This has been a Twitter focussed morning for some reason. These were my first five of the day, to be read from the bottom up if chronology matters to you:
There will be more to come on the top one. I am profoundly worried by this.
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:
Ultimately science needs to find a way to store solar and wind.. otherwise loads goes to waste and at peak times or when the elements work against us we need to use fossil fuel which is now imported and we are wholly a price taker..longer term we de-green/ go fracking, go more nuclear or consume far less.. sounds easy but the least realistic option.. those are the hard choices.. until science learns how to store renewable energy. We are not there yet
It is
Hydrogen can be used for this
Exactly. It is not exactly rocket science – electrolysis of water to create hydrogen (and oxygen), store the hydrogen, and then pass it through a fuel cell when you want to generate electricity again. This is 19th century science. You’ll need an engineer to explain how it can be done in an industrial scale. And then funding.
Meanwhile, £140 billion is an enormous sum to take in one year. Equivalent to doubling NICs, and almost three times the annual corporation tax revenues. Has anything like this ever been attempted before? Pumping cash into the economy has kept the balloon inflated: what happens when you suck the air out again?
A thread is coming…
“It is..Hydrogen can be used for this”
It doesn’t store solar or wind energy!!!!..this is the holy grail. Until we have it more wind farms etc do absolutely nothing to solve the energy crisis. All it does is provide a completely misinformed rallying point !!
Read what is written here by experts
Of course there is a transmission mechanism
@Steve
I know I’m a little late to the party here, but you can’t store solar and wind energy as solar and wind energy.
As with all energy sources, you need to convert the incident energy into a stable, storable alternative. Hydrogen is, as far as I can tell, the current best option (although, as with everything, that is broad brush-strokes, and ignores the finer detail)
On musing, it is interesting that fossil fuels are not viewed as stored solar energy – that’s all they are – but with an energy conversion period on the millions-of-years-scale, rather than the hour-scale we realistically need to green our energy requirements.
The other side of this is to then realise that to convert stored energy to useful energy, you have to release and convert the stored energy into (typically) heat and then subsequently electricity. The main problem with fossil fuels being the side-effects of the back-conversion (CO2, NOx, etc)
I hope this helps 🙂
For countries like Scotland and Wales then it is fairly easy. Storage of surplus energy in a water pumped storage scheme is the easiest and lowest cost option. You only need some mountains and an upper and lower reservoir. Generation can go from zero to full capacity in seconds. Energy losses are very small and, an expert can maybe confirm it, but I think significantly less than the hydrogen route.
There is some environmental impact from creating the new lochs, but in Scotland in probably almost all cases you can use an existing loch as at least the lower reservoir. That is what has happened at Ben Cruachan. There are quite a lot of lochs at a reasonable altitude so in those cases suitable tunnels to a lower level loch could be used. If a glen has to be flooded that would be a bigger impact and care would need to be taken to avoid sensitive areas or areas widely used for leisure.
There are some existing hydro schemes in Scotland that could be upgraded to pumped storage without needing any new reservoirs. So Loch Sloy / Loch Lomond, Loch Ericht / Loch Tummel, etc.
I think at the moment Scotland has about 1 to 2 days worth of storage so you would probably have to raise that to a month or two.
I’d like to see an estimate of the time and cost involved in moving from 1-2 days of pumped storage to 30 days. That would be about 2 TWh (2000 GWh) and a peak of about 100GW, plus some spare just in case. Just for Scotland, mind.
For example, Dinorwig is about 75% efficient, generates up to 1.7 GW, and stores 9.1 GWh, so that is about 5 hours of full output at full capacity. For comparison, a fuel cell is around 50 to 60% efficient.
So perhaps 60 projects the size of Dinorwig would be enough… gulp.
Tan-y-grisau adds another equivalent…
There are lots of storage options.
– various firms of battery
– pumped hydro
– stored hydrogen
– gravity wells
– compressed air
– lots more research being done
Since some of the important uses of electricity are more easily storable than the electricity, those can be sensible:
– domestic heat batteries
– district hear stores
– hydrocarbon fuels synthesized from hydrogen
– other bulk materials
It’s a giant socioengineering problem to transition to some combination of these, combined with much more efficient use of heat/cool in buildings. We can do it.
Thanks
I came across this –
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72676
Maybe someone who is more of an expert in this field could comment. It seems to me that this would be a more efficient way to go, than producing large quantities of batteries or hydrogen.
Simply it is storing heat in the ground, maybe deep down, as is being done in Canada. Heat is then put through an Organic Rankine cycle to produce electricity, and also run district heating. When there is spare electricity, the system could run as a heat pump, with spare heat being stored.
If it is not yet being done, it would seem to be very close.
But I’m no expert.
Always keep in mind that the energy industry and the motor industry are keen on hydrogen and batteries, because they demand a large energy input, and keep cars running.
If we are to get anywhere with tackling global warming, we must all considerably reduce our energy consumption, which probably means abandoning our car.
Nigel., I agree with what you say but science has not engineered a solution. We still cannot store wind or solar energy effectively. If we could we would !! It is a objective of scientists around the globe.. we are not there yet and there is no observable date when we will… so again the hard choices are to cut back massively on our consumption in periods when it is sun sunny or windy, pay the price of fossil fuel imports, build more nuclear plants or go back on greening and start cracking or extracting from the North Sea…. We can’t store so more wind or solar is not a solution
Your stupidity suggests you are not here to debate but to troll
It has been explained how power generated can be stored
Now either engage of go away
This is right. The solutions are already there for both short and long-term storage of energy. Some are more economically viable than others, but the big challenge is installation of the infrastructure.
In addition to sorting the supply side, the other important part of the equation is the demand side. Fabric first to reduce energy demand i.e. insulation and ventilation measures. All the technology exists but, again, the limitation is installation capacity. Estimates of investment needed range from £100 Bn to £300 Bn for UK housing, depending on meausres used, but all considerably less than the value of QE conducted in the last 2 years.
Agreed
The Green New Deal has always argued this
Precisely Nigel – thank you There are a variety of ways of storing energy, some using existing technology (pumped storage) and others using newer technologies. It needs investment to kick-start them in the way that wind power was ‘energised’ and it needs a very different and more dynamic grid to link them up.
Its solvable. Just as important is reducing power consumption – home insulation and the rest. Also perfectly solvable if the will and investment was there
I have scanned my news sources for criticism of interest rate rises without success. You will have noted that absolutely no one feels the need to explain by what process inflation is thereby reduced, presumably because asking such a question is roughly equivalent to asking if the earth is flat. This just makes me angry and frustrated, which is utterly unhelpful. Do you know of a source of criticism outside this website?
By the way, the Commons Transport Committee, sees “no viable alternative “ to road pricing as oil usage declines. And the reason? “TAX SHORTFALLS”. What else! The RAC agrees. Everybody agrees! Grrrrr
A big thread is coming
It is a little late to post this but Robert Reich (always a good read) criticises interest rate rises.
It might be of interest. https://robertreich.org/
Steve – don’t forget to mention WHO will be affected by the “hard choices”.
The present revival of road pricing fits in excellently with Conservative agenda, seemingly a “Green” choice. However, you don’t have to be an economist to realise this is another REGRESSIVE tax. It fits in with criminalising public protest, raising interest rates, etc.,that is, increasing the wealth gap. In other words, Conservative ideology. Swedish press regard Britain as isolationist, with a Prime Minister who indulges in corrupt behaviour. I get compassionate emails from relatives who wonder about the mental stability of Johnson. His latest excess, his unwarranted lie about Starmer just underlines how right they are about our PM. However, Starmer’s and the British media attacks on Corbyn as being antisemitic are in the same camp. Ignorance and falsehood rule in Britain.
Have you seen this article Richard?https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60206564
“Don’t ask for a big pay rise, warns Bank of England boss
…Mr Bailey said that while it would be “painful” for workers to accept that prices would rise faster than their wages, he added that some “moderation of wage rises” was needed to prevent inflation becoming entrenched.
“In the sense of saying, we do need to see a moderation of wage rises, now that’s painful. I don’t want to in any sense sugar that, it is painful. But we need to see that in order to get through this problem more quickly,” he added.”
In other words BoE thinks the ordinary and the poor need to carry the can for the current inflation by simply accepting a permanent reduction in their real terms wages.
I am being distracted by the day jobs this morning, but will get to this
The Holy Grail of developing batteries that store energy longer and more efficiently is generating a lot of ongoing research.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/233054/pioneering-digital-twin-consultancy-targets-rapid/?utm_source=alumni-bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alumniebulletin
Developing battery research by clever algorithm is a new concept here.
Currently a cheap electric car at 35k requires a new battery at about 6k after about 8 years max.
Looking at the above research one has to question the notion of ‘spin off’ meaning you have to get private investment to finance a promising idea. A New Green Deal would be able to bring together these ideas and finance them. But not exactly likely under present government or I suspect future ones.
Hello all.
I have been busy with quarter and year ends and vat returns and watching the action where it matters in my opinion. The world stage and the decline of the ancient Imperial hegemony.
Today is the d-day that the domestic drama has been stocked to provide smoke for.
How can Geo-politics be ignored as being a prime factor in what happens on our little island state?
Everything that affects us from Energy prices to exchange rates, consumer products to wars and progress is being announced in China today, right now, as Putin and Xi meet personally.
The 21st century can finally begin a new and sensible direction for humanity. I believe we have a choice to join them or like Miss Havisham retreat forever into a gloomy dusty racketty crumbling mansion.
The new German Chancellor has already arranged to meet with the nwo later this month, the EU collectively will not be far behind because it is the only sensible and secure future.
Merkel no doubt has beavering away behind the scenes now that she has ‘retired’ and could concentrate on securing the future that the EU needs.
France will wobble but knows it is better off in a United Europe.
That leaves us, the US, the rest of the 5+1 eyes (see the dramas being enacted there!) and any unfortunate Asia Pacific economies dumb enough to believe in being besties with us namely India and Japan. Brazil is wavering and South Africa has cleaved a while back from the block.
Now I am going to go and shovel a few tonnes of mature horse manure for our beds and gardens, it’s stopped raining. Tomorrow the 6 nations starts. Spring is not far off.
Am feeling optimistic. Have a great day and weekend all.
Although we are not supposed to de-humanise the opposition to the extent that they dehumanise us, it is fair comment I think to describe this Tory Government as ‘beyond redemption’?
To give a poxy £200 rebate in an energy crisis they helped create and THEN ask for it back over time – I mean – what the fuck!!!!!!!
Did we ever ask for the QE back or the bail out money from the banks to be returned? Ought we have done? Will there be a claw back from the PPE debacle and dodgy Covid loan books?
The Levelling Up agenda is just a means of recognising (too little and too late) that Cameron and Osbourne buggered up society and all Johnson is doing is tidying up his party’s own mess?
That is the truth of the matter that some how is not getting out to people.
Personally I’m not having it.
To me, every member of the Tory party is my enemy and an enemy of my country. I’m past caring if they’re even moderates. Fuck them. That is where I am. The Tories have become an existential threat to the majority of the people of these lands. And they must hence forth be treated as such.
Rather than storing energy, how about only using whats avalible?
EG Refrigeration is a significant section of UK power demand.
At times of high demand the grid frequency drops.
There are fridges that can detect this and the dont turn on unless its essential until the frequency rises back to 50Hz.
There was an experiment at Great Gonerby in Lincolnshire where they looked at managing demand instead of installing a new power supply. Similarly retiming ‘Economy 7’ across Cornwall meant there was no need to build new power lines
When I lived in the UK, I had the opportunity to look at what a builder called an eco-home. When I mentioned that the first thing one always maximized when building an environmentally friendly building was passive solar, I was told people only wanted to buy conventional looking ie chocolate box houses. I never saw the passive solar idea talked about at all in the UK – this was England. I think it is really a mainstream concept used around the world and even in a more northerly country like the UK is should be used. Winter sun is lower, fairly common and should be very useable for daytime heating in the UK. There are materials which absorb the warmth and store it quite effectively. I had a neighbour, here in Nova Scotia, who had such a home and it worked well – so well you had to be aware of overheating! Maybe the engineers on the blog could comment on it.
I wish we could get over that view of what the house should look like
To say people only want houses that look like the houses being built by volume developers is simply to justify the enormous profits made from reproducing the same models all over the country ignoring the energy gains and carbon reduction achievable from using locally sourced materials and labour; passive solar gain through orientation; fabric first design; non-specific space use; and so on. “We’re not building them because people don’t want them” – convenient fait accompli.
I understand there may be problems with the current private sector development of tidal energy (and that really is the ‘Holy Grail’), and it has become very quiet, and almost disappeared from the Agenda; yet tidal is around us and free at the point of capture, and absolutely predictable and repeatable. I suspect the problem is that private captial will never take the risks required to crack the scale of the problem. This can only be done by government, and neoliberal Government will never allow such a use of public money because it doesn’t fit the neoliberal theology and the ‘free market’ biblical text.
Agreed
Some relatively recent news about tidal stream developments John:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.orkney.com/news/orbital-grid&ved=2ahUKEwi009T-6eb1AhUQQEEAHWwWBMYQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ijD4TVL-1ew8ZDf_8XE-4
Unfortunately when tidal is mentioned, there’s a tendency for people to think only about barrier schemes (like the relatively well known Severn estuary proposal).
Tidal lagoons, trapping water at high tide, offer storage potential; albeit niche.
There are so many knowledgeable people here with ideas on how to deal with the ‘energy crisis’ within the cost of living crisis – and to think of the jobs that could be created! It’s heart breaking really.
I’m been thinking about the ‘cost of living crisis’ which is just a consequence of inaction isn’t it really?
I wish there was a catchy way of summing up that it has been the lack of or reluctance to invest in the new that has got us to this situation.
The issues aren’t exactly new PSR.
16 years ago I was doing an access course in order to return to tertiary education. As part of the course we had to do a project and present a report; I chose to look at wind power, its intermittent output and possible solutions.
I concluded then then that pump storage was a relatively low cost enhancement to existing hydro schemes, compared to the capital costs of dams and turbines. Hydro in it’s entirety, not just pumped backup, can easily be designated as storage; reservoirs are just big capacitors when you consider it. Tidal lagoons can be treated likewise.
Electrolysis is far from new, the process was demonstrated in 1800 (take note Steve). Producing hydrogen, from spare wind capacity, nets a storable product with ~80% efficiency. Gas turbines are fuel flexible, little modification is required to convert from methane.
The solutions are there, however we’ll never see them implemented, at the speed and scale required, if it’s left to the market.
I would dam The Wash
The RSPB does not like it
Sometime they will need to smell the coffee
And I am a birdwatcher on The Wash…
.
Mr Anderson,
I always thought the interesting ideas were those in the far north of Scotland: Orbital Marine in Orkney, MeyGen near the island of Stroma, and another MeyGen project in the Pentland Firth are examples. MeyGen may have had some financial aid from the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Government support is heavily Budget constrained (in ways the British government isn’t). This problem can be solved, I believe with modern science and engineering skills, given the resources.
@ John S Warren esquire, can we drop the formality? I had to do a double take with ‘Mr Anderson’!
Aside from the very real budgetary constraints, energy policy is reserved. So whilst Scotgov can encourage development, it is hamstrung when it comes to providing the infrastructure required to incorporate tidal, and other renewables, into a coherent system.
For Westminster’s “energy policy'”, read “leave it to the market and hope a solution will materialise”.
I’ll leave it there for now, 6 Nations is on.
Drew
So we are in agreement then? We’ve had the answers for years but the market’s addiction to what ‘what they know’ and a reluctance to develop the new ideas means that they will never be ‘new’ to the market , new to the consumer – which was my original point.
Let’s not score points off each other eh? We’ve enough on our hands as it is.
We are in full agreement, apologies if you got the impression I was point scoring; it wasn’t intentional.
I also agree, it’s entirely plausible for the Tories to be as petty as you suggest. I’ve thought similar about their motives for undermining the devolution settlement.
I’ll get back to this, but the rugby’s on.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that somehow the Tories are punishing the British for daring to vote for Blair and Labour in the 1990s? For not voting for the Tories.
I think this is because I’m trying to understand what has driven Tory cruelty and indifference since 2010.
It cannot be ignorance because they are constantly being made aware of the negative results of their actions.
And there is plenty of information out there to give them alternative polices and actions to the ones they pursue.
So what I see is just simple: it’s revenge politics based on the simmering resentment of us not voting them into power. I mean, how can you explain the obvious pleasure – pride even – that they display as they set about kicking things down since 2010?
They simply do not respect the choices we have made, or the alternatives that we seek or have sought. So they divide and conquer (so justifying that there is no opposition as such) and get on with it.
This ‘revenge politic’ is no different to US marines setting fire to a Vietnamese village after an ambush or concentration camp prisoners beating up and killing their captors.
It’s a very deeply human and base thing we are seeing here from the Tories and the Establishment based on their sense of entitlement : what we’ve got is the politics of retribution for us not recognising their entitlement.
And that is why I think we have a right to self defence. Because unfortunately there is more than just their entitlement at stake here.