The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[wombleh]

Interesting timing for running minus coal, was a fairly chilly week and 2 AGRs are offline so would expect there to be reasonable demand. Looks like it was nice and windy from this.

Edited by wombleh on Friday 10th May 11:22

[Evanivitch]

dickymint said:

Yep batteries have come on leaps and bounds but at what cost? It's only a matter of time that the resources to make them become scarce and the Green Blob insist they should be banned.

That's assuming batteries are dependent on a single material or technology.

I also find it ironic that some people laugh in the face of peak-oil or future oil scarcity, but then point the finger at battery materials.

[alangla]

Condi said:

I'm not sure anyone, anywhere is talking about a 100% renewable grid, except those who repeatedly claim it won't work. In the short to medium term it won't work, the industry knows it won't work and the government knows it won't work.

That said, batteries and storage will become more important and more economic as the differences between high and low prices get larger.

Oh absolutely. I know there's no way it'll happen in the short to medium term, but it appears to make sense as a long/very long term aim, to be achieved as & when it's practical and economic to do so. It certainly looks like the costs of storage are falling, so it would be interesting, even as an academic exercise, to try to estimate how much storage we might need to function on renewable only, probably with some diesel/gas/submarine type nuclear as contingency.

Personally, I doubt this will happen in our lifetime, but there's plenty of people around today who have, in their lifetime, seen generation switch from basically 100% coal with a little hydro to the mix we currently have, so anything is possible.

EDIT - when I say storage, I don't just mean battery, I'm including pumped store & any new high volume power storage technologies that might come along in the future.

Edited by alangla on Friday 10th May 10:29

[PRTVR]

Evanivitch said:

dickymint said:

Yep batteries have come on leaps and bounds but at what cost? It's only a matter of time that the resources to make them become scarce and the Green Blob insist they should be banned.

That's assuming batteries are dependent on a single material or technology.

I also find it ironic that some people laugh in the face of peak-oil or future oil scarcity, but then point the finger at battery materials.

There is a difference, peak-oil failed to materialize, switching society to battery power is going into an area where we do not know what the supply problems will be,
along with the speed of change it could prove difficult or expensive to source the materials.

[Evanivitch]

PRTVR said:

There is a difference, peak-oil failed to materialize, switching society to battery power is going into an area where we do not know what the supply problems will be,
along with the speed of change it could prove difficult or expensive to source the materials.

But again, the use of battery is being used specifically against supposed material shortages in cobalt and lithium.

Which ignores 2 points, whilst these chemistries are ideal for transportation, they're not necessarily our only options for grid scale storage.

And secondly, manufacturers are well aware that cobalt is a difficult material to source. So research and development is already targeted at reduction and removal from designs.

[Condi]

Those who repeadly claim stuff can't be done must be naive or ignorant towards the amount of money being spent and what science can do when it needs to. Very little is unachievable, its simply balancing cost against time. For now closing coal and burning gas, which produces about 1/3 to 1/4 as much CO2 per KWh will buy more time for other areas to be refined and improved on.

Carbon price reached record levels the other week, putting coal further out of merit against cheap gas. At this rate coal will be gone well before 2025 becuase its so uneconomic that the rational business decision is to close it down.

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

Those who repeadly claim stuff can't be done must be naive or ignorant towards the amount of money being spent and what science can do when it needs to.

That's a rather generalist attempt at a vague smear so it can't possibly hit the spot.

Where has somebody on PH said (quote?) that stuff (which stuff) can't be done?

For all the rhetoric about what science can and can't do, the future 'plan' is still mainly wishful thinking, with some fantasy mixed in. Applied science has limits imposed by pure science, whoda thunkit. Were you referring to technology working with whatever it is science can do? Ask Google's greener than green engineers and scientists about that.

As to the amount of money being wasted, that's hardly going to be under-estimated given the context. It certainly makes for some vested interests with well lined pockets.

[turbobloke]

[PRTVR]

Evanivitch said:

PRTVR said:

There is a difference, peak-oil failed to materialize, switching society to battery power is going into an area where we do not know what the supply problems will be,
along with the speed of change it could prove difficult or expensive to source the materials.

But again, the use of battery is being used specifically against supposed material shortages in cobalt and lithium.

Which ignores 2 points, whilst these chemistries are ideal for transportation, they're not necessarily our only options for grid scale storage.

And secondly, manufacturers are well aware that cobalt is a difficult material to source. So research and development is already targeted at reduction and removal from designs.

My main point is not switching to batteries, but the speed, we appear to be heading down a route that is not fully developed, when systems are proven to work, great, but until we can sustainably make a system work reliably it should not be implemented.

[WhatHappenedThere]

turbobloke said:

Condi said:

Those who repeadly claim stuff can't be done must be naive or ignorant towards the amount of money being spent and what science can do when it needs to.

That's a rather generalist attempt at a vague smear so it can't possibly hit the spot.

Where has somebody on PH said (quote?) that stuff (which stuff) can't be done?

For all the rhetoric about what science can and can't do, the future 'plan' is still mainly wishful thinking, with some fantasy mixed in. Applied science has limits imposed by pure science, whoda thunkit. Were you referring to technology working with whatever it is science can do? Ask Google's greener than green engineers and scientists about that.

As to the amount of money being wasted, that's hardly going to be under-estimated given the context. It certainly makes for some vested interests with well lined pockets.

Condi has been consistently right.

Turbobloke has been consistently not right.

[Jinx]

Condi said:

Those who repeadly claim stuff can't be done must be naive or ignorant towards the amount of money being spent and what science can do when it needs to. Very little is unachievable, its simply balancing cost against time. For now closing coal and burning gas, which produces about 1/3 to 1/4 as much CO2 per KWh will buy more time for other areas to be refined and improved on.

Carbon price reached record levels the other week, putting coal further out of merit against cheap gas. At this rate coal will be gone well before 2025 becuase its so uneconomic that the rational business decision is to close it down.

Using the latest worse case ECS and given the estimated impact to temperatures from anthropogenic sources (1950 to 2018) now calculate how much "more time" this expensive switch will give humanity - to the closest number of seconds..... As always show your workings......

You see the main problem I have (bar the abuse of proxy data, poor sampling, poor conclusions and immense cost with little gain) is the lack of mathematical sense in the "solutions" being offered. If the actual figures were shown you will find that yes to the nearest whole number nothing is being done for an extortionate amount of money.....

[turbobloke]

But but, advocates truly believe they are doing the right thing, evidence and data are so yesterday and emotion is the new substitute for reason - so they must be right. Trouble (for the rest, and them ironically) is they're not.

[turbobloke]

On top of that we have the largesse sloshing around finding its way into well lined pockets and enhancing belief/advocacy.

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

But but, advocates truly believe they are doing the right thing, evidence and data are so yesterday and emotion is the new substitute for reason - so they must be right. Trouble (for the rest, and them ironically) is they're not.

You've yet to provide a single decent source of data in 279 pages...

[gadgetmac]

Evanivitch said:

turbobloke said:

But but, advocates truly believe they are doing the right thing, evidence and data are so yesterday and emotion is the new substitute for reason - so they must be right. Trouble (for the rest, and them ironically) is they're not.

You've yet to provide a single decent source of data in 279 pages...

Sooooo true.

[Condi]

Jinx said:

Using the latest worse case ECS and given the estimated impact to temperatures from anthropogenic sources (1950 to 2018) now calculate how much "more time" this expensive switch will give humanity - to the closest number of seconds..... As always show your workings......

You see the main problem I have (bar the abuse of proxy data, poor sampling, poor conclusions and immense cost with little gain) is the lack of mathematical sense in the "solutions" being offered. If the actual figures were shown you will find that yes to the nearest whole number nothing is being done for an extortionate amount of money.....

I disagree. I can show you (although not now, currently on mobile for a week or 2) how the carbon intensity of the UK grid has changed over a very short amount of time (10 years). Combined with lower overall demand you can then calculate how much less carbon dixoide is being released into the atmosphere.

What more would you like to see? Consider that this thread is about the UK grid.

[alangla]

NOx, SOx and particulates figures if you have them. I know FGD and precipitators cleaned up a lot of the coal emissions, but what difference has the continued move to gas & other generation types had on the emissions other than CO2?

[Condi]

Not of the top of my head, I'm sure you could find them yourself if you wanted. All the data is in the public domain.

[Jinx]

Condi said:

Jinx said:

Using the latest worse case ECS and given the estimated impact to temperatures from anthropogenic sources (1950 to 2018) now calculate how much "more time" this expensive switch will give humanity - to the closest number of seconds..... As always show your workings......

You see the main problem I have (bar the abuse of proxy data, poor sampling, poor conclusions and immense cost with little gain) is the lack of mathematical sense in the "solutions" being offered. If the actual figures were shown you will find that yes to the nearest whole number nothing is being done for an extortionate amount of money.....

I disagree. I can show you (although not now, currently on mobile for a week or 2) how the carbon intensity of the UK grid has changed over a very short amount of time (10 years). Combined with lower overall demand you can then calculate how much less carbon dixoide is being released into the atmosphere.

What more would you like to see? Consider that this thread is about the UK grid.

Now convert that "less carbon dioxide" to reduced temperature change via the ECS and calculate the "more time" now available before "disaster" (tm).

[Jambo85]

Condi said:

I disagree. I can show you (although not now, currently on mobile for a week or 2) how the carbon intensity of the UK grid has changed over a very short amount of time (10 years). Combined with lower overall demand you can then calculate how much less carbon dixoide is being released into the atmosphere.

What more would you like to see? Consider that this thread is about the UK grid.

Hi Condi, I would be interested in that and I am curious on the methodology used - is it calculated indirectly based on the metered electrical energy outputs of given power plants and some assumptions, or direct information about fuel consumed by same? In other words, is a power plant running as spinning reserve assumed to be consuming zero fuel, and is a plant's efficiency assumed to be the same regardless of where in its operating range it is operating? Trust you can see where I am going with my questions. Cheers.