Where are we going? Where’s the plan?

A few snippets from the last few weeks.

 

Insulation from E&T:

28 year plan at £7 Billion per year, a total of £196 Billion. 24 million properties to be upgraded so just over £8000 per property. Is that enough just to insulate let alone add a heat pump and replace the existing heating system?

Will it save the country Billions?

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/09/insulating-uk-homes-could-save-the-country-billions-assessments-show/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen and carbon capture from the Guardian:

‘World-first’ hydrogen project raises questions about its role in fuelling future homes

Even the Guardian seems to be suggesting that ‘green’ hydrogen for heating homes may not be such a good idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/20/world-first-hydrogen-project-raises-questions-about-its-role-in-fuelling-future-homes

 

Carbon capture and storage schemes, a key plank of many governments’ net zero plans, “is not a climate solution”, the author of a major new report on the technology has said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/01/carbon-capture-is-not-a-solution-to-net-zero-emissions-plans-report-says

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all biomass is carbon neutral, industry admits as EU reviews policy

Small scale local biomass using waste wood may be ok. Big biomass is certainly not beneficial.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/07/14/not-biomass-carbon-neutral-industry-admits-eu-reviews-policy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s try fracking or new nuclear from the Engineer:

Moratorium on fracking lifted in government effort to ensure energy supplies.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/moratorium-on-fracking-lifted-in-government-effort-to-ensure-energy-supplies

 

Atomic Smitten: New nuclear gears up for net zero challenge.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/in-depth/atomic-smitten-new-nuclear-gears-up-for-net-zero-challenge

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these are engineering/science problems. Where is the engineering input? Do any of them actually make sense in payback on resources used?

Currently I see nuclear as the most practical solution but it is made difficult politically. Asia can build nuclear power plants faster and at less cost that the west, why?

The green movement has actively blocked nuclear developments for years, mostly using made up data as George Monbiot found out:

‘The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation.’

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

‘We have to be sure our facts about nuclear power are right, as the latest exchange with Helen Caldicott shows.’

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/

 

Even the green German government has finally held on to it’s last two nuclear power plants just in case:

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Two-German-plants-to-be-held-in-reserve-temporaril

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where are we going? What’s the Plan?

Parents
  • So much is driven by politics.  The government is thinking of restarting fracking, but still makes it almost impossible to get planning permission for on-shore wind farms.  On-shore wind is about the cheapest form of generation you can get, and we have no idea whether fracking in the UK will even deliver anything useful.  But the government defers to the big oil companies of fracking, and to the NIMBYs on wind farms.

  • lets not forget there's a massive upgrade possibility as Octopus energy recently highlighted. 

    Swap out the power conversion cabinets and gearbox (or similar) in older turbines with a higher capacity where analysis shows it's beneficial and you have increased power generation without needing a new wind turbine site. 

    This has been known about for decades, why is this new news :/ 

  • Do you have any more information on the Octopus proposal? All I can find seems to relate to one press release. 

    Wind farms are typically designed with a separation between turbines appropriate for the hight to avoid masking and foundations appropriate for the overturning force to match the output. For a given wind speed a certain force on the rotor is required to generate a given output. Increase the output and more force is required hence more overturning moment. Increase the height and the output still more overturning force. I am wondering how they have addressed these points?

  • Don't have any more info no. I saw the same kind of thing in the media. 

    On the turbine side I'm not totally sure, but I am aware during my tenure at GE, that we did projects relating to the upgrade of 3Mw systems to 3.6Mw for example, and 3.6Mw to 4Mw.

    Suppose it depends if the turbine is gearbox driven or PMG, as with the latter wouldn't you be able to handle the higher rotating force and essentially draw this off as either dynamic braking (heat) or feed it into the grid 

Reply
  • Don't have any more info no. I saw the same kind of thing in the media. 

    On the turbine side I'm not totally sure, but I am aware during my tenure at GE, that we did projects relating to the upgrade of 3Mw systems to 3.6Mw for example, and 3.6Mw to 4Mw.

    Suppose it depends if the turbine is gearbox driven or PMG, as with the latter wouldn't you be able to handle the higher rotating force and essentially draw this off as either dynamic braking (heat) or feed it into the grid 

Children
No Data