Electric cars and the grid..... it has begun.

[Kayos]

Renewables are indeed the reason we're in this mess and this is their true hidden cost, particularly when we're shutting down safe, stable production in europe in favour of them. Nevermind that per kWh to CO2 they aren't the best choice either. Renewables are big business nowadays and are in bed with the fossil fuel sector to boot.

There is no solution for their intemittency problem except pairing hydro (maxxed out), then it's fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil and let me tell you, there ain't going to be any solutions. You'll see commercial fusion power take off before this, that's how far off the idea of large scale economical storage is. On average you will see a wind turbine produce 1/5th it's name place capacity over a year, the rest has to be filled with something else. This has historically been natural gas, which is why europe is so dependant on Putin. And why Germany fought so hard to make the EU classify a fossil fuel as green.

All the talk about all these solutions and storage, a huge part of them are just a scam to get grant money and will never go anywhere. And infuriatingly pop-sci media and regular media like to jump on it like it's christ come again. Eventually it peters out and goes away.

I literally think commercial fusion is more likely to come first.

I'd love to debate with you on the renewables scam claim but honestly it's been done to death and is frankly boring.

Yes, it is my day job and it's not a scam

 

[daleyd]

Financial cost short-term - bound to be horrendous for sure.
I'm not ignoring environmental impact either - though also we've meddled with habitat for a couple of hundred years or so, and while our actions have caused terrible outcomes (when unregulated etc) - but also most organisms are amazingly adaptable and resilient, and also modern schemes require habitat etc to be considered and mitigated as much as possible.

That all said - whether we like it or not (unless you can persuade the world that a mass cull of humans and a strict population control pit in place).... sometimes it's a case of the lesser of two evils.
To exist is to consume, and to consume is to have a negative impact upon the planet. End of. Sure you can dress it up and kid yourself that you're "helping" the planet by doing your recycling and driving an EV.... but kidding yourself is what it is. The truthful choice we currently have - is to wreck the planet faster, or more slowly.

I’m not kidding myself or anyone else, likewise I have no intention of living in a cave. Like you said - take your choices, I make mine and do what I believe to be the best I can in the situation I find myself in. I do have a newish car for reasons that I don’t need to justify to you or anyone else, but the choice I made should be a benefit in terms of environmental impact in less than 20,000 miles opposed to the alternative choice available to us (notwithstanding that yes we could have bought a 10/20/30 year old car )

 

[GRW]

But surely wrecking the planet slower is better than faster? Or are you saying both are pointless and we should all just kill ourselves?

No I'm not. I was making a case for ideas like the Severn Hydro scheme - because of the ability it would have wreck the planet a little more slowly - taking the "big picture" view.

You'll note that wherever you proposed to install anything.... someone will always be able to find an environmental reason as to why it shouldn't be done.... and nothing proposed will therefore be acceptable, so instead we put up more inefficient windmills that'll never meet demand, will probably never offset their environmental impact cost to manufacture and install.... and actually achieve very little that truly makes a worthwhile positive impact.

 

[daleyd]

No I'm not. I was making a case for ideas like the Severn Hydro scheme - because of the ability it would have wreck the planet a little more slowly - taking the "big picture" view.

You'll note that wherever you proposed to install anything.... someone will always be able to find an environmental reason as to why it shouldn't be done.... and nothing proposed will therefore be acceptable, so instead we put up more inefficient windmills that'll never meet demand, will probably never offset their environmental impact cost to manufacture and install.... and actually achieve very little that truly makes a worthwhile positive impact.

Do you not think that some people might have looked at it and decided that it probably wasn’t going to deliver what was initially promised, for a cost that varied massively, using unproven technology and was probably going to impact on some fairly rare habitat that doesn’t exist in many other places in the uk? Just taking a “big picture” view.

 

[GRW]

Do you not think that some people might have looked at it and decided that it probably wasn’t going to deliver what was initially promised, for a cost that varied massively, using unproven technology and was probably going to impact on some fairly rare habitat that doesn’t exist in many other places in the uk? Just taking a “big picture” view.

Of course I did. It's a scheme in the UK! It's always going to cost a fortune in public money for feasibility studies and poorly-done Consultations. Its always going to be grossly over-priced and then be further grossly overspent on top (if it ever actually started).
That doesn't mean that the base idea (if done properly and considerately) - isn't a bloody good idea!
But instead of genuinely trying to get the task achieved properly, sensibly and honestly, and overcoming the issues and arriving at a workable solution to provide energy for generations to come.... we get the usual shower of carp (for a Kings ransom).
None of which proves that the base idea isn't a sound one.

I do however recognise the tone in your replies - its the same noise you get whenever someone is mid-way through climbing onto their high horse, and feels entitled to talk down & condescendingly to someone because they assume (wrongly) that the person they are talking down at just isnt very bright and is anti-environment - for simply saying something practical and facing the truth that sometimes there just isnt an ideal choice - just an option of a less-than-ideal decision, or stick your head in the sand .
The same thing happens as soon as anyone mentions Nuclear - despite there being so far no viable, realistic, available, deliverable alternatives that stand up to honest scrutiny and comparison.

 

[DAPPH]

The problem with sensible, sustainable advancement is of course, the corruption and greed that allows new initiative after new initiative - of technologies that haven't been dully thought through or that are a genuine advancement.
Instead, the focus is always on how to lobby for "the next big thing" sold to the govt off the back of questionable (& unquestioned) science and figures - to get a big chunk of taxpayer money to get rich on.... and then go off and come up with the next money-spinning scam.
Bottom line? No matter what colour tie is worn, none of the Politicians or the invisible Civil Service have actually truly represented the best interests of The Public..... they are too busy burying their own noses in the trough.

Solar panels and Ground/Air Source Heat Pumps etc.... if we wanted to meaningfully reduce emissions and reduce demand on the Grid - then we'd be building all new homes with the sort of thermal properties that you'd find in say Norway.

Of course, actually cutting consumption /consumerism goes against every fibre of the capitalism model, while our Govts have got us in hock so far already, that their budgets have a total reliance upon "Growth" (I.e. Spending/Purchasing) in perpetuity.

In short - we won't actually solve anything comprehensively, because no-one in power is actually interested in us doing so

We took LED lighting units on board ..... that has made a terrific impact in electricity consumption .. IIRC it binned most of the electricity supply experts babble in just a few years , we've domestic appliances designed to work at 90 volts even when supplied with 110 or 240 , low temperature washing powder that had bee available in Canada since about 1967 , so somebody ,somewhere did actually listen & care .

Rome wasn't built in a day and as we all know changing from one system of work to a quite different one take time , in a massive change there will often be numerous unforeseen consequences to be attended to .
If we were clever enough to sort out all such unforeseen problems before we set something in motion that we now have we'd truly be clever & living in Utopia .

 

[GRW]

We took LED lighting units on board ..... that has made a terrific impact in electricity consumption .. IIRC it binned most of the electricity supply experts babble in just a few years , we've domestic appliances designed to work at 90 volts even when supplied with 110 or 240 , low temperature washing powder that had bee available in Canada since about 1967 , so somebody ,somewhere did actually listen & care .

Rome wasn't built in a day and as we all know changing from one system of work to a quite different one take time , in a massive change there will often be numerous unforeseen consequences to be attended to .
If we were clever enough to sort out all such unforeseen problems before we set something in motion that we now have we'd truly be clever & living in Utopia .

Yes there are advances. What bugs me, is that the predominant motivation from industry moguls and Govts is clearly to make a bundle and promote consumption and spending - over genuine "best possible" motivations and action to take the best possible steps for the long-term sustainability of the planet, while meetimg the energy needs of the population.

 

[DAPPH]

There are no end of businesses & companies out there dedicated to trying to give the human race a cleaner lifestyle that is less impacting , you just need to be looking for them to find them . Even then their stance & methods will always be open to being trashed by someone who doe not see the bigger picture or thinks they can do better ..that's life I'm afraid .

 

[daleyd]

Of course I did. It's a scheme in the UK! It's always going to cost a fortune in public money for feasibility studies and poorly-done Consultations. Its always going to be grossly over-priced and then be further grossly overspent on top (if it ever actually started).
That doesn't mean that the base idea (if done properly and considerately) - isn't a bloody good idea!
But instead of genuinely trying to get the task achieved properly, sensibly and honestly, and overcoming the issues and arriving at a workable solution to provide energy for generations to come.... we get the usual shower of carp (for a Kings ransom).
None of which proves that the base idea isn't a sound one.

I do however recognise the tone in your replies - its the same noise you get whenever someone is mid-way through climbing onto their high horse, and feels entitled to talk down & condescendingly to someone because they assume (wrongly) that the person they are talking down at just isnt very bright and is anti-environment - for simply saying something practical and facing the truth that sometimes there just isnt an ideal choice - just an option of a less-than-ideal decision, or stick your head in the sand .
The same thing happens as soon as anyone mentions Nuclear - despite there being so far no viable, realistic, available, deliverable alternatives that stand up to honest scrutiny and comparison.

Yes, undoubtedly the best solution would have been to pump 20bn into it and then find out it didn’t work.


Excuse me while I dismount from my lofty steed…

 

[julianthegypsy]

Of course they will produce a bit. But a bit is all you get sadly.
Remember in winter it gets dark at 4pm. And can be very dark and murky all day.

Two things in my news feed today. First turbine online at a huge new windfarm off Montrose, built by SSE in partnership with someone else. Will very soon produce a gigawatt, and half as much again next year. Only when it's windy of course, but Aberdeen is pretty windy I reckon. I note that I've worked in a power station producing less than that...
Second thing is scientists at MIT, working with others, have developed a new battery using basically aluminium, sulphur and salt. They've just started a company to prove it commercially. Bit by bit.

 

[fizzy]

Two things in my news feed today. First turbine online at a huge new windfarm off Montrose, built by SSE in partnership with someone else. Will very soon produce a gigawatt, and half as much again next year. Only when it's windy of course, but Aberdeen is pretty windy I reckon. I note that I've worked in a power station producing less than that...
Second thing is scientists at MIT, working with others, have developed a new battery using basically aluminium, sulphur and salt. They've just started a company to prove it commercially. Bit by bit.

It is possible to have a 1 to 2 week wind lull that effects the whole of Northern Europe. Those cold bright days in Winter when it's very cold.
No way of storing the energy so it's back to stupidly expensive gas.

 

[R Kraft]

The banks are going to push us into oblivion, hope everyone has llots of extra money.

Bank Australia to ditch fossil fuel car loans in push for EV future

Announcement at national electric vehicle summit comes as climate change minister seeks input on national EV strategy

www.theguardian.com

There is also a government push to not allow financing for home repairs, unless your whole house (electrical. insulation, windows and plumbing" is upgraded to green standards.

 

[MetalMonkey]

I'd love to debate with you on the renewables scam claim but honestly it's been done to death and is frankly boring.

Yes, it is my day job and it's not a scam

I think it depends a lot on the context and what metric you are using. Operational? Financial? Environmental? Ethical?

As an example, we have Solar PV panels with a 20 year FIT, which was purchased purely as an investment.
It's great - works reasonably well (orientation wasn't ideal), the payments for Feed In covers the cost of the installation, and anything over that is pure profit - with the added bonus of providing free power during the day.

Environmentally it questionable - the small amount of power generated from our tiny installation is frankly negligible compared to the resources required to make and distribute the panels and invertor(s) [which don't last for ever].
Financially it works because the rest of the customers are paying the return on our investment. Great news for us, perhaps less for others.

Is it going to help save the planet? Not even remotely - but then we were only interested in the return, and without the FIT we probably wouldn't have bothered.
It's not a scam for us, because it does what we wanted. But if you were being sold the idea that putting panels on every house in the UK would magically solve the problems with climate change and energy production, then I imagine you would feel pretty scammed.

 

[fizzy]

I think it depends a lot on the context and what metric you are using. Operational? Financial? Environmental? Ethical?

As an example, we have Solar PV panels with a 20 year FIT, which was purchased purely as an investment.
It's great - works reasonably well (orientation wasn't ideal), the payments for Feed In covers the cost of the installation, and anything over that is pure profit - with the added bonus of providing free power during the day.

Environmentally it questionable - the small amount of power generated from our tiny installation is frankly negligible compared to the resources required to make and distribute the panels and invertor(s) [which don't last for ever].
Financially it works because the rest of the customers are paying the return on our investment. Great news for us, perhaps less for others.

Is it going to help save the planet? Not even remotely - but then we were only interested in the return, and without the FIT we probably wouldn't have bothered.
It's not a scam for us, because it does what we wanted. But if you were being sold the idea that putting panels on every house in the UK would magically solve the problems with climate change and energy production, then I imagine you would feel pretty scammed.

Nice to see such an honest appraisal.

 

[Kayos]

These threads always take a boring, predictable path

I have just made the decision to cancel 4 projects, not going into huge detail but over the payback period the buildings don't save any money and due to energy prices in some ways lose money

I could quite easily edit the figures and make them look like great projects but I won't, I will accept that not every building can be decarbonised on this particular framework

It's disappointing but I refuse to install for the sake of it, if the council will change certain things (these 4 need large dno and fabric upgrades) then we will revisit them

 

[daleyd]

But if you were being sold the idea that putting panels on every house in the UK would magically solve the problems with climate change and energy production, then I imagine you would feel pretty scammed.

No one is being sold it as that though The only people that I hear banging on about a magic bullet are the rabidly pro nuclear ones who insist that is the only way.

Most others accept that it’s probably a combination of a quite a few things (including more nuclear) that need to happen.

 

[DennisCA]

I'd love to debate with you on the renewables scam claim but honestly it's been done to death and is frankly boring.

Yes, it is my day job and it's not a scam

I wouldn't like to debate a claim I never made. I made a claim that a lot of grid storage projects are scams, which is certainly true.

 

[Kayos]

I wouldn't like to debate a claim I never made. I made a claim that a lot of grid storage projects are scams, which is certainly true.

Can you provide links/evidence please?

I am also involved in storage, mostly behind the meter but I do have one grid storage site in my project portfolio, I fail to see how it is a scam? How are they scams?

The ones I'm involved with all charge with renewables then release the energy at times the grid prices are high or when there is a surge in demand. No it isn't cheap but it certainly works. One example is a leisure centre that ran 100% on battery power over the weekend

 

[GRW]

Metal Monkey's great post highlights issues.
Without the bribe of the very high initial FIT, the numbers just didn't add up - so widespread adoption of Solar just would not have happened.
Biomass Boilers? Same again.
If they'd been a good solution - then the bribe of the high FIT simply would not have been needed to make them attractive!
The early adopters/installers of Solar - how many of them are left trading (& supporting their installs and honouring their 20-year Warranty obligation? Not many it seems - cos as soon as the FIT was reduced, and there wasn't such a good screw out of it, the "Directors" wound the Co up, and leapt onto the next scheme where they could score big.
(I wonder how many of them started out by putting in Cavity Wall insulation for taxpayer grant money - you know - all the stuff that they are now having to take back out again at huge cost?)

I was on a dairy farm this week - looking at their system as they are looking at feasibility options with generator and inverters and a battery bank to see if they can cut the energy running costs.
They have had a 27kw Solar Array running through 6 SMA Sunny Boy Inverters for the last 8-years (The farmer reckons the system is just about to break-even - & if nothing breaks it'll start to move into the black).
First thing he said though was that the Installer vanished as soon as the artificial incentives got removed - leaving all the buyers high n dry.

 

[DennisCA]

It also does it with “some” extra baggage - undoubtedly we should have nuclear, but it will never be the answer to all our generation needs so we need a mix of nuclear and “something else” (we could almost certainly do with more nuclear than we currently have but it’s just a pipe dream to think every country can have 70-80% of its power from nuclear, there’s been quite a few studies showing just how unfeasable this idea is).

Now we could just carry on as we are and burn fossil fuels to make up the rest or we could actually develop new stuff and use renewables and hopefully as storage tech emerges they will fill the gap.

You can’t just say “they need to develop storage first” as then it will never happen, so we might as well get the generation in place (which is still providing useful power in the meantime) with some eye to the future when storage will hopefully mean the true end of fossil fuel for power generation.

I don't know what studies those are, but I've seen lots of bad studies with doubtful claims coming from renewables proponents over the years which makes me not trust anything they say. I just find them dishonest as a whole. They certainly do a lot of attacking of nuclear power. And renewables are currently being built with the idea that they will replace systems like nuclear.

Again it comes down to pure fantasy thinking on the renewables side, they are pinning their hopes on some future tech that might never materialize. This is incredibly irresponsible when we are having a global climate crisis.

What is desperately needed is more nuclear because renewables are failing to deliver what was promised. We have working tech that's also the most enviromentally friendly option. But we are ignoring it for irrational reasons, that's the long and short of it as I see it.

Certainly renewables AND nuclear should be paired, but lets be frank, the renewable proponents have since day 1 seen renewables as a way to attack and replace nuclear power, not to work with it.