The UK Low carbon Transition Plan (Cont'd)

[Flyfisher]

I hope it's OK to ressurect this topic. There were some interesting points left dangling.

Yes, Flyfisher, I don't think anyone is pretending that the pv panels on the church are going to pay for themselves for a long time. It got a Lottery Fund and other grants I believe. Think of it as a prototype, a statement of intent or somesuch. In energy terms the payback is actually quite fast - makes it well worthwhile, but the price of pv is governed by the market where production facilities are actually lagging behind demand, keeping price well above the cost of production. There is a lot of investment in new production but it's not on stream yet. It might make pv a lot cheaper in the future - or that might just stimulate more demand, keeping the price as high as the market will bear. That's economics.

I agree about the 'failure' of economics when there is another agenda to be implemented, but as a prototype/statement I can see the sense. However, for the average person I would suggest that a PV system is a purely economic decision because it does nothing for them that mains electricity doesn't already do and only a few can afford to make such a statement personally. So the economic issue has to be sorted out if they are to really catch on.

More importantly, every unit of electricity generated by pv allows a unit to be not generated by coal. So no matter what the cost, it helps on the global warming front.

I doubt that is actually true in practice given the present small amount of PV generation. It's more likely that PV would initially displace other 'top-up' sources such as hydro-electric systems with coal still being burned for the baseload. It would require a huge installed capacity of PV to displace coal-powered generation, and even then there might be a problem at night :wink: .

The trouble with coal powered electricity is that the cost of global warming is not internalised. That's the failure of economics.

Fair point. I guess it's difficult to implement a 'carbon tax' but it would certainly make a massive change to almost all aspects of our economy.

It's a pity that our government didn't encourage green industries like the Danish and German governments have done - they now dominate the wind turbine world. The Ecotricity windfarm down my lane was built by the German firm Enercon. Feed-in tariffs look as though they will become attractive here next year. The Germans did it ages ago.

Yes, I've read about the German approach and it does seems to have given a boost to micro-generation systems. But I was intrigued with your other comment about giving credits for solar heating system - how would this work?

On a related subject, I'm sure you read the article on clathrates in a recent New Scientist. Basically, this is methane trapped in permafrost. As the permafrost melts the methane is released and contributes to global warming (probably in a runaway manner). But burning the methane would provide an energy source and convert it to much less damaging CO2. This is the sort of thing that really could displace the need to burn coal. Some are saying clathrates could provide power for the whole world for centuries to come with the added benefit of reducing global warming effects (reduce, not eliminate). Furthermore, CO2 might even be able to be used to displace the ice-bound methane to form ice-bound CO2, which turns out to be even more stable than methane clathrates, i.e. a ready-made carbon sink. This suggests the intriguing possibility of disposing of CO2 down the same pipe that provides new fuel.

If our civilisation is to have a future, I think this is the sort of thing that will secure it rather than trying to persuade people to turn back the clocks on their current standard of living. I think there is little doubt that we will require more energy in the future, not less.

 

[CHRIS]

It's a pity that our government didn't encourage green industries like the Danish and German governments have done - they now dominate the wind turbine world. The Ecotricity windfarm down my lane was built by the German firm Enercon. Feed-in tariffs look as though they will become attractive here next year. The Germans did it ages ago.

Is that why there are people currently locked inside a building and refusing to leave on the Isle of Wight as the Vestas plant is stopping production of the turbine blades due to lack of business? They are moving a big chunk to Fort Collins in Colorado but keeping a small testing place here.

 

[biffvernon]

The credits for solar heating system scheme is announced, but not explained in the white paper that started the, er, previous thread. It's due to start in April 2011 so they've got a bit of consultation time to work out how it will work. I haven't a clue.
Yes, I rad Fred Pearce's article about clathrates. He explains some of the risks involved. Now, I'm not against a bit of careful research, but I really don't think clathrates should be seen as a great opportunity. The risks involved are potentially humongous, and the technology of displacing methane with CO2 is more a wish than reality.

There is certainly no lack of business for turbine blades. Vestas have a long order book. Like any global company, they will locate manufacturing where they can produce the largest profits. Looks like they have chosen Colorado to be closer to a major customer. Sadly, Britain is not a major customer, despite having a better wind regime than south west USA. As with pv, they are being produced as fast as production capacity allows. There is a limit to how rapidly production capacity can be increased, capital and expertise being the limiting factors.

 

[Moo]

I can forecast with some precision the date when the price of domestic solar power will drop dramatically.

It will happen three months after panels have been installed on my roof.

 

[skier-hughes]

please give me that date, as no doubt it'll be the day after I install mine

 

[skier-hughes]

Back to the main thrust again.
If PV panels take more energy to make them than they produce still, wouldn't this energy come from coal fired stations in the main, so actually banning them from being made would in fact lower emmisions?

I also wonder about electric cars. Everyone goes on about zero emmisions, but how on earth do you get zero emmissions from a car that need to be charged with electricity from coal fired power stations? Are there any stats on how much these cars really pollute going by miles per charge etc?

 

[biffvernon]

If PV panels take more energy to make them than they produce still, wouldn't this energy come from coal fired stations in the main, so actually banning them from being made would in fact lower emmisions?

If. But they don't. Not by a long way. So that's all right.

I also wonder about electric cars. Everyone goes on about zero emmisions, but how on earth do you get zero emmissions from a car that need to be charged with electricity from coal fired power stations? Are there any stats on how much these cars really pollute going by miles per charge etc?

That's a better point. In the ideal world when we reach utopia the electricity will come from renewable sources. Until then, hmmm, it's down to the relative efficiencies between power stations and internal combustion engines. A close call and probably not worth it.

 

[Penners]

Can anyone explain to me why tidal power generation seems to be such a poor relation, when it comes to investment in the technology? I can't remember the exact figures, but I read recently that the Government is throwing twice as much money at wind power as it is at wave and tidal power.

Tidal generation seems to me to have the almost unique attraction of complete reliability.

Solar - the sun might or might not shine
Wind - the wind might or might not blow
Wave - the sea might be rough or millpond smooth

But the tide goes up and down come what may. So shouldn't we be placing it at the top of our alternative generation list?

Or am I missing something? :?

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, something I've also wondered about. Especially as the Severn estuary has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world.

Perhaps wading birds are more important than global warming. :roll:

Regarding the solar power credits, I wonder if this scheme will end up being a credit against council tax. Not that it will make council tax cheaper because I bet it won't be too long before before energy ratings become a factor in council tax calculations. So, put a solar panel on the roof and the tax increase will be reduced - all in the name of saving the planet, you understand.

I wonder where that will leave listed building owners who can't get LBC for solar panels or DG?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I wonder if it is because tidal power involves a lot of force, but slow current - if yiou get my drift. Maybe that means the conversion of kinetic to electrical power is inefficient - it doesn't turn many turbines (or the equivalent) very fast.

I also wonder if the twice daily rhythm of the tides, whilst predictable, means that max power production happens at certain times of the day and less efficiently at other times (eg change of tide). Also, it's quite hard to match power production to demand - it's either on or not, which is not the case with fossil-fuels which are more scalable.

There must be a reason that tidal power seems to take place in bays - maybe a "funnelling" of the tide to increase power?

I'm sure the physicists amongst will now come out of the shadows and explain that I am completely wrong!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

FlyFisher - very interesting post on clathrates; never heard of them before, but one of the confidences I have is man's ability to continue to develop technological solutions to our problems. Whilst not the entire solution, it certain seems to present some potential.

As ever, I'm sure the solution will be mixed one - technological, changed behaviour (individual and collective) and adaptation.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'd never heard of them before the NS article either although, coincidentally, some years ago I did some work for the Indian National Institute of Ocean Technology involving a seabed drilling machine that was surveying the Indian Ocean for gas hydrates, which I believe is another name for clathrates, although I didn't know it at the time. more details here.

From the little I've read about them they could be a saviour, in terms of providing an energy resource of around twice that of all known fossil fuel reserves, or a complete disaster in terms of releasing huge quantities of methane (a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) into the atmosphere as the permafrost melts and the seas warm up, possibly causing an uncontrollable climate tipping point. On that basis, it seems that we must find a way to utilise this potential energy source before it ends up in the atmosphere anyway.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

On a related subject, I'm sure you read the article on clathrates in a recent New Scientist. Basically, this is methane trapped in permafrost. As the permafrost melts the methane is released and contributes to global warming (probably in a runaway manner). But burning the methane would provide an energy source and convert it to much less damaging CO2. This is the sort of thing that really could displace the need to burn coal. Some are saying clathrates could provide power for the whole world for centuries to come with the added benefit of reducing global warming effects (reduce, not eliminate). Furthermore, CO2 might even be able to be used to displace the ice-bound methane to form ice-bound CO2, which turns out to be even more stable than methane clathrates, i.e. a ready-made carbon sink. This suggests the intriguing possibility of disposing of CO2 down the same pipe that provides new fuel.

Fascinating stuff - here's the NS link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.100-ice-on-fire-the-next-fossil-fuel.html

 

[biffvernon]

The problem with tidal stream power generation is that the turbines have to be underwater. Makes them much more difficult to build and look after. If you have the capital to invest in renewable technology it makes sense to put it into something that has a proven track record from which you can be confident of the return on your capital. Wind wins hands down. A complete no-brainer.

Clathrates are not a solution - they are a problem. Possibly the biggest of all problems. Do not poke them.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Clathrates are not a solution - they are a problem. Possibly the biggest of all problems. Do not poke them.

That seems quite definitive Biff. There did seem to be some debate as to whether they could be useful energey sources and combined carbon sinks - surely worth waiting for the outcome of the current pilots? They have risks, but looks like we may not have much choice in that as FF points out above.

If I've understood the Green Paradox properly, then our options are to extract less carbon from the ground or put more back once we've released its energy. Given increasing populations/global development the demand for energy will continue to grow, and ironically policy to move away from carbon in the future incentvises extraction companies to extract it now and get the value while it still has some.

Anything that addresses the supply side of the equation rather than just demand (as per most of current policy) is surely worth exploring?

Whilst reading up on this last night, I came by way of Google and Wiki to other paradoxes - if you have five minutes today and don't already know them, then have a read about Zeno's paradoxes (particularly Achilles and the tortoise). Further reading brought me to the Horse Paradox - reduction proof that all horses are the same colour! Wonderfully diverting.

 

[philpjuk100]

On a personal veiwpoint not a global one I would love to generate my own power or just a bit of it as I was involved in power generation for most of my working life.A wind turbine would be great but are expensive (didnt someone offer their bank details on an earlier posting?)but as I back onto a fast flowing river I hope to utilise that,british waterways would not bo too keen on me building a dam and as the river level can vary by about six feet a waterwheel is not an answer,my current idea is to build a "catermeran" with three out of phase paddle wheels one each side and one in between the hulls driving two lorry alternators by toothed "timing" belts and feeding the the supply of the alts in series(48v) to my immersion heater,not as powerful as the mains but a continual supply so should heat the tank ok,this avoids inverters,batteries etc.the catermeran can be chained to the willow trees at the end of me garden so it would rise and fall with the river level.I realise that the tank thermostat will need to be in circuit and that it will need to switch to a "dummy load" to protect the alternators,Are there any comments that might improve this before I start cutting plywood and laying up fibreglass? thanks,phil

 

[MdB]

Are there any comments that might improve this before I start cutting plywood and laying up fibreglass?

Do your sums on the amount of energy your contraption might potentially generate before doing anything. It sounds like you will be producing an undershot waterwheel which don't capture much energy. You will also need to think about your electronics a bit more to get the waterwheel to operate efficiently. If the load is too high or too low, the efficiency will be poor.

 

[philpjuk100]

Thanks for your input,yes I realise it is undershot but I have no option due to no dam/weir,there is no max size for the paddle wheels but the torque will have to be counteracted with balance and the hight that it is moored from,my real problem is I squared R losses in the cable to the tank as the garden is quite long,I am looking for salvaged cable at the moment.I have built a small mock up but have no load on it other than gripping the spindle but speed/torque seem reasonable,I will have to experiment with pulley ratios to balance the load.I am not looking at any cost/payback criteria its just a project for my retirement and warm water for nothing seems ok,Thanks again for your interest,phil.

 

[biffvernon]

Anything that addresses the supply side of the equation rather than just demand (as per most of current policy) is surely worth exploring?

I hear what you are saying but there's been an interesting discussion over on PowerSwitch (and doubtless elsewhere) about Desertec - the scheme to harness solar power in North Africa and bring the electricity by HVDC lines round Europe. The arguement goes that when energy is available cheaply we use it to screw the planet even further. (There is a longer version of the arguement.)

For now, it does seem that emphasing demand side and getting maximum utility out of what is sustainably available has to be a priority.

I'm not saying we should not tentatively do some science in the clathrates field, but it would be reckless to think of this as an energy source in the medium term.

 

[Flyfisher]

Philipj, have you considered a solar water heating system? You sound like a pretty competent DIYer and there is a wealth of information on the web about how to build a solar collector for heating water. It would at least be interesting to do some calcs on likely energy capture from both options and see which one would give the best yield. I'd guess the solar collector would win, but it it only a guess.