Aberthaw Power Station and Decarbonisation

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Electric heating is far cheaper in capital expense, and the higher cost per unit is of little importance if the demand is small.

Heat pumps use 25% of the energy, but are very expensive at the moment

[broadgage]

Electric heating is far cheaper in capital expense, and the higher cost per unit is of little importance if the demand is small.

Heat pumps use 25% of the energy, but are very expensive at the moment

Indeed, heat pumps are in my view more applicable to existing buildings with a relatively large heating demand.
The use of say 3Kw of electricity to produce perhaps 10 Kw of heat can be attractive, but remember that heat pumps are complex and less reliable than one might hope for.

For new homes, the way forward is in my view extreme insulation, such that only a few of Kw of heating is needed. Simple direct acting electric heating then makes sense.

I know of a modern and very large house that only needs about 8Kw of heating in severe weather. 9 bedrooms, 5 adults and a herd of children. No heating whatsoever in moderatly cool weather.

[TonyK]

Anyway, Day 12 of the doldrums, and wind has managed to get up to 533 MW output this morning. If I bought a special sort of very ecological car and was told that it was capable of 100mph in some conditions, but would always manage at least 40mph, but found that for more than one third of a month it wouldn't go faster than a walking pensioner, I would be at the garage demanding my money back. And yet not only do some people support wind power, they tell you what they want to do with the excess. I am beginning to think that all these turbines are owned by the same people who supply gas to the closed cycle gas turbines, who are doing very well indeed, currently over 20 GW^▸ (Great Western).

I would love to be proven wrong.

[Bmblbzzz]

Electric heating is far cheaper in capital expense, and the higher cost per unit is of little importance if the demand is small.

Heat pumps use 25% of the energy, but are very expensive at the moment

Indeed, heat pumps are in my view more applicable to existing buildings with a relatively large heating demand.
The use of say 3Kw of electricity to produce perhaps 10 Kw of heat can be attractive, but remember that heat pumps are complex and less reliable than one might hope for.

For new homes, the way forward is in my view extreme insulation, such that only a few of Kw of heating is needed. Simple direct acting electric heating then makes sense.

I know of a modern and very large house that only needs about 8Kw of heating in severe weather. 9 bedrooms, 5 adults and a herd of children. No heating whatsoever in moderatly cool weather.

The large number of people probably help as well. Current demographic trends – increasing number of single-person households – are bad for energy consumption as well as land.

[broadgage]

Our government have announced plans reduce carbon emissions by 78% by 2035, considerably faster than the original date of 2050.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

I suspect that most people have no idea of the scale of changes needed to achieve this.
It is probably achievable in the case of electricity supply, but what about transport, and domestic heating.
Most politicians and voters probably don't know the difference between "total energy" and "electricity"

[ellendune]

Anyway, Day 12 of the doldrums, and wind has managed to get up to 533 MW output this morning. If I bought a special sort of very ecological car and was told that it was capable of 100mph in some conditions, but would always manage at least 40mph, but found that for more than one third of a month it wouldn't go faster than a walking pensioner, I would be at the garage demanding my money back. And yet not only do some people support wind power, they tell you what they want to do with the excess. I am beginning to think that all these turbines are owned by the same people who supply gas to the closed cycle gas turbines, who are doing very well indeed, currently over 20 GW^▸ (Great Western).

I would love to be proven wrong.

But solar should be doing quite well today.

The renewable we have plenty of that is predictable is tidal power.  We are not doing very well at developing that. 

[Bmblbzzz]

Our government have announced plans reduce carbon emissions by 78% by 2035, considerably faster than the original date of 2050.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

I suspect that most people have no idea of the scale of changes needed to achieve this.
It is probably achievable in the case of electricity supply, but what about transport, and domestic heating.
Most politicians and voters probably don't know the difference between "total energy" and "electricity"

Plant.more.trees.

[TonyK]

But solar should be doing quite well today.

Indeed it was, peaking at 7GW, and delivering useful energy for almost 10 hours. That's its downfall really - night. We can use it to light our homes, but not when we need to. Storage outside of the domestic setting is rather pointless, and it is so land intensive. Then there's the panels, cheap because of being made by slaves.

The renewable we have plenty of that is predictable is tidal power.  We are not doing very well at developing that. 

Puzzles me, too. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories about it being suppressed by the wind and solar boys so they can keep generating subsidies, because tidal power would get subsidised too. Maybe it isn't as easy as the early demonstrations made it out to be. Engineering and ecological issues, trouble with storms and the like, silting - I've heard them all mentioned but don't know the truth. I've seen the Rance barrage, which is impressive, but silting is an issue and sand eels and plaice have vanished. Some say that our offshore wind farms are doing for the sand eels too, risking turning the North Sea into a desert. That might be a scare story, it might not.

Edit: Day 13, and wind has begun to stir. We are up to 4 GW^▸ (Great Western), and have turned the coal-fired stations off, or left them spinning but not producing, just in case.

[stuving]

Any kind of tide mill is going to alter the environment, and something will suffer. Hence interest in the alternative, anchoring a floating turbine platform - it's just a sort of ship, isn't it? I think they've had difficulty making them strong enough to cope with water being heavy and liking to leap about and smash things (see under "Dawlish"). And scaling them up to a useful power rating only makes the strength vs force balance worse.

Anyway, this bunch have just launched a new one claimed as the biggest in the world at 2 MW.

Orbital Marine Power Ltd (Orbital), Scottish-based developers of the world’s leading floating tidal turbine technology, successfully launched its 2MW tidal turbine, the Orbital O2, from the Port of Dundee on Thursday 22nd April.

The operation was managed by Osprey Shipping Ltd. and saw the 680-tonne tidal turbine transferred from the Forth Ports quayside facility in Dundee into the River Tay using a submersible barge. The launch marks the completion of the turbine build, managed by TEXO Fabrication, and the O2 will now be towed to the Orkney Islands where it will undergo commissioning before being connected to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) where it will become the world’s most powerful operational tidal turbine.

[TonyK]

Any kind of tide mill is going to alter the environment, and something will suffer. Hence interest in the alternative, anchoring a floating turbine platform - it's just a sort of ship, isn't it? I think they've had difficulty making them strong enough to cope with water being heavy and liking to leap about and smash things (see under "Dawlish"). And scaling them up to a useful power rating only makes the strength vs force balance worse.

Anyway, this bunch have just launched a new one claimed as the biggest in the world at 2 MW.

Orbital Marine Power Ltd (Orbital), Scottish-based developers of the world’s leading floating tidal turbine technology, successfully launched its 2MW tidal turbine, the Orbital O2, from the Port of Dundee on Thursday 22nd April.

The operation was managed by Osprey Shipping Ltd. and saw the 680-tonne tidal turbine transferred from the Forth Ports quayside facility in Dundee into the River Tay using a submersible barge. The launch marks the completion of the turbine build, managed by TEXO Fabrication, and the O2 will now be towed to the Orkney Islands where it will undergo commissioning before being connected to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) where it will become the world’s most powerful operational tidal turbine.

Are those figures right? 2 MW is about the output of a standard wind turbine. 680 tonnes of practically anything costs a lot of money, and if that's what it takes to get tifal power, it must be a rather small BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio).

[ellendune]

Orbital Marine Power Ltd (Orbital), Scottish-based developers of the world’s leading floating tidal turbine technology, successfully launched its 2MW tidal turbine, the Orbital O2, from the Port of Dundee on Thursday 22nd April.

The operation was managed by Osprey Shipping Ltd. and saw the 680-tonne tidal turbine transferred from the Forth Ports quayside facility in Dundee into the River Tay using a submersible barge. The launch marks the completion of the turbine build, managed by TEXO Fabrication, and the O2 will now be towed to the Orkney Islands where it will undergo commissioning before being connected to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) where it will become the world’s most powerful operational tidal turbine.

Are those figures right? 2 MW is about the output of a standard wind turbine. 680 tonnes of practically anything costs a lot of money, and if that's what it takes to get tifal power, it must be a rather small BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio).

Yes but AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the European Marine Energy Centre provides testing facilities for prototype systems. 2MW is quite reasonable for a prototype. 

[stuving]

Anything going into the sea has to be massive compared to something surrounded only by air.

Here's some more about the power of the tides, if not "tidal power". From offshoreWIND.biz:

An inter-array cable issue on several Ørsted’s offshore wind farms in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and Continental Europe could have a total financial impact around DKK 3 billion (around EUR 403 million) across 2021 to 2023, the company reported in its latest financial results.

A cable failure was discovered during an inspection campaign at the Race Bank offshore wind farm in the UK and it was determined that there was an issue with the cable protection system (CPS). The issue occurs when the CPS moves across the scour protection, abrading the CPS and, in the worst-case scenario, causing cable failure.

The company has initiated remediation measures with a two-phased remediation approach. Phase one involves stabilisation of the CPS by adding another layer of rock protection to prevent further degradation and will be carried out during this year. Phase two includes the repair or replacement of damaged cables and will be done in 2022 and 2023.

“Stabilisation will deliver the optimal value risk management in the short term to prevent further damage and can likely eliminate the need to repair or replace most of the less damaged cables in phase two. We expect a limited production downtime related to the stabilisation activities”, Ørsted said.

As this CPS design was a solution in use for several years, the company currently estimates that up to ten of its offshore wind farms could be affected.

That doesn't tell what sort of a thing a "cable protection system" is - the Times report made it sound like it was the rocks piled on the cables, and thus what caused the problem. But I think it's a sheath for the cable where it goes through the dangerous bit of its route from running down inside the turbine mast to lurking on the sea bed. It needs to bend because the cable does, so steel mesh or something composite is involved. Most of the rocks are scour protection - to stop the tides felling the turbine (or "semaphore lighthouse", if you prefer).

[stuving]

Many steel companies around the world are researching ways to replace coke with hydrogen. One of the most advanced projects is in Sweden where a consortium called ?Hybrit? began constructing a pilot plant in 2018. But they don?t expect to have a workable solution till 2035. And initial studies indicated the production cost would be 20-30% higher than using coke to make steel.

An alternative process already exists ? direct reduction of iron ore using reformed natural gas. This is less carbon-intensive than the coke-based process, but of course not fossil-free.

It's a little while since we were into coalless steelmaking, but here's a report about how the various programmes to make bigger plants are going. There are several in Europe, with ArcelorMittal leading the charge, plus two in northern Sweden. But in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)? Not a lot, which is the point the report is making.

I had wondered if Boris (even post-Dominic) might want to do some kind of OneWeb manoeuvre on the British steel industry. Something like "we'll bung you a load of cash (aside: we have  to, really, to keep our new friends in the north on-side) but this will be your one chance to turn yourselves from bankrupt also-rans into a competitive, green and getting greener, industry." But no, apparently not.

The report is from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit - yes, yet another one! It concludes:

When compared with progress overseas, it is clear that the current level of ambitions for clean steel in the UK are not sufficient to ensure that the industry catches up in the race to clean up steel production.

One tentative-at-best UK project compared to 23 more advanced schemes across Europe clearly shows the disparity in ambition and action between the two regions, with the gap only set to grow if current timescales for government support are maintained.

The Clean Steel Fund, as it stands, is not driving progress in steel sector decarbonisation, nor is the scope of ambition in the government’s Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy commensurate with that shown from governments overseas. Factors such as these are highly likely to be taken into account by multinational companies when planning investment, and could see finances flow towards plants in Germany, France and further afield, instead of toward upgrading steel mills in the UK.

With the history and skills that come with a long-standing steel sector, ample renewable energy assets from which to generate clean hydrogen, and a world-leading university and research sector, the UK is poised to charge ahead in the race to clean steel.

Instead, with 23 projects taking shape across Europe and many more worldwide, there is real danger that the UK’s proud steelmaking history could be consigned to the history books.

Oh dear.

[Red Squirrel]

Anyway, Day 12 of the doldrums, and wind has managed to get up to 533 MW output this morning. If I bought a special sort of very ecological car and was told that it was capable of 100mph in some conditions, but would always manage at least 40mph, but found that for more than one third of a month it wouldn't go faster than a walking pensioner, I would be at the garage demanding my money back. And yet not only do some people support wind power, they tell you what they want to do with the excess. I am beginning to think that all these turbines are owned by the same people who supply gas to the closed cycle gas turbines, who are doing very well indeed, currently over 20 GW^▸ (Great Western).

I would love to be proven wrong.

Missed this one earlier!

April was the cruellest month as far as wind-powered generation was concerned, and May was less than spectacular. But the attached image shows that in the round, wind is making a significant contribution.

There is about 10400MW of wind energy capacity online at the moment, with 3500 MW  under construction, a further 3400 in pre-construction and 11500 planned. When all this is online, some time before the end of this decade, then there will be times when there is surplus generating capacity. Of course there will also be times when the wind turbines are generating next to nowt. But aside from the political hype, surely it's worth having this generating capacity? And the arguments about subsidies don't wash; all electricity generators are subsidised.

Legend:
Blue = Wind
Grey = Nuclear
Amber = Gas
Yellow = Solar
Black = Coal
Pink = Imported, mostly nuclear

[broadgage]

Wind is not the complete answer for the reasons given of calm weather.
Wind power is still in my opinion a good thing for the following reasons.

Every Gwh generated from wind is several Gwh of natural gas NOT burnt. Less carbon emissions, less foreign currency spent on gas imports, and less reliance on unstable countries from which gas is imported or passes through.


I support at least doubling installed wind power capacity and also at least doubling installed solar capacity. That would eliminate  gas burning for power production under favourable conditions and much reduce gas burning under unfavourable conditions.