Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
The tail of big business indeed! The interest in wind farms is not the generation of "green" electricity, but lucrative profit. Since the withdrawal of subsidies for new build wind turbines, none have been built; in spite of planning permission for hundreds being passed. Back in 1989, Mrs T terminated our leading nuclear industry. All nuclear work at Harwell was terminated at a weeks notice. Hundreds of professional scientists and chartered engineers were given early retirement. "If we need new reactors, the Market will provide them, no need for us to design them" Just so, Wylfa and Moorside take note. Richard Phillips
2% reduction on its own footprint is hardly credible target. Simply buying REC''s doesn''t account for actual hard reductions within the operating envelope of any business or building. Great coat tail stories of its clients initiatives & ideas and publishing as their own.
Richard That would pretty much go for anyone in parliament or position of legislative authority. The tail of big business wags the dog! Ben
Just a little addendum. Re Claire Perry. She is a Geographer. We have never had a minister responsible for any energy related affairs with any graduate qualification in the physical sciences. Yet they still hold forth in their ignorance, and specifically refuse any offer of technical advice. For myself, former ARIC., FRIC., 35 years as a scientist at AERE Harwell, I do pretend to know just a little about it. We need saving from the green green amateurs! Richard Phillips
This is merely a reflection of demand, and the policy to give pride of place to unreliable, intermittent, expensive and land consuming renewables. The former grid met demand by bringing in generation in order of increasing costs, and reducing it in a similar fashion. It was all well under control. Without fossil fuel or nuclear power, the chaotic generation of renewables would be impossible to handle. As it is the costs of incorporating it in the grid is enormous, so embarrassingly so that National Grid will not divulge anything about the costs of subsidies or others unique to renewables (cabling, frequency, voltage and phase correction etc). The public is taken for a ride!! Both John and Ben are spot on. Richard Phillips
The Cumbrian mine is coking coal to replace imports, not for energy
Still just point in time measurements of coal percentages., Even today bright sunshine outside but still the grid is supported by 3.8% with coal power. I still roll my eyes at these outlandish claims of coal free power.
So A hydrogen fuel cell stack and associated systems costs around 13 times the price of an equivalent powered diesel engine. We have a long way to go before we will have an economic truck that runs on hydrogen fuel cell. Then there is the hydrogen storage issues and weight of the unit to consider against The legislation on the weight of a tractor unit or a rigid truck. Finally There is the issue of vibration and its affect on a fuel cell stack. Much still to do.
I don''t know about the efficacy, but there is a huge volume of waste such as plastics, and especially tyres, that are being produced and exist in millions of tonnes in waste dumps, as well floating in our waterways and oceans. This type of high temperature reduction is a good way of cleaning up this waste stream and making it safe, as well as removing existing pollution. Hydrogen has lots of potential and especially for heavy vehicles like trucks and trains, and, perhaps, shipping. Electrical power via batteries may well be the answer for lighter vehicles but hydrogen powered systems seems like a good option across all transport areas.
Big question is how much energy is this process actually going to take to produce the 1 tonne of Hydrogen? And how much "pollution" from the process? If it is net energy positive, ie more energy from the Hydrogen than it took to produce it, and there is minimal atmospheric pollution from the process then this could be a very valuable addition to the waste and energy system. But if it takes more energy (electricity) than you get back then cut out the middle man and just use the electricity direct. However I am all for new and innovative solutions to both our waste management problems and our desire for cleaner energy but they must be truly accounted and be truly clean
A rather US-centric view, especially in the final section on shared mobility, which should be a whole lot more than just ridesharing. Improved connectivity around public transport, including more real time information on matters such as delays (already quite good for trains) and train seat (or bike rental) availability is likely to have a bigger impact on the future of mobility than "miniature holographic waiters".
Just a couple of points ; "and deliver 1229MW of power to Amazon annually" MW is a measure of the RATE of delivery of power. It is analogous to the speed of a car; MWh is analogous to the distance covered. Unless the difference between MW and MWh is clearly understood by writers on energy matters, reporting will be confused and erroneous. I note that Senator Jerry Hill graduated in Law, not physics. Claims of the use of "green" energy can only be credible if the total use claimed by customers can be matched to the amount generated at the time of use. If the amount generated at any moment is less that that being generated, the balance is being filled by conventional generation. Richard Phillips
86% of electricity needs if transportation is electrified but what about if heating is included in that calculation? I could easily provide all my electricity needs for my house with a 2kw array on the roof but to heat the house and provide all my hot water with electricity? That''s 2 orders of magnitude more panels and a few hectares of land needed to replace the 3 cubic metres of heating oil I currently use annually. That''s the crunch issue for renewables. How do we heat our homes, business, schools, hospitals etc without burning things (gas, oil, biomass etc) and how do we do it without hammering the bills? Oil costs 5p per kwhr, gas 4p. My electricity tariff is 15p per kwhr so 3 times as much to heat my house and hot water if I electrify. That''s a big ouch in anyone''s wallet.
No point in developing something just because it sounds "green" when the overall net impact might be huge. Biomass is a case in point. When you factor in the volume of fuel oil used to ship wood pellets across the Atlantic just to burn them in a power station it sounds "green" but add in the hundreds of cubic metres of oil and suddenly it''s not. A cubic meter of concrete is a tonne of CO2, do we factor that into the green credentials of wind turbines? Add in the CO2 released when you dig up peat moorland and it is even worse. Hydrogen sounds green as the resultant waste product is water and you can reuse that to make more but water vapour is even more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning H2 in central heating systems might actually make things worse than burning CH4. Especially if to make the H2 you crack CH4. At the end of the day the equation has got to add up and result in as low an impact as reasonably practicable. Sometimes that may mean the low carbon option might actually be what we are doing right now but with a minor tweak to improve the efficiency.
Richard Spot on, these think tanks amount to nothing more than w@$k tanks of business mans hopes and dreams. We need actual people of common sense and a robust time spent in electrical engineering industry to even comment on these initiatives or even grasp the concepts of energy systems. All I''ve seen is my companies power bills increase by 30% in the last 4 years but the whole sale price is falling. These taxes are going where I ask the Government ? Ben
Absolutely right, Ben. All these schemes are devices to make money. They sound wonderful to the totally uninitiated. We have to remember that we have never had a Minister, with responsibility for energy, who has any career involving the essential physical sciences. A degree in classics or economics, does not tell the holder much about electricity generation. But politicians have to appear all knowledgeable, and businessmen must make money. The huge Li-ion battery at Swindon will be 50MW, 50MWh, one twentieth of a normal power station for one hour, cost ~ 25 million. Just scale it up! Renewable energy is so unreliable, and the ancillary systems to make it compatible with demand-lead generation, that the costs have to be hidden; just lumped into your bill, un-itemised. And we do not have a satisfactory explanation for the vaunted importance of CO2 on global warming. A lot of jumping, shouting and waving of flags by schoolchildren, who know it all, of course. O for sanity! Richard Phillips
Looks like another government pink elephant project. Id love to see the due diligent report into the viability of these claims. This is much like the Tesla battery in South Australia, can only run everyone''s TV for 30mins before going flat. Battery storage will need 2.5x the renewable generation and storage capacity to even come close to taking up the UK''s demand. Essentially a recouping revenue streams for the struggling energy generators as they want the power price to increase through the perceived energy crisis that the Green parties have created.
To be clever with the distribution of electricity, it has first to be generated, but Government policies are in total disarray. It then has to be distributed, a whole technology in itself. Only then can the talking shop chatter about virtual power plants (?) and "super hubs". From the article I have still have very idea of what, exactly, they are. And I have the impression that they are little more than paper giants. Nowhere can I find the cool hand of the experienced Chartered Electrical Engineer. Richard Phillips
We have the ability to generate 215kw / day from a micro generator, however there is zero incentive to buy this, we currently burn logs and oil. If anyone knows if there is a way to export this back to the grid and receive some payment then great let us know. Unfortunately there is zero incentive to invest in any form of green or renewable energy now!
Innovative Solution Systems (ISS) is the sole agency responsible for the promotion and distribution of waste-to-energy equipment (manufactured by Biomass Energy Systems Inc. (BESI) in the West African Sub-Region. The objective of ISS is to promote the use of waste to energy technology in Ghana and the entire West African Sub-Region to ensure energy sustainability and clean environmental. We are sincerely looking forward to assisting Ghanaian and Africans making sustainable environmental and economic changes to the current infrastructure. We have made great strides in providing similar support, providing solutions to waste and energy issues for our clients in Costa Rica and India. We know that our capabilities and responsible and practical approach will be ideal for what you are striving to achieve in Africa. BESI is a Woman Owned Business Enterprise, located outside of Chicago, Illinois. We are providing solutions to issues regarding waste management and alternative energy to a wide variety of stakeholders, as well as developing the supporting training and university curriculum. We have provided extensive support for the United States military, working towards zero- landfill bases, providing waste assessment, custom designed turnkey systems, and delivering significant performance data. We currently have two facilities owned by the USAir Force that are managed by BESI which support the US military research into materials conversion and baseload renewable energy at utility and battlefield scale. We have additional facilities operating and in construction at our India offices, which have tremendous environmental significance for their entire industrial base, cleanly converting wastes and producing steam for use onsite, reducing operating costs for local industries. This is an economically sustainable strategy for the entire region. BESI would endeavor to provide a similar strategic and beneficial approach to the areas of Ghana in which we work The patented gasification process used by BESI is the TURNW2E Advanced Gasification system. Gasification is the process by which a material undergoes exothermic and endothermic reactions within a vessel and harvests the gaseous material it emits- generally undertaken to provide energy. BESI s process is customized to client requirements and delivered as a turnkey solution for our clients. A turnkey system consists of the four-step process of preprocessing/shredding, gasification, gas cleanup, and gas utilization, with each unit integrated and optimized for maximum output. Using the BESI design and deliver approach, Africa factories and industrial concerns will be able to gasify much of their waste to produce the best value alternative energy output, which can include water desalination, air conditioning, cold storage, hot water, heat, steam, or electricity. A key differentiating feature of BESI s process is its flexibility. The system can be scaled from 5 TPD to 100 TPD, and can be designed to reliably operate at lower volumes, as needed, by the location requirements. Materials of different densities are readily accommodated, as the system can change and control reactions called shift-on-the-fly to maximize conversion efficiency. As a general rule of thumb, our systems can convert 100 TPD of 7000 btu/lb waste and convert it into 3 MW/h of energy. Modules of 100 TPD can be supplied to accommodate volumes over 500 TPD. Typical simple payback can range from one to seven years, depending upon the client requirements and economic strategy employed. The system does not emit any harmful emissions or particulates. Everything in our turnkey systems is engineered with environmental well-being in mind, as well as providing an economically sustainable solution to waste management and energy generation. BESI has successfully supported clients working on projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Currently, a project in Costa Rica is moving ahead, with the USAID providing pre-development funding to BESI s client. This project will have BESI deliver a complete design, turnkey system and installations and operations support for 100 TPD of wastes and an additional 40 TPD of tires. BESI will support your group as needed for similar efforts, with the expectation of tremendous success in Africa. https://spark.adobe.com/page/wV2rF6TNws1dx/?fbclid=IwAR1VZd40RFnIAsadgMnxserkXMOPeju1SuoamqzcUFwyGkBsVlrHfKgi6Ww
Ian, the 45% came from an infographic produced by the API (American Petroleum Institute) a few years ago so could well be out of date but the fact that oil has many more uses than just burning is still true though regardless of the actual % Modern life relies on petrochemicals and petroleum based products. Yes some may be replaceable with biological alternatives at some point but not all. That isn''t going to change overnight so the oil industry will still be hunting for and developing new reserves of oil (and gas) for a long time and we will continue to do it in as environmental sensitive manner as we possibly can, which contrary to popular belief we do do.
The energy has to be generated in the first place. Converting it to another form involves losses due to inevitable inefficiencies. Further losses are incurred in the reverse process. Energy has also to be deployed in driving the processes, as well as the overhead cost of the plant involved. It can all be made to sound wonderful to those without the scientific and technical understanding of the processes involved. And this circumstance is not unusual in the political and business sectors. Richard Philips
Interesting technological response to the plastic problem. Turning currently un recycled waste back into the raw material to make new products is a step forward in the drive to reduce waste. Be very interesting to see how the trial goes and I hope consumers embrace the idea of bringing stuff back to the retailer rather than relying on kerbside collection.