The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[LongQ]

rovermorris999 said:

qube_TA said:

Lots of interesting stuff

Agreed, renewables will become technically viable when viable storage on the scale required is cracked, if ever. They're mainly becoming 'viable' financially now thanks to subsidies and taxes on 'carbon'. Production cost decreases are also helping but I'd take a punt on the cost of materials going up as demand increases. I have absolutely nothing against renewable energy, it would be wonderful if it can be made to work, with the proviso that I don't have to look at the bloody things!
Places like Drax though are gesture politics at it's very worst.

The Lappeenranta link posted again for easy reference.

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-e...

In this response (by the University Report's authors) to the earlier comments and assessments posted on the site they acknowledge the need for storage if 100% renewables is to be an option at any time, let alone 2030. (The authors describe that as "aggressive" but seem to think that 2050 has half a chance to hit the target). They have this to suggest on the subject of storage.

"Battery storage is an important element in the model that merits further explanation. Battery costs follow the same financial experience curve as solar PV, since the learning rate is in the same 15-20% order per doubling of historic cumulative capacities. This leads currently to a cost decline of 1% per month and is expected to continue in the years to come, in the same way as it happened for solar PV in the last years. The price we assumed when we began our investigation for batteries for 2030 conditions turned out to be higher (!) than the currently agreed prices for battery cells between the leading manufacturers and their core customers, which is currently estimated to be 100-120 €/kWh . The battery cells for cars and for stationary applications are very similar or even identical, as best documented by Tesla. A battery system costs about two times the price of battery cells. We get more and more feedback that we should reconsider our 2030 cost assumptions for batteries, since they might be too high. Currently the growth rate of battery capacities produced is 70-100% per year, due to strong demand for stationary batteries and electric vehicles. Indeed, several reports concerning battery Gigafactories show a target price of 100 USD/kWh by 2020. And here we have not even considered the second life use of the vehicle batteries (BMW, NISSAN xStorage) which may decrease battery storage costs even further.

In our interconnected scenario for Europe we end up with 1212 GWh of battery capacity. To highlight how ‘large’ this number is let’s assume that 50% of all cars in Europe would be battery electric vehicles and each would have on average 60 kWh storage capacity (which is much less than the currently available 100 kWh capacity of Tesla’s Model S), then we would have about 7200 GWh (510 million people in EU-28 and 473 cars per 1000 inhabitants; please note that Europe in the LUT definition has 30% more inhabitants due to more countries than the EU-28). If now only 17% of the available battery capacity would be used (in a statistical way) for grid balancing, then stationary batteries would not be needed. Vehicle-to-Grid research clearly indicates that this is doable. Vehicles are stationary for long periods of time, and can offer a lot of flexibility to the energy system. The electrification of transport and vehicle-to-grid participation may also extend well beyond cars in the future to include boats, commercial equipment, farming equipment, etc. In short, there may be an enormous abundance of electric storage."

So they seem to be suggesting that, in a European scenario, as long as everyone still expects to have some sort of car type personal transport and it's electric there should be enough available storage to deal with any shortfall of generation or stability issues.

That's a lot of batteries - and all of the issue that go with them.

Moreover it's a lot of batteries that, if they are to be part of power control and distribution, must be controlled and distributed by a central authority.

To put that into another perspective, don't expect to own a car and have freedom to use it any way and anywhere you wish to.

The Electricity Regulating Authority (Storage) will want to help you optimise your life "choices" by scheduling when and where your transport will be when they might need it rather than when you might feel you need it.

One way to ensure availability of backup power - somewhat necessary once the concept becomes part of a "Master Plan" for which there is no plan B - is to have complete control over it. That can be "sold" to the the populace by a number of messages including the need to have total control and tracking capability of all movements for commercial and security reasons.

Micro managing people is all that is required to make what passes for future energy strategy based on 100% renewables vaguely achievable.

Quite how all such activity provides the instant reduction in CO2 output that some claim is required right now if the lpanet is to be saved is unclear.

Perhaps it does not matter?

[silentbrown]

LongQ said:

To put that into another perspective, don't expect to own a car and have freedom to use it any way and anywhere you wish to.

I think you'll find you don't have that at the moment.

This thread is in danger of turning into the tinfoil-hat-wearing nightmare of the 'other' one...

[LongQ]

silentbrown said:

LongQ said:

To put that into another perspective, don't expect to own a car and have freedom to use it any way and anywhere you wish to.

I think you'll find you don't have that at the moment.

This thread is in danger of turning into the tinfoil-hat-wearing nightmare of the 'other' one...

No tin foil around here. It is simply a logical way for thing to develop, partly through necessity.

If you read the indicators differently tell us how you see it and thus add to the discussion.

Electricity generation (the assumed most likely "Power" generation to be addressed in the vaguely predictable future) is well understood in so far as delivering a stable and reliable supply is concerned.

So was the economics of provision and delivery based on a lowest cost plus profit margin to attempt to balance the needs of the producers and consumers - with one eye on competitive industrial prices.

It's not entirely clear to me that current investment planning has the same objectives nor the same attention to practical realities.

Are things really so different so suddenly? If so, why? Where are the benefits for the costs, and reliability of supply coming from the new investment policies?

[babatunde]

Thing is we are surrounded by Luddites, even in this thread wehave people arguing the merits of Incandscent bulbs over LEDs these aren't persons convinced by logical arguments.

My perception is very simple, the cost of new tech is falling so fast that it doesn't matter that many people dont believe in Solar panels or battery storage or windturbines, I'm sure the first day Stevenson demonstrated the stream engine there were my sceptics than converts.

This is a car forum, we have always measured the ability of cars by their speed, suddenly Tesla's come alone with a salon car faster than most sports cars, the Luddites start crying speed isn't important, range is,speed of refilling is, even though the last time their Ferrari did more than 2000 miles a year was never.... Change the only constant, embrace it reject it, makes no difference

Edited by babatunde on Tuesday 23 May 06:58

[Shakermaker]

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if there would be much likelihood of any conversation in your vehicle, I generally refuse to travel in a minicab.

If the correct description of "combined wind turbine generator air circulator motor" is not favoured, there is always the default description of "eyesore", or possibly "blight on the landscape".

We could go in your car if you don't like my dull Eurobox?


To the above poster re: Tesla

I'm definitely the kind of person who would benefit from a Tesla, it would suit my motoring needs and the range would be a "worry" maybe once a year at most? My commute, and regular journeys, are rarely more than 200 miles - a jaunt down to Devon for a weekend or similar, but once I am there, I have the ability to charge up etc. Work is either a 10 mile commute or a 50 mile trip, but can then charge up at home overnight for the next day if I need to.

The only current barrier to me is cost - but as with all these things, that's going to come right down, probably not for the next car I buy, but maybe the one after that?

[feef]

Shakermaker said:

We could go in your car if you don't like my dull Eurobox?


To the above poster re: Tesla

I'm definitely the kind of person who would benefit from a Tesla, it would suit my motoring needs and the range would be a "worry" maybe once a year at most? My commute, and regular journeys, are rarely more than 200 miles - a jaunt down to Devon for a weekend or similar, but once I am there, I have the ability to charge up etc. Work is either a 10 mile commute or a 50 mile trip, but can then charge up at home overnight for the next day if I need to.

The only current barrier to me is cost - but as with all these things, that's going to come right down, probably not for the next car I buy, but maybe the one after that?

I'd got for a Tesla now if it was within budget. The only really long journeys I do are up to Scotland to see family, out to the Alps to go skiing or out to the Charente to visit my folks in summer. All of those trips can easily be done using only Supercharger stops and getting an 80% charge in 20 minutes. On long journeys like those, that's hardly a great hardship as I'd have no qualms about stopping for a pee or a coffee every so often. On other routes, you can still use normal chargers, they just take a little longer.

As it stands, I don't see myself replacing the C6 any time soon, but it is getting expensive to run so I'm considering retiring it from DD duties and buying a second hand Leaf. As the vast majority of my daily running is within a 20 mile radius, I'm not concerned with range anxiety for it, and with zero VED (currently) and a charging cost of pennies compared to my current average fuel bill of around £200-£300 a month, it'll pay for itself in about 18 months and then become, effectively, free motoring.

[s2art]

babatunde said:

My perception is very simple, the cost of new tech is falling so fast that it doesn't matter that many people dont believe in Solar panels or battery storage or windturbines,

Then you are obviously not an engineer. Check out the EROEI for solar panels in the UK. We dont live in Texas.

[Tuna]

s2art said:

babatunde said:

My perception is very simple, the cost of new tech is falling so fast that it doesn't matter that many people dont believe in Solar panels or battery storage or windturbines,

Then you are obviously not an engineer. Check out the EROEI for solar panels in the UK. We dont live in Texas.

You miss the point though that if the 'better' option is cheaper, then it will just happen. If a Telsa costs about the same and ICE car, why buy the one that smells and costs more to run? Same for light bulbs, solar panels etc. Some of the proposed technologies bring solar panels down to the price of roof tiles - then why shouldn't you benefit from a bit of electricity on a sunny day? They don't even have to be that efficient if they give you something for 'free'.

That's the point where people throw up their arms and say "but they don't solve all of the problems/don't suit me/don't do X". Of course the answer is we're never going to have a single solution, but lots of things can help. The biggest challenge at the moment is storage - we see it in the Tesla, in intermittent sources like wind and solar and in global energy supply. If we can improve battery technology, or work on solar to hydrocarbon generation, or flow cells, we'll start to see a lot of the current objections to renewables vanish. Imagine central Africa pumping gallons of transportable energy out from solar farms to northern climes. That would literally change the world.

I'm not an evangelist for renewable technologies, but pragmatic about saving money and making my life more pleasant. We have cheap as chips solar thermal panels on our roof and in a good year pay nothing for our hot water for about six months. They didn't need a subsidy and as we were building at the time cost very little to have installed. Sure, half of the year we need to turn the boiler back on, but our overall energy usage is massively lower - and that benefits us with very low fuel bills.

[Likes Fast Cars]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

The Vattenfall strategy - and prices - are interesting. I assume you read what their CEO had to say? That will be a benchmark.

Not sure - maybe

can you cut and paste?

It was a few weeks ago and I cannot recall where I read it (it may have been from my old colleagues over at Timera Energy) I'll try to find it Paddy. What he did say that was interesting is the larger turbines by 2020 / 2025 will be cost efficient without the need for any subsidies - read, real cost of electricity should become more competitive.

[s2art]

Tuna said:

s2art said:

babatunde said:

My perception is very simple, the cost of new tech is falling so fast that it doesn't matter that many people dont believe in Solar panels or battery storage or windturbines,

Then you are obviously not an engineer. Check out the EROEI for solar panels in the UK. We dont live in Texas.

You miss the point though that if the 'better' option is cheaper, then it will just happen. If a Telsa costs about the same and ICE car, why buy the one that smells and costs more to run? Same for light bulbs, solar panels etc. Some of the proposed technologies bring solar panels down to the price of roof tiles - then why shouldn't you benefit from a bit of electricity on a sunny day? They don't even have to be that efficient if they give you something for 'free'.

That's the point where people throw up their arms and say "but they don't solve all of the problems/don't suit me/don't do X". Of course the answer is we're never going to have a single solution, but lots of things can help. The biggest challenge at the moment is storage - we see it in the Tesla, in intermittent sources like wind and solar and in global energy supply. If we can improve battery technology, or work on solar to hydrocarbon generation, or flow cells, we'll start to see a lot of the current objections to renewables vanish. Imagine central Africa pumping gallons of transportable energy out from solar farms to northern climes. That would literally change the world.

I'm not an evangelist for renewable technologies, but pragmatic about saving money and making my life more pleasant. We have cheap as chips solar thermal panels on our roof and in a good year pay nothing for our hot water for about six months. They didn't need a subsidy and as we were building at the time cost very little to have installed. Sure, half of the year we need to turn the boiler back on, but our overall energy usage is massively lower - and that benefits us with very low fuel bills.

I have nothing against Tesla cars, fancy one myself. The point about EROEI is that our civilisation is based upon some fairly high numbers for EROEI, Solar panels dont come close (thermal panels are fine). And shipping solar energy from thousands of miles away is both expensive and wasteful. Leave solar panels to those areas which have loads of sunshine.

[Tuna]

s2art said:

...shipping solar energy from thousands of miles away is both expensive and wasteful...

We do it every day, usually from areas that have lots of sunshine. We have whole industries dedicated to moving solar energy across the globe cheaply enough that we can run our cars, homes and factories on it. That's the benefit of hydrocarbons.

The problem at present is that current solar generators produce energy in forms that we're not very good at transporting or storing. Solve that and we're golden.

[s2art]

Tuna said:

s2art said:

...shipping solar energy from thousands of miles away is both expensive and wasteful...

We do it every day, usually from areas that have lots of sunshine. We have whole industries dedicated to moving solar energy across the globe cheaply enough that we can run our cars, homes and factories on it. That's the benefit of hydrocarbons.

The problem at present is that current solar generators produce energy in forms that we're not very good at transporting or storing. Solve that and we're golden.

By the time we have cheap room temperature superconductors, or cheap mega batteries, we wont need solar panels, fusion or MSTR will be far more cost effective..

[LongQ]

One very quick way to extend the capabilities of many devices, but as this is a car forum let's talk transport, is to reduce performance and redesign "motor" units, whatever the "fuel" source, for economy rather than power.

With roads, for example, so clogged with traffic and constrained by speed limits, what is the point of performance cars for any journey?

Decades ago I could undertake a journey of 130 miles, 125 of which was on dual carriageway or, mostly, motorway in around 2 hours or a bit less (mostly) compared to that same journey today taking me at least 2.5 hours in the middle of the night and more like 3 hours in the daytime - on a good day.

Where is my gain for all of the additional technology and vehicle capability?

Vehicle life being around 10 years on average(? maybe less) it must be possible to reduce ICE "carbon" output by about half over a 10 year period by instantly introducing new rules enforcing low power engines. Strange that no one seems to be talking about that.

This may be interesting reading for some.

Too cheap to meter

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 24th May 20:57

[V8 Fettler]

Shakermaker said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if there would be much likelihood of any conversation in your vehicle, I generally refuse to travel in a minicab.

If the correct description of "combined wind turbine generator air circulator motor" is not favoured, there is always the default description of "eyesore", or possibly "blight on the landscape".

We could go in your car if you don't like my dull Eurobox?


To the above poster re: Tesla

I'm definitely the kind of person who would benefit from a Tesla, it would suit my motoring needs and the range would be a "worry" maybe once a year at most? My commute, and regular journeys, are rarely more than 200 miles - a jaunt down to Devon for a weekend or similar, but once I am there, I have the ability to charge up etc. Work is either a 10 mile commute or a 50 mile trip, but can then charge up at home overnight for the next day if I need to.

The only current barrier to me is cost - but as with all these things, that's going to come right down, probably not for the next car I buy, but maybe the one after that?

A good plan, the earplugs and crash helmet should minimise the possibility of conversation.

[AlexC1981]

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

[V8 Fettler]

babatunde said:

Thing is we are surrounded by Luddites, even in this thread wehave people arguing the merits of Incandscent bulbs over LEDs these aren't persons convinced by logical arguments.

My perception is very simple, the cost of new tech is falling so fast that it doesn't matter that many people dont believe in Solar panels or battery storage or windturbines, I'm sure the first day Stevenson demonstrated the stream engine there were my sceptics than converts.

This is a car forum, we have always measured the ability of cars by their speed, suddenly Tesla's come alone with a salon car faster than most sports cars, the Luddites start crying speed isn't important, range is,speed of refilling is, even though the last time their Ferrari did more than 2000 miles a year was never.... Change the only constant, embrace it reject it, makes no difference

Edited by babatunde on Tuesday 23 May 06:58

With large scale fusion, the energy consumption of lamps becomes irrelevant.

[s2art]

AlexC1981 said:

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

Mainly because its too expensive.

[Tuna]

s2art said:

AlexC1981 said:

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

Mainly because its too expensive.

Yeah, everyone wants it on a stick..

Eyethankyou - I'm here all night..

[AlexC1981]

s2art said:

AlexC1981 said:

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

Mainly because its too expensive.

There must be a way to make it cheaper. Once the machines are built then it's just maintenance.

[s2art]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

AlexC1981 said:

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

Clever generating machinery and salt water are not good friends - and the size of a turbine required to harness the slow effect of a tidal flow is prohibitive.
The funnelling of the water tower to raise the speed and potential is being done - Swansea Lagoon

But see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...