The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Toltec said:
crankedup said:
Likely correct for long term viability, however I do feel it very wasteful that clean coal tech’ has not been developed into something we could all benefit from. With centuries worth of coal beneath our feet and tech’ to extract and fill seems an obvious solution whilst other tech’ in energy is explored and developed. As Turbobloke points out, the Chinese take the view that thier economy comes first and environment second. Something which is not agreeable to most people or Countries.
They are maybe just more honest or at least less self deceiving, see the plastics issue which has been evident for at least a couple of decades.When a country has a reasonably strong economy with political corruption largely out of the headlines, such that people sense a degree of stability and have their primary needs mostly met, they can then afford - literally - to turn their attention to worthy environmental issues and unfortunately unworthy but newsworthy issues. Self-serving politicians then follow the money and the votes regardless of what's best rationally and in spite of it at times.
Toltec said:
LoonyTunes said:
Toltec said:
Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.
You are in deep s
t on so many levels now 
Or were you talking about methane bioreactors?
"Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Tall Wind Turbines on Bats"
Wellig et al 2018 (PLoS ONE 13(3))
Hmmm negative impacts, that must refer to millions of deaths cutting the numbers of protected species..
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137...
Unfortunately the abstract spins off on the wrong blade, or rather with a blade missing, as it omits mention of lethal pressure changes on bat lungs. No collision is needed to kill a bat as per a paper in Current Biology.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-...
Wellig et al 2018 (PLoS ONE 13(3))
Hmmm negative impacts, that must refer to millions of deaths cutting the numbers of protected species..
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137...
Unfortunately the abstract spins off on the wrong blade, or rather with a blade missing, as it omits mention of lethal pressure changes on bat lungs. No collision is needed to kill a bat as per a paper in Current Biology.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-...
Wind generated power was down last month by an average of 20% according to weather data company Vaisala OYJ, with wind speeds in parts of Europe down throughout 2018..
Reduced output from renewable energy sources has contributed to an £80 million hit on first quarter operating profits at SSE (subsidiary of Airtricity?).
Reduced output from renewable energy sources has contributed to an £80 million hit on first quarter operating profits at SSE (subsidiary of Airtricity?).
UK green taxes hit record high of £44.6 billion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...
Environmental taxes hit a new record high of £44.6 billion in 2014, official figures show, as the bill for renewable energy levies rose to almost £3 billion.
The data from the ONS shows that the green tax burden has more than doubled over the past two decades, from £19.4 billion in 1994.
Last year saw the ninth consecutive increase in the tax burden, which stood at £43 billion in 2013.
The vast majority of the taxes are those levied on transport fuels such as petrol and diesel, accounting for £27.1 billion. Vehicle duties accounted for £6 billion of the total and air passenger duty £3.2 billion.
The cost of renewable energy taxes to subsidise wind and solar farms rose by more than a fifth to £2.9 billion........continues
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/1...
Environmental taxes hit a new record high of £44.6 billion in 2014, official figures show, as the bill for renewable energy levies rose to almost £3 billion.
The data from the ONS shows that the green tax burden has more than doubled over the past two decades, from £19.4 billion in 1994.
Last year saw the ninth consecutive increase in the tax burden, which stood at £43 billion in 2013.
The vast majority of the taxes are those levied on transport fuels such as petrol and diesel, accounting for £27.1 billion. Vehicle duties accounted for £6 billion of the total and air passenger duty £3.2 billion.
The cost of renewable energy taxes to subsidise wind and solar farms rose by more than a fifth to £2.9 billion........continues
Toltec said:
Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?
Millions of years. You "just" inject it into old oil fields etc to store it. As of now not commercially viable for the most part.NRS said:
Toltec said:
Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?
Millions of years. You "just" inject it into old oil fields etc to store it. As of now not commercially viable for the most part.
How about "store" it up in fizzy drinks, pump it into poly tunnels to feed tomatoes etcNRS said:
Toltec said:
Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?
Millions of years. You "just" inject it into old oil fields etc to store it. As of now not commercially viable for the most part.NRS said:
Toltec said:
Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?
Millions of years. You "just" inject it into old oil fields etc to store it. As of now not commercially viable for the most part.turbobloke said:
The UK buried a £1bn carbon capture and storage competition in 2015. That would have been CMD "vote blue get my lime green tie".
Burying CO2 in old oil fields has been looked at by several groups. There is a fear that if there was a major leak the environmental damage would be huge, with large scale marine wildlife mortality due to hypoxia, hypercapnia, and the longer term effects of ocean acidification from the CO2.That's before you get your arms around the problem of gathering up the CO2 from the emission points and transporting it to (say) Scotland for pumping into the wells.. There was talk of pipelines........
Another option was to convert the CO2 into something useful, such as CH4 which could then be stored in the gas grid for use when necessary.
There's disagreement over relative contributions but one of the main CO2 release mechanisms involves the air-water partition equilibrium which will release CO2 (degassing) from the seas and oceans when the temperature increases, regardless of the reason for the temperature increase.
This is relatively simple stuff relating to solubility, thermodynamics and equilibrium behaviour that sixth-formers studying chemistry should be aware of, in essence carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water than cold.
The relevant equilibrium bit is this. If large amounts of carbon dioxide were to be removed from the atmosphere over a period of time, then again over a period of time the seas and oceans would release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without (needing) any further increase in temperature. When an equilibrium as above is disturbed the response opposes the disturbance, No doubt this has been taken into account...
O/T
In case it's of interest and using approxmate figures, the atmosphere contains 750 GtC; the surface oceans contain more at 1000 GtC; soils, sediments and surface detritus contain 2000 GtC; while the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. The atmosphere is "C-lite".
This is relatively simple stuff relating to solubility, thermodynamics and equilibrium behaviour that sixth-formers studying chemistry should be aware of, in essence carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water than cold.
The relevant equilibrium bit is this. If large amounts of carbon dioxide were to be removed from the atmosphere over a period of time, then again over a period of time the seas and oceans would release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without (needing) any further increase in temperature. When an equilibrium as above is disturbed the response opposes the disturbance, No doubt this has been taken into account...
O/T
In case it's of interest and using approxmate figures, the atmosphere contains 750 GtC; the surface oceans contain more at 1000 GtC; soils, sediments and surface detritus contain 2000 GtC; while the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. The atmosphere is "C-lite".
andymadmak said:
Another option was to convert the CO2 into something useful, such as CH4 which could then be stored in the gas grid for use when necessary.
There is that, though it will take more energy to produce the CH4 than you get from burning it so you need an energy source that does not produce more CO2 for that to work. Trying to post the companies PowerPoint but it's not playing, but it has a few points about interconnectors and wind.
It states that weather conditions around Europe are often similar such that at times when we most want to import energy because wind is low, is often the time when Europe won't want to give it to us, so wile interconnectors may help stabilise markets, they are not going to help to any significant degree mitigate against insufficient generation in a high wind generation model.
The scary one is, by 2035 on stations that will close by then (32 gas 13 coals & oil, 7 nuclear) we will have a generation shortfall of 150TWhrs.
It concludes that (unsurprisingly
) we need to build lots of diverse generation including nuclear if we want to get anywhere near our co2 targets.
It states that weather conditions around Europe are often similar such that at times when we most want to import energy because wind is low, is often the time when Europe won't want to give it to us, so wile interconnectors may help stabilise markets, they are not going to help to any significant degree mitigate against insufficient generation in a high wind generation model.
The scary one is, by 2035 on stations that will close by then (32 gas 13 coals & oil, 7 nuclear) we will have a generation shortfall of 150TWhrs.
It concludes that (unsurprisingly
) we need to build lots of diverse generation including nuclear if we want to get anywhere near our co2 targets.
Ali G said:
Bloomberg ran an article with a securities lawyer.Basic intent of SEC is to stop corruption, it is pretty clear that Musk didn't manipulate the share price for personal gain in a malevolent manner.
At worst the SEC will consider this a technical violation or recklessness, expect a stern telling off and a minor fine around €50k or so.
The SEC will not be removing Musk from running Tesla or anything similar.
andymadmak said:
turbobloke said:
The UK buried a £1bn carbon capture and storage competition in 2015. That would have been CMD "vote blue get my lime green tie".
Burying CO2 in old oil fields has been looked at by several groups. There is a fear that if there was a major leak the environmental damage would be huge, with large scale marine wildlife mortality due to hypoxia, hypercapnia, and the longer term effects of ocean acidification from the CO2.That's before you get your arms around the problem of gathering up the CO2 from the emission points and transporting it to (say) Scotland for pumping into the wells.. There was talk of pipelines........
Another option was to convert the CO2 into something useful, such as CH4 which could then be stored in the gas grid for use when necessary.
As for collecting CO2 - do it at the main points of emissions, which would be powerplants in this case. Then connect it up to the pipelines already built for HC production.
NRS said:
As for collecting CO2 - do it at the main points of emissions, which would be powerplants in this case. Then connect it up to the pipelines already built for HC production.
Except where we burn fuel is often nowhere near where we extract it.You'd need pipelines and tankers to carry it back to source. Hardly economical.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff