Aberthaw Power Station and Decarbonisation

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

Back in the good old days, when I was but a nipper, fusion power was THIRTY years in the future, so it seems to be getting closer.

It's a bit like Billy Bunter's postal order, or the jam in Lewis Carroll's book, for anyone who remembers those.

Meanwhile, news reaches me from Bloomberg about solar panels. The article is behind a paywall, but you get one freebie a month. This is worth blowing your allowance on.

Long story short, the reporting team went to China to research conditions in areas where polysilicon is made for solar panels to sell to we westerners, so we can be nice and green. The article suggests that the work is done by forced labour from the Uyghur community, behind closed doors, and with the encouragement of the national government. This poses a very big moral dilemma for our own government, and other liberal democracies around the world. In Britain, the current way to express outrage at such shenanigans is to throw statues into harbours, but a lot of the people doing that will also be demanding more solar panels. China is far and away the leading producer of both the polysilicate and the solar cells made from it. In terms of the finished product, it makes over four times as much as all the other countries in the world combined. The energy to make them is supplied by coal-fired power stations. The area has some of the worst air quality in the country.

It makes it look as if we are very good at exporting pollution.

[broadgage]

I am not a fan of china or of goods therefrom.
Forced labour, which is the polite term for slavery.
Often questionable enviromental standards in the production of materials.
Sometimes of doubtful qaulity, or outright fakes.

I would prefer that solar panels be produced in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), or as a second choice be produced in other western nations with better standards than those in china.

Despite these concerns, I would prefer chinese solar panels to not having solar panels.
The climate emergency is in my view too urgent to agonise over the sources of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, or materials incorporated therein.
First choice=uk made.
Second choice = European or USA made.
Third choice=, reluctantly, chinese made.

UK production is preferable in order to provide employment for UK workers, in addition to the higher enviromental standards and better working conditions in the UK if compared to china.

I expect significant job losses in aviation related industries, fossil fueled vehicle manufacture, road building, and much of the retail sector.
A high priority should therefore be placed on new green jobs, including solar panel manufacture, and other green industries.

[Bmblbzzz]

It makes it look as if we are very good at exporting pollution.

Along with our exploitative labour practices and disregard for human rights.

Though we shouldn't really worry; there's plenty of all those left over here too. 

[Bmblbzzz]

I am not a fan of china or of goods therefrom.

Not even a nice china teacup? 

[TonyK]

Despite these concerns, I would prefer chinese solar panels to not having solar panels.
The climate emergency is in my view too urgent to agonise over the sources of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, or materials incorporated therein.

I can't agree to that. Forced labour and slavery are wrong, whatever the attempt at justification. Imports of products made under those circumstances should be stopped immediately.

There would be a positive benefit to doing that. If we have to pay a proper price for  solar panels - and wind turbines and batteries too - those in power may be forced to take a long hard look at where the money for electricity gets spent. It may stop Her Majesty's Government (HMG) blowing billions more on things that won't solve the problem in the end, and only look good because they are always backed up by fossil fuels.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[broadgage]

Whilst I share your concerns about slavery, it is unrealistic to ban all imports from china, and indeed from other places with doubtful reputations.

We should IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) reduce such imports by encouraging UK^▸ (United Kingdom) production, though even then questions will be asked about the origins of components and raw materials.

[TaplowGreen]

I am not a fan of china or of goods therefrom.

Not even a nice china teacup? 

Can't drink Port out of china!

[broadgage]

I am not a fan of china or of goods therefrom.

Not even a nice china teacup? 

Can't drink Port out of china!

Well I suppose that you COULD but a gentleman would not, except in an emergency.

[TonyK]

Whilst I share your concerns about slavery, it is unrealistic to ban all imports from china, and indeed from other places with doubtful reputations.

We should IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) reduce such imports by encouraging UK^▸ (United Kingdom) production, though even then questions will be asked about the origins of components and raw materials.

It isn't unrealistic at all, just inconvenient and expensive. We might just find the true cost of cheap renewable energy, but not be prepared to dip our hands to our pockets.

[Bmblbzzz]

I'd say it would be probably politically unrealistic, particularly if we acted alone. A united front would be much harder for China to act against (but also much harder to achieve).

[TonyK]

I'd say it would be probably politically unrealistic, particularly if we acted alone. A united front would be much harder for China to act against (but also much harder to achieve).

I don't see why it should be politically unrealistic, given the current fad for throwing anything to do with slavery into a local river. For the moment, though, the people opposed to Britain's part in the slave trade are in large part the same cohort who sees wind and solar power with batteries and hydrogen as the answer to every problem. At the moment, they are being told to campaign against slavery, diesel cars, and public transport.

Another risk, and not a big one just now, is that a new Chinese leadership decides to stop polluting its own country and forcing ethnic groups to work in its dirtier industries. Or it may decide to simply cross us of the list of favoured customers. The supply of affordable solar panels would dry up overnight, and we have no way of replacing that loss right now. Remember that we used to export our waste plastic to China, but they stopped taking it a few years ago, which threw a right old spanner in the works.

Change in China seems unlikely, but it also seemed unlikely in the Soviet Union until it happened.

Edit: Almost forgot. It's yet another miserable day for wind power, struggling to generate even 2GW. The output hasn't been above 5GW since 0700 on 9 April. So much for it always being windy somewhere.

[TonyK]

Today is a new day, the 11th consecutive day where wind energy has been at unusually low levels,sometimes even producing less electricity that coal. As it's a third of a month, maybe it isn't so unusual after all.

This hasn't stopped the interested parties from banging on about how they are going to use all this suplus renewable energy. The Sunday Times reported yesterday that a battle is taking place behind the scenes, between advocates of using hydrogen and those in favour of heat pumps to replace the nations 25 million gas boilers. Worryingly, this battle is between lobbyists for the two sides, rather than scientists and statisticians. It's behind a paywall, so here's summary.

Hydrogen is favoured by the oil and gas industry. They concede that making hydrogen by electrolysis is too expensive, and that steam reforming is too dirty. The proposal is to turn natural gas into hydrogen, using all the spare power from nearby wind turbines (see above - there is none) to turn it into into hydrogen. The resultant CO₂ will be captured using a process to be invented, and injected into the aquifers the oil and gas came out of. Hopefully, it will stay there, and not make the North Sea all fizzy in the event of an earthquake.

The heat pump lobby says it is very clean, giving 4 KW of heat for every 1 KW of electricity. They say it works best in new build houses, and concede that retrofitting into Victorian stock won't be easy. They suggest combining the installation with thorough draughtproofing and insulation works, which is a good idea. The downsides include having to reinstall hot water cylinders ripped out when efficient combi boilers were installed. And the unspoken matter of where we get all the electricity from. Even a quarter of 25 million times 25 KW output for a combi boiler comes to around 150 GW^▸ (Great Western) to find at peak demand, or about ten times today's output of renewable electricity. Including the scandalous dirty stuff, like Drax's biomass.

I have called for evidence. So far, I have been told that there is a lot of spare renewables, as wind and solar farms are switched off when they produce too much. After I finished laughing, I asked why we were still burning fossil fuels in large quantities around the clock. I haven't heard back yet.

Both sides have appointed lobbying firms, and that's the bit that really frightens me, especially in the current political climate. My fear is that, like wind and solar has yet to replace gas, we will spend another decade or two installing batteries and making hydrogen before realising that we still can't switch the gas off, and starting to look for a real solution. The politicians who dish out the cash will be long retired from public gaze.

[broadgage]

In my view we should be replacing natural gas and other fossil fuels with wind, solar, or other renewables whenever possible.
We are some way from being able to replace ALL fossil fuels with renewables. But every little helps.

I am not aware of any plans to prohibit gas central heating in EXISTING homes, it is however proposed that in a few years time that gas heating will be prohibited in NEW homes.
A new home with good thermal insulation will need very little heating, a few kilowatts at the most. There is no question of replacing a 20+Kw gas boiler with a similar level of electric heating.

It is indeed an urban myth that we have a surplus of renewable energy at night.
In windy weather, the night time consumption of natural gas has been much reduced, down to about 5Gw. Progress, but not a surplus.
We also import electricity from mainland Europe almost continually, such imports would not be needed if we had a surplus.

[Bmblbzzz]

They suggest combining the installation with thorough draughtproofing and insulation works, which is a good idea.

I think this is probably key. A well insulated building with 'dirty' heating is probably cleaner than an uninsulated one with 'clean' heat.

[broadgage]

They suggest combining the installation with thorough draughtproofing and insulation works, which is a good idea.

I think this is probably key. A well insulated building with 'dirty' heating is probably cleaner than an uninsulated one with 'clean' heat.

It is also worth remembering that fuel burning heating tends to become uneconomic if the heating demand is very low.

A gas central heating system costs several thousand pounds and requires expensive servicing and periodic renewals, even for a very small heating demand. Providing a gas supply also costs money.
Electric heating is far cheaper in capital expense, and the higher cost per unit is of little importance if the demand is small.