Why we need "Net zero"

[Oz07]

I still can't believe we are going to blow up ratcliffe on soar power station. I wonder if we will ever start using coal for electric again in the uk

[JohnMo]

2 hours ago, Oz07 said:

wonder if we will ever start using coal for electric again in the uk

Why would we?

[Oz07]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Why would we?

Reliable, secure, plentiful 

[Beelbeebub]

10 hours ago, Oz07 said:

What about the undiscovered quantities i keep seeing being talked about. There could be a lot more than what is known?

The 50% fall from current production I refer to (ie 25% of today's consumption) assumes we discover more reserves and licence them.

 

Obviously if you assume we discover even more reserves you can make the graph do whatever you want. We could imagine the UK becoming the world's largest oil and gas producer and make our plans based on that,im in the same way I can assume my money problems will be sorted by a hitherto unknown billionare relative dying and leaving it all to me. 

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Oz07 said:

Reliable, secure, plentiful 

Are you taking the p!ss? Or still living in the 70s?

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, Oz07 said:

Reliable, secure, plentiful 

I did a calculation in this thread. 

 

If we were to replace our oil and gas use with coal (ie electric cars and heatpumps powered by coal power stations) we would have about 25 years of coal using the upper estimates of coal reserves. 

 

So yes, short term we could move back to coal but we would need to reopen the mines and find miners, then build a bunch more coal stations and then still have a plan for what to do by the late 2050s early 2060s

[JohnMo]

21 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I did a calculation in this thread. 

 

If we were to replace our oil and gas use with coal (ie electric cars and heatpumps powered by coal power stations) we would have about 25 years of coal using the upper estimates of coal reserves. 

 

So yes, short term we could move back to coal but we would need to reopen the mines and find miners, then build a bunch more coal stations and then still have a plan for what to do by the late 2050s early 2060s

And why were coal mines phased out? Not because they were great.

 

Think the energy used in this thread, would keep the lights on for decades.

[Roger440]

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The 50% fall from current production I refer to (ie 25% of today's consumption) assumes we discover more reserves and licence them.

 

Obviously if you assume we discover even more reserves you can make the graph do whatever you want. We could imagine the UK becoming the world's largest oil and gas producer and make our plans based on that,im in the same way I can assume my money problems will be sorted by a hitherto unknown billionare relative dying and leaving it all to me. 

 

Theres clearly enough to make it financially viable, otherwise companies wouldnt be try to get a license.

 

Everybodies opinion here is irrelevant. The fact that companies want to invest in that, says there are viable reserves.

 

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Are you taking the p!ss? Or still living in the 70s?

In what way?

 

It IS reliable (as decades of use proves) , it IS secure (because its here) and it IS plentiful. (we have heaps of it)

 

Thats not to say it doesnt have plenty of downsides, but those three specifically are true. And plenty of countries including germany are still using it.

[Roger440]

8 hours ago, Oz07 said:

I still can't believe we are going to blow up ratcliffe on soar power station. I wonder if we will ever start using coal for electric again in the uk

Because we are led by morons. 

 

You might not want to use it, but why not leave it there for a while. No one can know the future troubles we may have.

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

It IS reliable (as decades of use proves) , it IS secure (because its here) and it IS plentiful. (we have heaps of it)

 

The tech is reliable sure. 

 

Security and abundance.... Not so much. 

 

As discussed ad nauseam the UK reserves are dwindling and the nature of the oil and gas industry means almost no nation can be secure against external supply shocks. The US is the largest producer and a major net exporter and *still* energy prices are rising. 

 

Interestingly, the two European nations who have seen the least disruption to electric prices are France (nukes) and (drumroll) Spain (renewables and some nukes. They are seeing rises of petrol/diesel/gas/heating oil etc because you car/boiler still needs to use the specific molecules it was designed for but the electric bits of their economy are plugging along with less disruption. 

[JohnMo]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

In what way?

 

It IS reliable (as decades of use proves) , it IS secure (because its here) and it IS plentiful. (we have heaps of it)

 

Thats not to say it doesnt have plenty of downsides, but those three specifically are true. And plenty of countries including germany are still using it.

So no acid rain, the most polluting form of electric, yes it great.  By the time you opened the coal mines to feed one coal power station and build the power station, you could have built 3x the capacity in wind - Scotland did.

[Beelbeebub]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Because we are led by morons. 

 

You might not want to use it, but why not leave it there for a while. No one can know the future troubles we may have.

There is some logic to this position especially if the plant has life left in it. 

 

There would be cost associated with the moth balling. 

 

I did wonder if they could be retro fitted to burn plastic waste granules. 

 

We (as is oft pointed out) still need plastic made from oil. Recycling seems to be rather hit and miss for various reasons. 

 

 

Why not collect the plastic from things we need plastic for eg some food packaging, medical devices, machine parts etc. Process them into fuel pellets for stock piling at Drax, Radcliffe etc. 

 

These might run a few days ie weeks a year as backup for low wind, low solar periods or extreme demand. They would be hellishly expensive and rather high carbon but if it's 10 days a year and the rest of the time it's cheap, ckwan renewables.... Thats OK. 

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So no acid rain, the most polluting form of electric, yes it great.  By the time you opened the coal mines to feed one coal power station and build the power station, you could have built 3x the capacity in wind - Scotland did.

 

I know all that. My point was the statement you suggested was taking the piss, was in fact entirely correct.

 

It wasnt a suggestion it was in any way desirable.

[Beelbeebub]

5 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So no acid rain, the most polluting form of electric, yes it great.  By the time you opened the coal mines to feed one coal power station and build the power station, you could have built 3x the capacity in wind - Scotland did.

This is the big thing. Rather than plow money into fossil fuels, plow the same money into renewables - build more. 

 

Over capacity is a good thing. It provides more security, more days when all demand can be renewable and the inevitable periods when it is sunny and windy, we wil find ways to use that... 

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The tech is reliable sure. 

 

Security and abundance.... Not so much. 

 

As discussed ad nauseam the UK reserves are dwindling and the nature of the oil and gas industry means almost no nation can be secure against external supply shocks. The US is the largest producer and a major net exporter and *still* energy prices are rising. 

 

Interestingly, the two European nations who have seen the least disruption to electric prices are France (nukes) and (drumroll) Spain (renewables and some nukes. They are seeing rises of petrol/diesel/gas/heating oil etc because you car/boiler still needs to use the specific molecules it was designed for but the electric bits of their economy are plugging along with less disruption. 

 

Seems unlikely our stocks are dwindling as we are not using it or mining it. That statement is illogical

 

You last paragraph is irrelevant to the post. 

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

There is some logic to this position especially if the plant has life left in it. 

 

There would be cost associated with the moth balling. 

 

I did wonder if they could be retro fitted to burn plastic waste granules. 

 

We (as is oft pointed out) still need plastic made from oil. Recycling seems to be rather hit and miss for various reasons. 

 

 

Why not collect the plastic from things we need plastic for eg some food packaging, medical devices, machine parts etc. Process them into fuel pellets for stock piling at Drax, Radcliffe etc. 

 

These might run a few days ie weeks a year as backup for low wind, low solar periods or extreme demand. They would be hellishly expensive and rather high carbon but if it's 10 days a year and the rest of the time it's cheap, ckwan renewables.... Thats OK. 

 

Yes, of course theres a cost to mothballing it.

 

You could convert it. No idea how practical that is?

 

My point is, we dont know whats coming. WW3 is certainly a possibility. Something bad but short of that too.

 

Imagine our supply of gas is heavily restricted due to war, and we face a postion of blackouts due to lack of generation capacity. Would you sit there and say, no, i wont use a coal powered plant out of principle, or would you recommision it, having retained it?

 

Theres only one answer to that that makes any sense.

 

We dont NEED to blow it up, as we have done with previous ones. To do so is utter stupidity. As it was previously.

[Oz07]

People will actually be sad when it blows up too. They like to see the cooling towers. Its all just insane. 

[Oz07]

10 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

I did a calculation in this thread. 

 

If we were to replace our oil and gas use with coal (ie electric cars and heatpumps powered by coal power stations) we would have about 25 years of coal using the upper estimates of coal reserves. 

 

So yes, short term we could move back to coal but we would need to reopen the mines and find miners, then build a bunch more coal stations and then still have a plan for what to do by the late 2050s early 2060s

Quarter of a century of reliable power while altering the grid and infrastructure for the next phase of power. Sounds great 👍 

[Bramco]

2 hours ago, Oz07 said:

People will actually be sad when it blows up too. They like to see the cooling towers. Its all just insane. 

Says who?  As a local, it will be the most exciting thing to happen around here for years....    We've already eyeballed a bluff to the east overlooking the site as the best location to watch the demolition - champagne, canapes....

 

Although I do agree, cooling towers do have a majesty.   There was a movement to keep one of them and use it as an exhibition space and climbing wall but I think that fell through.
 

[Tetrarch]

12 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The tech is reliable sure. 

 

Security and abundance.... Not so much. 

 

As discussed ad nauseam the UK reserves are dwindling and the nature of the oil and gas industry means almost no nation can be secure against external supply shocks. The US is the largest producer and a major net exporter and *still* energy prices are rising. 

 

Interestingly, the two European nations who have seen the least disruption to electric prices are France (nukes) and (drumroll) Spain (renewables and some nukes. They are seeing rises of petrol/diesel/gas/heating oil etc because you car/boiler still needs to use the specific molecules it was designed for but the electric bits of their economy are plugging along with less disruption. 

 

There is disruption and disruption. The outage last April in Spain that disconnected 31GW of power for 10 hours was caused by renewables and the fact that renewable output isn't managed at the correct frequency as it isn't generated by tunable turbines

 

There is a balance to be struck here, the transition needs to be managed and needs to be proceed at a sensible pace. We have got too far over our skis

 

Regards

 

Tet

[Oz07]

1 hour ago, Bramco said:

 

Although I do agree, cooling towers do have a majesty.   There was a movement to keep one of them and use it as an exhibition space and climbing wall but I think that fell through.
 

Case in point. The airport spotters will be gutted as well they love to get photos with the towers in the background. 

[Mr Blobby]

4 hours ago, Oz07 said:

Quarter of a century of reliable power while altering the grid and infrastructure for the next phase of power. Sounds great 👍 

 

This sentimental love of coal power is rather amusing.  Having woked at several power stations over the years here's some differences to consider.

 

In a coal power station there is a coal plant, that is run by a team of staff constantly unloading coal froom trains or ships and moving it around a pile and then loading it onto conveyors into the main plant buiildings.  The coal then runs along a conveyor, through a pulveriser and blown into the furnace.  This heats up a boiler to create steam to drive the turbine.  There is then the various de-sulphuristaion and nox plants to run, and a team of chemists to constantly monitor the emissions.  Then there is the ash that comes out of the other end and needs to be disposed of.  Some of this is sold to the cement industry but most of it ends up in landfill on which the station pays landfill tax.  And there is a lot of ash.  

 

To start up a coal plant from cold takes about a day to heat up the boiler and synchronise.  Ramp times are slow.  This is not very useful in an energy system where generators need to be flexible and responsive.  Units that can synchronise and ramp up quickly, run for 20 minutes and then desynchroise are king.  Generators that stay on and run at constant load are of little benefit.  They displace wind power (that is effectively free) when its windy and can't ramp up when it isn't.  (hint:nuclear)

 

Running a coal power station requires lots of moving parts, a lot of land, and lots of people.  It is contunuously labour and capital intensive.  And dirty.

 

It is simply not economically viable to run a coal power station compared to gas.

 

A gas power station has one guy in a control room.  He presses a button to start and stop the turbine.  No emissions, no ash, no coal plant.  And it goes from off (windy) to full load (not so windy) within minutes.

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mr Blobby

[sgt_woulds]

1 hour ago, Tetrarch said:

 

There is disruption and disruption. The outage last April in Spain that disconnected 31GW of power for 10 hours was caused by renewables and the fact that renewable output isn't managed at the correct frequency as it isn't generated by tunable turbines

 

There is a balance to be struck here, the transition needs to be managed and needs to be proceed at a sensible pace. We have got too far over our skis

 

Regards

 

Tet

 

 

The power outage was not caused by renewables.  It was caused by a lack of preparedness in the rest of the system that allowed a cascade of isolated failures to multiply.

 

This is it a great advert for more distributed generation and power storage on the system.  With battery storage and grid forming inverters, the drop in frequency that caused the Spanish outage simply would not have happened.

 

Batteries can respond far quicker to frequency failures than conventional rotational generators.