UK Energy Production

[Dermot McArdle]

I know there has been several posts on the general topic of energy costs and production but maybe someone can enlighten me on my thoughts on renewable energy as applied to the UK.
I agree that renewable energy is very beneficial to the overall mix of energy production but everyone agrees that because of it's unpredictability, the UK must have a backup source of production for a potential period when no renewable power is available.
This could easily occur in the dark winter months and stretch on for several weeks.
So, we would need to have a generating capacity to supply almost 100% of the UK energy needs available on standby.

Currently this is reliant on gas plants, some nuclear and interconnectors.
Whilst there is now an ambition to increase the nuclear capacity, I don't believe it would replace the production available from gas.
There are also some musings that battery storage will become available. That technology is not yet available and current capacity would only keep the lights on for a few hours.

Given all those stated parameters, I'm struggling to understand Ed Miliband's 'mission' to de-carbonize our electricity production, decouple it from international supplies and so reduce the cost to the consumer.

Take costs; renewable wind and solar energy is incredibly cheap to produce, but that cost is only enjoyed by the producers because they are paid the same price as is paid to the gas plants for their electricity.
Hence the enthusiasm for companies to invest in wind farms.
If the strike price for electricity was reduced to reflect the cheaper renewable costs, then who would invest in having and running gas plants which require a much higher price to be profitable. And remember we need that gas capacity to run all of the UK network as backup.

What if we replaced all the gas plants with small nuclear? That would be a lot of nuclear but at least they could be put where they're needed and all you have to do is switch them on and they work.
Some might argue that that will be a lot of waste to deal with. But not anywhere near to the vast quantities of landfill most people are happy accommodate near their towns and cities.
But if we did go for a large nuclear capacity, that is still expensive and on a par with fossil fuel.
Hence I cannot understand how Miliband's 'mission' will reduce our energy costs.

Meanwhile public opinion is too virtuous to consider fracking the huge potential quantities of UK gas available and are instead happy to let the Americans frack for it and then buy it for use in our homes and generating plants.

If we are going to grow anywhere near our ambitions, we need vast quantities of cheap energy. Should we not use the best of what we've already got and instead to all this speculative investment in windmills, double down on research into fusion or some other as yet unavailable source of energy.

 

[Spectric]

There are also some musings that battery storage will become available. That technology is not yet available and current capacity would only keep the lights on for a few hours.

They are already building battery storage facilities, there was one mentioned on these forums a while back next to the A74(M) in Scotland.

I'm struggling to understand Ed Miliband's 'mission' to de-carbonize our electricity production,

Join the many thousands who also cannot fathom Ed Milliwatts ,

What if we replaced all the gas plants with small nuclear?

Nuclear is a very expensive, high risk solution that leaves a toxic legacy for many thousands of years. Any plant that involves ionising radiation comes under the ONR and all the masses of cost involved with site licensing conditions and the CNP for security makes even a small plant expensive. Look at Hinkley C, cost now expected to be 34 billion pounds, then you have massive annual running cost.

A rough idea is that a 3.5 mW windturbine is around £3 million so for your 34 billion you get more than 11,000 windturbines producing upto 40 gW total.

The problem is simply that we cannot defy the laws of physics there are no magical solutions or quick fixes but the one thing that can be done is to be more energy efficient and use less.

 

[Dabop]

Uggghhhh...
Don't talk to me about bloody fracking....

(we got gasfields near my place, since they started fracking about fifteen years ago, the 'top' watertable has become contaminated, so every bore now needs to be fully cased down 700m plus to get to the 'clean' water (which is now also showing signs of contamination from unlined bores between the two tables...)

So bores here now cost $200k plus to get to the 'clean' water (the top table can't even be used for watering plants, let alone animal or human consumption)- it kills them...

NOT a fan...

(if that lower water table becomes contaminated, thats the entire towns water supply gone... it relies on a bore to the lagoon...) and I can't see the gas companies springing for a 600km water pipeline somehow lol)

As usual- they take the profits- and leave the taxpayers to clean up their **** left behind...
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Petroleum/Chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-25615.aspx

 

[Richard_C]

What's so wrong with having the ambition to decarbonise and remove dependency on other countries? It might not be achievable in our lifetimes but if you don't set out the direction of travel nothing will change.

We can't treat cancer, so no point trying.

We can't map the human genome so no point trying.

Etc.

Wanting to achieve something is the first step. Do we only respect politicians who say they will do the easy stuff, or do we want leaders who try ?

 

[Duncan A]

I don't think "virtuous public opinion" is behind the opposition to fracking; it's more like the fear of ground tremors and water contamination.
Would you want those near your house?
The USA are big on fracking but there is far more open space over there, away from communities, unlike the UK. Despite that, there are plenty of horror stories of contaminated water and enormous sink holes opening up - actual occurrences, not scaremongering..
As for fusion power, countless billions are being spent on research by many countries (and a new fusion reactor is being built in the UK) but it's always 50 years away from coming to fruition. One day, hopefully!
In the meantime there are all sorts of interesting ideas being put forward, ranging from collectors in orbit beaming down microwave energy (apparently not as wacky as it sounds) to a project in Wales where they're experimenting with hydroelectric storage reservoirs using water mixed with minerals to make it far heavier ("mud" or barites as used by the oil and marine industries I should imagine). Because the water weighs around 2.5 times clean water, the drop to the turbine does not need to be as great so opens up the possibility of many more energy storage sites - pump up when there's surplus renewable energy; release when there's a shortage.
All interesting stuff!

 

[Agent_zed]

Tidal and Hydro are also contenders, although more expensive that other renewable so get less investment. Using pumped hydro is essentially a 'battery'. Pumping water up when you have excess renewable energy and releasing it when you need it. It would also be useful to add additional reservoirs to the UK.

Tidal systems again are expensive but you know that the tide will come in regularly all year. There are numerous designs including ones that work underwater on the currents.

We are already using some bio gas from food waste but I think adding more is also a contender. Looking at Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel_in_Denmark they are getting 13% of their elec from biofuels.
Additionally from that wiki page

'The small country of Denmark with just 5.7 million people is now being asked to lend its expertise to China to advise it on how to develop fuel flexibility, CHP power and heat generation. The two countries have associated initiatives which seek to improve China's vast energy requirements as the workshop of the world.'

Just like Denmark you can either get ahead and sell your tech and expertise to others or you can be the ones buying that. I would prefer the UK to lead and be able to sell than have to pay out in future.

 

[Dermot McArdle]

Thanks for your replies.

I just feel we are still discussing how to shuffle the deck chairs.
Build a battery the size of Birningham and you'd still only get a few hours to power up the UK.

Cover the North Sea in windmills so you have almost unlimited electricity which goes down to zero when the wind isn't blowing.
And anyway, you would still need to match that with another generating source.

My issue is why is Miliband allowed to profess this gumph about reducing electricity prices and not being taken to task for the lie behind it.
Is it assumed we're all too stupid to understand these things?

It was mentioned that there is no magic solution.
Well the solution won't be magic - just technological research and invention.
But nobody is spending the real money needed. Instead they're investing in windmills!
Huge lost opportunity there.

 

[JSW]

Join the many thousands who also cannot fathom Ed Milliwatts

These kinds of topics usually end up in OT2 (or whatever it's called) Renaming people in a derogatory and belittling attempt at humour only serves to hasten that process, at least, that's been my observation from past threads.

 

[Agent_zed]

You are assuming that gas and nuclear are sure fire energy production. We saw just recently that it only takes one dictator to decide they don't want to play and you have no energy. And what happens in 25 years time when resources are dwindling and everyone is holding onto their remaining reserves and the price is 10X what it is now.

My head would be happier to pretend oil/gas will never run out, climate change is a hoax and we will always have allies we can rely on for supply, but I just can't do that.

But nobody is spending the real money needed. Instead they're investing in windmills!

Investing in windmills because they work. Wind is free. It is part of a matrix of energy solutions. We would be foolish to rely on 1 system alone, we've seen that in the past.

As an aside I find it interesting that there are so many discussions about how energy is generated and why it should be X or Y, but rarely anyone has any opinion on our water supply. I don't hear anyone debating it should be X or Y type of pump or pipe system. I reckon I can last a week without electric easier than without water.

 

[mwinfrance]

Big wind farm went into the bay in front of us ( actually you can only just see them on the horizon , on a clear day, we don't get many of those, but we get a lot of wind ) local scallop fishermen went ballistic against it when it was proposed..It was finished last year.
Not a peep out of them since.

Brittany ( up until the wind farm went in ) was importing it's leccy from the rest of France..NIMBY's

France has a huge coastline, needs more wind farms, between them and nuclear, it can stay self sufficient, add in insulation, solar panels on houses ( I'll be adding in ours to the second phase of my atelier ) and putting on 20 cm of external insulation on the house and atelier , internal is already done. I did it before we moved in, only the kitchen left to do inside, summer job that, cook outside in the garden on what fine days we may get.

 

[Dermot McArdle]

Yes the wind is free and windmills work. But as I already have explained, they need to be matched with a back up, whether that is used or not.
What will be the back up?
If it's fossil or nuclear, then that is what the country pays for electricity.

 

[Eshmiel]

Thanks for your replies.

I just feel we are still discussing how to shuffle the deck chairs.
Build a battery the size of Birningham and you'd still only get a few hours to power up the UK.

Cover the North Sea in windmills so you have almost unlimited electricity which goes down to zero when the wind isn't blowing.
And anyway, you would still need to match that with another generating source.

My issue is why is Miliband allowed to profess this gumph about reducing electricity prices and not being taken to task for the lie behind it.
Is it assumed we're all too stupid to understand these things?

It was mentioned that there is no magic solution.
Well the solution won't be magic - just technological research and invention.
But nobody is spending the real money needed. Instead they're investing in windmills!
Huge lost opportunity there.

From one point of view, each of us and our doings are a drop in a vast ocean of drops, which ocean behaves in ways not affected by or for the benfit of all its drops. From another point of view, chaos allows that one of us might be the drop that sets off, like a butterfly wing beat, the wee change that makes the world go one way rather than another worse way.

Personally I believe we're headed for Armageddon, sooner than most think. Nevertheless, I act as though we weren't and spend oodles of time and money on getting "greener", from doing the eco house stuff to giving up flying, eating meat other than twice a month (sausages, usually) and so forth. Of course, most of us will remain "sinners" nevertheless. For example I'm addicted to chocolate & coffee; and the dog eats rather a lot of meat .....

But if we never try to improve "because", well .... no improvement (and probably degradation) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Get them solar panels in and pay for them with the air fare you didn't buy.

 

[mwinfrance]

If it's fossil or nuclear, then that is what the country pays for electricity.

Actually no..what fixes the price of leccy ( here at least ) is what is the most expensive energy form..So when gas goes up, ( see Russian invasion of Ukraine ) so does leccy, of all types..EDF wholesale mega watt hour about €50.00 ..price to domestic consumer ( inc all taxes ) around €250 per mega watt hour equivalent. Why does gas go up..spot market speculation...and other speculators. More than half of what we pay here for electricity is taxes by the dept ( county ) local mairie ( town / village council) VAT and other taxes .Our leccy bills ( in our case EDF standard rate ) ,include consumption , at retail rates and distribution charges ) are about 42% of the final bill.

French leccy price ( wholesale ) is currently at the price it is because it is a reflection of the price of gas...and not because gas is a "back stop"..just because .."the market"...which is rigged..

France announced yesterday that from March anyone on "cheap night rate " leccy ( who pay less after 23.00 until 07.00, but day time, they pay a bit higher than standard rate ( we are on standard 24/7..better for our usage pattern ) will get a couple of extra hours at "night rate" , but it will be in day time, around mid-day. Because they , EDF, now have surplus solar and wind at that time of day. But the "standard rate hours part" of the hours people on that "cheap night time" deal will rise in cost, to higher than standard rate..Linky's are designed to allow them to use "dynamic pricing"..in other words it can cost you whatever they feel like at whatever time of day they feel like and you'll know what you have been at paying when you get your monthly bill.

Dynamic pricing will be what is next..they'll deny it..then they'll do it.

Ironically the french term for what that will bring is "usine à gaz"..

The shorter description ( my preference ) in the vernacular is a "vrai bordel" .

 

[Spectric]

Renaming people in a derogatory and belittling attempt at humour only serves to hasten that process, at least, that's been my observation from past threads.

Who is Mr milliband ? Well he is the so called energy secretary and milliwatt is a measure of power derived from energy !

Investing in windmills because they work. Wind is free.

But at some point we will learn the true impact of wind turbines, we know you cannot get something for nothing. With energy you cannot create or destroy it so it just comes down to a process of exchange or conversion. Wind is the result of having two different pressure zones and we stick windturbines in the way, you do not get a mega watt of energy for nothing, this has been extracted from the wind and converted to electricity but the wind has lost that energy so at what point do we start to see any impact on global weather patterns ?

Windturbines out to sea can be much larger and are more efficient due to there being no obstructions but what they need is a new national grid that circles the UK offshore and then you need fewer grid points to interconnect to the landbased grid rather than having loads of feed in points all round the coast.

 

[Jacob]

.......

Given all those stated parameters, I'm struggling to understand Ed Miliband's 'mission' to de-carbonize our electricity production, decouple it from international supplies and so reduce the cost to the consumer.

It's easier to understand if you recognise that there is no alternative, however difficult.
It's not about reducing cost, that's about the last thing on the agenda, it's about getting it done whatever the cost.
More like a wartime agenda - we have to do it.
It would have been better to crank tax/prices up years ago when climate change was first recognised. This could have been reinvested in sustainable energy and also forced us to accommodate and start adjusting to the "new world order".
In the meantime the mad buggers are on about "growth" and expanding airports etc. We need neither of these; they are ignoring the science.
PS One thing that the science has got wrong, from a long way back, is underestimating the rate of change. Every year the same comments have been made about things happening faster etc
This is the latest https://www.theguardian.com/environ...of-2c-is-dead-says-renowned-climate-scientist
They've probably tended to hold back, under pressure from the massed sceptics, in that they would be given even less credibility if they'd put out more realistic forecasts.

 

[Vulcan]

Even some Arab countries have worked out the oil will run out eventually. It’s a shame so many others haven’t, but there you go, human nature.

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.e...tiatives-and-their-geopolitical-implications/

Edit: I also read a while ago that to open new rigs to extract oil and gas in the UK’s part of the North Sea is not cost effective. It would cost more than the market value for the product?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Energy from fossil fuels is demonstrably polluting, with limited reserves, and supply is vulnerable to political and market actions which we do not control.

Nuclear has the potential to produce clean energy with more limited immediate reliance on global supply chains, but carries significant risks in pollution, decommissioning and terrorist action.

The goal of green and secure energy should be a given - the environmental and political risks are small, the material risk is short term continuity of supply.

Being something of an objective pragmatist I have a problem with negativity which is founded in rhetorical extremes rather than observable data.

1. wind is variable - we should properly understand the probability and duration of low wind speed, impact on power supplies, potential back-up plans, possible load shedding. Simply asserting "several weeks" is not a good basis for any rational debate.
2. the likely "Miliband" future seems a mixture of nuclear baseload + green (mainly wind). This fundamentally impacts (1) above. Any transition risks over the next 20 years could be readily managed through delays to decommissioning existing gas generation.
3. too many arguments are made as if "it" all happens tomorrow. The transition will be progressive over the next 20-25 years
4. the UK car fleet of 30m will transition to EV over the next 20 years - existing ICE scrapped over the 15 years from 2030. A tentative 2035 target to ban gas for domestic heating awaits legislation - gas boilers will continue in use until replaced for a further 10-20 years.
5. EVs will typically have 50-60 kwh batteries. I fully expect the capability to use them as storage in periods of excess supply, and to feed energy back to the grid when supply is low and demand high. There may be a financial incentive for owners to cooperate.
6. implicit assumptions technology will remain at 2025 levels with no improvement to energy efficiency, battery technology, better insulation, etc is both negative and implausible.
7. if a trade off is needed on limited occasions when (despite all efforts) green supply is unable to meet demand, gas could cover the gap providing a very small overall % of annual energy. Doing nothing means nothing changes - not an option I would support
8. it is sobering to remind ourselves that currently the UK carries ~12 days gas supply in winter - this could be completely disrupted, possibly for months, by events wholly outside UK control.

 

[Dabop]

France announced yesterday that from March anyone on "cheap night rate " leccy ( who pay less after 23.00 until 07.00, but day time, they pay a bit higher than standard rate ( we are on standard 24/7..better for our usage pattern ) will get a couple of extra hours at "night rate" , but it will be in day time, around mid-day. Because they , EDF, now have surplus solar and wind at that time of day.

Thats one of the reasons Australia is putting in pumped hydro- they are 'big batteries'- excess solar/wind pumps water up, night/low wind its released and generates electricity again...
(considering we are one of the driest continents around for much of the year)

Pumped hydro still works out one of the cheapest forms of large scale storage there is...

Many think (mistakenly) that pumped hydro has the same requirements as traditional hydro, but unlike traditional hydro (which usually has several YEARS of storage- in case of drought/low rainfall etc- meaning huge areas covered, and massive dams) plus a watercourse with appropriate fall potential and suitable geography around the watercourse itself (rare, with most sites already utilized), pumped hydro only needs a single watersource- no 'fall' needed on that at all (so can be a flat river with no fall, a lake or even the ocean...), and a 'relatively nearby' higher terrain area that can be used to make a far smaller dam...

In Wollongong in NSW, they have been looking at using salt water from the nearby Pacific, using corrosion resistant turbines etc (ceramic coated) up to the nearby Great Dividing Range, and putting multiple quite small dams (only 10m high- not even as high as the surrounding gum trees lol) in ravines near the top of the range- each would only be a few days of storage but fairly 'local' to each town (less transmission losses)

The Snowy 2 modifications to the original Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme are almost near completion, and that will add significant storage to the Eastern states interlink scheme (350GWh) to absorb excess hydro/solar...

Qld has a couple in operation already (including an old gold mine that was played out, the Kidstone pumped hydro which has already generated small amounts of storage despite not yet being fully completed ( final completion later this year), using two abandoned open pit mines for storage) and the Wivenhoe dam pumped hydro system which has been in operation for several decades
What counts for renewals is not focusing on one form ONLY- but a diverse range of source and storage solutions, all interconnected (Australia has the Eastern Distributor- a HV distribution system running down the entire east coast of Australia that interconnects Queensland, NSW, the ACT, Victoria. South Australia and Tasmania...)

So even if the wind dies off in one point, or there's a cloud day with heavy rain (during solar will STILL produce some electricity) it is extremely unlikely that there will be no wind and 100%heavy cloud cover over that entire area- what counts is having EXCESS generation and sufficient storage so that the 'bad' areas can still have their needs met by areas that have excess production...

 

[Terry - Somerset]

But at some point we will learn the true impact of wind turbines, we know you cannot get something for nothing. With energy you cannot create or destroy it so it just comes down to a process of exchange or conversion. Wind is the result of having two different pressure zones and we stick windturbines in the way, you do not get a mega watt of energy for nothing, this has been extracted from the wind and converted to electricity but the wind has lost that energy so at what point do we start to see any impact on global weather patterns ?

The scientific consensus is that with turbines cause local turbulence and can reduce wind speed in their wake.

The consensus is also that they have no measurable impact on global climate or wind energy - hardly surprising as the atmosphere extends to 10,000km.

In fairness the bulk of atmospheric activity occurs in the lowest 15 km - 50-100 times the height of a turbine which anyway only cover a very small part of the surface of the globe.

 

[Chris152]

What's the state of play with tidal generation? Lots of tidal energy around the UK, the Severn estuary has been talked about in the past, no idea where it stands these days. Seems a bit of a gift.