|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 16:59:57 GMT
I'm not familiar with Tevva... I believe he was talking about several hundred kWh in a semi trailer design? Though a later spec talked about less? I'd therefore expect a couple of hundred in a large truck towing a trailer, maybe half that in a small rigid truck? But it really is a piece of string question. Thank you such a long list of links and sources (I'm being ironic, especially as I even gave you some - try the Volvo one if you don't like the other/newer companies). Unclear if your 'guess' is 'expect a couple of hundred (Wh)..' (v.small like you'd find on a small battery e-bike*) or 'several hundred kWh' (unnecessarily way, way too big unless there is another reason - .......... Well, I don't know why it should be unclear, and why you should confuse it with an e-bike. My quote was "several hundred kWh" - as in "about 200 kWh"? As for lack of references, then it's not helped by Trevor Milton having deleted all his social media history after the (proven) fraud allegations, but I have managed to find this: insideevs.com/news/431613/nikolas-founder-linkedin-fuel-cell-reply Quote: "In 2016, the company spoke about a 320 kWh pack, but things have evolved, according to Milton.
“This was years ago and the powertrain has drastically changed since then. Our fuel cell uses a battery of less than 150 kWh. The battery acts as a buffer so it never has the demand to charge or discharge high C rates. It allows the battery to last a lot longer without needing fast charging. You don't have the plug that battery in.” "
So according to Milton between about 150 and 320 kWh, so my "couple of hundred kWh" was a pretty good estimate? But to say again, it's stupid to try to put any exact number on it without defining many factors - including how well you want the system to perform. I don't believe Nikola are currently giving any figures for their current FCEV under development? Probably because they don't yet know. The main reason to even have a battery pack is to make use of the energy lost in braking (ie use regenerative brakes). Given that is proven tech then might as well make use of that ............... No! It's not just regen! It's to enable a decent level of performance at all without overspeccing the fuel cell etc Great combination of the two technologies but the battery required to make use of the otherwise wasted braking only NEEDS to be small, as hydrogen has the much higher energy density (ie if you have fuel cells anyway then far better to add a larger hydrogen tank than carry an unnecessarily large battery). On some models they might choose the battery pack to be 'large' but it only needs to be 'small'. Not the "hydrogen has such high energy density" quote again, please! It's true as far as it goes - but meaningless. Compared to battery, the relevant metric is weight of hydrogen *PLUS* tank weight! And for carbon fibre, 700 bar H2 (as good as it gets) tank weight is approximately 20x the weight of the hydrogen contained. Consider you also need a lot of extra equipment (control, filtration, piping, and the fuel cell itself) and you get the same range increase just using the weight for extra battery. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 18:04:50 GMT
You could have found the information on the actual size of batteries Tevva are using if you had made the effort to use the link provided and click through to 'DOWNLOAD: TECH SPEC'. www.tevva.com/en/trucks/7-5t-hydrogen-electricI'll 'copy+paste' the 'Technical Specifications' for range and battery size: TEV75B (Electric): Range 111 miles, 108kWh battery TEV75BH2 (Hydrogen Electric): Range 270 miles, 112kWh battery downloads.ctfassets.net/sojgsx3y8rkm/2UY7mSdOecOhfpS6WTTVnJ/edf453a2f3600881647724a2e87f5bbd/Technical_Specifications_v2.pdfHence (as I said), the reason they have gone with an unnecessarily large battery is 'largely an ironic one to do with 'range hesitancy' and reluctance of some manufacturers to go for hydrogen only*' as they have pretty much put the same battery in each model and selling the TEV75BH2 as a 'hybrid', like a HEV, rather than a (mostly/purely) Hydrogen HGV. Did you check into Volvo? I guess not. ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 23:23:24 GMT
You could have found the information on the actual size of batteries Tevva are using if you had made the effort to use the link provided and click through to 'DOWNLOAD: TECH SPEC'. www.tevva.com/en/trucks/7-5t-hydrogen-electricI'll 'copy+paste' the 'Technical Specifications' for range and battery size: TEV75B (Electric): Range 111 miles, 108kWh battery TEV75BH2 (Hydrogen Electric): Range 270 miles, 112kWh battery downloads.ctfassets.net/sojgsx3y8rkm/2UY7mSdOecOhfpS6WTTVnJ/edf453a2f3600881647724a2e87f5bbd/Technical_Specifications_v2.pdfHence (as I said), the reason they have gone with an unnecessarily large battery is 'largely an ironic one to do with 'range hesitancy' and reluctance of some manufacturers to go for hydrogen only*' as they have pretty much put the same battery in each model and selling the TEV75BH2 as a 'hybrid', like a HEV, rather than a (mostly/purely) Hydrogen HGV. Frankly, I didn't see any need on a busy day to spend any more time than necessary on a subject which I already have to understand only too well. There is no "ideal" battery size for a hydrogen truck, even one of a given size and weight - but for a large semi there are extremely good engineering reasons for something around the size of 200kWh. I previously said "and maybe half that in a small rigid truck?" (ie around 100kWh) so it's no surprise to me to see Tevva using a 112kWh battery in theirs! It's not a surprise - at least to me - just sound engineering practice. If you think it's an "unnecessarily large battery" then I suggest you email Tevva's engineers as you obviously know better than them? (Or Nikola for that matter - it's one thing Milton can't be argued with on!) Did you check into Volvo? I guess not. ![]() You may find it hard to believe, but I am aware of much of the technicalities of the subject without needing to go to random internet links - and AFAIK Volvo aren't yet publishing such details of battery size. To humour you, I have just followed your link and...... can't find any spec relating to battery size? Did you check your own link in this respect? I guess not. But please enlighten us if it's tucked deep within that (pretty bland) press release. I'm now off to bed and will be out all day tomorrow. But as you so love links, you may love to look into the company I mentioned earlier - Riversimple - and research how they do indeed build a hydrogen car (albeit a pretty *&%$ one, and not got beyond a prototype in years at that) which manages without such a battery. And you may like to try to work out roughly how high a hill it can ascend (clue: vertical height - slope is irrelevant) before becoming a menace to other traffic. Answers provided in about 24 hours time if necessary. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 23, 2022 9:36:49 GMT
Frankly, I didn't see any need on a busy day to spend any more time than necessary on a subject which I already have to understand only too well. Well for someone comparing 'modern hydrogen tanks'* to scuba tanks you don't give that impression. Anyway, you're entitled to your 'sceptic' opinion of course - thankfully plenty of folks are pushing forward with the tech. I've already stated why Tevva are using an unnecessarily large battery in their 7.5T (technically a LGV not HGV) hybrid. I'll expand. When the cost of hydrogen comes down, and hopefully the refuelling network expands, they'll have 'proven tech' and be able to change that (as the batteries don't last too long anyway). At the moment their hybrid model is basically their electric version with a 'proof of concept' for hydrogen that will give an 'early mover' advantage once hydrogen becomes cheaper and more readily available (provided their investors and cashflow can survive long enough, various govts support hydrogen, etc). Buyers, rightly for now, have 'range hesitancy' concerns with hydrogen as well as batteries - as I stated, ironic I know! For Volvo, then from the link I provided: "two fuel cells have the capacity to generate 300 kW of electricity onboard"www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/jun/volvo-trucks-showcases-new-zero-emissions-truck.htmlI'm sure you understand the implication of "two" so no need to waste my time explaining that. Maybe for mass market production they eventually decide on more than two (and quite happy to agree with you that there is a range of solutions whereby a battery can play a larger role than is necessary, the point was that they (specifically Tevva, given that was the start of the conversation) don't need to). Just FWIW as I looked it back up to remind myself then for Volvo diesel and electric powertrains: www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/trucks/volvo-fh/powertrain.htmland at risk of upsetting the Tesla fan club: www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/trucks/volvo-fh/volvo-fh-electric.html(although note: 'range of up to (only) 300km'. Battery capacity 450-540 kWh, Charging time (full charge) 2.5h with DC (250 kW)) I can certainly see why they are looking to produce a fuel cell electric truck that "will have an operational range comparable to many diesel trucks – up to 1 000 km – and a refueling time of less than 15 minutes"For Riversimple then you are perhaps unaware that there are already hydrogen cars in production (eg Hyundai's ix35 fuel cell and the Toyota Mira) although I certainly wouldn't buy one yet in UK. There was once a Sinclair C5, that was laughed at and turned out to be a commercial dud but it didn't stop BEVs eventually reaching mass market appeal. Once again, BEVs are very likely to dominate the smaller, shorter journey segment of road vehicles. Hydrogen is better suited to larger, longer journey segment. * Since aircraft have an even greater issue with weight then quick switch to look at what (and where) innovation is happening in the race to find alternatives to jet fuel: Airbus open a facility in UK: www.cnbc.com/2022/05/27/airbus-sets-up-uk-facility-to-focus-on-hydrogen-tech-for-aircraft.htmlNicely named company but odd looking plane: heaven-fch-project.eu/index.php/components/I find it all very interesting and do admit to a commercial interest. Plenty of smart folks out there who are aware of the problems of a specific aspect of 'green tech' and finding solutions to those problems. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 23, 2022 15:42:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Oct 23, 2022 18:54:26 GMT
Peak power: hydrogen to be injected into UK station for first timeExclusive: Joint venture with Centrica is aimed ultimately at reducing carbon intensity at the site “ Hydrogen will be injected into an emergency gas-fired power station for the first time in a pilot backed by the owner of British Gas.
Centrica has invested in an industry joint venture which will trial using hydrogen at an existing “peaking plant” at its Brigg station in Lincolnshire, the Guardian can reveal.
The pilot, which will launch in the second half of next year, is aimed at examining the role that hydrogen can play in producing power.
Peaking power stations generally run only when there is a high, or peak, demand for electricity. The 49MW gas-fired station at Brigg is designed to meet demand during peak times or when generation from renewables is low, typically operating for less than three hours a day.
The pilot is one of 20 projects part-funded by an £8m programme from the Net Zero Technology Centre (NZTC), which receives funding from the UK and Scottish governments.
….
HiiROC, founded in Hull in 2019, has developed an electrolysis process using technology which can create hydrogen at lower costs or with higher emissions than other methods.
Its process converts biomethane, flare gas or natural gas into hydrogen and carbon black, a byproduct that can be used in tyres, rubbers and printing inks.” www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/23/peak-power-hydrogen-injected-uk-station-centrica
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 23, 2022 20:21:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 23, 2022 23:24:30 GMT
Frankly, I didn't see any need on a busy day to spend any more time than necessary on a subject which I already have to understand only too well. Well for someone comparing 'modern hydrogen tanks'* to scuba tanks you don't give that impression........ * Since aircraft have an even greater issue with weight then quick switch to look at what (and where) innovation is happening in the race to find alternatives to jet fuel: Airbus open a facility in UK Don't put words in my head! The whole point of the comparison was to show how *UNALIKE* standard scuba tanks are with hydrogen! I said "I'd expect to pay a lot more for one suitable for hydrogen at 350 bar....." The whole point being that the hydrogen tank would be far MORE than the £200. Probably way more if the norm (for H2) of carbon fibre. So how can any conversion price be £1,000 without subsidisation? As for Airbus, that's a completely different scenario! They are *NOT* considering hydrogen pressure tanks - rather cryogenic hydrogen. Certainly be a lot lighter than gaseous H2 under pressure, but comes with massive issues to solve, certainly infrastructure in civilian airports, let alone technical problems to solve in the planes themselves. Even NASA have problems with cryogenic hydrogen, witness the recent delays to the moon rocket due to exactly that. As you seem so fond of links: www.airbus.com/en/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroeQuote: "They are powered by hydrogen combustion through modified gas turbine engines. Liquid hydrogen is used as fuel for combustion with oxygen." I've already stated why Tevva are using an unnecessarily large battery in their 7.5T (technically a LGV not HGV) hybrid. I'll expand. When the cost of hydrogen comes down, and hopefully the refuelling network expands, they'll have 'proven tech' and be able to change that (as the batteries don't last too long anyway). At the moment their hybrid model is basically their electric version with a 'proof of concept' for hydrogen ....... Well, an interesting theory, I wonder if you've run it past Tevva themselves? And would you like to explain why other manufacturers also need to use fairly big batteries in their FCEV proposals? But as you seem to be so keen on links, I'm sure you have one to substantiate your theory above? But you originally gave the Volvo link in relation to battery size? Asked if I'd followed it to clarify what size battery Volvo were using? What have fuel cell power outputs to do with battery energy capacity? As for fuel cell power output, and number of cells, then so what? As I've already said: "A fuel cell works best and most efficiently at delivering a steady and even power. It's very inefficient to design one of such a size that it can cope with peak power demands during such as acceleration and climbing a steep gradient - most of the time it would then be only delivering a fraction of it's max output." It follows it's certainly possible to do without a battery in a FCEV if the fuel cell is big enough - whether it's an efficient way to get the required peak power is another matter. (And no battery at all means no regen.) Yes, you can have more than one fuel cell, (as I believe do Nikola - also 2) and it gives an added degree of reliability. (It's not just the fuel cell that may fail, but such as the air filtration as well - a complex system as the air needs to be highly pure to avoid poisoning.) It doesn't change the argument - with no battery you'll need a greater power from the fuel cell(s), regardless whether it's one big or several smaller. .....and at risk of upsetting the Tesla fan club: www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/trucks/volvo-fh/volvo-fh-electric.html(although note: 'range of up to (only) 300km'. Battery capacity 450-540 kWh, Charging time (full charge) 2.5h with DC (250 kW)) I can certainly see why they are looking to produce a fuel cell electric truck that "will have an operational range comparable to many diesel trucks – up to 1 000 km – and a refueling time of less than 15 minutes"I won't describe myself as anything to do with any "Tesla fan club", but assuming the Tesla Semi makes good on promises* all that shows is how far behind Tesla Volvo are with their specs! Tesla are promising a max range of about 800km (500 miles) with a recharging power ability of 5x that via MCS. (As you so like links: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_Charging_System As it says, the spec allows for a max power of up to 3.75 MW - though first implementations are expected to be about a third of that. Tesla are expected to get about 300 miles extra range in 30 minutes, but the spec therefore allows for about 900 miles ( 1,440 km) in 30 minutes. Pretty close to what is hoped for from hydrogen - and can take place during a drivers break! *Yes, let's see about the promises. But there should only be a month or two to wait now. For Riversimple then you are perhaps unaware that there are already hydrogen cars in production (eg Hyundai's ix35 fuel cell and the Toyota Mira) although I certainly wouldn't buy one yet in UK. There was once a Sinclair C5, that was laughed at and turned out to be a commercial dud but it didn't stop BEVs eventually reaching mass market appeal. Once again, BEVs are very likely to dominate the smaller, shorter journey segment of road vehicles. Hydrogen is better suited to larger, longer journey segment. I'm well aware of the Mirai and Hyundai, and certainly for the former sales are at best weak. Even in California where subsidies for H2 stations have led to a network of stations and Toyota offer subsidies and make a big loss on each sale. The trouble for Riversimple is that they don't seem to have advanced very much beyond a glorified C5 even after over 20 years of grant funded development. Have you seen a Rasa? And do you know how they manage to achieve regen and extra acceleration without any battery? And why it's got an Achilles heel? I find it all very interesting and do admit to a commercial interest. Ah! Now we come to it! The case against hydrogen for road transport rests! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 24, 2022 9:32:33 GMT
1. So how can any conversion price be £1,000 without subsidisation? 2. As you seem so fond of links: www.airbus.com/en/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroeQuote: "They are powered by hydrogen combustion through modified gas turbine engines. Liquid hydrogen is used as fuel for combustion with oxygen." 3. Well, an interesting theory, I wonder if you've run it past Tevva themselves? 4. And would you like to explain why other manufacturers also need to use fairly big batteries in their FCEV proposals? 5. But you originally gave the Volvo link in relation to battery size? Asked if I'd followed it to clarify what size battery Volvo were using? What have fuel cell power outputs to do with battery energy capacity?  1. There are subsidies and will continue to need to be subsidies for the move to renewables and net zero. Surely the need to help a more rapid uptake of renewables is obvious and even CON are supporting that (as is every other govt in the World - many by more than we are). 2. Yes, amazing isn't it. So many ways you can store and use hydrogen depending on the need. For massive, low(ish) pressure storage use salt caverns*. At the other end of the spectrum, where the weight and size requirements are much more important then use cryogenic hydrogen. Ammonia is looking like an excellent option for shipping**. So versatile! 3. Yes, but not a theory, as they are local to me. I'm 'not uncertain' is a term from TV series 'billions' (not that I did anything illegal and I'm not looking to buy/short Tevva stock) 4. Which other manufactures? Anyway, 'fairly big' is a vague. The initial discussion was simply that Tevva don't need such a 'large' (112kWh) battery but that a 'small'(er) one is all that they need. Context is important, hence the tangent to e-bikes (v.small mass in a 'relative context', even if these days I have a bit more potential energy available when I reach the top of an e-bike boosted climb and feel a bit sad that most of that will be lost as heat via my brake pads when I do the fun bit, meaning my e-bike battery doesn't get recharged before the next climb and hence my 'range' is more limited and/or I need to pedal harder/go slower on the climbs) 5. ?? If you have multiple fuel cells then you can use them similar to how a V8 diesel engine might only run 4 cyclinders for steady cruising then kick in the additional 4 for harder acceleration or for climbing a steep hill with a heavy load. To expand on that far from ideal analogy then a battery boost is similar to a turbo boost, but the battery can be recharged by using energy recovered from regenerative braking. Individual fuel cell output is obviously important but by using multiple fuel cells then they can create a more optimal mass market solution. Various companies will likely produce various combinations, largely depending on the specific needs of the vehicle being produced but also on various costs (and for now hydrogen is still very expensive and has quite limited availability, especially in UK) My commercial interest, as I have declared many times, is as an investor in various green tech solutions - being RoC I do like to profit from my interests and 'green tech' is essential if we are to tackle the climate emergency. I often wonder if those so against hydrogen, or nuclear, are 'working' for the so called 'O&G vested interests' who are supposedly*** so against proven technology solutions that just need some govt help and a bit of further development to become a large part of the move to 'net zero'. Of course you might not realise you are 'working' for them, just doing their work for them. Since you're not fond of links for info then I'll save myself some time and not bother to provide them. You can look them up yourself. * Knock yourself by using google with search term: "salt cavern storage for hydrogen" Sadly Putin's war has meant the plan to convert Centrica's Rough storage facility to hydrogen storage has been delayed as they're going to reopen it for nat.gas. If we'd moved faster on green hydrogen production then that facility could, by now, have been adapted to store said hydrogen. ** Again, plenty of info you can find for yourself, if you're interested. *** Many of them are in fact very aware that O&G is going the way of the dinosaurs and that they need to rapidly move to renewables. Their workforce has vast amount of skills and knowledge that can be applied to renewables - far more than politicians have! The existing big players need a bit of 'carrot and stick' to move them along the journey and it is the role of govts to provide said 'carrots and sticks'. IMO. Additional role of govt is to fund and support innovation from new/smaller players (and yes I have a commercial interest in that). |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 24, 2022 12:38:24 GMT
Thank you for the link. One mention of Drax and you'll have some people foaming at the mouth and reaching for the superglue. So, could you clarify what you mean by 'success'? 1/ Technology? We already have BE (Bio-Energy) and the CCS bit of BECSS is proven to work so we're now into mass roll out at scale of carbon capture technology (other countries are also doing it). CCS is necessary to make BE net -ve carbon. CCS is also necessary to make 'grey' hydrogen into 'blue' (but lets try to move on from hydrogen and avoid a modest tangent into 'clean coal'). There are issues that can only be 'learned by doing' and other components of the whole process of CCuS that can only start proceeding once the carbon is captured in the first place (ie another 'chicken+egg' conundrum) 2/ Financial? HMG has been very generous with it's 'carrots' for Drax (some would argue too generous) and have a plan for the adoption of CCS (as do most govts around the World). Drax are submitting plans in request to the consultation. 'Due process' means this stuff takes ages to go through all the steps before it is actually built. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/business-model-for-power-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-power-beccsOne interesting, hopefully non-partisan, discussion, would be to discuss the various 'carrots+sticks' that should be offered to various solutions that are required to reach net zero (and to that we'll need some net -ve). Part of both 1+2 is also a consideration of alternative solutions. Seaweed has been proposed as a carbon -ve option going back decades*. IMO it's another area where some folks want to turn the discussion into 'betamax v VHS' where only one can win (the actual winner for the 'one winner' view is the laggards who want to cling on to fossil fuels). There is a huge demand for multiple solutions to the 'technological' x 'financial'** problems of moving to net zero. Only by 'doing' and continuing to invest in new/developing solutions can we achieve net zero. We (UK + rWorld) have to be prepared to take risks and occasionally make what, with hindsight, might not be the 'best' solution but we have to find, develop and mass roll out a lot of solutions as fast as the 'technology' x 'financial' limitations permit. * 2014: Kelp wanted: Pioneering the seaweed farm of the future: www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329780-700-kelp-wanted-pioneering-the-seaweed-farm-of-the-future/Even BBC have more recently mentioned some of the projections under consideration: Climate change: Can an enormous seaweed farm help curb it? www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63200589** Truss and Kwarteng recently showed, in case anyone other than them was not aware, that the Magic Money Tree was cut down by central banks some time ago and that the 'market' isn't going to allow huge unfunded spending/investment - not by UK or any other country in an open democracy with a lot of household and govt debt (as Biden is finding in US). Hence the need to 'crowd-in' investment IMO, although there is plenty that any govt can do that doesn't require taxpayer money and the markets will be OK with a bit of investment - provided the govt at the time 'rolls the pitch' before making announcements and doesn't spook the markets. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 24, 2022 16:14:32 GMT
Another map that some might be interested in. Notice UK* is on it and I'm v.glad we are as Europe will be a huge export market for our future hydrogen exports. There will be a bit of 'gravity' in the trade in hydrogen as it's a physical product that you can't send the across the internet  . UK left the EU, we didn't leave Europe. Gas terminals (in many cases nat.gas/LNG currently) are incorrectly labelled as simply 'gas-import' where as in the future they can operate as either/both import/export depending on the specific needs and with a modest amount of repurposing from nat.gas to hydrogen. Spain is working on becoming a signifiant player in green hydrogen exports**, home produced and re-exporting of imports coming in from N.Africa.
European Hydrogen Backbone Maps
ehb.eu/page/european-hydrogen-backbone-maps* Good summary of UK's intentions: ehb.eu/page/country-specific-developments#great-britain-national-grid** One, not ideal, way to avoid needing the permission of the French for a pipeline through their country: maritime-executive.com/index.php/article/cespa-to-ship-hydrogen-to-rotterdam-as-port-supports-energy-transitionThat link also shows the 'realisation' of major O&G companies that they need to move to renewables, shows a good example of 'crowding in' where the vast amount of the investment is coming from private sector and also mentions some of decisions are subject to ' be(ing) taken based on market interest' (ie the chicken+egg conundrum: supply is waiting for demand and demand is waiting for cheaper supply) |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 24, 2022 16:14:44 GMT
johntel - "Do you guys have any insight into the likely success of the DRAX carbon-capture project?" It's a very complex area, with multiple problems. Trevor (@deleted) is correct, in that there is no magic bullet here (something many of us have been saying for a long, long time) but I'm not aware of anyone 'wanting to turn the clock back' or have a 'betamax vs VHS' discussion - that's one of Trevor's many flights of fancy. CCS is likely to prove technically feasible (it is already being done in various ways) but it's the financial viability that is the issue. There are existing easier and cheaper options. The Drax proposal is probably going to fit into the category of technically feasible but at a financial and environmental cost. Bio energy CCS (BECCS) is very land intensive if you want to do it at scale, and one of the the issues of Drax is the huge distortion it exerts on the bioenergy market from it's scale. Because of it's size, it sucks in biomass imports from around the world, many of which have been shown to have been produced from unsustainable forest operations, completely undercutting the proposed purpose of their mission. I expect the BECCS proposal will suffer many similar issues. As with large scale hydrogen uptake (as opposed to using hydrogen for specific purposes where alternatives are difficult) the CCS route is being pushed by large infrastructure companies, who are demanding large government subsidies and R&D grants (ref Trev's point about what financial inducements we should support - a very good point) while there are much cheaper, much more widely applicable and much more efficient options that are being starved of attention and cash. So really the answer to your question is more along the lines of 'it depends on how you define success'. It will probably work, in terms of capturing carbon, but we have some extremely cheap and highly viable ways to do that already (trees) and cheaper and more sustainable ways to generate power.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 24, 2022 17:20:36 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 24, 2022 19:18:11 GMT
One for leftieliberal and others keen to see UK expand 'pumped hydro' (which is hopefully pretty much everyone). Some news on potential new projects released earlier this year (when I wasn't 'around'): Drax submits application to expand iconic ‘Hollow Mountain’ Power Station (adding 600MW) www.drax.com/press_release/drax-submits-application-to-expand-iconic-hollow-mountain-power-station/Proposed 1.5GW (30GWh) Coire Glas schemewww.coireglas.com/case-for-phsWe're going to need a massive additional amount of various forms of electricity storage as we increase the roll-out of wind farms (see links previously provided for how much and when) so it is great to see applications being made and I hope those projects, and others, get the Green light to proceed. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 24, 2022 20:57:46 GMT
Thanks guys, really useful info. I began looking at DRAX from a (technology) investors point of view. The share price has been depressed this year after previously being on an upward trend, which surprised me because I would have thought all energy companies would be doing well just now. Reading those papers makes me think that UK wheat-straw production could be a good investment  |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 25, 2022 0:30:38 GMT
1. So how can any conversion price be £1,000 without subsidisation? 2. As you seem so fond of links: www.airbus.com/en/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroeQuote: "They are powered by hydrogen combustion through modified gas turbine engines. Liquid hydrogen is used as fuel for combustion with oxygen." 3. Well, an interesting theory, I wonder if you've run it past Tevva themselves? 4. And would you like to explain why other manufacturers also need to use fairly big batteries in their FCEV proposals? 5. But you originally gave the Volvo link in relation to battery size? Asked if I'd followed it to clarify what size battery Volvo were using? What have fuel cell power outputs to do with battery energy capacity? 1. There are subsidies and will continue to need to be subsidies for the move to renewables and net zero. Firstly, nothing I've said should be taken as being against "kickstarter" subsidies in principle. Such have arguably been crucial in getting solar viable. Same for kickstarting such as charging networks, and likewise certain hydrogen projects - yes, even Riversimple itself for at least it's first decade. (Though there comes a point where decades pass and so little progress has been made that such subsidies need to be reviewed.) In the case the Alec brought up, I have no objection in theory to any such subsidy - but it needs to be made clear what's happening. I'm sure he's right that his example may only be paying £1,000 for the conversion. I very strongly doubt that's the real cost, that's the point. 5. ?? If you have multiple fuel cells then you can use them similar to how a V8 diesel engine might only run 4 cyclinders for steady cruising then kick in the additional 4 for harder acceleration or for climbing a steep hill with a heavy load. To expand on that far from ideal analogy then a battery boost is similar to a turbo boost, but the battery can be recharged by using energy recovered from regenerative braking. Individual fuel cell output is obviously important but by using multiple fuel cells then they can create a more optimal mass market solution. Various companies will likely produce various combinations, largely depending on the specific needs of the vehicle being produced but also on various costs (and for now hydrogen is still very expensive and has quite limited availability, especially in UK) Maybe, but it still doesn't get over the objection to doing such in place of using a battery for acceleration or regen. Undoubtably what you refer to would work for acceleration/climbing a hill (though not for regen) - but whether it's one grossly oversized fuel cell or multiple smaller ones it's going to cost more than a cell capable of much smaller power delivery. I believe what you describe may also suffer from a lag in requesting demand to the power being delivered. As stated before, fuel cells are by far at their best when delivering a constant steady load - not sudden peaks and troughs of power demand. Which is why they normally need to be used in road vehicles in conjunction with buffering batteries....... You haven't taken me up on why Riversimple don't need any batteries - but can manage regen and such a buffering, There's a pretty good write up of their technology at www.emobility-engineering.com/riversimple-rasa/ But although they don't use batteries, they do need supercapacitors - low in terms of energy storage - but able to store/deliver high power outputs. From the link:
"The motors are powered by having the fuel cell produce the constant energy consistent with the cruising speed being demanded at the pedal, while the supercapacitors provide the extra energy needed for acceleration, as well as providing a bank for the energy recouped during deceleration (the DC-DC connects to the supercapacitors, which are in effect the main power bus, the bus voltage floating according to the supercapacitors’ voltage).
“The supercapacitors can store up to 1.9 MJ or 0.5 kWh of usable energy; they’re not the primary energy source, just a secondary source for transient demands such as changes in speed, incline or wind resistance,” David explains.
“At peak braking, the motors deliver around 60 kW to the supercapacitors, which lasts for maybe 5-6 seconds from our top speed.” "
So note that whilst the fuel cell only has a peak output of 10kW, the supercapacitors can supply/absorb peaks of up to 60kW. One side of me has to admire some of the ingenuity that Riversimple have put in, which is why I would agree giving them grants in their first decade was the right thing to do. But unfortunately (for them) a BEV solution now achieves their aim in a far more viable and practical way. I tend to think of them like a manufacturer of analogue and mechanical clocks and watches when digital and electronic solutions then became available, or an aircraft manufacturer after WW2 trying to build better large piston engined propellor aircraft after everyone else had started to build jets. If you've ever seen a RASA, then whilst it may be interesting from a technical standpoint, then looked at as a practical car it's........ well, &^$#. It's the opposite of a Tardis - the size of an average car on the outside, but very small inside (2 seats and no luggage space). Exactly what you don't want from a town car. Performance is a top speed of about 60mph, with mediocre acceleration, and the problem with their use of supercapacitors becomes apparent on a long gradient. They have a maximum storage of about 0.5kWh, but would normally be at a lower figure to allow for regen. Come to a hill and they will allow the car to climb initially with no loss of speed - but may run out of energy well before the top, when the car will slow to a crawl on fuel cell output alone. (The calculation is quite straightforward, and depends on elevation difference - not gradient. It's to equate supercap energy with potential energy gained via height. I seem to remember it's somewhat less than 500ft, depending on the initial state of charge of the supercapacitors. Go up a 750ft or more high hill and you'll have problems!) I don't argue with the logic behind the RASA concept when first thought up twenty plus years ago. But technology has moved on. The concept was out of date before even getting to prototype. And yes - established manufacturers have built one or two more conventional hydrogen fuelled cars - the Mirai being the most obvious. But such still suffer from a lack of interior space due to issues such as the tanks being an inconvenient space, are generally poorer performing than comparable BEVs, and only able to sell at all due to Toyota heavily subsidising cost price and fuel. I often wonder if those so against hydrogen, or nuclear, are 'working' for the so called 'O&G vested interests' who are supposedly*** so against proven technology solutions that just need some govt help and a bit of further development to become a large part of the move to 'net zero'. Of course you might not realise you are 'working' for them, just doing their work for them. I'm not "for or against hydrogen" per se. Likewise nuclear. I would strongly support investment in green hydrogen production to displace dirty hydrogen in industry, for example. But I am against vested interests trying to promote it's increased use where it's now unnecessary and less suitable than alternatives. And I'd put road transport fully in the latter category. Such as filling stations have a lot to worry about with a move to BEVs mainly charging at home - no wonder they are keen on any technology which would maintain their business model of everyone having to keep on visiting them. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 25, 2022 7:39:10 GMT
I began looking at DRAX from a (technology) investors point of view. The share price has been depressed this year after previously being on an upward trend, which surprised me because I would have thought all energy companies would be doing well just now. The price of gas (from which the price of electricity has also been effectively set in recent months) has dropped significantly. Take a look at Centrica, SSE, etc. Additionally there is a lot of uncertainty about 'windfall tax' and the vague (but better IMO) 'revenue cap'* that will limit profits in the future. Drax also has specific subsidies and those are being 'reviewed' (links to gov.uk available upon request but I didn't bookmark them so would need to look them back up). Some 'VHS' folks also see Drax as 'betamax' and want them stopped, Drax has had a lot of -ve press again recently. Drax and some others, have a higher risk/reward profile as they invest in CCuS. UK is 1% of the planet, but the potential demand for CCuS to reduce carbon emissions across a whole range of producing types (BE, gas, coal, etc) and across the entire planet is enormous. As an optimist then I hope that in a few years time Drax will be a global provider of CCuS solutions that happens to have its original 'test site(s)' in UK (as well as some diversification into pumped hydro, etc - see links already provided). I'd also like to see a 'clean coal' test site in UK. Uncertain times for the industry due to the volatility in prices, the risks involved with new technology and demand for said technology**, but also the need for clarity from govts (UK and others). * gets a vague mention in the Energy Price Bill (see Cost-Plus Revenue Limit). It will require a rewrite of existing contracts and pricing structures but that will mean it is a longer term solution (and those, incl.UK, who are using 'windfall tax' as the short-term quick fix will likely come up with some of kind of longer term solution as well) www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-prices-bill-how-households-and-businesses-will-be-supportedSSE opinion (which also covers the plan of our interconnected neighbours and it would make sense to 'copy' their cap price or, for 'crowding in' investment purposes then set it just a bit higher ): www.sse.com/news-and-views/2022/10/sse-comments-on-uk-government-s-cost-plus-revenue-limit/** whilst there will be huge global demand for CCuS then the issue is 'when' (and that discussion would be a longer one involving the need for Carbon Border Tax, etc) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 25, 2022 8:24:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 25, 2022 10:12:36 GMT
lens and ( Mr Poppy) - "In the case the Alec brought up, I have no objection in theory to any such subsidy - but it needs to be made clear what's happening. I'm sure he's right that his example may only be paying £1,000 for the conversion. I very strongly doubt that's the real cost, that's the point." I think there may be some confusion over this example, probably through me not explaining it fully. The unit really does cost £1000 (at the time of publication of the Landward episode a couple of years ago) and as I understand it is not subsidised at that price. The original trial was funded by the Scottish Executive, but the farmer then subsequently bought two additional units for other vehicles because he was so impressed with the cost and carbon savings. Crucially, it is not a conversion, but instead is a bolt on electrolyzer unit that generates a hydrogen/oxygen mix that is then injected into the conventional diesel engine, so it is an additive, not a replacement. It claims to reduce diesel consumption while also enhancing burn efficiency, so reducing carbon emissions in two ways. Here is a link with a more detailed explanation www.innovativefarmers.org/news/2020/june/24/hydrogen-fuelled-tractor-enthusiasm-grows-on-aberdeenshire-farm/ and here is the company website that produces the technology - www.waterfuelengineering.com/enI don't have first hand experience of this so can give no definitive comment, but this looks to me like a good use for hydrogen. It's a stop gap measure, helping reduce fossil fuels while we work up a full plan to switch, and it doesn't require a wholesale switch of technology, but instead bolt onto to existing technology. My view is that we will need this kind of approach in several areas (agriculture, home heating, etc) where we learn to adopt hybrid systems using a proportion of sustainable fuels within the existing infrastructure, while we develop and select the ultimate replacement technologies.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 25, 2022 10:14:27 GMT
Coffee break update to quickly show the ££ upside for those who can sell carbon -ve solutions (the environmental impact should be obvious). For just the UK, then: The UK’s ambition is to capture and store 20-30 Mt of carbon emissions per year by 2030, with a further binding target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045066/ccus-transport-storage-business-model-jan-2022.pdfThe price of carbon is pretty volatile but currently around £70/tonne. ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/20,000,000 x £70 = £1,400,000,000 per year! Drax clearly their eyes on a large slice of that! Now, before anyone reaches for the superglue, then I'm fully aware that there are a lot of things to consider WRT to 'carbon accounting', but we urgently need mass scale deployment of carbon -ve solutions in UK and rWorld. From the earlier NG link (reposted below), then on p39 see Table 2: Negative emissions (MtCO2e). Their LW (Leading the Way) 'forecast scenario' is IMO the 'best' but across the different scenarios then -ve emissions from BECCS are likely to be somewhere between 30-60MtCO2e by 2050. Direct Air Capture (DACCS) is the most uncertain component (0-24MtCO2e). Land Use, Land Use-Change and Forestry (LULUCF) is forecast to provide 19-32MtCO2e of additional -ve carbon per year by 2050. The scale of the challenge means we needs a range of solutions but the final 'mix' of solutions has a lot of 'flex' and as we 'learn by doing' then we can adjust the focus. For now we need to push forward with every option as fast as the 'technology'x'financial'* limitations allow. www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/download* see earlier where I split out the 'technology' and 'financial' issues. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 25, 2022 14:55:09 GMT
lens Let's agree to disagree on the broader opportunities for hydrogen and in case it wasn't clear with my mention of the Sinclair C5 then happy to agree that Riversimple have a sh!t product (I did clearly state that might as well use regenerative braking to charge a (relatively) small battery). We're probably a lot closer to agreeing on the bigger issues than it seems. You didn't respond to the options of what to do once we'd fully charged grid batteries (add in pumped hydro and those with BEVs) and the market price for electricity exports was negative (see below options for a reminder) NG have generally focussed on tricky days in Winter (excess demand) but a bit of info on the Summer (excess supply) in the attached that eludes to two periods on sunny+windy days when we'd have excess supply and could sneak in a 'double bubble' for grid batteries(+pumped hydro) to help balance a steady supply to electrolysers (which work best when allowed to run for longer, steady periods). The longer night time period when 'excess wind' electricity needs storage and a shorter period during the day when 'excess solar (+wind)' electricity also needs storage. www.nationalgrideso.com/document/246851/download3a/ Pay suppliers to not supply electricity (as per current arrangement) 3b/ Use the batteries to smooth out the supply to electrolysers, safe in the knowledge that you checked the weather and were very confident you could easily supply the electrolysers and fully recharge those batteries each night for the next few weeks (weather harder to predict much beyond that) I'd pick 3b (and I'm not uncertain NG and HMG will as well, same in other countries of course)
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 26, 2022 8:33:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 26, 2022 12:06:10 GMT
I think there may be some confusion over this example, probably through me not explaining it fully. The unit really does cost £1000 (at the time of publication of the Landward episode a couple of years ago) and as I understand it is not subsidised at that price. .......... Crucially, it is not a conversion, but instead is a bolt on electrolyzer unit that generates a hydrogen/oxygen mix that is then injected into the conventional diesel engine, so it is an additive, not a replacement. I don't have first hand experience of this so can give no definitive comment, but this looks to me like a good use for hydrogen. It's a stop gap measure, helping reduce fossil fuels while........... Ah! Thanks Alec, that makes sense now. I wouldn't now lump it in with "dual-fuel" or "hydrogen fuelled" technology - even if hydrogen may be involved. (Is it conceivable that it's the oxygen from the electrolysis, enriching the air mix that may even be having a greater effect?) Yes, I agree with you - an interesting stop gap measure to improve fuel efficiency of diesel vehicles, in a sense like hybrid technology. But an incremental improvement, not a revolution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2022 12:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 26, 2022 12:56:30 GMT
lens Let's agree to disagree on the broader opportunities for hydrogen and in case it wasn't clear with my mention of the Sinclair C5 then happy to agree that Riversimple have a sh!t product (I did clearly state that might as well use regenerative braking to charge a (relatively) small battery). We're probably a lot closer to agreeing on the bigger issues than it seems. As far as the C5 goes, then I'd put it as more a forerunner to an e-bike than a current electric car. Hindsight really begs the question why Sinclair didn't just make an e-bike than the C5 at the time...... As I recall, one of the big negatives of the C5 was it being so low - and hence much less visible. And maybe the marketing was wrong - it may have done far better if marketed with off road uses. For electric cars, they are not new in principle, go back right to the start of motoring, and more recently have had much use for milk floats etc. What's held them back have been technology and battery/charging issues whilst "battery" meant "lead-acid". Which is really where Musk's approach was revolutionary. Firstly to see the scope for how battery technology could take huge strides forward, and secondly to approach the matter from top down. Start off with a no-holds barred performance car which people (rich, first-adopter Californians!) just wanted to own for itself. Then go next into the luxury saloon market and only later the mass market. And whilst initially charging at home was OK for the Roadster, to realise that success depended also on building out their own charging network. Why I don't equate the C5 with the RASA, is that the latter is not a "proof of concept" prototype. Read the Riversimple blog and they are promoting it as a nearly production ready model, to be marketed head to head with other "real" cars (albeit smaller ones). Where frankly, it's a joke. Worth also reading www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/20/hydrogen-cars-hugo-spowers-future - which is from *January 2018* - nearly 5 years ago. It says: "This year {2018}, the company will roll out a beta test of 20 cars in Monmouthshire and if all goes well, Spowers hopes to have the car on the market in 2019. “As far as we can tell,” he says, “we are the only independent hydrogen car startup in the world.” "This after original prototypes dating back over 20 years, and over 3 years beyond predicted production date still no sign of anything for sale. I'm reminded of the joke about fusion power - "the future of power generation..... and it always will be"! On which note it's worth also commenting on something else from that article: "They don’t have an exact price for the consumer version – it will depend on hydrogen prices at the time, but will definitely be less than £500 a month all-inclusive (including fuel and insurance)." Yeah, right, I can see them flying off the shelves at that price. 9You didn't respond to the options of what to do once we'd fully charged grid batteries (add in pumped hydro and those with BEVs) and the market price for electricity exports was negative (see below options for a reminder) Without going into the details, it all comes back to optimistic ideas of making hydrogen very cheaply by using cheap (or negative) electricity to do it at a bargain rate. Such comes down to relying on electrolysis/compression plant being idle and waiting ready to take advantage of such. Technically possible, yes - but a huge waste of capital in the extreme. Yes, you can use grid batteries to even out flow - but that rather defeats the object. (If you've got a battery to charge at cheap rate, then why not sell that electricity as electricity more profitably?) Get into the surplus peak situation you describe and for energy storage it makes more sense to go with more liquid air/CO2 or compressed air storage, than more electrolysis if the latter is to spend most of its time idle. (The former, as with batteries, can go back to electricity much more easily and efficiently than with hydrogen - fuel cells are not an option for grid scale generation.) None of that is to say the future won't mean a lot of green electricity being used in electrolysis to produce hydrogen. But to be viable the plant will have to run the majority of the time, not just taking up advantage of very cheap surplus rates. More likely a case of not running at times of greatest demand than only during peaks. No reason why such won't happen - but forget about the most optimistic pricing forecasts you hear. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 26, 2022 13:28:12 GMT
colin - "A question arises about LNG gasification capacity in Europe-tankers waiting to unload:-" It's not really about gasification capacity, but much more to do with the weather. EU storage capacity is pretty much full - see here agsi.gie.eu/ As I write this, it's at 93.8% of capacity, and still rising, when it would normally be falling by now. There has been some unseasonally warm weather in parts of Europe so demand is lower than expected, and their general efforts at energy efficiency have been more successful than anticipated, again depressing demand from their planned levels. They simply don't have the space to put the gas at the moment. In terms of gasification capacity, they're doing OK - see the map on p3 here - energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/EU-US_LNG_2022_2.pdfThey have 26 LNG terminals in operation, with 22 of those connected to the pan European gas network. 9 of the 22 are currently being expanded with 2 more under construction, with another 12 planned, along with numerous pipeline projects under construction and in planning. The Norway-Poland Baltic pipeline is already up to full capacity, several months ahead of schedule. Not many people in the UK realised that the EU actually started moving on gas and energy security straight after the 2014 invasion of Crimea. They didn't move quite fast enough, but the rate at which these infrastructure developments are coming through is still impressive. I suspect that it was this that prompted Putin to invade when he did - two more years and he might have struggled to have so much leverage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2022 13:47:37 GMT
alec Marine Link says :- "The shortage of regasification plants, or pipelines connecting countries that have those facilities to other European markets, means that the LNG floating offshore cannot be used. "We have seen a high number of cargoes waiting offshore in southern Spain or circling in the Med, as well as some cargoes waiting off the UK," said Alex Froley, LNG analyst at data intelligence firm ICIS. The bottlenecks have been compounded by lower industrial demand as Europe's economy slows as well as lower-than-expected domestic consumption in Spain due to unseasonably warm weather. ICIS's Froley said another reason for the congestion is that prices are expected to rise as winter approaches and heating demand increases, so some ships are waiting to sell their cargoes at a higher price that can offset the extra shipping costs incurred by sitting offshore." This is an entirely different supply chain to a gas pipe from Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 26, 2022 14:58:42 GMT
colin - the key driver now is the loss of demand, which then creates the more indirect price effect. If you think about it, while no doubt improvements could have been made to the EU gas pipe network sooner, we haven't had LNG tankers floating around Europe like this throughout the summer, but it's happened now, with the unexpected loss of demand. But sure - once the full set of new facilities and pipelines is up and running, the EU will have an impressive trans national gas network.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 26, 2022 15:11:29 GMT
Yes, you can use grid batteries to even out flow - but that rather defeats the object. (1. If you've got a battery to charge at cheap rate, then why not sell that electricity as electricity more profitably?) Get into the surplus peak situation you describe and for energy storage it makes more sense to go with more liquid air/CO2 or compressed air storage, than more electrolysis if the latter is to spend most of its time idle. (The former, as with batteries, can go back to electricity much more easily and efficiently than with hydrogen - fuel cells are not an option for grid scale generation.) None of that is to say the future won't mean a lot of green electricity being used in electrolysis to produce hydrogen. 2. But to be viable the plant will have to run the majority of the time, not just taking up advantage of very cheap surplus rates. More likely a case of not running at times of greatest demand than only during peaks. No reason why such won't happen - but forget about the most optimistic pricing forecasts you hear. 1. Who are you going to sell that electricity to once your batteries (and other forms of short-term storage) are fully charged (see points 1+2 in my original post)*? I'm talking about periods of forecastable excess supply once you've used all the 'obvious' options up. Those periods being Spring-Summer-Autumn: windy overnight periods and windy+sunny midday periods when the alternative is to pay suppliers to not produce (ie the 3a option of current approach). Then in the early morning (not yet that sunny for excess solar supply but demand has picked up to use all the wind generated power and early evening when sun is dipping and demand is peak) the electrolysers can draw down on short-term storage to ensure a smooth supply to keep running electrolysers the majority of the time. Wind (+base load) power is doing most of the supply to meet demand but the 'double bubble' is when there is excess wind overnight and excess solar in the middle of the day - when the price is zero as short-term storage is all full (unless you emptied it in the periods mentioned and it is hence available to refill once again) and no one wants to pay to import it. a/ makes short-term storage (eg grid batteries or pumped hydro) more economic given you have a lot more 'cycles' to pay for the capital expense b/ makes the (electrolysis) plant more viable as you can run them the majority of the time (well for 6mths+ of the year anyway) 2. YES!! See 1b. * It would be very expensive to only use batteries once per year to match inter-seasonal supply-demand imbalances (please say you agree with that so we don't have to go over the inter-seasonal issue again). The more 'cycles' you can get out of a form of 'short-term' storage the more economic they are and hence the more of those that will be used - up to the point where the number of cycles drops (ie up to the point where instead of being 'short-term' storage that you can cycle once, maybe even twice, per day) Hence the 'Green Team' of batteries + electrolysers. Grid batteries are more 'viable' if their annual number of cycles is as high as possible.
Electrolysers are more 'viable' if they can run the majority of the time. I'm not going to predict the amount of each that will create the 'perfect' team but 5GW+ almost certainly and that will take many years to build and we can 'flex' the final outcome as we go. If a better form of long-term storage becomes 'viable' then we'll still need a lot of hydrogen - to replace the grey/blue stuff and export to our neighbours who seem a lot more keen on H2 than we do (10million tonnes pa IIRC) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 26, 2022 15:22:06 GMT
Indeed. I seem to remember pointing out that EUrope didn't have the LNG+pipeline infrastructure and would need to use UK's before I was 'temporarily blocked and had a lot of comments Deleted' (cancelled is past tense). All the links explaining so have been provided on this very thread (folks can go back and check) and I've even provided links to infrastructure stuff like MidCat (that could be built 'future proof') and how Spain have found a way to get around that if France (who own EDF but happen to be between Spain and rEUrope) don't want to be 'team players'. Totally predictable (although the tankers waiting situation is in part due to warmer than expected weather, which is a good thing!) |
|
. UK left the EU, we didn't leave Europe. 