Hydrogen is not happening. It's virtually impossible to transport, to contain, with continuous losses. Only rapid use at the source is worthwhile. Over and over someone proposes liquid hydrogen pipelines and "free superconducting in the pipeline". It's ridiculous nonsense. A synthetic hydrocarbon fuel economy could work, but never with renewables.
Yeah. Another problem is material fatigue for high pressure hydrogen tanks. Hydrogen acts like a Lewis acid. It gets into any inter or intra-molecular space. It wrecks metals over time.
The tanks shown are carbon composite bases. Each fill & use cycle fatigues the tank. The public learned about this from the Oceangate submarine disaster.
Problem is that these lightweight materials have terrible failure modes. Bicyclists have learned this about carbon fiber. It's wonderful. Until it suddenly disintegrates.
That's why submarines use steel. That's why SpaceX switched to steel after spending a billion dollars on carbon fiber tanks.
Each of those carbon fiber tanks are bombs that will eventually go off shortly after filling up.
Wind and solar need an installed capacity of about 3x peak demand and low cost energy storage clos to peak demand. No low cost storage technology is available.
At the moment the government is relying on demand destruction through high prices. Smaller businesses and shops are in the firing line even more than domestic consumers. Even so, the Grid are expanding paid for power cuts this winter - the so-called Demand Flexibility Service. OFGEM have just ruled that the Grid can pay anything they like to secure imports, effectively allowing them to transfer some of the problem to the Continent and more of the bill to UK consumers. The Irish have responded (and others may follow) by banning exports to the UK in market stress conditions. At times converter stations have had convenient faults. It has become a game of whose power cut is it anyway? Do you count rationing schemes? These issues are about inadequate dispatchable capacity during high demand combined with Dunkelflaute.
On a different plane are the risks of the grid falling over due to inadequate inertia and stabilisation, or due to unexpected configurations of supply and demand across the network. The loss of a transmission link can throw up large surpluses and deficits at each end and result in other parts of the grid becoming overloaded as the power re-routes over available connections, causing more trips. This type of failure can produce widespread outages, aggravated by frequency deviations in areas of over and under supply. Grid optimisation is normally conducted by checking to see what would happen if any individual power station or transmission link trips out - N-1 basis. With renewables you may get virtually simultaneous upsets e.g. as weather fronts move through, so now the checks have to cover N-2 for each N-1 contingency, and the risks multiply. Add in plans to reduce grid inertia down to just 2 seconds of demand (before renewables it was typically 7-9 seconds), and there is very little time to react: grid batteries better not fail to detect a problem and respond, whereas physical inertia is quite automatic and follows the laws of physics. Grid batteries have mostly been very good at stomping on frequency excursions above +/-0.2Hz, but there have been a few occasions where the deviation has been much greater, and for now we are operating at around 4 seconds of inertia.
It always has been about demand destruction. This amazingly consistent effort in Western nations, absurd though it may be, is centrally directed, and the purpose is obviously "The Great Reset" "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" Or Else "you will be exterminated" stated plan of our Malthusian Overlords.
Forced transition to EVs = most people won't be able to afford to drive
Forced transition to Wind/Solar/Batteries/Hydrogen = impoverishment and deindustrialization of Western Nations.
Notice their hatred of Nuclear Power, which they have been toning down somewhat, because it blows open the absurdity of their "Climate Change Emergency" Psyop. They still really hate nuclear, they are just trying to hide that fact. Like recently in Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, self-proclaimed #1 champion governor fighting climate change, vetoed a bill to end the state's ban on nuclear power construction. A bill with broad bipartisan support by the legislature. Sleazoid Pritzker came up with a word-salad of mealy-mouthed excuses for why Mr. Climate Change Hero kept the ban on nuclear alive & well in Illinois.
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023Liked by David Turver
One decent, long, cold, icy, snowy winter will bring reality crashing into the halls of power (no pun intended) - our grid is already highly unstable due to renewables reducing inertia, whilst increasing intermittency and parasitic loading, harmonic distortions etc
NGESOs plan is to control demand side requirements downwards to enable the intermittent renewables to cope, hence they are running their demand side discounts again this winter, via suppliers - OVO has 60,000 smart meter consumers signed up ready for winter - that’s a paltry 0.2% of domestic consumers - that ain’t going to keep the lights on!
My advice stock up on candles, a gas stove and diesel generator
Im not sure but the sooner the better as it will expose how weakened the system is and create a backlash that will at a minimum put net zero on a trajectory that balances the goal vs the reality of delivering it.
I agree with you on nuclear, but there are so few suppliers, capex is so high and health and safety considerations so weighty that governments get held to ransom. That won’t change until there are new smaller-scale nuclear technologies on the market. Do you see any coming along? Rolls-Royce? Bill Gates (God forbid)?
They had an excellent SMR design in the UK, Moltex Stable Salt Reactor, which Pratt's analysis concluded it would be the cheapest electricity in Britain. And would run on the spent nuclear fuel the Government is always whining about, that they need to do something with. And they were not allowed to develop them in the UK. So they had to move to Canada where they have passed their 1st stage licensing. And this while the UK gov't claimed to have an SMR program and were promoting their development. Lying, corrupt politicians.
The criminals in the corrupt EU court forced Britain to build the worst designed, most expensive reactor on the planet, the French EPR, and forced them to finance it privately at ~10% interest. The EU court has no problem with Britain buying bombs & missiles to kill children at 1% interest however. Now the UK is thankfully out of the EU, you would think they would switch to the much better, much more economical Korean APR-1400. But no they want to stick with the ripoff EPR.
Its so depressing in the late 50's when nuclear was barely understood they were getting the reactors built in 3-4 years what have we become. Oh and sticking on the hobbyhorse it was all our own kit and technology.
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023Liked by David Turver
How any one thinking himself academic, can peddle such fanciful theory, I just don’t get
As a professional Electrical Engineer and HV PM in the energy / power generation sectors for 40+ years, I have learned quite a lot about energy & power, sometimes that theory and practicalities do not align!
I agree with your analysis David and with comments raised, based on my experience and competence
Hydrogen manufacture would only be viable, in commercial quantity, by virtue of having a totally nuclear powered grid, which gives the stability, reliability and affordability to do it (gas & coal generation would also suffice, however, we need a back up for a time when these two natural resources eventually run out - nuclear materials offer longevity and recyclable/reusable options)
Wind & solar, without unaffordable, unsourceable, time dependent replaceable storage capability, will never be capable of powering a nations grid - they also are a future landfill / pollution crisis in the making - tidal power makes far more economic & engineering sense from the fact it is not weather dependent intermittent, but will still need that unaffordable storage capability to keep the lights on
The Dept of Energy & Net Zero (an oxymoron) should be staffed by people competent in energy & power, it’s the only way common sense and reality will drive energy policies
In all my researches on tidal I have always struggled to find a good case for anything other than very marginal use. The biggest tidal plants are La Rance and Lake Sihwa, Korea, both offering a maximum of around 240MW in spring tides, and an average output if around 60MW. Both have the advantage that there was very little enclosing barrage to be built and paid for, and in the case of La Rance economics were improved by the 4 lane highway over the top saving a lengthy trip upstream for traffic between St Malo and Dinard.
Output from tidal is in fact extremely variable, with lengthy periods of waiting time with no output at all. There is a huge step when generation starts, with maximum power then or soon after, before it tails away. That means that it has to be matched by flexible dispatchable generation that can handle rapid ramp rates. Output varies enormously across the lunar month between spring and neap tides, requiring a 15 day storage to even out the flow (not going to happen). Using some of the basin as storage can help to smooth the flow from one tide to another, at a cost of 70% of the output and more barrages to divide the area. The result is that the power costs about 4 times as much as with not having storage.
The timing of peak output shifts by 52 minutes a day with the orbit of the moon, so you end up with days offering no coverage for peak demand and days when the peak coincides with minimum demand. There have been studies looking at the complex optimisation involved in trying to tailor operations for maximum commercial value at the expense of maximum energy output. They can help the economics a little, but the scope remains limited.
The air source heat pumps peddled by the UK Govt are awful below around 7degC - they run 24/7 to provide tepid heating & water, raising the risk of legionnaires disease and black mould infestations
I can believe that . I had one ~ 1980 in Rochester NY . Not a really cold climate , but the heat pump didn't cut it in the winter .
In NYC they were making a number of ground heat sunk . I'm sure they do better , but they have to overcome a theoretical max 50% inefficiency powering the unit electrically .
The big advantage with electric heating is ETS, electrical thermal storage, they use ceramic plates that can store enough heat so that you can run on surplus nighttime baseload supply, which helps to increase grid efficiency.
Any source of heat can be stored in ` bricks . & nights won't be surplus if everybody is trying to stay warm then .
But resistance heating has a theoretical max efficiency of 50% because current is constant around the loop . An equal amount of heat has to be dissipated at the generator -- lost unless it can be used to heat nearby buildings via steam tunnels , etc , like in the ` old days .
It would be foolish to store any fuel heat source in bricks since the fuel is already storable. Electricity storage is too expensive so when you use an ETS electric boiler you can run it on the low nighttime electricity price, where there is surplus electricity, and that will supply the full days heating.
I don't know what you are talking about "theoretical max efficiency of 50"?!? Resistance heating is close to 100% efficient. Of course the generator efficiency is a factor, which may be anywhere from 30-65% for a thermal generator. That waste heat can be utilized to some extent for CHP applications. ETS heaters are a lot less expensive than heat pumps and much more reliable.
I don't get what you are talking about. Yes the generator generates the full amount used by the electric heating elements, as it is the generator, electricity is the distributor of energy. This is unlike a fossil fueled furnace where it actually generates the energy from the fuel. So the electric heater is ~97% efficient, the losses are in conversion of fuel to electricity at the generator. Those will be from 40-70% of the fuel energy content. Less than that for a CHP generator.
It's the total heat to heat provided at destination that is max 50% . Agreed that the resistance heater itself is ~ 100% efficient , but the same amount of heat has to be expended at the generator to turn it .
It looks as though these studies have adopted the CCC approach of looking at a notional 2050 system while ignoring all the added costs of getting there. So there is no allowance for the energy costs of redoubling the grid, insulating all our buildings, writing off our existing infrastructure and replacing with new, etc. That gives a very false impression of the energy requirements let alone the costs. A renewables based system has lots of low utilisation assets, from electrolysers through storage, grid links etc. not to mention sizeable waste through curtailment.
One thing to point out that the CO2eq emissions of wind and solar are much worse than the oft-repeated claims of 12 gms/kwh and 48gms/kwh resp., as shown in your table. They have been hiding the true emissions, especially of solar which are in actual fact close to CCGT in emissions ~250 gms/kwh.
Solar Panels Are Three Times More Carbon-Intensive Than IPCC Claims
Ecoinvent, the world’s largest database on the environmental impact of renewables, has no data from China, even though it makes most of the world's solar panels:
Oct 30, 2023·edited Oct 30, 2023Liked by David Turver
The reason why Nuclear is so expensive is the level of fear mongering attributed to the principal. Nuclear power and a nuclear bomb are not the same thing for starters.
For one thing I have noticed, any product produced that is given a nuclear safety rating its' price goes up 100 fold because its very profitable for manufacturers that can meet the stringent specifications which are ludicrous.
The only reason that Nuclear cost is so high is that the industry sold a solution with a fear cake being built in to make massive profits under the “Safety Banner” which allowed for massive opportunity costs to be added in design and paperwork and “waste fuel” disposal.
Galen Winsor was taken out as he was an industry threat.
It is of course complete nonsense, since it take no account of handling intermittency of renewables for a start. The analysis works only for the first wind farm you connect to the grid, but as soon as you start having to invest to accommodate all the problems that renewables bring, including the needs for curtailment and storage, and if you acocunt properly for their manufacture as well, you are going to end up with very different answers, as this blog has already shown.
Figure 7 in the paper I referenced compares the EROI in a thermal dominated grid to that in a renewable dominated grid and shows that these are all lower in an intermittent renewable dominated grid. But it then goes on to say this which I thought was a helpful contribution to the conversation: (0.3=mostly thermal, 0.7=mostly renewable)
In more general terms, the systematically lower EROIPE-eq values for all technologies, when calculated using ηG = 0.7 should not surprise nor be a reason for concern. This is simply the consequence of assuming deployment in a grid mix that is itself on average significantly more efficient at converting primary energy into electricity over its whole life cycle. As discussed in Section 2.4, while the individual EROIPE-eq for all technologies would be reduced in such conditions, at the same time it is reasonable to expect that, in the future, the same widespread deployment of low-cost renewable energies that will lead to a higher ηG = 0.7 in the first place will also enable a higher degree of electrification across multiple sectors and end uses, thereby essentially lowering the “minimum EROI” threshold to above that which a healthy societal energy metabolism may be sustained.
At present, the EROIPE-eq values obtained by setting ηG = 0.3 may still be considered the more representative ones, as the use of thermal technologies to generate electricity is still prevalent globally. These values were therefore selected to be reported vs. the corresponding NTG ratios (i.e., superimposed on the “net energy cliff”) in Figure 8. This latter figure allows a clearer visualization of which electricity generation technologies can be expected to generate sufficient net energy over their life cycles. Once again, the results show that most renewable technologies actually lead to NTG > 0.9, meaning that over 90% of the equivalent primary energy returned by them remains available for societal uses other than supporting the energy sector itself. Overall, this is a reassuring result that should put to rest many often-voiced concerns about the net energy viability of non-conventional and renewable electricity.
The paper does of course account for the energy in renewable manufacturing - I'm not sure what you think the shortfall is that makes you think it doesn't account for it properly? Unless you mean EV manufacture? It's true that it doesn't go into this and the energy for EV manufacturing is higher due to the mineral extraction, but this can be expected to reduce as existing vehicles reach the end of their life and the minerals can be recycled. On the other hand the EROI for petrol and diesel is going to get worse over time as extraction becomes more energy intensive because we've got all the easy stuff.
Try reading my reply and understanding. Also try understanding the implicatoins of the Royal Society study that shows a need for humungous quantities of storage and a very inefficient round trip in and out of that, and not mentioned by tehm a massive grid investment with low utilisation. Then realise that it is based on and then there's magic unicorns, and if you use more realistic assumptions as Prof Mike Kelly suggested in his Telegraph article the picture is even worse.
Well I'm disappointed after all that effort to make a long specific reply,,you don't think I even read your post. I am trying to understand, honest, and have read most of the posts on this blog even if I don't have time to respond to each one.
If your main objection is the massive levels of storage needed, and over capacity, are we ok to keep going with more renewables until until that point is reached or we can increase our nuclear capacity?
The Weisbach paper that is the evidence behind this blog post argues that the EROI of renewables is an order of magnitude lower than conventional generation which if it were true I can see as a reasonable argument for not building any more renewables. You talk about flawed assumptions but haven't mentioned any in the paper I cited as evidence that the gap in EROI is not so great, even allowing for storage. I will give you some specific flaws I can see in the Weisbach paper.
Firstly and most importantly, it seems to include the thermal energy output of conventional generation. In practice this is rarely utilised which will over-estimate the EROI of coal/gas/nuclear. It also uses a 1.5MW wind turbine as representative of onshore wind size when for new sites it will be at least double which brings significant efficiencies to increase EROI. PV panel efficiency has also increased since the paper was written in 2013.
PS, I can't read the Telegraph article as it's behind a paywall but it looks like he may have misunderstood the Royal Society study.
Perhaps you can point where in the study you originally cited they incorporated proper allowance for storage and curtailment and extra transmission etc. rather than mere gobbledegook.
The Net Zero Watch reads like back tracking disguised as doubling down. Who would have read the original telegraph article and thought he meant the original estimate of the HS2 cost. Plus if you are going to include running costs you should probably make it net of the running costs of the current energy system.
The study I linked handles the problem of intermittency and storage by the factor nG, the life cycle efficiency of the grid, which is what the 'gobbledegook' above is trying to explain.
Hydrogen is not happening. It's virtually impossible to transport, to contain, with continuous losses. Only rapid use at the source is worthwhile. Over and over someone proposes liquid hydrogen pipelines and "free superconducting in the pipeline". It's ridiculous nonsense. A synthetic hydrocarbon fuel economy could work, but never with renewables.
A good video on the foolishness and impracticability of using hydrogen to fuel transportation:
The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine, Engineering Explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8
Yeah. Another problem is material fatigue for high pressure hydrogen tanks. Hydrogen acts like a Lewis acid. It gets into any inter or intra-molecular space. It wrecks metals over time.
The tanks shown are carbon composite bases. Each fill & use cycle fatigues the tank. The public learned about this from the Oceangate submarine disaster.
Problem is that these lightweight materials have terrible failure modes. Bicyclists have learned this about carbon fiber. It's wonderful. Until it suddenly disintegrates.
That's why submarines use steel. That's why SpaceX switched to steel after spending a billion dollars on carbon fiber tanks.
Each of those carbon fiber tanks are bombs that will eventually go off shortly after filling up.
Carbon fiber failing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGs10s0EFRY
Good one.
Wind and solar need an installed capacity of about 3x peak demand and low cost energy storage clos to peak demand. No low cost storage technology is available.
When do you think the first UK power cuts will happen as a result of pursuing NetZero? Physical reality has to hit sometime.
At the moment the government is relying on demand destruction through high prices. Smaller businesses and shops are in the firing line even more than domestic consumers. Even so, the Grid are expanding paid for power cuts this winter - the so-called Demand Flexibility Service. OFGEM have just ruled that the Grid can pay anything they like to secure imports, effectively allowing them to transfer some of the problem to the Continent and more of the bill to UK consumers. The Irish have responded (and others may follow) by banning exports to the UK in market stress conditions. At times converter stations have had convenient faults. It has become a game of whose power cut is it anyway? Do you count rationing schemes? These issues are about inadequate dispatchable capacity during high demand combined with Dunkelflaute.
On a different plane are the risks of the grid falling over due to inadequate inertia and stabilisation, or due to unexpected configurations of supply and demand across the network. The loss of a transmission link can throw up large surpluses and deficits at each end and result in other parts of the grid becoming overloaded as the power re-routes over available connections, causing more trips. This type of failure can produce widespread outages, aggravated by frequency deviations in areas of over and under supply. Grid optimisation is normally conducted by checking to see what would happen if any individual power station or transmission link trips out - N-1 basis. With renewables you may get virtually simultaneous upsets e.g. as weather fronts move through, so now the checks have to cover N-2 for each N-1 contingency, and the risks multiply. Add in plans to reduce grid inertia down to just 2 seconds of demand (before renewables it was typically 7-9 seconds), and there is very little time to react: grid batteries better not fail to detect a problem and respond, whereas physical inertia is quite automatic and follows the laws of physics. Grid batteries have mostly been very good at stomping on frequency excursions above +/-0.2Hz, but there have been a few occasions where the deviation has been much greater, and for now we are operating at around 4 seconds of inertia.
It always has been about demand destruction. This amazingly consistent effort in Western nations, absurd though it may be, is centrally directed, and the purpose is obviously "The Great Reset" "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" Or Else "you will be exterminated" stated plan of our Malthusian Overlords.
Forced transition to EVs = most people won't be able to afford to drive
Forced transition to Wind/Solar/Batteries/Hydrogen = impoverishment and deindustrialization of Western Nations.
Notice their hatred of Nuclear Power, which they have been toning down somewhat, because it blows open the absurdity of their "Climate Change Emergency" Psyop. They still really hate nuclear, they are just trying to hide that fact. Like recently in Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, self-proclaimed #1 champion governor fighting climate change, vetoed a bill to end the state's ban on nuclear power construction. A bill with broad bipartisan support by the legislature. Sleazoid Pritzker came up with a word-salad of mealy-mouthed excuses for why Mr. Climate Change Hero kept the ban on nuclear alive & well in Illinois.
One decent, long, cold, icy, snowy winter will bring reality crashing into the halls of power (no pun intended) - our grid is already highly unstable due to renewables reducing inertia, whilst increasing intermittency and parasitic loading, harmonic distortions etc
NGESOs plan is to control demand side requirements downwards to enable the intermittent renewables to cope, hence they are running their demand side discounts again this winter, via suppliers - OVO has 60,000 smart meter consumers signed up ready for winter - that’s a paltry 0.2% of domestic consumers - that ain’t going to keep the lights on!
My advice stock up on candles, a gas stove and diesel generator
Im not sure but the sooner the better as it will expose how weakened the system is and create a backlash that will at a minimum put net zero on a trajectory that balances the goal vs the reality of delivering it.
I agree with you on nuclear, but there are so few suppliers, capex is so high and health and safety considerations so weighty that governments get held to ransom. That won’t change until there are new smaller-scale nuclear technologies on the market. Do you see any coming along? Rolls-Royce? Bill Gates (God forbid)?
They had an excellent SMR design in the UK, Moltex Stable Salt Reactor, which Pratt's analysis concluded it would be the cheapest electricity in Britain. And would run on the spent nuclear fuel the Government is always whining about, that they need to do something with. And they were not allowed to develop them in the UK. So they had to move to Canada where they have passed their 1st stage licensing. And this while the UK gov't claimed to have an SMR program and were promoting their development. Lying, corrupt politicians.
The criminals in the corrupt EU court forced Britain to build the worst designed, most expensive reactor on the planet, the French EPR, and forced them to finance it privately at ~10% interest. The EU court has no problem with Britain buying bombs & missiles to kill children at 1% interest however. Now the UK is thankfully out of the EU, you would think they would switch to the much better, much more economical Korean APR-1400. But no they want to stick with the ripoff EPR.
Its so depressing in the late 50's when nuclear was barely understood they were getting the reactors built in 3-4 years what have we become. Oh and sticking on the hobbyhorse it was all our own kit and technology.
Health and safety of nuclear is not a real issue. At all. PhD biologist talking.
https://www.amazon.com/Radiation-Exposure-treatment-modern-handbook-ebook/dp/B00D7KLQYY
How any one thinking himself academic, can peddle such fanciful theory, I just don’t get
As a professional Electrical Engineer and HV PM in the energy / power generation sectors for 40+ years, I have learned quite a lot about energy & power, sometimes that theory and practicalities do not align!
I agree with your analysis David and with comments raised, based on my experience and competence
Hydrogen manufacture would only be viable, in commercial quantity, by virtue of having a totally nuclear powered grid, which gives the stability, reliability and affordability to do it (gas & coal generation would also suffice, however, we need a back up for a time when these two natural resources eventually run out - nuclear materials offer longevity and recyclable/reusable options)
Wind & solar, without unaffordable, unsourceable, time dependent replaceable storage capability, will never be capable of powering a nations grid - they also are a future landfill / pollution crisis in the making - tidal power makes far more economic & engineering sense from the fact it is not weather dependent intermittent, but will still need that unaffordable storage capability to keep the lights on
The Dept of Energy & Net Zero (an oxymoron) should be staffed by people competent in energy & power, it’s the only way common sense and reality will drive energy policies
In all my researches on tidal I have always struggled to find a good case for anything other than very marginal use. The biggest tidal plants are La Rance and Lake Sihwa, Korea, both offering a maximum of around 240MW in spring tides, and an average output if around 60MW. Both have the advantage that there was very little enclosing barrage to be built and paid for, and in the case of La Rance economics were improved by the 4 lane highway over the top saving a lengthy trip upstream for traffic between St Malo and Dinard.
Output from tidal is in fact extremely variable, with lengthy periods of waiting time with no output at all. There is a huge step when generation starts, with maximum power then or soon after, before it tails away. That means that it has to be matched by flexible dispatchable generation that can handle rapid ramp rates. Output varies enormously across the lunar month between spring and neap tides, requiring a 15 day storage to even out the flow (not going to happen). Using some of the basin as storage can help to smooth the flow from one tide to another, at a cost of 70% of the output and more barrages to divide the area. The result is that the power costs about 4 times as much as with not having storage.
The timing of peak output shifts by 52 minutes a day with the orbit of the moon, so you end up with days offering no coverage for peak demand and days when the peak coincides with minimum demand. There have been studies looking at the complex optimisation involved in trying to tailor operations for maximum commercial value at the expense of maximum energy output. They can help the economics a little, but the scope remains limited.
Fully agree - as I said, without unaffordable, unsourceable storage, renewables, as a nation power, are useless
Electric resistance heating is as Inefficient as one can get . Criminally absurd to try to ban gas in climates that commonly reach -10c for months .
Not as inefficient as an heat pump, but yes, I agree with your sentiment
Heat pumps are more efficient down to a certain temp . But not much if at all below 0c .
The air source heat pumps peddled by the UK Govt are awful below around 7degC - they run 24/7 to provide tepid heating & water, raising the risk of legionnaires disease and black mould infestations
I can believe that . I had one ~ 1980 in Rochester NY . Not a really cold climate , but the heat pump didn't cut it in the winter .
In NYC they were making a number of ground heat sunk . I'm sure they do better , but they have to overcome a theoretical max 50% inefficiency powering the unit electrically .
The big advantage with electric heating is ETS, electrical thermal storage, they use ceramic plates that can store enough heat so that you can run on surplus nighttime baseload supply, which helps to increase grid efficiency.
Any source of heat can be stored in ` bricks . & nights won't be surplus if everybody is trying to stay warm then .
But resistance heating has a theoretical max efficiency of 50% because current is constant around the loop . An equal amount of heat has to be dissipated at the generator -- lost unless it can be used to heat nearby buildings via steam tunnels , etc , like in the ` old days .
It would be foolish to store any fuel heat source in bricks since the fuel is already storable. Electricity storage is too expensive so when you use an ETS electric boiler you can run it on the low nighttime electricity price, where there is surplus electricity, and that will supply the full days heating.
I don't know what you are talking about "theoretical max efficiency of 50"?!? Resistance heating is close to 100% efficient. Of course the generator efficiency is a factor, which may be anywhere from 30-65% for a thermal generator. That waste heat can be utilized to some extent for CHP applications. ETS heaters are a lot less expensive than heat pumps and much more reliable.
Only thermal generation reliably produces nighttime surplus . Solar of course is a 0 .
And nights are when the heating load is often greatest .
It got down to -17c here above Colorado Springs last night . It's now up to -15.3 .
I thought electric resistance heating was 100pc efficient by definition?.
Because current is constant around the circuit , an equal amount has to be ` spent at the generator . That's why the massive cooling towers or ponds .
I don't get what you are talking about. Yes the generator generates the full amount used by the electric heating elements, as it is the generator, electricity is the distributor of energy. This is unlike a fossil fueled furnace where it actually generates the energy from the fuel. So the electric heater is ~97% efficient, the losses are in conversion of fuel to electricity at the generator. Those will be from 40-70% of the fuel energy content. Less than that for a CHP generator.
It's the total heat to heat provided at destination that is max 50% . Agreed that the resistance heater itself is ~ 100% efficient , but the same amount of heat has to be expended at the generator to turn it .
Can anyone explain to me how it is possible to make steel without carbon?
As an advocate of all things Carbon, I don’t contemplate anything without it
It looks as though these studies have adopted the CCC approach of looking at a notional 2050 system while ignoring all the added costs of getting there. So there is no allowance for the energy costs of redoubling the grid, insulating all our buildings, writing off our existing infrastructure and replacing with new, etc. That gives a very false impression of the energy requirements let alone the costs. A renewables based system has lots of low utilisation assets, from electrolysers through storage, grid links etc. not to mention sizeable waste through curtailment.
One thing to point out that the CO2eq emissions of wind and solar are much worse than the oft-repeated claims of 12 gms/kwh and 48gms/kwh resp., as shown in your table. They have been hiding the true emissions, especially of solar which are in actual fact close to CCGT in emissions ~250 gms/kwh.
Solar Panels Are Three Times More Carbon-Intensive Than IPCC Claims
Ecoinvent, the world’s largest database on the environmental impact of renewables, has no data from China, even though it makes most of the world's solar panels:
https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-intensive
The reason why Nuclear is so expensive is the level of fear mongering attributed to the principal. Nuclear power and a nuclear bomb are not the same thing for starters.
For one thing I have noticed, any product produced that is given a nuclear safety rating its' price goes up 100 fold because its very profitable for manufacturers that can meet the stringent specifications which are ludicrous.
The only reason that Nuclear cost is so high is that the industry sold a solution with a fear cake being built in to make massive profits under the “Safety Banner” which allowed for massive opportunity costs to be added in design and paperwork and “waste fuel” disposal.
Galen Winsor was taken out as he was an industry threat.
A reasonable question to ask and there are papers doing so. For example this paper makes the case that moving to EVs is good news for EROI.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098
It is of course complete nonsense, since it take no account of handling intermittency of renewables for a start. The analysis works only for the first wind farm you connect to the grid, but as soon as you start having to invest to accommodate all the problems that renewables bring, including the needs for curtailment and storage, and if you acocunt properly for their manufacture as well, you are going to end up with very different answers, as this blog has already shown.
Figure 7 in the paper I referenced compares the EROI in a thermal dominated grid to that in a renewable dominated grid and shows that these are all lower in an intermittent renewable dominated grid. But it then goes on to say this which I thought was a helpful contribution to the conversation: (0.3=mostly thermal, 0.7=mostly renewable)
In more general terms, the systematically lower EROIPE-eq values for all technologies, when calculated using ηG = 0.7 should not surprise nor be a reason for concern. This is simply the consequence of assuming deployment in a grid mix that is itself on average significantly more efficient at converting primary energy into electricity over its whole life cycle. As discussed in Section 2.4, while the individual EROIPE-eq for all technologies would be reduced in such conditions, at the same time it is reasonable to expect that, in the future, the same widespread deployment of low-cost renewable energies that will lead to a higher ηG = 0.7 in the first place will also enable a higher degree of electrification across multiple sectors and end uses, thereby essentially lowering the “minimum EROI” threshold to above that which a healthy societal energy metabolism may be sustained.
At present, the EROIPE-eq values obtained by setting ηG = 0.3 may still be considered the more representative ones, as the use of thermal technologies to generate electricity is still prevalent globally. These values were therefore selected to be reported vs. the corresponding NTG ratios (i.e., superimposed on the “net energy cliff”) in Figure 8. This latter figure allows a clearer visualization of which electricity generation technologies can be expected to generate sufficient net energy over their life cycles. Once again, the results show that most renewable technologies actually lead to NTG > 0.9, meaning that over 90% of the equivalent primary energy returned by them remains available for societal uses other than supporting the energy sector itself. Overall, this is a reassuring result that should put to rest many often-voiced concerns about the net energy viability of non-conventional and renewable electricity.
The paper does of course account for the energy in renewable manufacturing - I'm not sure what you think the shortfall is that makes you think it doesn't account for it properly? Unless you mean EV manufacture? It's true that it doesn't go into this and the energy for EV manufacturing is higher due to the mineral extraction, but this can be expected to reduce as existing vehicles reach the end of their life and the minerals can be recycled. On the other hand the EROI for petrol and diesel is going to get worse over time as extraction becomes more energy intensive because we've got all the easy stuff.
Try reading my reply and understanding. Also try understanding the implicatoins of the Royal Society study that shows a need for humungous quantities of storage and a very inefficient round trip in and out of that, and not mentioned by tehm a massive grid investment with low utilisation. Then realise that it is based on and then there's magic unicorns, and if you use more realistic assumptions as Prof Mike Kelly suggested in his Telegraph article the picture is even worse.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/green-energy-solar-wind-renewable-energy-interconnector/
I think Prof Kelly might have had more of a read of recent articles at this blog than you have.
Well I'm disappointed after all that effort to make a long specific reply,,you don't think I even read your post. I am trying to understand, honest, and have read most of the posts on this blog even if I don't have time to respond to each one.
If your main objection is the massive levels of storage needed, and over capacity, are we ok to keep going with more renewables until until that point is reached or we can increase our nuclear capacity?
The Weisbach paper that is the evidence behind this blog post argues that the EROI of renewables is an order of magnitude lower than conventional generation which if it were true I can see as a reasonable argument for not building any more renewables. You talk about flawed assumptions but haven't mentioned any in the paper I cited as evidence that the gap in EROI is not so great, even allowing for storage. I will give you some specific flaws I can see in the Weisbach paper.
Firstly and most importantly, it seems to include the thermal energy output of conventional generation. In practice this is rarely utilised which will over-estimate the EROI of coal/gas/nuclear. It also uses a 1.5MW wind turbine as representative of onshore wind size when for new sites it will be at least double which brings significant efficiencies to increase EROI. PV panel efficiency has also increased since the paper was written in 2013.
PS, I can't read the Telegraph article as it's behind a paywall but it looks like he may have misunderstood the Royal Society study.
https://x.com/DrSimEvans/status/1719667363690275305?s=20
Schoolboy errors by Simon Evans:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/why-dr-evans-is-wrong/
Perhaps you can point where in the study you originally cited they incorporated proper allowance for storage and curtailment and extra transmission etc. rather than mere gobbledegook.
The Net Zero Watch reads like back tracking disguised as doubling down. Who would have read the original telegraph article and thought he meant the original estimate of the HS2 cost. Plus if you are going to include running costs you should probably make it net of the running costs of the current energy system.
The study I linked handles the problem of intermittency and storage by the factor nG, the life cycle efficiency of the grid, which is what the 'gobbledegook' above is trying to explain.