[Closed] So where is this miracle source of unlimited green energy?

I'd just like to know what your proposed solutions are. It's easy to sit there and say "no". Much more helpfull to the debateto offer up other ideas

I've not got anything new to add there - don't really see the point in proposing stuff which has already been mentioned on this thread. Are you expecting me to come up with some miracle technology which solves all our problems in order to criticise deeply flawed ideas? The fact we have a problem and no obvious single way of solving it doesn't make bad ideas any more attractive.

Is it not allowed to point out the flaws in potential "solutions".

aracer - Member

I agree that "more coal please" is a better solution than the Severn Barrage - thanks for that. The Severn Barrage is FAR from worthy on a national scale, or indeed a global scale.

As you were so keen to dismiss my thoughts as being from a "very trivial perspective", let's hear your great solution Mr Environmental Saviour, and let's not have any trivial nonsense, back it up with some hard thinking (showing your working our will earn extra marks :wink:)

Do you want me to repeat the post I've just made?

What about looking at houses deriving as much energy in situ - VAWT on chimneys, ground heat pumps, solar panels and then energy saving/reduction - obviously there is a cost but can that be balanced off against the £xBn required for a new Nuclear Powerstation?

Nope - reduce the requirement for energy. Cheaper and easier to get the fabric of the buildings sorted to reduce consumption. Unfortunately, the government stamped on much of that work with the Green Deal.

Small scale wind turbines, particularly urban, are mostly not worth it. Most of the population doesn't live in windy enough areas for it to be viable. Ridgeblades are a nice theory but far too specific to a location to be much use.

Do you want me to repeat the post I've just made?

Nope, just give us a few suggestions as to what your preferred ideas might be.

You say no to the Severn barrage, I say no to coal, doubtless someone will say no to nuclear, and there's always the chance that the Russians will ssay no more gas. Then what?

Nope - reduce the requirement for energy.

That's a seperate issue. We'll still need to generate energy unless we can reduce our consumption to zero, which is unlikely.

PS keep it civil people, no-one wants to read a slanging match.

To me it seems mad not to have something like the Severn barrage. It guaranteed pollution free energy with the tide never running out. I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things like wading birds would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out. I guess fish flows and spawning and the biggest issues. I still find it nuts that new houses don't have to built with solar panels. As part of the cost of building a house the cost of fitting solar panels would be tiny. I just don't see why all new houses don't have to be the most efficient as technology will allow them.

@TooTall - ok get the issues re location etc, but would it be at all viable for those buildings/homes suitable for wind/solar/ground energy to be hooked into it, as part of an overall reduction plan?

Often wondered who determines the number and brightness of the street lighting we have, travelling home yesterday and some towns have almost daylight lighting levels on empty streets.

I understand that we will still need some form of large scale energy production if we are to continue to retain some semblance of today's lifestyle.

I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things like wading birds would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out.

It's a pretty special ecosystem, not many like that in the world. Sad to see it go, no?

And most new housing developments near us have solar panels, but that's only been in the last couple of years so still not that many houses overall.

That's a seperate issue. We'll still need to generate energy unless we can reduce our consumption to zero, which is unlikely.

But we have means of generating energy which aren't about to disappear, it's a question of capacity, which reducing consumption helps with significantly. Spending the money you could have spent on solar panels in a new build on better insulation instead is almost certainly a better use of resources in terms of overall energy flow (and don't suggest doing both until we mandate far, far better house insulation - until then the answer is always forget the panels, spend more money on insulation).

To me it seems mad [s]not[/s] to have something like the Severn barrage. It [s]guaranteed [/s] a relatively small amount of pollution free energy with the tide never running out. I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things [s]like wading birds[/s] affected by climate change would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out.

Is the Severn really that special as an ecosystem? I have lived near it all my life and apart from Slimbridge can't really say I have ever seen it as a wildlife hotspot. More a muddy river with lots of heavy industry on its banks for years.

30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south. I think at the moment it is at the discretion of the builder. Seems nuts that any large building project has to pay a levy for social housing and the such but no requirement by law to install solar panels, ground source pumps, etc

Its seems the government is hell bent on shale gas, so why not use a levy on that to pay for massive investment in local renewables. Wont cost the government anything and would reduce our need for fossil fuels

It is a pretty unique ecosystem, but it does have the capacity to produce a relatively large amount of electricity through a barrage system. It could produce a lesser amount of energy in a less environmentally damaging manner using tidal lagoons.

These things could be done as well as PV on roofs, and insulation.

Burning coal is not a better option

Weirdly enough, if you build houses with enough insulation and point them in the right direction to let all the sunlight in through windows, it almost doesn't need heating at all. Or cooling.

So, that's our heating energy requirement sorted then.

Now, just to sort out transport.

30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south.

The money would be better spent on reducing the energy needed than slapping some bling on the outside. 'Fabric First' every time.

The first thing you should do when working out what power generation you require is to properly understand the demand - THEN try to optimise that. The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

So - reduce the energy consumption now, because the generation companies will be changing how you use energy to suit them in the near future.

30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south. I think at the moment it is at the discretion of the builder. Seems nuts that any large building project has to pay a levy for social housing and the such but no requirement by law to install solar panels, ground source pumps, etc

What you can't tell is how well they're insulated compared to older houses. It seems nuts to mandate solar panels or any of the other stuff until you've mandated measures to make significant reductions in consumption.

molgrips - Member
Someone needs to figure out how to make metallic hydrogen on Earth.

There's better ways

[img] _srz_355_150_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_png_srz[/img]

[url= http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/#!home/mainPage ]These[/url] guys are the business.

I look forward to working with their gear quite soon.

WRT energy generation/renewables - As I see it, what we need [apart from people turning off lights etc] is large areas of desert covered with solar energy capture devices [Photovoltaics, reflector and molten salt/steam stations etc etc]. A concerted international effort to build these systems could transform our energy mix, provide a huge number of jobs and promote world peace and understanding. Unfortunately this requires altruistic international world co-operation, and no-one to ransom the really long extension leads we'd be running everywhere.

Ho-hum
[img] [/img]

Tootall -

The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

I agree with your comment on optimising demand (flattening the load curve as I would see it), however there are a couple points to note.
Firstly and this is a simple but interesting one, your 24 hours comment I quoted assumes generation capability is flat throughout the day. Nuclear, coal, gas and oil can be and preferably should be, but then it gets interesting. Photovoltaic clearly isn't, and nor is tidal flow (barrages and lagoons might well be though). CHP varies with the heat requirement. Wind varies overtime, but as I recall there is a statistical diurnal rhythm.
The second point leads on from that. Statistically there is more wind in the winter, and indeed traditional power stations have higher output at lower ambient temperatures. Biomass may well have an annual rhythm and who knows about hydro given recent rainfall patterns.
Finally, for now at least, the grid has a higher rating (and marginally lower losses) in the winter. It also has a higher rating on windy days, but that is more difficult to generalise about.

The first thing you should do when working out what power generation you require is to properly understand the demand - THEN try to optimise that. The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

I was lucky enough to attend a training course for a previous employer related to installing the software to connect smart meters to the existing energy companies software.

The big cost to a power generation company is starting up another power station to cope with a sudden demand (i.e Eastenders finishing and the kettle goes on). IIRC the cost is ~10 times the norm.
They will start implementing tariffs that heavily charge for these times, thus reducing the sudden demand over time.
Smart meters will be used to profile everyone's usage throughout the day.
Smart meters are not there to save you money, they are for the energy companies to save money.

Rather than look at solar photovoltaic cells, we are considering solar water heating cells. They are much more efficient that their electric versions and are likely to have a larger impact on your energy usage.
Insulation is obviously the best first step for UK housing stock, but for large scale take up, the cost of exterior insulation will have to drop considerably.

Rather than look at solar photovoltaic cells, we are considering solar water heating cells.

Good. Those are a far better use of the available solar energy.

Current generation companies want to remove peaks in demand so they can run a constant base load. It is by far the most efficient way of doing business. I didn't mention renewables in this mix because they are not why this work is being undertaken - too small when compared to power stations. Reducing consumption is of interest to the consumer - flattening demand is of interest to those generating. The only way to get renewables really in the mix is to improve storage to de-couple consumption from generation.

Oh - rough figure to de-carbonize transport with electric vehicles would require 3x more electricity in the grid. Therefore, we still need base power.

mrmonkfinger - Member

if you build houses with enough insulation and point them in the right direction to let all the sunlight in through windows, it almost doesn't need heating at all. Or cooling.

So, that's our heating energy requirement sorted then.

except that there's roughly 30million houses that aren't built like this in the uk, we have to work with what we've got.

unless you're proposing knocking them all down, and starting again?

30,000,000 x £100,000 = £3,000,000,000,000 (3 thousand billion quid)

People were suggesting requiring solar panels on new builds though.

Spending the money you could have spent on solar panels in a new build on better insulation instead is almost certainly a better use of resources in terms of overall energy flow

You are quite correct, but the thread's about how to generate power, rather than how best to invest in carbon reduction...

but the thread's about how to generate power, rather than how best to invest in carbon reduction

But you don't have to generate as much if you need less, so demand is rather closely related to generation. Or can carbon reduction and energy reduction not be the same thing on your planet?

I'd say the thread started off as crap trolling anyway.

Tootall - I don't think I was disagreeing with your premise. Understanding load is great, and optimising is great. My point was that you also have to understand the nature of your generation (and given how long it takes to build generation, what will be happening in 10 plus years). I think you're actually in agreement with that reading across your last few posts.
I also agree that prices rocket around peaks, but there are mechanical commercial reasons for that as well as financial ones. Unfortunately smart meters may not help with this in the short to medium term at least - I may be wrong on that.

Renewables ain't that small any more, in terms of peak production at least, and they're going to get bigger. We have distributed generation (not all of which is renewable) of around 20-25% of our peak load commissioned on the system - the Scots have more as I recall.

Solar water is an excellent idea as you say, not least because you can store it.

And 3 times more electric for electric vehicles? Possibly an under estimate if you're talking about peaks, and I think they will be peaky, and more again (another 3 times?) if you want heat pumps.
Note the difference of course between energy and power.

Oh and the reason the smart meter work is being undertaken is because the government mandated it and the the EU backed them up.
Supposedly to help renewables to connect and assist people to reduce their consumption, but the emphasis has changed over the years.

Small, portable generators attatched to the wrists of teenage boys and bicycle company executives.

I agree that generation and construction take a lot of time, but reducing demand starts working now while the other stuff happens in parallel.
Smart meters will be used like a more refined Economy7 system. Behaviour will be changed because the consumer will be charged different rates for different times of the day. A smart meter gives that increased granularity of data.
Like paying more for your rail ticket during rush hour.
Prices will be higher at 7am and 7pm and that - the financial cost to the consumer - will drive changes in behaviour. The peaks will be lowered and the load evened out across the day.

I was using the rough figures from the ZeroCarbon work produced by CAT. They reckon 3x current electricity just to decarbonize transport in the UK.

But you don't have to generate as much if you need less, so demand is rather closely related to generation. Or can carbon reduction and energy reduction not be the same thing on your planet?

Well this is very obvious, but not the point of the thread. Very important for humanity but not this thread. You remind me of the old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "Well don't do that then"

but not the point of the thread

Isn't it? Are you sure about that? I think the point has actually just overtaken you and the car you were sitting behind, which might be why you missed it 😉

Your argument is exactly the reason why we end up in the sort of mess where installing PV solar panels is seen as more important than installing insulation, or indeed more important than installing solar water heating. Well that and stupid feed-in tariffs (I have to admit if I had a bit of roof facing the right direction I'd probably have gone for it out of purely self interest).

What is my argument?

What is my argument?

I didn't think you knew. It isn't the first time either.

If you look up and listen for the whooshing, you might get my point sailing over your head.

If you don't reduce demand, demand will outstrip generation. There is no need for increased demand in the UK - if people would / could do what is currently possible to reduce consumption we could likely drive demand far lower than it is.

been busy so i missed the middle bit of this thread but its intelligent threads like this i come here for so im going to jump back in....
my dad worked in Libya, in the 70's, welding pipelines, and at that time, they flared off the gas because it was the oil they were after. now, that gas they burned into the night sky is compressed and shipped to the dock in milford havon at a massive profit, so much of a profit n fact that the british government is ranting about fuel security whist buying it at whatever it costs.
these frackers are going after 10% of what is there......that is their aim... their top goal. if there ever was an argument to not use this temperamental, experimental, unproven, infantile 'technology' it would be because these greedy idiots dont know how to get the other 90% yet! only a moron would go after 10% and waste the other 90% when we know that technology doubles in its capability every 2yrs. this alone would say to me that its not worth digging up shale gas yet.
now i know i was advocating technology such as solar earlier, but that is non extraction, we wont loose all the sunlight when we only collect 17% of it.
yes we are talking about renewable, but right now that is the alternative if we dont push away from fossil fuel

these frackers are going after 10% of what is there......that is their aim... their top goal. if there ever was an argument to not use this temperamental, experimental, unproven, infantile 'technology' it would be because these greedy idiots dont know how to get the other 90% yet! only a moron would go after 10% and waste the other 90% when we know that technology doubles in its capability every 2yrs. this alone would say to me that its not worth digging up shale gas yet.

That is a real gem of an argument - the sort of thing I really enjoy seeing on STW. I have to admit to being somewhat in favour of fracking, but I think you might have just changed my mind there - more research is needed (not that I'm in the mood for more research now - have just "won" at the planning meeting I've been devoting all my recent research towards - I'd like to thank all those on STW who've helped to hone my pedantic arguing skills to the point the councillors are quoting my research).

Tootall - I agree that the theory is that smart meters will work like an advanced economy 7, but with the competing peak reduction needs of the generation fleet and the electricity network (local and national peaks can be very different) and the functionality actually built in to the meters it's going to be interesting to see if it works.

I would never disagree with the need to minimise demand in so far as you can - that's just common sense.

Of course the cheapest thing you can do (as a start at least) is turn the heating down a bit and put on a jumper if you're cold. I grew up in a house where the central heating was at 14C - there is no need for it to be set at 25.

except that there's roughly 30million houses that aren't built like this in the uk, we have to work with what we've got.

unless you're proposing knocking them all down, and starting again?

Not at all, my half joking post is an unworkable proposition.

However, there are easy wins to improve the worst bits of existing houses, some mentioned on this thread -

We already have grants for loft insulation. Cavity wall insulation, I'm less convinced its a good thing to do on some houses, but there it is.

Sticking solar water panels to help with hot water use during spring/summer/autumn on everybody's roof would be a fine thing to do.

Improving the insulation of everybodys existing house is a no brainer.

Encouraging (maybe even grants to assist) people to fit exterior window insulation (e.g. shutters) would help hugely but currently has planning restrictions.

Same with porches to provide extra insulation around doors.

I'm sure there's a load of other easy things you can do.

I think our house is probably a good example - half of it is very early 1800's and half is ten years old; guess which drafty half desperately needs better insulation? Plus our heating installation (aga + rads + immersion for summer HW) could really benefit from some solar panels to run hot water in the summer (thus cutting a huge chunk of our electric bill), and some way of running the aga more efficiently (thermal store).

...temperamental, experimental, unproven, infantile 'technology' ...

Sigh. Fracking is none of these things. It is actually being used today, albeit in the US, so to call it experimental or unproven is hysterical nonsense.

only a moron would go after 10% and waste the other 90% when we know that technology doubles in its capability every 2yrs.

Do you want to have a think about what you've just said there? It may well hold true in electronics where power roughly doubles every two years or so but is simply does not apply in the extraction of hydrocarbon. If it did we would be looking at extracting 100% of the oil recovery from fields in the North Sea (this is impossible by the way), given that it would have to have doubled twenty times since production started. Oh and you don't get better at extracting stuff by not extracting stuff.

Sigh. Fracking is none of these things. It is actually being used today, albeit in the US, so to call it experimental or unproven is hysterical nonsense.

My understanding is that the US is developing legislation to apply to fracking as its negative effects and the problems associated with fracking are being discovered, so to call it experimental is probably fairly accurate imo.

Just one example of possible unexpected consequences : [url= http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/03/reproductive-problems-death-animals-exposed-fracking ]Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets[/url]

I'm not suggesting that there aren't potential risks with this or frankly any other technology just that hysterical nonsense isn't helpful.

As for that link two of the three expamples listed are based on "A farmer reported" and so are questionable to say the least whilst the other seems to be some cows directly exposed to fracking liquid which shouldn't be a aurprise to anyone really. There are lots of neasty chemicals used in all sorts of industrial process and many of them have the potential to kill.

@Jonah Tonto - cracking point.
Agree with Ernie's point too (interesting link). If you retrace the development of nuclear it was not without its problems in the early days (and Japan is having some problems currently).

The most disturbing part of Ernie's link:

[i]A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, making a direct link between death and illness is not possible due to incomplete testing, proprietary secrecy from gas drilling companies regarding the chemicals used in hydrofracking, and non-disclosure agreements that seal testimony and evidence when lawsuits are settled.

"We have a number of case studies -- they don't tell us about the prevalence of problems associated with hydraulic fracturing, but they do tell us how things can happen," said Oswald.[/i]

There will be an optimum percentage of gas we can recover, as there is with oil. Perhaps that would be the better target to aim for rather than scrambling for 10%.

@Jonah Tonto - got any links to more info on that?

you might get my point sailing over your head.

If you don't reduce demand, demand will outstrip generation.

Yes, this is obvious, you are 100% correct, I said that about three times. You could also say the sky is blue, that is correct too. Your point is not missed, I fully agree with you. Absolutely no argument from me.

But we will still need some energy, so given that, how best to generate it?

The reason you aren't sure what my argument is by the way is that I have not been making one. I'm just here for the energy technology chat.

when we know that technology doubles in its capability every 2yrs

Yeah that's going to need backing up I think, in the field of oil/gas extraction.

I should also point out that in the UK it is pretty much unthinkable that the environmental agencies will not be told, and may well have to approve the use of, what chemicals will be used in teh fracking process. There are huge differences between the regulatory requirements in the UK and the US.