Electric cars.

[tigertim]

- Personally, I would keep a few coal or gas fired power-stations as a backup. But then that's because I think maintaining our way of life is more important than a puritanical insistence on net zero. We should be kinder to the environment of course, but that needs to be balanced against other objectives - to illustrate with an extreme example - should a hospital let babies on incubators die if the only way to power those incubators was a diesel generator ? That's how absurd the extreme net zero lobby are.

I wonder if, once renewables and nuclear were in a position to provide a reliable 80%+ of our needs, whether biomass could become the predictable backup, providing there was a sufficient fuel stockpile? Burning stuff is never ideal if there alternatives, but biomass is a lot closer to carbon neutral than coal, oil or gas.

 

[MattH1973]

I wonder if, once renewables and nuclear were in a position to provide a reliable 80%+ of our needs, whether biomass could become the predictable backup, providing there was a sufficient fuel stockpile? Burning stuff is never ideal if there alternatives, but biomass is a lot closer to carbon neutral than coal, oil or gas.

yes - indeed it could. biofuel is another interesting variant - as this enable biomass to be converted into liquid fuel usuing renewables like solar - with the crucial difference that once the energy is in liquid form the storage and transport challenge becomes easier. The challenge with this is whether there is enough waste biomass to make energy this way.

Every solution has pros and cons - which is why the debate needs balance.

 

[dad_of_jon]

I thought it was the wrong video at first because it looked like a torch and axe advertisement The most accurate information always comes from heavily sponsored content.

I'm not going to disagree with his facts; I assume he could reference some official sources if pressed, rather than just another guy on YouTube - I've not done any research of my own and it wouldn't be a significant enough risk to stop me from owning a Zoe. But assuming he is 100% correct, all it does is point out a flaw with the Zoe and Jeep rather than EVs in general. I don't think I was expecting the battrery pack to be exposed to the passenger compartment beneath the seats, if I'm honest, but the top of a fuel tank is often presented under the back seats because it's where the fuel pump and fuel level sender are inserted and accessed for maintenance.

Yes, it's not ideal and is, arguably, inexcusable; but we have to remember that whether we like electricity as a propulsion system or not, these products are all built to a price, like fossil vehicles, by the same companies who lied about emissions and safety issues and gave us anti-theft systems on luxury vehicles which can be disabled by a cretin with a device off eBay. Mistakes will be made, safety concerns will be realised and cover-ups will happen. But it's not specifically an EV issue. All vehicles, regardless of their propulsion, have a large amount of stored potential energy and when released in an unscheduled event, it's almost always dangerous and messy - just in subtly different ways.

I didn't want to stereotype Australians but I suppose their remote areas are more remote than the uk's and there's more critters out there capable of causing you serious harm so an axe and torch might make sense in the outback. suzukis mainly don't have access to fuel sender gauge in the passenger compartment. you need to drop the fuel tank to get to it.

But you need reliable backup for nuclear or tidal as well - they do not run 100% of the time. Even Sizewell B, our most modern nuclear station has operated less than 82% of the time since 2010, and the older British ones can be less than 75%; in 2022 the French nuclear fleet averaged 54%, at one point it was less than 35%, So if nuclear can be less "reliable" than an offshore windfarm, should you not demand backup for nuclear?
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-07-05/192696/
Some of that is things breaking, some of it is planned maintenance and refuelling, but even the scheduled outages can happen at inconvenient times like the middle of winter :
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23321968.sizewell-b-thousands-workers-arrive-major-outage/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/snowstorms-high-winds-forecast-uk-travel-disruption
And scheduled maintenance of nuclear plants can end up overrunning by several months - how unreliable!
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-idUKKBN2CE0O6/
Nuclear is not free of the supply question either - the biggest suppliers of uranium to Europe are Kazakhstan and Niger, both of which saw coups in the last two years, whilst Eastern Europe remains dependent on Russia for a lot of their nuclear supply chain which is why it's not being sanctioned.

I'm not trying particularly to ding nuclear for being unreliable, it is what it is, it's just that nuclear seems to have mythical levels of availability in the eyes of many people. The biggest problems with nuclear are just how long it takes to get built and how much it costs - Hinckley Point will cost over £10bn/GW, whereas even allowing for less availability you could generate the same amount of electricity from a Dogger Bank-style offshore windfarm for less than £5bn. Which then gives you £5bn to spend on storage.

Tidal is predictable but not "reliable" - it produces in a sine curve, at the top and bottom of the tide it produces nothing. You can space tidal units 6 hours apart on the tide to match the two sine curves but that doesn't really work in practice as you get hotspots like Orkney which has a resource of 10GW's of tidal, but 6 hours either side don't. So tidal needs storage of some kind. But again the problem with tidal is cost - in the latest auction round tidal was going for £198/MWh compared to £47/MWh for solar, £52/MWh for onshore wind and £119/MWh for geothermal. They screwed up the process for offshore wind, but are planning to bump up the ceiling next time from £44/MWh to £73/MWh. So you can see tidal just isn't there yet on cost.

Thanks for the info NB.

With tidal the lack of producing hours can accurately predicted and therefore other options can be readied to fill a gap. Storage is an issue it would either by hydroelectric or batteries. Of course solars maximum generation figure peaks on the longest day and reaches the lowest maximum on the shortest day. It would be interesting to see if wind makes up for this difference as oct-mar tend to be windier. It's a fascinating subject.

There was an attempt for a tidal lagoon in Swansea but it didn't make it :-( - There you can hold water in on high tide and let it out as necessary to reduce the non-generation hours.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

There was an attempt for a tidal lagoon in Swansea but it didn't make it :-( - There you can hold water in on high tide and let it out as necessary to reduce the non-generation hours.

I believe lack of tidal generation is down to cost, there has been discussion for years about building a road from Barrow in furness to Morecambe they could then use the incoming tide to generate electricity and catch the tide and release it slowly generating more for longer when the tide turns, it's still being talked about I don't think it will happen iny lifetime.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I believe It's all down to cost, there has been discussion for years about building a road from Barrow in furness to Morecambe they could then use the incoming tide to generate electricity and catch the tide and release it slowly generating more for longer when the tide turns, it's still being talked about I don't think it will happen iny lifetime.

Here is the Morecambe bay barage i mentioned above

 

[jof]

You know that electric cars can be used as storage batteries while plugged in.
Ok, obviously not all of them all the time & you would need to limit it so you kept a reserve based on your normal useage pattern.

 

[jof]

Oh, & why do we need such large tidal power stations (the barrage type).
Wouldn't it be easier & cheaper to construct these on smaller inlets round the country, then if we have a massive storm it's unlikely to kill them all & they can be rotated out for routine maintainence etc.
Surely they do something like this up in the Scottish isles already, they're generally quite resourceful when it comes to generating their own power.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Oh, & why do we need such large tidal power stations (the barrage type).

You dont, this one was being discussed many years ago before generating clean electric was a big thing because of the time it takes to get to the M6 from Barrow in Furness it is now being discussed again as a means of cutting journey times and generating electricity, believe me using the A590 every day to get to the M6 and beyond is not something anyone that does it often looks forward to there are lots of stretches of single carriageway that slow traffic down, roadworks are regularly done through the day causing mayhem, accidents are commonplace and it goes through small towns and villages which isn't ideal with the amount of traffic it carries daily, this barrage would kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Old Fart At Play]

I used to visit Barrow quite often for work, and wow was the A590 slow!

They have a hydro-electric plant, in N Wales I think, where they pump water from a lake up a hill in times of energy surplus, and let it pour back down when they need to generate.

 

[dad_of_jon]

You dont, this one was being discussed many years ago before generating clean electric was a big thing because of the time it takes to get to the M6 from Barrow in Furness it is now being discussed again as a means of cutting journey times and generating electricity, believe me using the A590 every day to get to the M6 and beyond is not something anyone that does it often looks forward to there are lots of stretches of single carriageway that slow traffic down, roadworks are regularly done through the day causing mayhem, accidents are commonplace and it goes through small towns and villages which isn't ideal with the amount of traffic it carries daily, this barrage would kill two birds with one stone.



View attachment 93248

that's a great two for one shorter journey times and clean energy

 

[dad_of_jon]

It's hard to call this one, IF your battery has suffered an impact it needs to be replaced, but if the battery protection cover has taken the hit it should be removed and checked and then this could have been avoided.....

 

[hoppyscotty]

Problem with tidal power is the ocean is a very very inhospitable place for man made materials. The company I work for spent over ten years and lots of R&D spend on developing tidal power and ran an experimental turbine for many years only to abandon the project as it is just unviable. Any equipment you put in the ocean deteriorates very quickly and requires huge amounts of maintenance which results in huge amounts of down time...also damage from marine life also takes its toll. Bottom line is it required alot of very expensive infrastructure. We're seeing similar challenges with off shore wind turbines which are not lasting anywhere near as long as their design life.

Not saying its impossible, but its very very hard and will be very very expensive.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

good points- nothing is perfect and the answer is surely a blend....

But i think the difference is this:
- with renewables we *know* they will be unavailable for significant periods, and we also *know* that we dont know always when those will be, therefore a more predictable backup is needed
- nuclear I think is more predictable than renewables, as it can be taken down for maintenance at times when we are confident that other options exist. But you rightly point out the risk of unplanned outages - and this exists with any infrastructure - critical or not. It's then a question of risk appetite as to how many backups you have.

It doesn't work like that - nuclear maintenance is planned 5 years ahead, and in the UK they basically do each of them in turn. Hence the example I gave above of Sizewell B starting in February. And you underestimate just how often they "break" unexpectedly (or at least get shut down as a precaution, nuclear obviously has a low bar for that) - AIUI the planned shut-downs only account for about half of the 25+% of non-availability. Whereas with modern weather forecasting AIUI they can forecast wind output to within a few % a few days out, so on that scale wind is actually more predictable than nuclear.

But the risk appetite thing is true of all these things - how much risk are you prepared to tolerate versus the £££ you're prepared to pay to reduce it, doesn't matter whether it's wind or nuclear.

- Personally, I would keep a few coal or gas fired power-stations as a backup. But then that's because I think maintaining our way of life is more important than a puritanical insistence on net zero. We should be kinder to the environment of course, but that needs to be balanced against other objectives - to illustrate with an extreme example - should a hospital let babies on incubators die if the only way to power those incubators was a diesel generator ? That's how absurd the extreme net zero lobby are.

Well your premise is that storage is not going to happen - but it's already happening. We already have >2GW of battery storage up and running, with another 20GW with planning permission and the same again in pre-planning, even without EV batteries. Now most of that will only be 1-2 hour capacity lithium, but it at least means the evening peak can be covered by batteries. But you're already starting to see longer-capacity, lower-cost batteries - Form are claiming their 100-hour iron-air batteries will be around $20/KWh and are entering commercial production in the next 6 months or so, there's a bunch of other technologies in development.

It looks like compressed air may be the technology of choice for storage of more than a few days, and burning hydrogen from storage shared with the chemical industry will be the way to cover longer gaps. All this is technology that exists, the only question is figuring out the regulatory environment to pay for it. Nobody is disputing that gas will provide the backup in the short-medium term, but eg that report I linked to above suggests that by 2035 just 2% of our electricity could come from gas. But there's no question that our dependence on imported gas has been a disaster for the economy, and we need to start living within our means when it comes to energy imports.


To get an idea of just how complicated nuclear power is, here's a picture of them putting the roof on the first reactor at Hinckley Point C:

 

[hoppyscotty]

Putting a roof on a reactor complicated? how so? Looks like a crane putting in place a pre-fabricated roof structure on a concrete structure. Nothing complicated about that at all. All pretty standard and rudimentary construction techniques that go on all over the world every single day.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Putting a roof on a reactor complicated?

I didn't say the putting the roof on was complicated, I was just pointing to the general complexity of the site as shown in the photo.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

This was announced last year and its the first i have heard of it, i wonder if a big success this could lead to production for ICE vehicles in the future?


A planned green hydrogen plant for Barrow is set to enter commercial operation in 2025.

The first of its kind in Cumbria, it will supply hydrogen to Kimberly-Clark’s manufacturing facility.

Carlton Power is behind the scheme and it has announced that it has teamed up with specialist investment manager Schroders Greencoat LLP.

They have formed a new joint venture partnership, Green Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd, to accelerate the development of green hydrogen projects in the UK.

The partners are aiming to build a project portfolio in the UK of 500 MW by 2030, substantially contributing to the UK’s leadership position in hydrogen production as well as its energy security and net zero ambitions.

The Barrow scheme is one of first three to be rolled out – the others are in Trafford, Greater Manchester and Plymouth.

Around 200 people will be employed during the construction phase and 10 new jobs will be created when it opens.

The Barrow Green Hydrogen scheme was announced last year and has benefited from the support given by a regional public/private sector consortium of Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, Barrow Borough Council, Cadent Gas and Electricity North West, as well as the support of Barrow and Furness MP Simon Fell and other Cumbrian MPs.

This project will initially feature a 30 megawatt electrolyser, expected to produce about 3,000 tonnes of hydrogen every year, which is enough zero-carbon energy to supply the equivalent of 10,000 homes.

Carlton Power won government support last month and Schroders Greencoat and Carlton Power are making an initial funding commitment of £200m from funds managed by Schroders Greencoat to build these schemes and future projects.

Carlton Power will manage the development, construction and operation of current and future green hydrogen projects and Schroders Greencoat will lead on the financing of the projects and leveraging its UK renewable energy expertise.

Keith Clarke, founder and chief executive of Carlton Power said: “We are delighted to be joining forces with Schroders Greencoat to develop a significant green hydrogen portfolio in the UK. The decision by Schroders Greencoat, one of the foremost investors in renewable energy in UK and Europe, underlines the strength and quality of Carlton’s projects and our team, as well as confidence in our local development strategy and our decision to work with blue-chip industry off-takers, such as Kimberly-Clark. We want GHECO to be the leading green hydrogen production company in the UK.”

https://cumbriacrack.com/2023/05/24/barrows-green-hydrogen-plant-set-to-be-complete-by-2025/

 

[dad_of_jon]

This was announced last year and its the first i have heard of it, i wonder if a big success this could lead to production for ICE vehicles in the future?


A planned green hydrogen plant for Barrow is set to enter commercial operation in 2025.

View attachment 93347



The first of its kind in Cumbria, it will supply hydrogen to Kimberly-Clark’s manufacturing facility.



View attachment 93348

Carlton Power is behind the scheme and it has announced that it has teamed up with specialist investment manager Schroders Greencoat LLP.

They have formed a new joint venture partnership, Green Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd, to accelerate the development of green hydrogen projects in the UK.

The partners are aiming to build a project portfolio in the UK of 500 MW by 2030, substantially contributing to the UK’s leadership position in hydrogen production as well as its energy security and net zero ambitions.

The Barrow scheme is one of first three to be rolled out – the others are in Trafford, Greater Manchester and Plymouth.

Around 200 people will be employed during the construction phase and 10 new jobs will be created when it opens.

The Barrow Green Hydrogen scheme was announced last year and has benefited from the support given by a regional public/private sector consortium of Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, Barrow Borough Council, Cadent Gas and Electricity North West, as well as the support of Barrow and Furness MP Simon Fell and other Cumbrian MPs.

This project will initially feature a 30 megawatt electrolyser, expected to produce about 3,000 tonnes of hydrogen every year, which is enough zero-carbon energy to supply the equivalent of 10,000 homes.

Carlton Power won government support last month and Schroders Greencoat and Carlton Power are making an initial funding commitment of £200m from funds managed by Schroders Greencoat to build these schemes and future projects.

Carlton Power will manage the development, construction and operation of current and future green hydrogen projects and Schroders Greencoat will lead on the financing of the projects and leveraging its UK renewable energy expertise.

Keith Clarke, founder and chief executive of Carlton Power said: “We are delighted to be joining forces with Schroders Greencoat to develop a significant green hydrogen portfolio in the UK. The decision by Schroders Greencoat, one of the foremost investors in renewable energy in UK and Europe, underlines the strength and quality of Carlton’s projects and our team, as well as confidence in our local development strategy and our decision to work with blue-chip industry off-takers, such as Kimberly-Clark. We want GHECO to be the leading green hydrogen production company in the UK.”

https://cumbriacrack.com/2023/05/24/barrows-green-hydrogen-plant-set-to-be-complete-by-2025/

bob lazar uses sunlight to produce hydrogen from water for his hydrogen car. It's good to see someone else has caught on.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

. It's good to see someone else has caught on.

It's a shame they are building this huge plant just to supply the bog roll factory.

 

[MattH1973]

It doesn't work like that - nuclear maintenance is planned 5 years ahead, and in the UK they basically do each of them in turn. Hence the example I gave above of Sizewell B starting in February. And you underestimate just how often they "break" unexpectedly (or at least get shut down as a precaution, nuclear obviously has a low bar for that) - AIUI the planned shut-downs only account for about half of the 25+% of non-availability. Whereas with modern weather forecasting AIUI they can forecast wind output to within a few % a few days out, so on that scale wind is actually more predictable than nuclear.

But the risk appetite thing is true of all these things - how much risk are you prepared to tolerate versus the £££ you're prepared to pay to reduce it, doesn't matter whether it's wind or nuclear.


Well your premise is that storage is not going to happen - but it's already happening. We already have >2GW of battery storage up and running, with another 20GW with planning permission and the same again in pre-planning, even without EV batteries. Now most of that will only be 1-2 hour capacity lithium, but it at least means the evening peak can be covered by batteries. But you're already starting to see longer-capacity, lower-cost batteries - Form are claiming their 100-hour iron-air batteries will be around $20/KWh and are entering commercial production in the next 6 months or so, there's a bunch of other technologies in development.

It looks like compressed air may be the technology of choice for storage of more than a few days, and burning hydrogen from storage shared with the chemical industry will be the way to cover longer gaps. All this is technology that exists, the only question is figuring out the regulatory environment to pay for it. Nobody is disputing that gas will provide the backup in the short-medium term, but eg that report I linked to above suggests that by 2035 just 2% of our electricity could come from gas. But there's no question that our dependence on imported gas has been a disaster for the economy, and we need to start living within our means when it comes to energy imports.


To get an idea of just how complicated nuclear power is, here's a picture of them putting the roof on the first reactor at Hinckley Point C:

View attachment 93300

interesting post - thanks. You obviously know your stuff - but I'm interested in what solution you are advocating.....

- are you saying that nuclear isn't a viable backup to renewables or are you just pointing out its limits ? My sense is that a large number of smaller reactors would, based on the law of averages, provide a backup that is net more Whilst one nuclear power station might be somewhat unpredictable a cluster of them would be very likely to meet our needs. Now the prospect of the UK ruling classes being competent enough to build what we need is obviously a separate issue - but this applies to all infra.....

- or are you saying that renewables and storage could be enough for the UK and that we don't need nuclear or fossil backups ?

- i'm also intrigued as to what you mean by "live within our means" - are you advocating we reduce energy consuming activities to cut our demand ? if so, what sort of activities would you advocate are stopped? My personal view is that it is not at all realistic to think a majority of people will support a drop in their quality of life to hit some arbitrary renewables target when there will doubtless be other countries that are prepared to provide the level of energy that their population demands.

 

[JockyBrewer]

This was announced last year and its the first i have heard of it, i wonder if a big success this could lead to production for ICE vehicles in the future?

Maybe for haulage or buses, but realistically I don’t think hydrogen cars are going to happen now.

Energy efficiency of producing hydrogen to burn in an ICE is poor. You need energy to produce hydrogen, and the energy in the hydrogen is only about 70% of the energy you put in. Then you have to compress it and transport it, losing another 10%. And then an ICE will only be about 70% efficient.

So overall you only get out about 30-40% of the energy you put in, compared to an EV’s 95+%.