Bruising Night For The Tories

[ricardo 7,409]

2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

This is encouraging.

https://www.energyportal.eu/news/harnessing-the-power-of-wind-the-future-of-hydrogen-energy-storage/39867/

Wind power has long been recognized as a key component of the renewable energy mix, with its ability to generate electricity without producing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. However, one of the major challenges associated with wind power is its intermittent nature, as wind speeds can vary significantly over time and across different locations. This variability can lead to periods of excess electricity generation when demand is low, and conversely, periods of insufficient generation when demand is high. To overcome this challenge, energy storage solutions are required to balance supply and demand, ensuring that electricity is available when and where it is needed.

This is where hydrogen energy storage comes into play. By using excess electricity generated by wind turbines to power electrolyzers, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, effectively converting the electricity into chemical energy stored in the form of hydrogen gas. This hydrogen can then be stored for later use, either as a fuel for transportation or as a means of generating electricity when wind power is not sufficient to meet demand. This process, known as power-to-gas, has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and reliability of wind power, while also providing a valuable source of clean hydrogen fuel.

Yes, Hydrogen is a possibly useful technology but its been hailed as the fuel of the future for quite a long while. It always seems to be twenty years away however.

As I understand it from a recent science article I read, the explosive nature of the product and the difficulty of containing leakge of such a light element are problems that remain to be overcome.

[Herman 9,838]

22 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

As of July 2022, we were 2nd on the list after Norway for best prepared nations for reaching net zero.

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/which-countries-are-the-most-prepared-to-reach-net-zero-emissions/140674/

I'm thinking more about our own self sufficiency. 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

52 minutes ago, Herman said:

Although, as you say, 100% isn't possible at this current time, we could have been far more advanced in renewables than we are currently. Far too much nimbyism, short-termism, poor governance and misinformation has held the country back to being at least 10 years behind where we should be.

 

36 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

This is encouraging.

https://www.energyportal.eu/news/harnessing-the-power-of-wind-the-future-of-hydrogen-energy-storage/39867/

Wind power has long been recognized as a key component of the renewable energy mix, with its ability to generate electricity without producing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. However, one of the major challenges associated with wind power is its intermittent nature, as wind speeds can vary significantly over time and across different locations. This variability can lead to periods of excess electricity generation when demand is low, and conversely, periods of insufficient generation when demand is high. To overcome this challenge, energy storage solutions are required to balance supply and demand, ensuring that electricity is available when and where it is needed.

This is where hydrogen energy storage comes into play. By using excess electricity generated by wind turbines to power electrolyzers, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, effectively converting the electricity into chemical energy stored in the form of hydrogen gas. This hydrogen can then be stored for later use, either as a fuel for transportation or as a means of generating electricity when wind power is not sufficient to meet demand. This process, known as power-to-gas, has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and reliability of wind power, while also providing a valuable source of clean hydrogen fuel.

Yes and yes. 

There is case for base load nuclear (but not the SNRs) and of course hydrogen for (renewable) energy storage / distribution.  The issues with some renewables are well known - sometimes the wind generators are paid to switch off and at other times even recently we still had to power up coal stations (air conditioning - too hot too hot little wind). The issue if the 'grid' in its current form can even supply all the electric power required for electric heating in home and vehicles most people don't even think about - especially many woolly 'greens'. Just look a the arguments about some pylons needed locally to connect windfarms to the grid! Much much more will be needed than that!

Electric battery technology is improving is good but I always think it will ultimately be a niche parallel technology (ballast if you like) to fuel cells. I noted the other day that leaps and bounds had been made in 'fuel tank' hydrogen storage (ammonia in a perovskite lead iodate structure). Easy in easy out.

[KiwiScot 1,489]

Personally heat pumps which are in my mind a machine that fits in where the boiler is and might need an outside outlet sound fine. Then at the the time people where talking in detail about them it's said you'd need to replace all your radiators with larger ones. The reason which sounds silly is that the heat pumps can't provide the power to heat the radiators to the same temperature thus needing larger radiators to increase the surface area heating your home. I must be wrong because it justs sounds like to meet some target we're going to force you to rush in inferior technology at great cost to you.

Or are the heatpumps the ones you get in New Zealand which are basically Air-con units which also heat.

Hyrdogen is not a goer to me. Too much cost to change the network. For selected businesses maybe

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

I'm thinking more about our own self sufficiency. 

I guess we'd all better work on our mind-reading skills.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

19 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Personally heat pumps which are in my mind a machine that fits in where the boiler is and might need an outside outlet sound fine. Then at the the time people where talking in detail about them it's said you'd need to replace all your radiators with larger ones. The reason which sounds silly is that the heat pumps can't provide the power to heat the radiators to the same temperature thus needing larger radiators to increase the surface area heating your home. I must be wrong because it justs sounds like to meet some target we're going to force you to rush in inferior technology at great cost to you.

Or are the heatpumps the ones you get in New Zealand which are basically Air-con units which also heat.

Hyrdogen is not a goer to me. Too much cost to change the network. For selected businesses maybe

The ones in NZ are indeed as you say.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

Personally heat pumps which are in my mind a machine that fits in where the boiler is and might need an outside outlet sound fine. Then at the the time people where talking in detail about them it's said you'd need to replace all your radiators with larger ones. The reason which sounds silly is that the heat pumps can't provide the power to heat the radiators to the same temperature thus needing larger radiators to increase the surface area heating your home. I must be wrong because it justs sounds like to meet some target we're going to force you to rush in inferior technology at great cost to you.

Or are the heatpumps the ones you get in New Zealand which are basically Air-con units which also heat.

Hyrdogen is not a goer to me. Too much cost to change the network. For selected businesses maybe

Heat pumps can heat water to whatever temperature you want in theory  - they just get less energy efficient (gain) and remember they need electricity just like a (powerful) fridge. I think one of the main manufacturers has released a two stage direct replacement for your gas boiler (60 - 70C) anyway. However they work best in very well insulated homes, under floor heating etc.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

8 hours ago, ricardo said:

If the sun shone at night and the wind blew at a constant rate throughout the year you might have a point, but they dont, so you don't. A modern society can't  run without a reliable base load of electricity. Until that problem is solved green power will be nice to have but will remain pie in the sky as a complete solution.

 Advances in battery technology show promise but they are still a long way from making a transition to 100% green energy possible in the short term.

So many things wrong with those statements it is hard to know where to start but in no particular order:

Lack of sun at night is completely irrelevant, demand for energy at night is significantly lower than during the day so lack of solar at night is a none issue. Low levels of solar over the winter would be more of an issue were it not for the fact that increases in wind normally more than compensate.

There is absolutely no need for the wind to blow at constant rate, anymore than there is for power stations to run at a constant rate which of course they don't, not does the wind have to be blowing at all wind farms all the time. Studies have been done covering the entire UK which have demonstrated that the fraction of time that a complete calm could occur would be absolutely tiny, less than 1% and there will always be standbys of various types for exceptional conditions (just as there are already despite our supposedly secure base load).

This idea that our base load requirement is in danger of not being met is a complete myth peddled primarily by the nuclear industry because it is the one and only justification they can come up with in order to make us finance the buidling of nuclear stations that will produce electricity at insanely high prices.

Battery technology is more than showing promise, it is starting to be deployed very rapidly particularly with solar but also wind, and is going to go much faster in the near future. This will be a big help, and if we ever get a competent government they will perhaps implement the smart grid which the Tories promised over 10 years ago and have totally failed to deliver - this could also help a lot the smooth gaps between supply & demand and use stored and standby energy efficiently.

Finally I never suggested that we could have got to 100% renewables now or in the very near future. What I was complaining about is that for the last 13 years the Tories have continued to give huge tax breaks to gas and oil companies and also build hugely expensive new nuclear, all three of them expensive fuel types whilst deliberately and actively holding back solar and wind which are produced cheap electricity.

The end result of this utter stupidity is that renewables, i.e. cheap energy, only supplies around 40% of our energy whilst the expensive and very expensive fuels are providing the 60% - hence our very high electricity prices.

By now we could have easily reached 60% produced by renewables if we'd had a sane energy policy, perhaps even 70-80% had we been ambitious. If that had happened the would be no problem with our base load and our electricity prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

 

 

[KiwiScot 1,489]

6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Heat pumps can heat water to whatever temperature you want in theory  - they just get less energy efficient (gain) and remember they need electricity just like a (powerful) fridge. I think one of the main manufacturers has released a two stage direct replacement for your gas boiler (60 - 70C) anyway. However they work best in very well insulated homes, under floor heating etc.

Well I certainly don't feel tearing out good radiators and redesigning every room to accommodate larger ones is justified. That the tech can only avoid large bills by running at a lower temperature

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

So many things wrong with those statements it is hard to know where to start but in no particular order:

Lack of sun at night is completely irrelevant, demand for energy at night is significantly lower than during the day so lack of solar at night is a none issue. Low levels of solar over the winter would be more of an issue were it not for the fact that increases in wind normally more than compensate.

There is absolutely no need for the wind to blow at constant rate, anymore than there is for power stations to run at a constant rate which of course they don't, not does the wind have to be blowing at all wind farms all the time. Studies have been done covering the entire UK which have demonstrated that the fraction of time that a complete calm could occur would be absolutely tiny, less than 1% and there will always be standbys of various types for exceptional conditions (just as there are already despite our supposedly secure base load).

This idea that our base load requirement is in danger of not being met is a complete myth peddled primarily by the nuclear industry because it is the one and only justification they can come up with in order to make us finance the buidling of nuclear stations that will produce electricity at insanely high prices.

Battery technology is more than showing promise, it is starting to be deployed very rapidly particularly with solar but also wind, and is going to go much faster in the near future. This will be a big help, and if we ever get a competent government they will perhaps implement the smart grid which the Tories promised over 10 years ago and have totally failed to deliver - this could also help a lot the smooth gaps between supply & demand and use stored and standby energy efficiently.

Finally I never suggested that we could have got to 100% renewables now or in the very near future. What I was complaining about is that for the last 13 years the Tories have continued to give huge tax breaks to gas and oil companies and also build hugely expensive new nuclear, all three of them expensive fuel types whilst deliberately and actively holding back solar and wind which are produced cheap electricity.

The end result of this utter stupidity is that renewables, i.e. cheap energy, only supplies around 40% of our energy whilst the expensive and very expensive fuels are providing the 60% - hence our very high electricity prices.

By now we could have easily reached 60% produced by renewables if we'd had a sane energy policy, perhaps even 70-80% had we been ambitious. If that had happened the would be no problem with our base load and ou electricity prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

 

 

You might find this link interesting

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/britain-puts-coal-plant-standby-warm-temperatures-ramp-up-demand-2023-06-12/

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

14 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

You might find this link interesting

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/britain-puts-coal-plant-standby-warm-temperatures-ramp-up-demand-2023-06-12/

Yep, will be very interesting to see whether they do actually call on Ratcliffe for power or not but either way, as the Greenpeace lady says, the fact that the grid have issued the market notice is itself a massive failure of both policy and planning and it isn't a recent failure but the result of many years of poor judgements/decisions/policies - although I think ad -hoc decisions is much closer to the mark, throughout their entire 13 years in power the Tories have never had an energy 'policy' which would have stood up to the slightest scrutiny or contained any real substance beyond headlines and slogans.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

21 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yep, will be very interesting to see whether they do actually call on Ratcliffe for power or not but either way, as the Greenpeace lady says, the fact that the grid have issued the market notice is itself a massive failure of both policy and planning and it isn't a recent failure but the result of many years of poor judgements/decisions/policies - although I think ad -hoc decisions is much closer to the mark, throughout their entire 13 years in power the Tories have never had an energy 'policy' which would have stood up to the slightest scrutiny or contained any real substance beyond headlines and slogans.

No problem with that. I think the real issue is that you can't rely on market forces for your energy policy. An awkward and topical case in point is that the halting  of the Norfolk Boreas wind farm (basically not now cost effective at the agreed price per MWH).

https://www.evwind.es/2023/07/22/work-paused-on-norfolk-offshore-wind-farm-as-costs-soar/92925

The point in the original link was however that wind had dropped to 7% - it's not reliable even on a hot summer day. That's because a blocking high pressure can sit over much of the country with weak winds - typical for a winter cold snap but also as above in summer! You can argue that solar (in summer) or the 'interconnectors' (i.e French nuclear) can make up some of the shortfall but it's difficult with today's (or tomorrows) limited energy storaqe technologies to get away from a base load guaranteed system else the lights, heating really will on occasions to go off. Nuclear is an essential part & cost of that zero carbon solution.  

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[canarydan23 4,060]

Tides as constant as constant can be, can someone explain to me why the UK, with some of the mightiest (the mightiest?) tides on the planet, is not harnessing this potential?

I suspect the costs would be huge, but there are no cheap options. There's been talk of the Severn Barrage for decades, and more recently a proposal to stick one in The Wash, there must be a reason why it's never come to fruition. I drove over La Rance last year whilst on holiday in Brittany. It was a pretty insignificant looking structure to be honest, but I Googled it and realised that it is the world's first meaningful tidal energy generator and four decades on is producing 500GWh of energy a year. I'm sure with our stronger tides and forty years of technological advancement, we could be building similar or larger structures capable of producing significantly more energy.

On a windless day where clouds-fill the sky, the tide will always rise and fall.

Edited July 24, 2023 by canarydan23

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

On 23/07/2023 at 06:54, Herman said:

Terrified of the bullying and whining tories,which really worries me. They get pressure from MPs and have a few people lurking inside making sure the narrative is tory positive. A cowed and weakened corporation.

Exactly. Anyone saying the BBC is left-leaning in its reporting is simply wrong. In domestic affairs, the BBC has always had a slight house bias towards the government in charge. This current set of shysters, with their perpetual use of BBC funding as a political football, are trying to increase said house bias.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

36 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Tides as constant as constant can be, can someone explain to me why the UK, with some of the mightiest (the mightiest?) tides on the planet, is not harnessing this potential?

I suspect the costs would be huge, but there are no cheap options. There's been talk of the Severn Barrage for decades, and more recently a proposal to stick one in The Wash, there must be a reason why it's never come to fruition. I drove over La Rance last year whilst on holiday in Brittany. It was a pretty insignificant looking structure to be honest, but I Googled it and realised that it is the world's first meaningful tidal energy generator and four decades on is producing 500GWh of energy a year. I'm sure with our stronger tides and forty years of technological advancement, we could be building similar or larger structures capable of producing significantly more energy.

On a windless day where clouds-fill the sky, the tide will always rise and fall.

I agree with some sort of Severn scheme and the Wash barrier (plus road and port)  However all the environmentalists are up in arms about it! They want it all ways.

Tough realistic decisions have to be taken. Generally I prefer one big site rather than lots of little ones. Efficiencies of scale etc. One 'Sizewell' not 20 little ones. You can't power the whole country (or you house) off one small windmill.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I agree with some sort of Severn scheme and the Wash barrier (plus road and port)  However all the environmentalists are up in arms about it! They want it all ways.

Tough realistic decisions have to be taken. Generally I prefer one big site rather than lots of little ones. Efficiencies of scale etc. One 'Sizewell' not 20 little ones. You can't power the whole country (or you house) off one small windmill.

There will undoubtedly be an environmental cost, there is for everything.

Looking again at La Rance, it caused silting of the ecosystem and this has led to sand-eels and plaice vanishing from the estuary; however, it has caused sea bass and cuttlefish to return, so there are some benefits as well.

There is not an answer that will deliver the energy we're going to need that won't cost a fortune and damage some ecosystems.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly. Anyone saying the BBC is left-leaning in its reporting is simply wrong. In domestic affairs, the BBC has always had a slight house bias towards the government in charge. This current set of shysters, with their perpetual use of BBC funding as a political football, are trying to increase said house bias.

This is true, but the wider public have also embraced turning the BBC into a political football. It's frequently attacked from all directions, which makes it only more vulnerable to real government pressure.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

On 22/07/2023 at 10:35, Herman said:

Goodwin is another one of those commentators that started off with some interesting ideas and opinions but has veered into conspiracies and crankdom. See Jordan Peterson for details.

Peterson (and Ben 'I can't get my missus wet' Shapiro) have said that women only tolerate having sex and indeed Peterson came up with the completely unsubstantiated whopper that childfree people are less mature. Not a lick of evidence for that, just a verbose, fact-free diatribe.

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Tides as constant as constant can be, can someone explain to me why the UK, with some of the mightiest (the mightiest?) tides on the planet, is not harnessing this potential?

I suspect the costs would be huge, but there are no cheap options. There's been talk of the Severn Barrage for decades, and more recently a proposal to stick one in The Wash, there must be a reason why it's never come to fruition. I drove over La Rance last year whilst on holiday in Brittany. It was a pretty insignificant looking structure to be honest, but I Googled it and realised that it is the world's first meaningful tidal energy generator and four decades on is producing 500GWh of energy a year. I'm sure with our stronger tides and forty years of technological advancement, we could be building similar or larger structures capable of producing significantly more energy.

On a windless day where clouds-fill the sky, the tide will always rise and fall.

Tidal energy is the answer and would be the sensible option -- As you say, costly and so is nuclear, but minus the use of fossil fuel, tidal or nuclear are the only realistic choices given the rising population/s.

Tidal turbines/plants could also double up as desalination plants.

[Barbe bleu 833]

6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I agree with some sort of Severn scheme and the Wash barrier (plus road and port)  However all the environmentalists are up in arms about it! They want it all ways.

Tough realistic decisions have to be taken. Generally I prefer one big site rather than lots of little ones. Efficiencies of scale etc. One 'Sizewell' not 20 little ones. You can't power the whole country (or you house) off one small windmill.

 

Severn estuary would be ideal for energy. Do a few of these around the country (though none could match the severn) and you'll have 24h generation as tides differ.

Not so ideal for the habitat and tourism though.

A lot of Europe, including us, are looking  at the sahara for strong reliable solar backed up by UK wind speeds.  Sure it will take cables 3000miles long to export it but what's that compared to damming the Severn?

Isn't the idea of small nuclear that it can use existing infrastructure so comes at much less cost and delay that big nuke?

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 23/07/2023 at 18:53, Creative Midfielder said:

So many things wrong with those statements it is hard to know where to start but in no particular order:

Lack of sun at night is completely irrelevant, demand for energy at night is significantly lower than during the day so lack of solar at night is a none issue. Low levels of solar over the winter would be more of an issue were it not for the fact that increases in wind normally more than compensate.

There is absolutely no need for the wind to blow at constant rate, anymore than there is for power stations to run at a constant rate which of course they don't, not does the wind have to be blowing at all wind farms all the time. Studies have been done covering the entire UK which have demonstrated that the fraction of time that a complete calm could occur would be absolutely tiny, less than 1% and there will always be standbys of various types for exceptional conditions (just as there are already despite our supposedly secure base load).

This idea that our base load requirement is in danger of not being met is a complete myth peddled primarily by the nuclear industry because it is the one and only justification they can come up with in order to make us finance the buidling of nuclear stations that will produce electricity at insanely high prices.

Battery technology is more than showing promise, it is starting to be deployed very rapidly particularly with solar but also wind, and is going to go much faster in the near future. This will be a big help, and if we ever get a competent government they will perhaps implement the smart grid which the Tories promised over 10 years ago and have totally failed to deliver - this could also help a lot the smooth gaps between supply & demand and use stored and standby energy efficiently.

Finally I never suggested that we could have got to 100% renewables now or in the very near future. What I was complaining about is that for the last 13 years the Tories have continued to give huge tax breaks to gas and oil companies and also build hugely expensive new nuclear, all three of them expensive fuel types whilst deliberately and actively holding back solar and wind which are produced cheap electricity.

The end result of this utter stupidity is that renewables, i.e. cheap energy, only supplies around 40% of our energy whilst the expensive and very expensive fuels are providing the 60% - hence our very high electricity prices.

By now we could have easily reached 60% produced by renewables if we'd had a sane energy policy, perhaps even 70-80% had we been ambitious. If that had happened the would be no problem with our base load and our electricity prices would be a fraction of what they are today.

 

 

Don't give up the day job.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Peterson (and Ben 'I can't get my missus wet' Shapiro) have said that women only tolerate having sex and indeed Peterson came up with the completely unsubstantiated whopper that childfree people are less mature. Not a lick of evidence for that, just a verbose, fact-free diatribe.

 

That's not what Peterson said. His actual quote was: “I don’t think that anyone can truly grow up until they have kids.”

When you have kids you'll know what he means.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

That's not what Peterson said. His actual quote was: “I don’t think that anyone can truly grow up until they have kids.”

When you have kids you'll know what he means.

Nope. I think you might have quoted him another time. Either way, he had no evidence to substantiate the claim he made.