The Green Thread

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by TakeMeHigher

Absolutely larven. The geopolitical positions of various nations is in flux at the moment and energy security is going to be at the very heart of it within the next five to ten years. Investment in your own security now - in whole or just part - is something that will reap rewards far in to the future once the pain of the investment has faded. Security of just 25% of a £1000 (or £1m) pa bill means that even if the rest doubles or triples in cost (and it will if the evidence is to be believed) then you can rely on that 25% at today's rates or better. It is simple and shrewd attitude towards remaining in control. The more you can produce yourself, the more security you have for yourself, your business and your future.

The Russians turning off the gas the other month is just a small sampler of how power will sway in the future towards those who make energy.

Just imagine owning an SME. You have a choice this year - a new Bentley or a rooftop full of solar panels. Which is the right choice? If you don't make the right decision you might not be able to afford one of those fancy new electric Bentleys in a few years.



Could you back that up with some facts? I believe that you are 100% wrong and have numbers to back me up and scenario / geopolitical projections that improve my numbers still further.

There is a lot of out of date information about certain types of renewables so it isn't a surprise to hear the same out of date arguments but it would be encouraging to know that people were prepared to look to a realistic future.

Am not against you am making the point that in the real world people don't want to pay for it. These arn't my views or facts. This is how the real world works. If we could shut all the oil/gas/coal power stations down now and replace it all. I'd be for it but who will pay for it?

How much does one wind turbine cost? I don't even have to work it out to say no one wants to pay for 100% renewable energy in a flash.

[larven]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

Am not against you am making the point that in the real world people don't want to pay for it.

I'm sure people would rather pay for 100% renewables than that ridiculous array in the Sahara, if the facts and implications of either were pointed out to them. That aside it is up to the government to force the issue and do whats best for the long term strategic interest of the country. Not try and save the average Joe Public a few pounds and pence on his fuel bills every month or cosying up to the oil companies.

[TakeMeHigher]

"how much does one wind turbine cost?"

Wind turbines are not the answer for all sorts of reasons. Maybe you should be asking why there is such a government focus on a dud technology?

[larven]

If we are to find ways to generate enough electricity to sustain the entire EU block then I would much rather look at options similar to that outlined in the article below. The UK also has Europe’s 3rd longest coastline after Norway and Greece. What proportion of our needs could we generate by sensitively harnessing it for wind and tidal power?

If we are to have energy dependency I would far rather it be between similarly developed, geographically near and friendly states like Norway. This is surely far preferable than having the primary energy source of a combined economic superpower surrounded by some of the poorest, most corrupt and most hostile nations on earth. That isn’t just a recipe for trouble, its one for absolute bloody disaster!

Wind power could make Norway "Europe's battery

OSLO, May 26, 2008 (Reuters) - Norway could become "Europe's battery" by developing huge sea-based wind parks costing up to $44 billion by 2025, Norway's Oil and Energy Minister said on Monday.

Norway's Energy Council, comprising business leaders and officials, said green exports could help the European Union reach a goal of getting 20 percent of its electricity by 2020 from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydro or wave power.

"Norway could be Europe's battery," Oil and Energy Minister Aaslaug Haga told Reuters after she was handed the report, which will be considered by the centre-left government in coming months.

"The thinking is that Norway is blessed, is lucky, to have big energy resources. There is undoubtedly a large potential for wind power," she said. Norway says it has the longest coastline in Europe, from the North Sea to the Arctic Barents Sea.

The 30-page report, mapping out a big shift for the world's number 5 oil exporter, said: "Norway ought to have access to up to 40 terrawatt hours of renewable energy in 2020-2025, of which about half would come from offshore wind power."

Sufficient wind parks -- totalling 5,000 to 8,000 megawatts installed capacity -- would cost between 100 billion Norwegian and 220 billion Norwegian crowns ($43.89 billion) assuming prices of 20-28 million crowns per installed megawatt.

The energy would be equivalent to up to about eight nuclear power plants. Norway pumps about 2.2 million barrels of oil per day -- $44 billion represents the value of about half a year's output.

WIND, HYDRO

Haga said offshore wind parks -- which would stop on calm days -- could be supplemented by hydro-power reservoirs which can be turned on and off to turn them into a battery storing power. Norway has about half Europe's reservoir capacity.

"We can deliver a product whether the wind is blowing or not," she said. Haga will meet EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs in Brussels on Thursday, partly to discuss the report.

It said Norway still needed new laws, competitive subsidies and more infrastructure. Norway sometimes has problems supplying even its own electricity needs with its existing hydro-power.

And it said that Denmark, Germany and Britain had done much more to develop wind power, both on land and in shallow waters. Norway's advantage was wide experience from deeper offhore oil and gas installations.

StatoilHydro (STL.OL) said last week that it will invest $80 million to build the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine to start up in 2009. Power from such installations is likely to be more costly than on land.

The report said that Norway would have to agree long-term wind supply contracts with EU countries, including access to EU subsidies. But Haga also said: "I don't expect Europe to subsidise Norwegian wind power producion."

"It's not a first choice to import power," said Steinar Bysveen, who led the report. He said EU nations such as Germany might need imports because of a lack of space to build wind parks at home and plans to phase out nuclear power.

The Energy Council report said that 40 terrawatt hours of electricity from wind could cut 20 million tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for stoking global warming. Norway's 2007 emissions were 55 million tonnes.

[TakeMeHigher]

Unfortunately larven that report is chock full of hyperbole and impossible statistics and outputs. This is a serious problem at the moment and it's preventing us from getting to grips with the real issues.

I spent all of this morning continuing to develop a site waste management plan as part of a carbon sustainibility package that I'm invoved in, and again we see the same problems. As you'll well know the government has created layer upon layer of quangos, initiatives, legislation, and soundbites. Have you seen the Net Waste Tool that we're being encouraged to use? It's an absolute joke but this is what we are faced with as 'best practice'.

Sadly, even when you have navigated or discovered a route (I feel like Magellen) you often come to the conclusion that it is window dressing because nobody is actually telling people what to do. Let's be honest, that is all that most people want, an answer. They don't care how many terrawatts of energy a skip produces or if the contents go to landfill or recycling.

As a colleague summed up earlier "they don't give a fuck about carbon". The education and information process is woeful and it is made all the worse for the obfuscation that the governement has put around it in order to look like they are doing something. This will have to change if we are serious. People just want answers and action, not a debate.

[larven]

Yes I do come into contact with some of these initiatives at various levels. In many cases the people charged with rolling out these new strategies and policies at the sharp end seem to have little understanding as what it is they are asking for. As a result what you get are pointless token gestures, a green roof the size of a postage stamp or a windmill that couldn't generate enough power to boil my kettle. There really needs to be a wider and more comprehensive debate and if neccessary, the government should provide grants and subsidies in order to get up a significant head of momentum in the right direction.

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by TakeMeHigher

"how much does one wind turbine cost?"

Wind turbines are not the answer for all sorts of reasons. Maybe you should be asking why there is such a government focus on a dud technology?

So what is the answer then?

[TakeMeHigher]

Too right. Taking a very simple example, offshore wind has a potential for double the output of onshore wind (though both are pretty megre TBH) This chart shows the areas where such wind farms can be realistically sited, yellow water (good) is down to 25m, purple (not so good) is water 25-50m.



Location options are limited. The wind output per square metre of water / land is woefully inadequate, unbelieveably expensive to install, irritatingly unreliable in use and eyewateringly crippling to maintain.

Whereas you can install solar cells on your own roof and consume your own free electricity from now until doomsday with next to bugger all future expense. Hydro is certainly interesting but its potential is naturally limited on these shores.

So why does wind get government backing and solar not so much as a genuine tax break? Mandleson might have (or be) the answer. One thing is for sure, wind is not the answer and we need other solutions fast.

My own feelings at the moment are that personal micro-generation is the future. Even if that is quite small proportionately in the early days it at least gives you enhanced energy security. This is why I keep coming back to solar as the de-facto option because none of the others work everywhere for everyone. That might be the problem for the government too because why would they want to cut out the middle men corporations of wind, wave and nuclear?

[larven]

Personal micro management is certainly interesting and a solution for some, but expensive for many right now. Ground source heat pumps and solar panels on home and office roofs would provide unlimited energy for a lifetime, but I feel the cost is simply so prohibitive at the moment that the government needs to tempt people with a subsidy to do it.

Going beyond personal micro management there are CHP systems which could be rolled out faster than at present to serve local communities and urbanisations. They can achieve overall efficiencies in excess of 70% at the point of use which is far higher than those achieved across the national grid. Unfortunately, whilst the government has a current target of 10GW of CHP capacity by 2010, we are currently only at 6GW so it looks likely to miss that target by a quarter. I believe CHP generated power currently accounts for 7% of our national capacity, it would be interesting to know how much extra power we would have to produce to make up that amount by less efficient methods.

I'd also like to see far more done to increase the energy efficiency of our current building stock to reduce future demand on our power supply, rather than primarily focusing on legislation for new buildings. By 2050 sixty percent of buildings that currently exist will still be in use. If we want to make a real impression on energy demand and carbon emissions it is these buildings we need to adapt. Offering free or heavily subsidised loft insulation for every home in the UK would have a huge impact. I wonder how much of this could have been achieved if the wasteful £12 billion VAT cut had been put to better use, never mind the green jobs it would have created.

[TakeMeHigher]

CHP is certainly worth investing efforts into, and you'll know that schemes of over 5 dwellings will require some form of generation under new reg's. There are ideas in the pipeline but faffing with GSHP's is missing the point IMO at the moment, after all they need hooking up to the mains to run the pump! It's window dressing. There is a lot of window dressing in the green industries.

Your point about existing building stock is getting to the heart of the matter. We can ask 'what sort of place will we be living in in the future?" The answer:



These are the dwellings of the future. It may shock us but something like 75% of the buildings in 2050 will be the ones that we have today.

So no matter how many new regulations we throw at new buildings it is a drop in the ocean if we don't address the existing stock. There will be some tough decisions or clever solutions needed, especially with heritage buildings and areas. The conservation lobby will be apoplectic at times, but thankfully I feel that we have a generation coming through that are open to understanding the problems and addressing them. There will be opportunities for the enlightened and prepared.

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by larven

They can achieve overall efficiencies in excess of 70% at the point of use which is far higher than those achieved across the national grid. .

Yes but as is pointed out in the book I posted much earlier in this thread the comparison between CHP and grid is misleading. Electricity is far more valuable than heat. That's why resistive heating is so looked down on. Not only can you easily burn stuff to get heat with very high efficiency, but you can use electricity to move heat around avoiding the need to create it.

A much fairer comparison would be to compare a house supplied by CHP to one heated by natrual gas and provided electricity by a conventional power station. I think CHP would still come out on top but doubt it would be "far higher"

CHP actually reduces the efficiency of electricity generation so if we do manage to get people to use heat pumps (a tall order admittedly) it would then be wasteful.

Im not sure Im against CHP but the book to persuade me that it isnt the no-brainer it first looks to be.

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

So what is the answer then?

Nuclear.

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

Nuclear.

but according TakeMeHigher future energy should come from UK land or shores for energy security which is fair enough. The problem with current Nuclear power is the Uranium Ore which I don't believe is mined anywhere in the UK. Its produced in areas of Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Africa(Shock horror), Ukraine, Uzbekistan and the USA. Possible Future Nuclear fusion as I've stated many times solves all our problems but that's a whole another story.

[TakeMeHigher]

I have no problem with nuclear purely on the basis that we know it works and something is needed to flatten the demand / delivery curve. There is a fundemental difference between attaining irregular fuel supplies from the countries that you mention and having a 24/7 pipeline with no more than a few days buffer or a 24/7 cable with no buffer.

Nuclear certainly has issues, not least of which is the carbon footprint created by the plants but it's impossible to see any realistc medium term alternative. Safety concerns are not an quantitative issue any more, and will diminish further with time.

The future is electric. There is no golden bullet but we should think about energy security as the essential forethought with all energy sources before we worry about how they deliver. After all the greenest energy ever devised is no use if you can't access it.

Once we have reliable, secure, clean energy we can work on improving it further. But right now we aren't even close to worrying about perfect solutions. We must stop waffling, realise the key issues and do something practical.

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

but according TakeMeHigher future energy should come from UK land or shores for energy security which is fair enough. The problem with current Nuclear power is the Uranium Ore which I don't believe is mined anywhere in the UK. Its produced in areas of Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Africa(Shock horror), Ukraine, Uzbekistan and the USA. Possible Future Nuclear fusion as I've stated many times solves all our problems but that's a whole another story.

Sorry, I missed that point.

I think the prospect of the UK seeking some Alabanian notion of 'self sufficiency' in anything, let alone energy, is a wrongun. I think if we ever manage it, that will be the day that the place dies.

We can only go so far, we should only WANT to go so far with this localisation thingymebub.






Except for Liverpool, where everything thing should be made or created there... but you all have to buy the stuff!

[larven]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

I think the prospect of the UK seeking some Alabanian notion of 'self sufficiency' in anything, let alone energy, is a wrongun. I think if we ever manage it, that will be the day that the place dies.

Please expand as to why you think that will be the case?

[TakeMeHigher]

France makes so much surplus energy that it sells 3 billion euros worth of it abroad every year. The UK buys most of it.

Energy security through self-sufficiency isn't a pipe dream, it is a responsiblity.

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by larven

Please expand as to why you think that will be the case?

we'd have to kill about 30 million of us for a start... shall we begin with the immigrants?

[TakeMeHigher]

I assume that you missed the previous post? Being self-sufficient in energy is a breeze if the will is there.

[Tony Sebo]

No, I saw it. I was thinking though of andy's point that we should be compltely self sufficient. I imagine that France's uranium does not come from the massif central?

There was a serious point to my comment though. I don't like this idea that we do everything for and by ourlseves. It is a bit too freaky and medieval for me.