Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
@Andy - I don''t have a problem with biomass that uses waste wood or other waste biological products (such as sewage sludge) but I do have a problem with virgin forests being cut down just to make pellets to be transported across a sea in an oil fuelled cargo ship to be burnt to make electricity being called "clean, green or low carbon" as it plainly isn''t and isn''t sustainable. I agree the benefits of cleaner air in our towns and cities is a good thing but there are other ways to do this than simply switching all vehicles to electric, especially when the long term generation capacity isn''t in place yet. Even if we increase the renewable capacity there is still the variation in supply problem to deal with and has anyone figured out how many wind turbines it takes to generate the same power reliably that Hinkley C will produce (3.2GW)? Don''t get me wrong I want to see clean air as much as the next person but done sensibly and not for knee jerk political reasons.
@Kerion Biomass in the grid represents 2.12 GW (at maximum capacity) out of a possible 40GW, which is a typical winter demand. Even if the biomass plants in the grid were running at full capacity, it would represent 5.3%. It''s a non-issue. (https://www.electricitymap.org/?lang=en&wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=GB) Yes there is still a carbon factor associated with EV vehicles but it''s reducing, there is no silver bullet solution. What about trade offs for improved air quality in cities and reducing the demand for fossil fuels as the renewable capacity improves?
The introduction of transport energy into the mix is a good strategy - it will be one of the major costs for ''hard working families'' in the near, medium, and long term. Unfortunately the political emphasis on the Big 6 and their ''extortionate'' profits masks the costs of taxes (conveniently), delivery, and waste through poor usage. Focusing energy on an all-electric future also seems less than well-thought-through. AD, and other means of cleaning up the gas grid makes its usage good for fuel diversity as well as easy conversion to heat, still our major need, and re-use of waste streams. Gas may also turn out to be good for transport uses - LNG-fuelled fuel cells may be better than batteries in the medium to long term, unless we have so much solar that it becomes the cheap solution. Insulating our buildings and getting ventilation systems working optimally for good IAQ and comfort in all seasons is the ultimate priority though. We need to be building decent homes with adequate space for families and home food production, in sufficient volumes that people will want to move from their cold and expensive-to-run older houses and apartments. Like the 60''s much that has been built in the past 20 years will be deemed unsuitable and require as much, if not more, improvement, and demolition, than the older, more spacious, homes. As in so many areas this government of ours has a long way to go before it has a strategy worthy of the name.
I see that the distance for a single battery charge is now quoted in kilometres!!!!! I wonder how many will fall for that!!!! Richard Phillips
Sorry but burning wood to generate electricity, especially when that wood has been shipped across the Atlantic by and oil powered cargo ship, is NOT clean nor low carbon. I''d even go as far as to say it isn''t even sustainable in the long term. I will give a thumbs up to Hyundai and other manufacturers for doing the work to improve range on their EV models. This will make a big difference on their appeal to the general motorist for whom being able to drive a couple of hundred miles at a time is important.
A certain online retailer could take note of item 3 as the number of times I''ve thought "did you really need to send that in a huge box?" when a small item has been delivered that could easily have been put in a "jfffy" bag (other padded envelopes may be available). Well done to SurfDome for taking this action and for sharing their experience for others to follow.
More construction firms need to explore new zero-carbon build designs like PassivPod if they are to meet their future legal obligations - Clive Bonny
Thanks Nicola for raising this topic. From my own experience being independently assessed annually since 2012 against Responsible Business Standards as a small firm has helped me win business with large supply chains. It''s also saved me the admin and costs of ISO which are not cost-effective for small firms.
Stop the link via the Grid to the burning of Fossil Fuels or better still DO NOT plug into the Grid, instead develop Hydrogen or other technology which does not cause emissions in use. STOP subsidising Fossil Fuels and fund Zero emissions concepts.
@ Neal - I lived in Aberdeen for 12 years so I am well aware of the weather in that corner of the country. Yes it gets more daylight in summer but that is not much use when it only gets 6hrs daylight in winter unless this "farm" was linked directly to a proper storage system (and I am not talking batteries). I happen to be a fan of solar but not for Grid scale generation without associated storage to deal with the night hours, bad weather hours, winter etc variations. I have solar panels on my boat to charge my 12v batteries so I know exactly how the system works and how even a small cloud drastically reduces the efficiency of the system (like a 95% drop in charge amperage). As @ Iain says Scotland is rich in sustainable alternatives from tidal stream to pumped storage hydro and traditional hydro. I can see the massive hydro scheme powering the aluminium smelter here in Fort William from where I type. I say develop more of this reliable, sustainable resource than waste taxpayers money on a scheme that is unsuitable for the latitude. If something is only viable due to subsidies then realistically is it financially viable? Should we as taxpayers be subsidising a company just to plant solar panels in a field? It is that that annoys me and not the actual development itself.
I agree with Keiron, a total waste of money and no doubt signed off by a muddle headed organisation who have little understanding of the true cost of solar electricity at this latitude. I suspect that overall the installation will be energy negative (took more to produce the cells than will ever be created) so how does that make sense. Scotland is rich in wave, wind and hydro - but not sun. Seems like gesture politics and greed for subsidies at work.
In response to Keiron, I grew up in this part of the world and, yes, while daylight is limited during the winter, the inverse of this is that there are long days through the summer months (if that''s what you can call them). Moray also has a pretty reliable micro-climate due to its position relative to the Cairngorms and you don''t tend to see much haar coming off the Moray Firth - to the east, off the North Sea, absolutely. Furthermore, it may look quite remote on the map from wherever you''re viewing it but there is a good density of population around the site. Speyside and its many distilleries is nearby, not to mention Elgin and RAF Lossiemouth. There may be more sun in the south of the country but does that mean we shouldn''t install renewables in the north? Absolutely not. All installed capacity will make a difference if it''s replacing fossil generation. I can only assume Elgin Energy have worked out that it IS financially viable. Try to be a bit more positive. :)
How much electricity will this actually produce? No not the peak but the actual, real world, when it is pouring down with rain or the haar rolls in capacity. Solar is of limited value this far north so I am truly sceptical it will be financially viable or even make any difference. In winter this area of Britain struggles to get 6hrs of daylight let alone sunlight. If we, as a country, want to install this kind of solar capacity then it has to be installed in the sunny, drier, SE corner where there are the people demanding the power and not stuck up in a remote corner of the North of Scotland.
As members of the Coors family fundraised for Trump, I would be more impressed if they spoke out in support of the Paris climate agreement....
But how is "efficiency" defined? I will bet that it has nothing to do with the technical definitions that would spring to mind for the physicist! Tick boxes??? Richard Phillips
Well, lets get building our own energy from waste plants then, which will provide jobs in uk. Lets spend the money required to manage our own waste and turn it into power. Marg
Does this include lithium battery recycling?
When will Ford sell these vans in the United States?
Yes the biggest way we can all reduce our energy bills is to not use as much or more accurately not waste as much. Simple acts like turning off lights, using a 30 C wash cycle, hanging laundry to dry instead of the tumble dryer etc mean we reduce our demand and our waste thus reducing the amount of power we need and therefore our cost.
Great! This is right! We should put pressure on our MPs to force legislation in this area (and elsewhere concerning the environment). Keep it up Aldi and Sainsbury!
The future of zero emissions vehicle is hydrogen power. There are already TfL buses running in London on hydrogen that have the same range as petrol or diesel vehicles, so why is this new LECV taxi a petrol/electric hybrid? It should be remembered that modern petrol engines produce almost as much NOx as a diesel because their combustion flame temperature is now almost that of diesel. There are just 7 hydrogen filling stations inside the M25, so why is the Mayor of London planning to install 1,500 more electric charging points in the capital? Clearly we need a mix of both.
Totally agree with what Martin Chilcott said. I found it amazing that the UK had no battery recycling when you think of the population and the lifestyle
You're absolutely right. There isn't one mention of hydrogen... there are five. See 'Will London ever be a car-free city?' in the above.
Absolutely amazing, NOT one mention of hydrogen. Time to fund and develop hydrogen technologies and then invest in scale up. It is absolutely clear that all the plans to maintain status quo have had little effect over the past 25 years. Need to go for the only clean energy avail;able at present and make it low-cost affordable to all. Way out costly tech is not going to make it when incomes have been driven down. Why is it that the car is always the mode of transport to get rid of, I see those efficient buses with a 9 litre diesel running with NO passengers at all and mostly about 6 to 12 these routes should have hydrogen mini buses. The future is hydrogen powered drones so start planning for future and not modifying the past.
This is a business matter, totally unconcerned with the technical virtues or vices of an intermittent power supply from dilute naturally variable sources. As long as Governmental and private speculators throw money at "renewable" electricity, the "market place" will react. Greed and fear are the driving forces. Richard Phillips