends on the price of lithium. Which contrary to what you may hear is not uncommon, even if production ramping up may not be keeping pace with demand as yet.

[mercian]

Nov 27, 2023 23:39:44 GMT lens said:

Nov 21, 2023 19:30:35 GMT leftieliberal said:

Swedish battery company announce new Sodium battery. This is heavier than Lithium batteries for the same capacity (160 Wh/kg compared with up to 265 Wh/kg for Lithium) but excluding transport applications this doesn't really matter. I've seen talk about sodium batteries for some time, but this is the first actual prototype.

I'd be slightly careful here - the energy density of lithium batteries varies quite a bit depending on composition, and it's the use of more expensive materials (cobalt, nickel etc) that can give the higher energy densities, at the downside of generally higher cost. When used for stationary storage, energy densities with lithium and other chemistries are typically not much higher than you quote for sodium, but it's hard to generalise.

That's not to say sodium doesn't have a future (it has other pros as well as cons) but a lot depends on the price of lithium. Which contrary to what you may hear is not uncommon, even if production ramping up may not be keeping pace with demand as yet.

All good stuff. They were talking about the COP conference and UK opening up new oilfields on the radio tonight and I had one of my brilliant ideas to save the world.. What do we have most of in this country? Rain.

So what we do (I'll have to leave the details up to you engineering types) is build a fleet of lorries to deploy to wherever the heaviest rain is forecast. When they get there they unfold giant upside-down umbrellas to gather the rain. Clever electronics transforms the energy from the rain hitting the umbrellas and from it running down a drain at the centre and use it to charge up a big battery. The water can be allowed to run on to the ground. When the rain stops or the battery's fully charged the lorries drive back somewhere and feed the leccy into the grid.

Bingo. Job done. I've saved the world again. More constructive than blocking traffic in London anyway.

EDIT: Better still (because the trucks would use the energy they gained driving around), attach some sort of gizmo to every house's downpipes and supply pipes and drains to gather energy from the movement of water. The gizmo would feed leccy into the house or back to the grid if there was any excess. Also on the mains supply and sewers etc. This could go straight to the grid. Maybe miniature turbines inside the downpipes and water mains, though not the sewers because of clogging. This is my contribution to saving the planet. Anyone can use the idea, though it would be nice to have an acknowledgement when climate change is solved.   

[lens]

And in news that shows some rare common sense breaking through, the hydrogen trials in Redcar seem to have been abandoned www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/14/hydrogen-village-plan-in-redcar-abandoned-after-local-oppositiion

And looking like mandating heat pumps - not hydrogen ready boilers - on new builds.

[birdseye]

Sept 29, 2023 17:56:30 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Sept 29, 2023 13:35:27 GMT leftieliberal said:

* I'm note keen on the word 'cost' being used most of the time when it should IMO be considered as 'investment'. There certainly are other costs that should IMO be factored in:
- cost to the environment if we do little more than 'steady progress'
- cost to British jobs if we do little more than make 'steady progress' and continue to rely on imported energy
- opportunity cost to various 'green' tech being developed elsewhere (or not at all) rather than in UK

You invest to make a financial return, unless you are a politician in which case every £ spent is an " investment" because "spending" is not a good label to apply

[lens]

I think a while ago it was in this thread that the subject came up of Nikola motors and their desire to build first hydrogen and then battery trucks in the US.

Then their CEO (Trevor Milton) was accused of lying and prosecuted, and has been a long time awaiting sentence.

The saga has finally reached a conclusion in his case with him just being sentenced to 4 years in jail. www.reuters.com/legal/nikola-founder-trevor-milton-be-sentenced-over-fraud-conviction-2023-12-18/

If anyone feels sorry for him, it's worth reading uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nikola-founder-trevor-milton-profile-132825184.html?guccounter=1 . A long read, but the problems with Milton's business dealings started a long way before Nikola and he left quite a train of wreckage behind him.

[leftieliberal]

Britain likely to generate more electricity from wind, solar and hydro than fossil fuels for the first year ever in 2023

Up to 21st December, electricity generation from renewables is running about 1000 GWh above fossil fuels (about 1 day's electricity demand). If we don't get stuck under a high-pressure zone for the last few days of the year, wind power should see us reach this milestone.

[leftieliberal]

Now heat pumps on subscription with no upfront cost: www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/27/swedish-spotify-of-heat-pumps-aira-hopes-to-reach-more-uk-homes

Of course, the concern is what happens if their business model is wrong and they go bust. Will subscribers be left with a heat pump and no-one to service it if it fails?

[leftieliberal]

Precautionary Principles for Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal Research

Virtually all future climate scenarios that hold planetary warming close to 1.5°C by 2050 will require massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, supplemented by the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to remove leftover heattrapping carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. The ocean has already naturally absorbed 26% percent of all CO2 emissions caused by humans between 1850 and 2021, and many people are interested in deliberately increasing this uptake using ocean CDR –also called marine CDR.

An interesting paper discussing a framework for doing Ocean CDR safely.