Summer must have arrived. Crazy ideas are in the air. I just finished writing a blog about the wholly inappropriate and regressive tax that the government is proposing to use to tackle the problem of funding long-term social care when I noticed that the National Grid is also in today's favoured business of promoting fantastic solutions to real problems.
The Guardian notes this morning that:
Carbon emissions from Britain's electricity system could turn negative by as early as 2033 if the UK uses carbon capture technology alongside more renewable energy to reach its climate targets, according to a report from National Grid.
The electricity network operator on Monday set out its vision for an “emissions negative” grid that would include 30m electric vehicles on UK roads, and 8m heat pumps used to replace gas boilers in energy-efficient homes.
In National Grid's most progressive vision for Britain's pathway towards its 2050 climate targets it claims that net carbon emissions from the electricity sector could turn negative within 13 years by using carbon capture technology alongside bioenergy sources.
My heart sank when reading this. I do, of course, want to see an ”emissions negative” grid, but what is being proposed here is not a solution. There are several good reasons for saying that.
First, this proposal relies upon carbon capture and storage, and as yet no one has any real idea how to do this. The proposal is, then, from the world of make-believe. It has absolutely no credibility.
Second, the proposal relies upon building substantial numbers of new battery electric cars, which are not our likely transport solution. They're expensive, heavy, inappropriate for current needs and replicate existing emission problems with things like tires and brakes.
Third, relying on bioenergy ignores the fact that we have a biodiversity crisis that is at least as big as the climate crisis.
This plan is, to be kind to it, ridiculous. It is as undeliverable as it is fantastic, in the sense of being unreal. When the climate crisis is the biggest issues that we face on earth I would have hoped for something better from the National Grid. This plan needs extensive reworking before it gets anywhere near a pass mark.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There’s also the small problem of the National Grid’s infrastructure not being “fit for purpose” – charging 30m electric cars?? – must be some sort of joke. https://www.theiet.org/media/press-releases/press-releases-2019/20-august-2019-interim-report-national-grid/
A typical home charger would be 3-7 kW. 30m cars charging at that rate = 90-210 GW. national grid capacity = 60 GW. On the surface of it you’re right. But not every car will be charging at the same time or at full power. In fact, if you have a car with 300 mile range (top end of current models but likely to be much more common in a few years time), you would probably only charge your car every few weeks or top up slowly (~1-2 kW) more regularly. Some people would charge in the day and others at night, so overall you would only have a fraction of this demand at any one time, which is certainly plausible. I’m sure there will be challenges to overcome but I don’t think it’s fantasy, particularly if you reduce that 30m down to a more sustainable level like 10-15m by pushing more car clubs and active/public transport.
And we’re going to replace all cars by 2033?
Really?
It is very easy to choose the time you charge your car.
Currently we are on the Octopus Go tariff where you can pick your off peak times, of a 4 or 5 hour window (5 or 5.5p KW/h), we then set the car to start charging at that time.
You can plug it in when you get home, but it will only charge off peak, (or start and continue depending on how you configure it).
In May, they ran an experiment where they asked us to turn stuff ON over the bank holiday weekend, and they paid us to use electricity for two hours – the idea was to avoid turning off excess renewables. Obviously better charging EV batteries when there’s tons of renewables in the mix. Naturally we changed the charge time, ran the washing machine and dishwasher too, and made a whopping £3.31 back.
Also worth mentioning that all car chargers are now required to have “smart” functionality in that they can be turned off remotely, so the network operators can actually control the demand side if they need to remotely.
I have to question your desire to to see an emissions negative grid when you reject all the proposals without offering a solution. What is your negative carbon emission solution?
I actually agree with you about carbon capture and storage. While technically feasible, no one has considered how it will be paid for (answer – through energy bills) and whether that’s the most cost-effective solution. I partly agree with you on bioenergy; we’ll need some but we shouldn’t rely on it too much.
I completely disagree with your second point though. Electric cars are already cost-effective compared to fossil fuel cars on a total cost of ownership basis. Weight is largely irrelevant, and particulate emissions are substantially lower than fossil fuel cars even taking tyre and brake emissions (actually in the city electric cars brake use is very low due to regenerative braking). I don’t want to see 30m electric cars (we should be halving car use overall) but I don’t see a better alternative when cars are needed (no, it’s not hydrogen).
The solution cannot rely on a technology that has not been proven – and CCS has not been.
The answer is massive investment in renewables
And public transport
And energy use reduction
The National Grid appears to be assuming a world that will not change
It is going to have to do so or we will not survive
No negative emission technology has been proved at scale, but obviously some NETs are necessary if you’re going to have a ‘negative emissions’ grid. BECCS is the one that’s most likely to be accounted for within electricity generation, but you might also include using surplus renewable generation for Direct Air Capture to go into either CCS or liquid fuel production. I’d agree BECCS has limited potential: the IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Change and Land shows that it adds additional pressure on biodiversity and agriculture.
The main worry about EVs is their manufacture, which CarbonBrief suggests has similar impact to ICE vehicles. Reducing mileage is also important.
Glen Peters suggests the ‘net’ is a misleading, and we should think of positive and negative emissions separately. We also presumably agree that governments have been massively negligent in reducing positive emissions and shutting down fossil fuels. Negative emissions may or may not be seen as a separate area of public policy. If we’re serious about saving some of the coral reefs from global heating, we should be supporting research and discussion around NETs. Some like biochar seem acceptable from an environmental point of view. https://co2removal.org/assessment/results/ is a great summary.
Have to say I haven’t read the National Grid’s report yet, but there will be some very positive and urgent actions within it, even if we baulk at monoculture and COâ‚‚ storage (most of which, the Grid says, is not used for Enhanced Oil Recovery in the UK.)
There’s a more practical and useful article too in today’s guardian around electrified HGVs, which makes a lot of sense without reading a lot more into it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/ehighways-could-slash-uk-road-freight-emissions-says-study
Public transport has lost it’s shine during a pandemic. Whilst it makes complete sense when travelling between cities, it’s often the joining up of last mile services that’s the problem. Buses potentially can solve that if there were more of them, but they are noisy and polluting at the moment, and often unsuitable for certain routes. They get blocked by parked cars often on our road, and don’t have sufficient demand to serve all roads. But if one came down your road every 10 minutes and took you to the right place, you’d need a car very infrequently.
Whilst I agree with you that new cars aren’t the solution to all transport problems, I don’t expect public transport in the future to look the same as the past. We have an EV and it works well for most of our family driving needs. Whilst they have tyre particulates still, the level of pollution they produce is much, much lower. There are companies working on better tyres, so hopefully that problem will eventually be solved.
All car companies are working on self driving cars – when this comes around, you won’t have to own a car anymore, and cars will be able to act as more efficient vehicles than they are today. Imagine if you could request a car, and it would arrive within a few minutes, drive you somewhere, then immediately go off to serve someone else? We’d save huge amounts of space on car parks, better connect communities and make car use much more efficient. I don’t think it’s too many years away.
Also see the rise of electric bikes and scooters – these are an important development that would really help with shorter journeys. But it also means changing our cities to be more bike friendly. If we do that, alternatives are already there which can and will take off.
You’re thinking alternatives and that has to be right
For me the bike is now used more often than the car
I accept that will not work for everyone, but change is possible
My once run is that the National Grid is working in an old paradigm, whether it admits it or not
” electrified HGVs” We already have an electrified network (partly) which should and could be expanded. Of course the roads lobby will fight against this as they do against any proposals to curb their (our) freedom to pollute and congest as much as we like. The issue is solving the final (and first) mile. And political imagination. (so it’s obviously a non-starter)
Peter May had an item on this the other week on Progressive Pulse. http://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/green-transport-for-goods-the-final-mile
Oh, I like that idea of lorries as trams, if it works at speed. In particular, it’s much more energy-efficient than hydrogen-powered HGVs. That alternative, hydrogen, might also be produced by steam reformation and CCS, which is what the oil and gas industry presumably think will be their salvation, along with plastics.
Of course, there is also a rail freight network….
If only we still had the old Great Central line…
Unfortunately newspaper accounts give an over-simplified account of the National Grid report. Certainly there is, in the National Grid scenarios, a lack of awareness of the problems of relying on bio energy and carbon storage, and an under-emphasis on public transport. But the scenarios are more nuanced than the newspaper accounts suggest.
In particular, hydrogen plays a significant role in the net zero scenarios – as a fuel for industrial production, for HGVs and shipping, and for heating, as well as for seasonal storage of renewable energy surpluses.. The problem here is that the National Grid seems to see hydrogen production from renewable energy or from natural gas with carbon storage as equally viable scenarios, when only the former is a realistic zero carbon option.
Noted
And I did take a brief look – albeit I did not read it all, I admit
There does seem to be a poverty of ideas and rethinking.
I have never understood the idea of carbon capture and storage – wouldn’t it be better to make a product from the carbon instead. Building materials come to mind.
And, on ideas:
I had been wondering if e.g. London could create an electric road train network that would transport small, wheeled containers to the various business that need deliveries – right down to the coffee shops etc. One train drops off the containers early in the morning and later another train collects the empties – or rather multiple electric road trains throughout the day. Something similar to the baggage containers that go between airport terminals and planes.
Could reduce van and truck deliveries massively and make for a more pleasant environment.
This to me is typical infotainment – meant to make us all feel better for now but deliver nothing really.
You are right to question it.
You cannot have carbon reduction without a whole sale investment to realise it. And i just don’t see it anywhere – do you?
I’ll preface what follows with: I’m working with elements within the European Commission who agree with the points that I will make. In the past I have participated in the production of the Future Energy Scenario report. Apologies if what follows is some what technical.
CCS & Hydrogen
The IEA (International Energy Agency) commissioned foster Wheeler to produce a report on steam methane reforming (SMR) and CCS (new build plants). It was a robust & highly technical report. There is no SMR+CCS plant in existence that can sequester around 90% of CO2 emissions from an SMR system. That’s one reason why the only funders of such plants are… government (e.g. the Norwegians) – nobody wants to fund a FOAK. Estimates for the cost of hydrogen from such plants vary in the range 6eurocents/kWh of hydrogen produced through to eurocent 8.3/kWh of H2 produced. H2 can be produced using electrolysis powered by renewable elec for around 5.8eurocents/kWh H2. CCS is on the cards in the UK because the fatberg gov has a load of holes in the North Sea & wants to full them.
Note on CCS: those ghastly people the Koch’s have been running a CCS system coupled to an SMR plant since the 1980s in Oklahoma – the economic rationale being provided by “enhanced oil recovery” – the CO2 being injected into old oil wells to get out more oil. However, the system does not get to 90% recovery of CO2.
More Renewables means lower elec prices
Empirical data shows that more reneweables in any electrical system means lower wholesale electricity prices. This can be demonstrated ad nauseum (with very adequate negative correlation coefficients) using ENTSO-E data for any country with even modest amounts of renewables in its electricity mix (exception: France). More renewables (which have close to zero marginal cost for generation) will thus gradually price out new-build renewables. In turn this will mean subsidies of one sort or another – CfD (contract for Difference) seems to be the way forward in the UK. Taking this to its conclusion: if there is a price of £10/MWh for wholesale (happened Jan – May 2020) and your off-shore CfD contract is £45/MWh then UK serfs will make up the £35 difference. Currently UK subjects pay an energy only price of circa 9pence/kWh, in theory more than sufficient to cover CfD prices/offers of £45/MWh. But in the mad world of UK elec “markets” (I use the word loosely) you will pay the additional £35 (i.e. another 3.5 pence/kWh on your bill). Please don’t think the Uk will reform its energy markets any time soon.
The problem is that the energy system is moving from: deterministic generation (with an energy store) coupled to a load that is statistical (i.e. one can predict with accuracy what will happen day by day, hour by hour) to:… stochastic generation (albeit statistical in the 0 to 24hr time frame) that is still coupled to a statistical load (which is capable, via Demand Response, of matching renewable statistical output in the 0 to 24hrs time frame). Lacking in this new reality is deterministic load (that can be varied over days) and large-scale storage in the multi-terawatt hour class. The good news is that the potential exists with electrolysers and a re-purposed gas network that indeed can store perhaps 100TWh of H2.
In the context of the above electric vehicles are noise. That said, once you couple EVs with heat pumps (HPs) then you will be looking at a total rebuild of the UK’s electricity distribution network. Again I have the numbers to prove this (prove as in mathematically prove). This is a “detail” which, sadly the FES glosses over.
The way forward is to build out renewables in parallel with large-scale electrolysers (Gigawatts) coupled to a re-purposed-for-hydrogen gas network. The electrolysers will stabilise wholesale prices (too much RES – run the electrolysers harder & vice versa). Note: once past 40% capacity factor it makes little difference economically if electrolysers run 50% or 100% of the time – one thus has a very flexible large-scale deterministic load. These realities, for that is what they are seems to have escaped Nat Grid, but, oddly, not the European Commission.
Thanks
Part of my confidence in dismissing the NG was based on reading your stuff, and related material, that made me quite sure of my ground
I think that CCS example is very telling – again, I found that recently and was shocked, as were those who also became aware: this seems to be much of the case for CCS
Richard – thanks for the kind comments.
Admission: I have founded a lobby group called “Green Hydrogen for Europe”
https://www.greenh2foreurope.eu/
There is a section called “Myth Busters” which I hope answers many of the questions raised & I hope will clear some confusion.
For the avoidance of doubt; I am not per se against CCS. It needs to be used in processes such as cement production which even with a zero carbon fuel (H2) still emit Co2. My concern with CCs is that it provides a route to keep the fossil fan boys in business.
The other concern is the tendancy towards silo thinking. This has led me & elements in the Commission to produce a paper which advocates the wholesale reform of energy markets. The collaboration with a Commission economist has been very fruitful with each bringing a “different view” to the problem.
Last words: The UK has an off-shore wind resource of around 650 – 1000GW which would produce between 2600 Terawatt hours to 4000TWhs per year. This is sufficient to electrically power the Uk (including EVs and some heat pumps), produce hydrogen (for transport and heating) and export – either as electricity or H2. Europe as a whole has an on-shore and off-shore wind resource that if fully exploited could produce around 25,000 TWhs per year (source: Joint Research Centre) . Thus the problem resolves itself into political determination to “do it”. Money, as Ricahrd has repeatedly shown, is not an issue.
I have considerable sympathy neither the offshore solution
I would add, so should Scotland
@Mike Parr
Yes, it is quite technical – could you rewrite it (or the main parts) in simpler language? e.g. whether it does make sense to produce hydrogen from renewables, and, is carbon capture pointless, or a ruse?
Thanks!
Let me have a go at interpreting and Mike can let me know if I’ve got this wrong.
No one has got carbon capture and storage working the way we need it. Any “first of a kind” plant is likely to need state funding as commercial operators won’t want to take the risk. (As an aside: as I understand it, all of the climate models that show us meeting the Paris 2 degree target assume CCS must work at scale very very soon, so in the absence of CCS, we will miss the target. That would be very bad (severe weather, droughts, famine, migration, war, you name it). Even hitting the target would involve substantial impacts, and risks of worse.)
The problems with electricity are (a) storage is difficult so in broad terms you have to match supply with demand – that is, you have to use it when you produce it; and (b) you have to move it from where you produce it to where you use it – as a technical matter, that is not as simple as plugging in wires: we have got used to the national grid just “being there”, but the system of wires in the distribution system produces its own load and losses that needs to be taken into account, and they are physical things with their own capacity constraints.
Demand is not fixed (think of everyone switching on the kettle during the adverts, or in future plugging in their electric vehicle to charge when they get home). Coal, gas, nuclear are all predictable in terms of output, and we have got along to date by running different levels of excess capacity “hot” or “warm” that can be ramped up quickly according to reasonably reliable predictions of demand, and pumped storage and so on to manage peaks. Most renewables are inherently unpredictable in terms of output and not well matched to demand, so much more storage is required. We are already paying high demand users to switch off as and when necessary, but we need more demand management – ideally to soak up excess generation and deliver more at peaks of demand.
The idea of using excess generation to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen (and oxygen) is neat. You can burn the hydrogen to generate more electricity, or use it in cars, or pipe it to homes for central heating instead of natural gas. Which has the advantage of using existing infrastructures (pipes) separate from the national grid. That said, using hydrogen as a power source has its own technical challenge.
In terms of storage, there are also some promising ideas around vehicle-to-grid, and test projects on this. Lots of electric cars sitting around on driveways with huge batteries is another way to store and borrow energy to balance the grid. The main issue with this is that it’s only supported by one of the charging standards (Chademo) currently, not the now more popular CCS. But it does work very well, and doesn’t have noticeable impact on individuals if you do it in aggregate.
Also worth noting grid scale batteries are now realistic. Tesla installed a 100MW in Australia a few years ago, and there have been a few more larger ones since.
The technical problems with hydrogen should not be too challenging. Electrolysis of renewable energy already takes place on a small scale, and safety issues have largely been resolved. The objection that is usually raised is one of cost, but if cost reduction takes place at the speed that has been achieved with solar PV and offshore wind, that should not remain a problem for long. The successful introduction of green hydrogen at the scale that is needed to make it cost effective does need a co-ordinated whole system approach, though, which I wonder if this government is capable of.
Broadly speaking, yes. keep in mind three things:
1. NG (& other TSOs) are very good (+/- 95% correct) at predicting renewable output 24hrs ahead.
2. Demand response and things such as batteries (EVs & home storage) work in the time frame 0 to 24hrs & can work well in getting NG to 100%.
3. In the winter period calm periods can cover several days & thus one needs dispatchable (deterministic) generation that can cover this.
Point 3 thus means hydrogen-fired gas turbines (they exist) or more combined heat & power – hydrogen fired.
Most of the elements needed to move the Uk (or the EU) to zero carbon exist now, i.e. they are at “technical readiness level” 9.
Thanks, Mike. I think your points are about matching generation to load, on timescales of hours to days and weeks. Your third point is why I see a place for nuclear baseload for some time, but our plants are getting very old. It would be nice to wave a wand and have fusion tomorrow, but we can’t wait.
Presumably for example Germany is quite keen to move in this direction quickly, as they have a strong green lobby, switched off their nuclear already, are phasing out their brown coal, and won’t want to rely on importing nuclear from France (and gas from Russia, and further afield) for much longer? I was surprised to see how far, how fast renewables have been coming along in Germany. If they can get the technology to work, perhaps it will be easier for the rest of us, but this really ought to be something that that the UK is also leading on too (relatively compact, relatively advanced island, with excellent renewable resources, and the potential for huge exports: this could be much more important than our fish).
If only we appreciated that
I note that during the pandemic there’s been a shift to home deliveries whether it’s from super-markets, Amazon and the like, and restaurants. It would make sense to concentrate on keeping that in place using tax breaks and delivery vehicles that are as sustainable as possible. That might be one of the positive things that’s come out of the pandemic that encourages planetary sustainability. Of course another thing would also be encouraging home-working where possible through tax breaks.
Just as I write about the concept of encouraging home deliveries for environmental sustainability along comes the intellectually challenged Conservative government with the following:-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/27/rishi-sunak-online-sales-tax-protect-high-streets-coronavirus
You could not make them up
Need any more evidence that Libertarian market fundamentalism or what is really Neoliberalism (the capture of the state by these fundamentalists) is bad for your health and possibly terminal for your children and grand-children:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/revealed-new-evidence-links-brazil-meat-giant-jbs-to-amazon-deforestation
Is there an elephant in room? If there is it could be that we all expect to be able to be greener, emit less carbon, mitigate global warming…but continue living at the standard to which we have become accustomed. Buying, driving, flying, holidaying, eating, drinking just as before.
Remember the graphic about how many planets would be needed if everyone lived the same as the US vs Bangladesh? Maybe some of us have to have a little less and others a lot more.
Quite Agree
My assumption is that the big change is air source heat pumps (ASHP) being rolled out (or ground source ones where space allows for pipes in the garden), as that changes energy economics completely, EVs is little change compared to that, as we need actually more cycling/trans/trains/bus and more cycles dutch style rather EVs clogging up roads and eating into battery demand. We should drive less full stop, tax any non commuting mileage above 5,000 per year and people will cycle and take public transport. If 27.6 million UK households are gradually switched to ASHP (or district heating for apartments), it dramatically reduced CO2 Emissions, and increases electricity demand and incentives for proper insulation (think similar to passivhaus standard with mechanical ventilation rather than relying in opening ventilation shafts or windows), and demand for household solar / battery also goes up as electricity use goes up. Grid will need to adapt to it all, and balanced with battery-to-grid or vehicle-to-grid or on demand production, not biomass as we’d need to import it and biomass also pollutes. I do not get the whole hydrogen or CCS debate, seems all unnecessary as you lose energy in converting it.
I am with you Matti
It’s disappointing that your whole discussion on carbon capture technology has completely omitted the greenest carbon capture system of all, natural processes. By changing land management practices like heather burning on grouse moors and reducing bog drainage, natural reforestation through reducing sheep and deer, halting the destruction of or seabed communities, improving soil conservation on farmland, a great deal of carbon capture can be done immediately. Lots of words from the government and little action but no surprise if there is no political pressure. It’s not just a techno fix!
Apologies
And agreed
We need to be powering down right across the board, using much less energy than we do now, that means better insulated houses, less ‘stuff’ travelling less, and travelling slower
I simply want to observe what an interesting thread the article has stimulated. This is what makes Richard’s Blog so valuable. The outcome, to provide serious and informed discussion of important issues. I hope and trust it is widely read, and stimulates more contributions.
Thanks everyone.
There is great enthusiasm for heat pumps to replace gas in existing homes, but while they are greener than fossil fuels they are not a panacea, having a number of disadvantages which need to be overcome, such as requiring hugely improved insulation in buildings (part of the plan, I know) but many buildings may never reach the required level; they provide low-level non-instantaneous heat, (best suited to underfloor heating) and may require much bigger radiators; in winter they are less efficient and may require some back up in the form of gas/hydrogen boilers, for example. There are other cons as well.
Maybe some or most of the cons can be overcome but I don’t think the case is conclusive as yet and we must beware of manufacturers pushing the technology without explaining the drawbacks.
I am not hearing of these issues, I admit
As I understand it, air-source units (similar to air conditioning units, with fans) can be pretty noisy in a urban setting.
There have been a couple of comments on heat pumps. What follows sets out some realities.
1. Any house with a heat pump (ASHP, GSHP) needs to have as a minimum, modern double glazing, 240mm loft insulation & cavity wall insulation (othwerwise the economics are unrealistic).
2. power distributuion networks as they are currently configured & with existing cables can support a penetration of around 30 – 40% HPs
3. More EVs & more HPs mean that most distribution networks will become overloaded at around a 20%/30% penetration of each technology.
Last year was spent doing thermal models of houses, building up electrical & heat demand profiles and modelling power distribution networks. The models we developed are robust, i.e. they are a very fair representation of the real world and real-world demand.
24 million homes with heat pumps (& high levels of Evs) means a new UK distribution network. I have no doubt the mostly foreign-owned UK DNOs would love that.
The way forward for a decarbed Uk domestic sector is: heating: mix of heat pumps and fuel cells (very roughly 50/50 – with the gas network converted to hydrogen), electrical: modest sized batteries (circa 6kWh) and PV plus solar thermal on all the roofs that can support it. We have most of the numbers on this, they are realistic & doable. Last thing: merge the elec & gas distribution networks from an operational point of view. The reasons for this would take a couple of pages to explain. But the above, in a nutshell is the direction the UK will travel – like it or not, because there is no other viable (or timely) set of alternatives.
CCS in a bottle.
Honey, I shrunk Kielder Forest (Drax B attempt to green creds.)
RFC Electric Greenhouses 1GW = 20 SQMLs
Large scale greenhouses can be used to replace power stations for electrical power generation. The plants grown inside the greenhouse are pulverised and desiccated before use as the fuel source for the electrical generation.
The heat and the CO2 released in the combustion process are captured (and recaptured) within the gas impermable greenhouse, providing a huge acceleration in plant growth. A jungle in a bottle.
To achieve reliable 24h/365d power delivery to the national grid the greenhouse must therefore use the ground as very large thermal store and have an appropriate lighting system.
Pros
Reliable power delivery 24h/365d unlike PV and wind. Good as they are.
No CO2 released (handy for carbon neutrality by 2030) Gas impermable.
No H20 released (handy for a deserts, but Brownfield and Opencast site with broken ecosystems can be used.
No fossil fuels usage
A greenhouse reliable technology that has been available for use for 120 years.
Power for 300,000 homes.
Cons
50 square kilometres/ 20 square miles produces to a gigawatt. 4.5*4.5 mls
or 100mw = 2sq miles.
Cost irrelevant, carbon neutral by 2030. Shovel ready in two months, if taken seriously.
Is this credible?
I hear of radical food production ideas
But this is new to me
I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned tidal power. I understand the experimental Pentland Firth tidal array (4 turbines producing 24.7 gigawatt hours (GWh)?) is promising, but I claim no close knowledge.
Scotland has massive tidal potential
John, Sustainable Marine Energy (a company with Scottish Gov backing and active in the Pentland Firth) has a protoype floating, moorable generating station currently conducting proving trials in the Bay of Fundy. See here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sustainable-marine-energy-minas-tidal-lp-bay-of-fundy-tidal-power-1.5304276
As I understand it the company conducted initial trials of the vessel in the Pentland Firth and then towed it to Canada, as the Bay of Fundy has the highest tidal rise and fall in the world, creating very powerful currents to drive the turbines. The moorable ship concept will be ideal for the numerous fjords of the Scottish west coast, where there is easy access to the grid, as well as in the Pentland Firth. It could also be deployed in estuaries like the Tay, where tidal currents are very strong.
I’ll dig a bit deeper in the morning for more up-to-date info, but this option is clearly more flexible than permanent, sea-floor turbines and considerably easier/cheaper to maintain and repair, so it looks like a winner
I understand the 4 Pentland Firth MayGen turbines are anchored to the sea bed. I am not deeply informed on this but on the Pentland Firth I extracted this quote: “Pentland Firth has significant marine power as its tidal currents are considered to be the fastest in British Isles. Researchers from Edinburgh and Oxford Universities estimated that turbines in the Inner Sound stretch of water could generate 1.9GW of clean and renewable energy for Scotland” (power-technology.com). The great thing about tidal is it is green and totally predictable and guaranteed; like clockwork. No modelling required; hard predictions can be made.
The problem with tidal is that it needs lots of development risk capital, and quite the opposite to neloberal legend, private capital investment doe not like risk in major new large-scale indutrial technologies (high-speed or any trains, electricity networks, tidal energy, carbon capture, Crossrail, Channel tunnel); they like the initial hit to be taken by the public sector. MMT economists know this. See also Nariana Mazzucatto. The British Government will not invest in it, at least at a sufficient level.
I like tidal power. But barrages no.
24.7 gigawatt hours (GWh)? Over the year. Divide by seconds in a year.
‘The best plants (the one they make tequila from) can manage to convert 5% of light into power.’
Sugar cane, is an example. It has a nongrowing period. 🙁
But you would use the entire plant. Root and all. Not just the sugar.
Then instantantly replace the ‘bare ground’ with a new planting.
Nothing genetically modified. Triffids.
In a tropical greenhouse you have an extra 2.5x from the extended period of warmth (35C) and extended period of light to the full 24 hours, all year round. A british greenhouse pushes that to 8x? No wintertime.
And extra 5x for pushing to CO2 up to 2000pm. I have no idea what the top limit is.
And it is all old technology, reinvented. Horizonal fan driven flues.
Reliable. Only plants visible above ground.
A Closed carbon cycle and partially closed heat cycle.
Photosysnthesis has a dark side, it incorporates thermal energy into to output – glucose. PV does not.
You can run a server center inside.
Or even some light industrial stuff.
Honey
Regards
Great. I suggest you just build your pilot installation and let us know how it goes.