Climate Change

[Rorschach]

10% of the total generation missing is probably accurate, although that's not how electricity generation works.

Wind power is around 25% of the generated electricity in the UK, so it's 25% that needs to be covered when the wind isn't blowing. As that proportion increases, more needs to be covered when it's not available.

The wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK so obviously, it never goes to zero. Even with the unprecedented drop-off this year it still supplied about 15% of that 25% you referenced. So the answer is plainly spare capacity and storage. This exact problem caused much hand ringing over the years among green energy advocates but the market is in the process of solving it, you'll be glad to hear. The price of renewable energy and storage is dropping like a stone. And let's face it, it is going to get a lot windier anyway.

The current situation in the UK is a result of multiple issues happening at once and could probably be accurately be described as unprecedented. Less wind on top of several nuclear reactors going offline and a fire on the France interconnector is bad luck. Having very little gas storage is bad planning, especially knowing the Brexit would put the UK in a vulnerable position in the market if the worst happened (like now).

 

[scaramanga]

The wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK so obviously, it never goes to zero. Even with the unprecedented drop-off this year it still supplied about 15% of that 25% you referenced. So the answer is plainly spare capacity and storage. This exact problem caused much hand ringing over the years among green energy advocates but the market is in the process of solving it, you'll be glad to hear. The price of renewable energy and storage is dropping like a stone. And let's face it, it is going to get a lot windier anyway.

The current situation in the UK is a result of multiple issues happening at once and could probably be accurately be described as unprecedented. Less wind on top of several nuclear reactors going offline and a fire on the France interconnector is bad luck. Having very little gas storage is bad planning, especially knowing the Brexit would put the UK in a vulnerable position in the market if the worst happened (like now).

Storage is certainly a challenge. Last time I read up on this, pumping water up a mountain was still the best solution but the losses were scarily large.

 

[glasgowspur]

Are we any closer to storing electricity?
As this the biggest challenge and a monumental game changer i assume not.

 

[Lilbaz]

Are we any closer to storing electricity?
As this the biggest challenge and a monumental game changer i assume not.

The posts above have mentioned ways. There's plenty of others. Good old fashioned batteries. If we do move to evs they can be used. Charged when renewables are strong, but feed back into the grid if we have a dip.
We can use electrolysis to turn water into hydrogen. This can then be burned in a power plant or used to heat homes, run vehicles, planes, ships. Expensive at the moment but economies of scale will bring the costs down.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The posts above have mentioned ways. There's plenty of others. Good old fashioned batteries. If we do move to evs they can be used. Charged when renewables are strong, but feed back into the grid if we have a dip.
We can use electrolysis to turn water into hydrogen. This can then be burned in a power plant or used to heat homes, run vehicles, planes, ships. Expensive at the moment but economies of scale will bring the costs down.

Will there be a big breakthrough? Will we have a big technological change to either battery tech or hydrogen production? You feel like the world is primed for one or another. But with well-funded scientists across the globe giving these two things huge care and attention, it doesn't seem like a quantum leap is around the corner. More likely slow incremental developments.

Hydrogen maybe has a higher ceiling - its potential is greater. If we can find ways to pair hydrogen extraction seamlessly to renewable electricity production, that maybe one breakthrough. For example, a hydrogen facility powered by the wind or sun. The second issue is its storage and transportation. But if we solve hydrogens' two problems (the electricity needed to extract it and then moving and storing it safely) then there will be a paradigm shift. EVs would probably be replaced by hydrogen vehicles.

And power for homes and businesses could be generated from water effectively, with no emissions. Hydrogen is far more agile than batteries. But can we find ways to work with it?

Will be fascinating to see what unfolds.

 

[Lilbaz]

Will there be a big breakthrough? Will we have a big technological change to either battery tech or hydrogen production? You feel like the world is primed for one or another. But with well-funded scientists across the globe giving these two things huge care and attention, it doesn't seem like a quantum leap is around the corner. More likely slow incremental developments.

Hydrogen maybe has a higher ceiling - its potential is greater. If we can find ways to pair hydrogen extraction seamlessly to renewable electricity production, that maybe one breakthrough. For example, a hydrogen facility powered by the wind or sun. The second issue is its storage and transportation. But if we solve hydrogens' two problems (the electricity needed to extract it and then moving and storing it safely) then there will be a paradigm shift. EVs would probably be replaced by hydrogen vehicles.

And power for homes and businesses could be generated from water effectively, with no emissions. Hydrogen is far more agile than batteries. But can we find ways to work with it?

Will be fascinating to see what unfolds.

Slow incremental? Not sure you realise how much has changed in the last 20 years.





People are now starting to fully invest as it's profitable. Texas has the most wind power in the states because it is cheaper than fossil fuels, even though it is a state that argues against climate change.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Are we any closer to storing electricity?
As this the biggest challenge and a monumental game changer i assume not.

It doesn't have to be. Another solution is to always be generating say 115% of the highest capacity that is ever needed, and just release what isn't being used. 4 or 5 times the wind and solar generation (capacity or efficiency) we currently have would possibly enable that

 

[SpurMeUp]

Slow incremental? Not sure you realise how much has changed in the last 20 years.

View attachment 12864

View attachment 12865

People are now starting to fully invest as it's profitable. Texas has the most wind power in the states because it is cheaper than fossil fuels, even though it is a state that argues against climate change.

No doubt there is rapid change underway! And it will (must) only accelerate. With green tech now highly investible everyone is jumping in on it. That wasn't my point, however. I was interested in whether we would see a paradigm shift in battery or hydrogen technologies. Either would change things globally. But neither seems an easy one to crack. Batteries are heavy, rely on rare metals, and need to be replaced. Hydrogen is explosive and hard to extract. Hence saying incremental developments in these areas may be more likely than a sudden leap forward.

There is potential for all new energy sources too. E-fuels. Wave energy....

 

[Lilbaz]

It doesn't have to be. Another solution is to always be generating say 115% of the highest capacity that is ever needed, and just release what isn't being used. 4 or 5 times the wind and solar generation (capacity or efficiency) we currently have would possibly enable that

We will do that but companies will want to maximise profits so will invest in ways to store any excess energy if it's profitable.

We also are connected to other countries. So if we have excess energy we can sell it to france/netherlands/norway/ireland... if they have need and vice versa.

 

[Gutter Boy]

We will do that but companies will want to maximise profits so will invest in ways to store any excess energy if it's profitable.

We also are connected to other countries. So if we have excess energy we can sell it to france/netherlands/norway/ireland... if they have need and vice versa.

Reasons why its better done in a nationalised system. Profit shouldn't come into it. The whole impetus should be to make energy virtually free (once built, maintenance to turbines, panels and cables should be the only recurring costs to tax/charge) and enable self-sufficiency at national level (no more oil states).

 

[Lilbaz]

No doubt there is rapid change underway! And it will (must) only accelerate. With green tech now highly investible everyone is jumping in on it. That wasn't my point, however. I was interested in whether we would see a paradigm shift in battery or hydrogen technologies. Either would change things globally. But neither seems an easy one to crack. Batteries are heavy, rely on rare metals, and need to be replaced. Hydrogen is explosive and hard to extract. Hence saying incremental developments in these areas may be more likely than a sudden leap forward.

There is potential for all new energy sources too. E-fuels. Wave energy....

Hydrogen especially we don't really need huge leaps forward in technology. We just need economies of scale and demand. Ev batteries didn't drop from $1000 kwh to $100 kwh in a decade due to a huge jump in technology. Most of the cost came down due to being better and more efficient in making them. Even though the cost of lithium and cobalt went up.
Hydrogen we know how to make either from electrolysis, or from recycling plastic. But before it has been cheaper to just burn fossil fuels to make it. We just need to build the infrastructure. Which we are doing.
https://www.edie.net/news/8/Plans-unveiled-for-UK-s-second-plastic-to-hydrogen-recycling-plant/

We also before have had little demand for hydrogen. That is massively going to change as the uk is looking to convert our heating and cooking from gas to hydrogen (think the biggest renewable project in the world). https://h21.green/projects/h21-north-of-england/

It's similar for energy storage. As we've used fossil fuels we haven't needed to store as much energy. We know how to do it and just need to build it. Here's some types.

That said yes we are making advances.
Solid state batteries should be here the next few years.
Sulfur batteries. No cobalt etc...
Loads of others.

But it's not just renewables. China and india are building thorium reactors. Rolls royce are making small modular reactors. Hinkley point c should be finished 2026. Boris has just started the designs for the uks first fusion reactor. Iter is being built now.

 

[Lilbaz]

One way to make it cheaper is to stop subsidising fossil fuels and use that money to fund energy storage and renewable energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...y-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds

Edit - sorry not a great link, imf goes into health costs etc...

This one has (for the us) the direct subsidies for fossil fuel industry.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

 

[Lilbaz]

Reasons why its better done in a nationalised system. Profit shouldn't come into it. The whole impetus should be to make energy virtually free (once built, maintenance to turbines, panels and cables should be the only recurring costs to tax/charge) and enable self-sufficiency at national level (no more oil states).

It won't be. We live in a capitalist world. But that might be a good thing (at least short term). If there are profits to be made there will be far more investment than if it was solely down to governments. People can also buy solar panels and that for themselves.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Hydrogen especially we don't really need huge leaps forward in technology. We just need economies of scale and demand. Ev batteries didn't drop from $1000 kwh to $100 kwh in a decade due to a huge jump in technology. Most of the cost came down due to being better and more efficient in making them. Even though the cost of lithium and cobalt went up.
Hydrogen we know how to make either from electrolysis, or from recycling plastic. But before it has been cheaper to just burn fossil fuels to make it. We just need to build the infrastructure. Which we are doing.
https://www.edie.net/news/8/Plans-unveiled-for-UK-s-second-plastic-to-hydrogen-recycling-plant/

We also before have had little demand for hydrogen. That is massively going to change as the uk is looking to convert our heating and cooking from gas to hydrogen (think the biggest renewable project in the world). https://h21.green/projects/h21-north-of-england/

It's similar for energy storage. As we've used fossil fuels we haven't needed to store as much energy. We know how to do it and just need to build it. Here's some types.

That said yes we are making advances.
Solid state batteries should be here the next few years.
Sulfur batteries. No cobalt etc...
Loads of others.

But it's not just renewables. China and india are building thorium reactors. Rolls royce are making small modular reactors. Hinkley point c should be finished 2026. Boris has just started the designs for the uks first fusion reactor. Iter is being built now.

As outlined hydrogen has two inherent issues - the energy required to extract it and safe storage. Storage isn't such an issue for powering the grid. We could have all-in-one: 1. wind/solar farm 2. hydrogen extraction and 3. hydrogen power plant generating electricity for the grid. That would cut costs and keep it green. Maybe wave energy can be used to supplement wind and solar for dependable night time energy. But such a setup needs to be cheap enough to be deployed more locally (so storage isn't such an issue). Hydrogen stored in such a professional power plant facility should be okay. But you've heard of the Hydrogen bomb? Things going wrong could be devastating. And that is one problem with hydrogen being used like petrol. The potential for terrorism, mistakes or say car crashes...these are largely untested. But hydrogen is explosive! In short: the cost of production and storage of hydrogen seem key areas where big steps forard are needed.

Batteries are still expensive relatively speaking. But it is not their cost to produce that is the main issue. It is their inherent restrictions they place upon us, plus their requirements for weighty rare metals. Batteries couldn't power Airplanes in their current form as they would make planes too heavy. The ratios of weight to power are not viable. This fundamental inefficiency somehow doesn't feel right for cars either; will we use such a heavy inefficient means for powering transportation longer term? Shorter term we're already on the way. Longer-term, problems charging vehicles in cities, battery recycling, the need for rare metals plus dorment charging time makes batteries seem ultimately - in say 50 years - suboptimal. We will come up with better solutions you'd imagine. There are many vehicles that can't function with batteries. Ships, planes, mechanical equipment are not usually dormant spending time charging up, they tend to work 24/7 currently with quick refueling. Using batteries would require us to build far more vehicles or have battery swap outs. In short, batteries don't seem like a particularly elegant or efficient solution longer-term.

So there are big steps to be made, and fascinating to see whether battery tech advances, whether we can tame hydrogen, or an all-new solution prevails.

 

[glasgowspur]

It doesn't have to be. Another solution is to always be generating say 115% of the highest capacity that is ever needed, and just release what isn't being used. 4 or 5 times the wind and solar generation (capacity or efficiency) we currently have would possibly enable that

Is that not horribly inefficient?
And if you mean constantly producing with wind and solar, is the big problem with wind and solar not they don't constantly produce?
A cold still night for instance.

 

[scaramanga]

Koenigsegg has the answer with bioethanol made from solar/wind power, water and recaptured CO2.

 

[scaramanga]

Is that not horribly inefficient?
And if you mean constantly producing with wind and solar, is the big problem with wind and solar not they don't constantly produce?
A cold still night for instance.

Or a still August where there was next to no wind across much of the country (compared to requirements).

This is the problem with non-permanent renewables - you still need to have most of the capacity for the grid available in other ways. Power stations don't turn off an on easily though, so they don't really work as a suitable backup.

The obvious and best answer is nuclear power. It has all the advantages of renewables and all the advantages of traditional power sources.

 

[Lilbaz]

As outlined hydrogen has two inherent issues - the energy required to extract it and safe storage. Storage isn't such an issue for powering the grid. We could have all-in-one: 1. wind/solar farm 2. hydrogen extraction and 3. hydrogen power plant generating electricity for the grid. That would cut costs and keep it green. Maybe wave energy can be used to supplement wind and solar for dependable night time energy. But such a setup needs to be cheap enough to be deployed more locally (so storage isn't such an issue). Hydrogen stored in such a professional power plant facility should be okay. But you've heard of the Hydrogen bomb? Things going wrong could be devastating. And that is one problem with hydrogen being used like petrol. The potential for terrorism, mistakes or say car crashes...these are largely untested. But hydrogen is explosive! In short: the cost of production and storage of hydrogen seem key areas where big steps forard are needed.

Batteries are still expensive relatively speaking. But it is not their cost to produce that is the main issue. It is their inherent restrictions they place upon us, plus their requirements for weighty rare metals. Batteries couldn't power Airplanes in their current form as they would make planes too heavy. The ratios of weight to power are not viable. This fundamental inefficiency somehow doesn't feel right for cars either; will we use such a heavy inefficient means for powering transportation longer term? Shorter term we're already on the way. Longer-term, problems charging vehicles in cities, battery recycling, the need for rare metals plus dorment charging time makes batteries seem ultimately - in say 50 years - suboptimal. We will come up with better solutions you'd imagine. There are many vehicles that can't function with batteries. Ships, planes, mechanical equipment are not usually dormant spending time charging up, they tend to work 24/7 currently with quick refueling. Using batteries would require us to build far more vehicles or have battery swap outs. In short, batteries don't seem like a particularly elegant or efficient solution longer-term.

So there are big steps to be made, and fascinating to see whether battery tech, hydrogen, or all-new solutions prevail.

Hydrogen is very explosive no doubt. But a hydrogen bomb is caused by fusion of hydrogen, you need an atomic bomb to set it off as only that has enough energy to start the fusion process.
We use hydrogen in cars, trucks, ships and planes already. We used it to get to the moon.

Charging vehichles in the city won't be that much of a problem. Every street is powered (lamp posts). We can and have introduced charging points.

Haven't suggested powering planes/ships with batteries.

We are already looking at sulphur batteries that don't require rare metals.

As for inefficiency the most efficent internal combustion engine cars on the market today have an efficiency of 40%. The rest is lost in heat and friction. An ev is between 85-90% efficient.
As for weight, yes batteries are heavy (which is being worked on) but the motor isn't. Far lighter than an engine. No gears etc...
Who cares about how much their car weighs? They care about the cost of running it. Ev's are cheaper to run and have far less maintenance costs as the motor only has 1 moving part.

 

[Lilbaz]

Is that not horribly inefficient?
And if you mean constantly producing with wind and solar, is the big problem with wind and solar not they don't constantly produce?
A cold still night for instance.

Not if any excess is converted to say hydrogen and sold. Or evs are used to balance the grid.

 

[Lilbaz]

Or a still August where there was next to no wind across much of the country (compared to requirements).

This is the problem with non-permanent renewables - you still need to have most of the capacity for the grid available in other ways. Power stations don't turn off an on easily though, so they don't really work as a suitable backup.

The obvious and best answer is nuclear power. It has all the advantages of renewables and all the advantages of traditional power sources.

Depends on what type of power plants. We have peaker power plants that can be turned on and up to full power in 30 mins. That are used to cover intermittent dips. These can be converted (and i believe 1 at least is in the uk) to hydrogen.