Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Trouble is nuclear is the devils electric

Yes it is, but I think I read it is not part of the auction as it is considered 'base load'.

I may be wrong though.  If it is part of the auction clearing system, then, as you say, they will be buying it at almost twice the current price.

Red Diesel was 77p/litre, so about 8p/kWh, yesterday.

So it would be possible to generate electricity at about 25p/kWh, and, at the same time, get a kWh of thermal energy out of it.

Not as cheap as a large PV array, but on a par with grid connected.

[JohnMo]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Not as cheap as a large PV array, but on a par with grid connected.

But does generate on a dull wet day like we have today, unlike solar. Big battery, PV and a diesel generator with waste heat recovery straight into a thick screed floor - job done

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The more cheap electricity that is produced the easier it is for politicians to put policies in place to make electricity cheap to consumers. 

What is the Green Parties and the Lib Dem's policy on these.  They don't seem to get much radio coverage at the moment.

A properly costed carbon tax is probably the best way to control fossil fuel/combustion usage.

[Beelbeebub]

14 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

I was listening to Greg Jackson (CEO of Octopus for those who don't know the name) talking about the  infrastructure upgrade decisions being made. He mentioned that due to these costs, we're highly unlikely to see any reduction is prices for the foreseeable on this basis alone.

The outgoing head of national grid said the transmission costs are about £25 a year an an average bill. 

 

With the investment to connect wind etc that will double (watch for daily mail headline) to £50,but the savings on constraint costs by having more capacity will save about £40, so a net £10 a year increace 

 

<https://open.spotify.com/episode/5PuyXuWML9xvzb2iHcIrUH>

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

But does generate on a dull wet day like we have today, unlike solar. Big battery, PV and a diesel generator with waste heat recovery straight into a thick screed floor - job done

Sunny here at moment, there is always some sunshine, somewhere.  Why we need the EU Supergrid to get a move on.  It is probably 60% done.  The link to Morroco could make the biggest potential difference.  Last year they produced 1.59 TWh.  The UK did 19.32 TWh.  So there is a massive opportunity for exports.  I bet they don't get bogged down in planning for a decade.

Edited 5 hours ago by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

44 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The outgoing head of national grid said the transmission costs are about £25 a year an an average bill. 

 

With the investment to connect wind etc that will double (watch for daily mail headline) to £50,but the savings on constraint costs by having more capacity will save about £40, so a net £10 a year increace 

 

<https://open.spotify.com/episode/5PuyXuWML9xvzb2iHcIrUH>

 

Ah, so this must be the truth then. Have a look at this. He explains the dysfunctional market very well, but if you want the TLDR, just go straight to 4:26. The whole video is worth a watch IMHO, plus he deals specifically with the economic ineptitude of the, "this bit only adds so much to costs" and how from a financial perspective this leads to excessive costs.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

If you prefer the better pictures that are on radio, then this was on earlier, it is about dynamic pricing in general, though does have someone from Octopus on it. Octopus spend a lot on this sort of soft selling.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002qthh

 

 

[ProDave]

We need Octopus's boss to replace Ed Milliband.  THEN we might get some sensible policies.  I have not heard anyone talk so much well reasoned sense for a long time.

[SteamyTea]

48 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I have not heard anyone talk so much well reasoned sense for a long time.

I suspect those words will come back to haunt you, especially if you buy into one of his price plans, buy some kit to take advantage of the ToU, then find he pulls the deal at very short notice.

[Beelbeebub]

52 minutes ago, ProDave said:

We need Octopus's boss to replace Ed Milliband.  THEN we might get some sensible policies.  I have not heard anyone talk so much well reasoned sense for a long time.

Are you sure? He is big into heatpump and renewables. 

[ProDave]

Just now, Beelbeebub said:

Are you sure? He is big into heatpump and renewables. 

He also thinks carbon capture is a waste of time and is very pragmatic about what is possible. Not aiming for unachievable dreams regardless of cost.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

carbon capture is a waste of time

That has been know for at least 2 decades, why very little time is spent on it on Renewable Energy courses.

It has been cheaper, for at least a decade and a half to just install wind and solar, which do not need CCS at the point of generation.

 

In 2025, the UK's Per Capita CO₂ emissions was 4.53t.

World Average was 4.73t.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table

[Beelbeebub]

33 minutes ago, ProDave said:

He also thinks carbon capture is a waste of time and is very pragmatic about what is possible. Not aiming for unachievable dreams regardless of cost.

Indeed CC is, alongside Hydrogen boilers, a load of bollocks. 

 

And we should be pragmatic. 

 

The problem is nobody can agree on what is achievable or not. 

 

I was arguing (I know think of it) with a chap on YouTube who was convinced only new builds could use heatpumps, they cost upwards of £33k after subsidy and required you to give up you gas cooker. 

 

*if* that was true then yes, the idea of moving the country to electrified heating is impractical without vast cost. 

 

Of course, it isn't true.

 

One thing to think about is Octopus are arguing strongly for a local electricity market, almost certainly with heavy skew to ToU tariffs. 

 

I doubt thr CEO of an energy supplier heavily invested in the digital infrastructure required for individual real-time pricing of electricity is pushing for a move to individual real-time pricing of electricity out of thr goodness of his heart. 

 

I'm not saying there isn't value in the proposal, only that he is far from an honest broker in the debate (as in he is undeniably partisan not as in he is dishonest) 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

33 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

That has been know for at least 2 decades, why very little time is spent on it on Renewable Energy courses.

It has been cheaper, for at least a decade and a half to just install wind and solar, which do not need CCS at the point of generation.

 

In 2025, the UK's Per Capita CO₂ emissions was 4.53t.

World Average was 4.73t.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table

I don't know how much wind/solar capacity could be constructed for the £22bn he mentions is being spent on Carbon Capture,but it's infinitely better value. 

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

The problem is nobody can agree on what is achievable or not. 

 

This just comes from the fact that nobody, whether they like it or not knows what's achievable. And therefore trying to find consensus is just nonsense.

 

But like I've said earlier in this thread - or was it one of the almost identical ones here that crop up on a fairly regular basis - the problem is not actually one of technology or engineering.

 

Octopus, for example, have just got on and done what they've done and I'd argue that in doing so they've dragged the rest of their market with them. Similarly, I was listening to a conversation with a global solar entrepreneur talking about large scale solar installations in various regions and about how he was just getting on with it because the price was getting better as were the returns and social rewards.

If you scratch beneath the surface of what is hindering progress, it's enough to make you shiver. One of these essential layers is that of government and the civil service. Both of which we know really don't work. One reason is because parliament is not actual sovereign, but the country is run by a small cabal that are the government. If you're not in the government you have little chance if any to have a say and influence the direction of policy. Another is that we really do have a lot of people in the machines of government who are totally incompetent. They typically come froma very narrow education path and don't have much, if any domain knowledge about the things they're supposed make decisions about and create pocily for. As really good book about this, worth a listen as an audiobook or a good read is Ian Dunt's book How Westminster Works..and Why I doesn't - here is a yourube video with him; 

 

On top of this, you then have what I consider to be poorly and narrowly educated leaders in the related businesses, including in the spere of the engineering and technology side. I was involved in leadership development and aligned education and it always struch me that much of what was learned and then being implemented was stuff straight out of academics' heads with little if any real world validation, and because of the problem of group think most leaders are taught exactly the same stuff and there is no variety. On top of this 10,15,20 years ago, leadership development had its eye on Silicon Valley as the bastion of exemplar leadership......enough said.

 

And this doesn't even begin to touch the social aspects at large reagrding what you have rightly highlight as general ignorance about new technologies etc.

 

The fundamental problem is how we think and it's going to take a while to shift that. The only way to shift that is through companies like Octopus pushing the market in a better direction and others doing the same. When I was building my house (well, I still am actually), I realised how much of my previous life and career was stuck in what I call concept and proposition. Lots of thinking, lots of writing reports and other documents and lots of giving guidance etc. but mostly it didn't achieve a whole lot. Now I'm doing heat pumps, which is my little contribution to making a change step by little step.

[Beelbeebub]

Views on what is practical may vary to a degree, but not all opinions are equal. 

 

For example, if I said I thought it was practical to generate the entire primary enrgy demand of thr UK using fusion energy by 2030, that would be entirely impractical. 

[FuerteStu]

Carbon capture is one that nature does better than humans could ever engineer. 

 

Everyone thinks of trees, but that's far too slow. I saw a piece where they were growing algae at sea, and drying it out and turning it to dust. It was de-acidifying the ocean at the same time as capturing carbon. Logic was that it could just be sent to the bottom of the ocean where it was, and the process could be largely automated. 

 

From what I can fathom, there is zero profit in it, so it's probably never been embraced. 

[Beelbeebub]

I argue that the cheapest way to increace our domestic energy production is via increacing renewables at or above the rate currently proposed. 

[saveasteading]

3 minutes ago, FuerteStu said:

there is zero profit in it

maybe sell credits? It could be deposited in empty coal mines which would be a bit like full circle.

 

5 minutes ago, FuerteStu said:

trees, but that's far too slow.

It is remarkable how little substance is in the branches and foliage.

When I cut the hedge or prune the shrubs I put sticks through a  grinder and smaller stuff piled on the ground and put the mower over it. 

What would have been 5 or 6 brown bins become half of one, even though it is still uncompressed,  goes on the compost heap and is compost in 6 months...which rots and we are full circle ..again.

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, saveasteading said:

maybe sell credits? It could be deposited in empty coal mines which would be a bit like full circle.

 

It is remarkable how little substance is in the branches and foliage.

When I cut the hedge or prune the shrubs I put sticks through a  grinder and smaller stuff piled on the ground and put the mower over it. 

What would have been 5 or 6 brown bins become half of one, even though it is still uncompressed,  goes on the compost heap and is compost in 6 months...which rots and we are full circle ..again.

Carbon capture via trees only works if we don't burn the trees afterwards. 

 

Locking the timber up in building materials is good but ultimately the destiny of most wood is to burn or rot. 

 

Think of how many tons of trees used to cover the UK 300 years ago, and how much of that timber is still around in buildings, ships and furniture.... Not much. 

[FuerteStu]

16 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

maybe sell credits? It could be deposited in empty coal mines which would be a bit like full circle.

 

The concept was effective because it did not rely on transport, something that makes a large amount of 'green' systems, not very. 

 

Carbon was deposited on site, whole system was floating (inflated so sections were easily transported and assembled) and powered by solar. 

 

Out of sight of anyone who would complain too. Couldn't see a downside other than the cost of setup and occasional maintenance (if I remember right, a sweeping arm collected the algae and scraped it onto the edge where it was dried using sunlight and then sent to the deep blue.)

 

I wish I knew when and where id seen it so I could find it the actual numbers of tonnes collected per year.