The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Gary C said:
boy, the home gas explosions we see occasionally will be nothing compared to when someone forgets to turn their hydrogen fuelled gas ring off 
Personal H2 monitors are circa £300 at this time. I think a H2 monitor plus automated shut off will be entirely necessary to allow domestic H2 burning, if that's the way we go (I don't for a second think we'll be burning H2 on hobs!).Gary C said:
wombleh said:
Changing to heat pumps needs a lot of local changes like insulation upgrades, potentially local grid uplifts to carry extra load plus changing the way people use their heating. Ok for new builds but trickier to retro fit on older houses. Newer pumps can do 70 degrees water but I think they use a lot of power doing that.
Hydrogen is being looked at and sounds promising, potentially avoiding the local changes by reusing the gas grid and just swapping the boiler.
The hydrogen thing is interesting.Hydrogen is being looked at and sounds promising, potentially avoiding the local changes by reusing the gas grid and just swapping the boiler.
H2 really loves to leak, I can't see our existing network being suitable for pure hydrogen (I know thats not on the cards at the moment) without huge investment.
And boy, the home gas explosions we see occasionally will be nothing compared to when someone forgets to turn their hydrogen fuelled gas ring off
It might not be a surprise, but EFD's publication a while back was pointing out that the loss of AGR's, Coal and quite a few gas stations by 2030 is a significant risk given that near Europe lull in wind events do occur and while interconnectors are great, if the host countries need the power themselves, it ain't going to flow to us. Of course we then go on to say that this means we need new nuclear installations
I know NG have been looking at it: https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-explore...
Not in the case of NG as they've sold their main holding in the gas network: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38248198
PushedDover said:
the people (companies) pushing H2 are those with a vested interest / infrastructure they need to sweat for years (pipelines, shoreside receiving plants, filling stations with shops etc).
And those that are in the O&G game not wanting to believe the game is changing.
Not sure I agree, hydrogen is the easiest to integrate with our current way of life. You can refuel your car in 5 mins. You can receive the gas down the same pipes as you get natural gas (give or take), and you can keep your current central heating system and radiators. It is also the only solution which is a store of energy - if you have a windy night across Europe and need to dump some power, it is much better to store that for use later than it is to turn off wind generation only to replace it with gas or coal 2 days later when the wind drops. And those that are in the O&G game not wanting to believe the game is changing.
IMO it has it's place alongside other ideas, but I don't see everything being 100% electric running directly from the grid. It would require a huge investment in generating capacity for days when the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine, and yet that thermal generation would be sat idle for weeks at a time during other periods. The economic case doesn't add up.
wombleh said:
Not in the case of NG as they've sold their main holding in the gas network: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38248198
The Chinese will be listening in on our gas usage! Hell's bells!Evanivitch said:
wombleh said:
Not in the case of NG as they've sold their main holding in the gas network: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38248198
The Chinese will be listening in on our gas usage! Hell's bells!
They used to be one of the main quoted security threats until they funded 1/3 of Hinkley C and all of UKPN !
edit: Just seen they're eyeing up the existing fleet too: https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newscgn-eyes-stak...
Edited by wombleh on Tuesday 13th April 11:06
Evanivitch said:
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
Probably explains your slightly biased view then.
I don't understand the need for the ad hominem attacks - why not tell me the specifics of what you disagree with and why?You made it a personal discussion by bringing your supposed "credentials" into the discussion.
Prior to that you asked why I made up rubbish (quite personal I think?) and I answered what my motive for doing a bit of my own thinking is, and I was fully aware of the fact that I would be labelled as biased as a result.
The FES document you shared more than backs up the view that full electrification is not the plan - 15 GW as the peak electrical heating demand.
Jambo85 said:
You didn't though - you just said my numbers were poorly made up. You haven't said which number you disagree with, nor what you think it is instead or why.
Every number. Made that clear several times. And pointed you to the FES, twice.Jambo85 said:
Prior to that you asked why I made up rubbish (quite personal I think?) and I answered what my motive for doing a bit of my own thinking is, and I was fully aware of the fact that I would be labelled as biased as a result.
You've presented your own "fag packet" results without sharing any inputs or workings, or even assumptions (except poor ones like constant power draw at just -10C).Jambo85 said:
The FES document you shared more than backs up the view that full electrification is not the plan - 15 GW as the peak electrical heating demand.
Jambo85 said:
As for heating - 150GW peak as already stated. And you have to assume your ASHP has a CoP of 1 when it’s -10C outside
The plan isn't full electrification, the plan is net zero carbon. Different things. Your 150GW number is still hilariously poor for achieving that.Condi said:
PushedDover said:
the people (companies) pushing H2 are those with a vested interest / infrastructure they need to sweat for years (pipelines, shoreside receiving plants, filling stations with shops etc).
And those that are in the O&G game not wanting to believe the game is changing.
Not sure I agree, hydrogen is the easiest to integrate with our current way of life. You can refuel your car in 5 mins. You can receive the gas down the same pipes as you get natural gas (give or take), and you can keep your current central heating system and radiators. It is also the only solution which is a store of energy - if you have a windy night across Europe and need to dump some power, it is much better to store that for use later than it is to turn off wind generation only to replace it with gas or coal 2 days later when the wind drops. And those that are in the O&G game not wanting to believe the game is changing.
IMO it has it's place alongside other ideas, but I don't see everything being 100% electric running directly from the grid. It would require a huge investment in generating capacity for days when the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine, and yet that thermal generation would be sat idle for weeks at a time during other periods. The economic case doesn't add up.
My point was only that those pushing the H2 solution so heavily are those fearing their assets / pipeline / filling stations have a far sooner end of life unless they change horses.
The question they have to figure out is at what rate they need to swap out the medium.....
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
Probably explains your slightly biased view then.
I don't understand the need for the ad hominem attacks - why not tell me the specifics of what you disagree with and why?You made it a personal discussion by bringing your supposed "credentials" into the discussion.
Prior to that you asked why I made up rubbish (quite personal I think?) and I answered what my motive for doing a bit of my own thinking is, and I was fully aware of the fact that I would be labelled as biased as a result.
The FES document you shared more than backs up the view that full electrification is not the plan - 15 GW as the peak electrical heating demand.
You discounted your numbers error as irrelevant.
if we were to examine your other back of fag packet errors, would they also be treated as 'meh' ?
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
The plan isn't full electrification, the plan is net zero carbon. Different things. Your 150GW number is still hilariously poor for achieving that.
Are you saying that peak heat demand in the UK is not in the region of 150GW?Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
The plan isn't full electrification, the plan is net zero carbon. Different things. Your 150GW number is still hilariously poor for achieving that.
Are you saying that peak heat demand in the UK is not in the region of 150GW?PushedDover said:
I said you were 25% out on the current assessment for Wind. (which will be 100% out by the end of the decade).
You discounted your numbers error as irrelevant.
if we were to examine your other back of fag packet errors, would they also be treated as 'meh' ?
There is a difference between an approximation and an error. 20 is close enough to 24 to draw the conclusion that our total installed wind capacity would barely cover our minimum electrical load in the middle of the night, when it is windy. You discounted your numbers error as irrelevant.
if we were to examine your other back of fag packet errors, would they also be treated as 'meh' ?
I’m as keen as anyone for net zero to become a reality but I think there are people everywhere with their heads in the sand about the scale of the challenge. You don’t need to work to 4 decimal places to see what doesn’t add up.
Jambo85 said:
PushedDover said:
I said you were 25% out on the current assessment for Wind. (which will be 100% out by the end of the decade).
You discounted your numbers error as irrelevant.
if we were to examine your other back of fag packet errors, would they also be treated as 'meh' ?
There is a difference between an approximation and an error. 20 is close enough to 24 to draw the conclusion that our total installed wind capacity would barely cover our minimum electrical load in the middle of the night, when it is windy. You discounted your numbers error as irrelevant.
if we were to examine your other back of fag packet errors, would they also be treated as 'meh' ?
I’m as keen as anyone for net zero to become a reality but I think there are people everywhere with their heads in the sand about the scale of the challenge. You don’t need to work to 4 decimal places to see what doesn’t add up.
PushedDover said:
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
The plan isn't full electrification, the plan is net zero carbon. Different things. Your 150GW number is still hilariously poor for achieving that.
Are you saying that peak heat demand in the UK is not in the region of 150GW?
Evanivitch said:
Jambo85 said:
Evanivitch said:
The plan isn't full electrification, the plan is net zero carbon. Different things. Your 150GW number is still hilariously poor for achieving that.
Are you saying that peak heat demand in the UK is not in the region of 150GW?Are you clear on the difference between TWh and GW?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff