“ They are obviously somewhat concerned about energy scarcity and intermittency because of their emphasis on TOUTs and automatic control of appliances. Instead of re-thinking and coming up with a plan for energy abundance, they continue down the path of expensive, scarce energy and Big Brother controls.”
I don’t think you have understood what they are talking about
Renewables are intermittent (that’s not news), but they are also government policy, so that’s what the FES has to work with. It’s not the role of FES to fundamentally challenge government on policy, but to work within policy and identify future areas for policy
Maybe you could share with them your ideas for energy abundance. I’ve always found them very approachable
“ Many of the technologies they are recommending are unproven at scale and woeful economics.”
Yes, they say the same, which helps make choices between technologies necessary to meet objectives. Exactly what you would hope to get from such analysis
“ the document makes a direct call for subsidising the cost of hydrogen and makes further demands for policy support, financial support, incentives, price signals, business models and market mechanisms”
Isn’t one of the objectives of the FES to provide early warning to government of the implications of meeting their objectives? Government policy is an input to the FES, and guidance on future policy is an output
“ The report also recommends widespread use of time-of-use tariffs (TOUT) stating: “consumers need to be rewarded for turning down demand at peak times and turning up demand when there is excess generation”. In other words, consumers need to organise their lives around the grid rather than the grid being designed to meet the needs of their customers. They also call for appliances to be controlled automatically to “optimise” demand and coordinate with price signals in the TOUT tariffs”
This is exactly how my central heating works. My smart thermostat from Homely optimises when the heat pump runs based on the TOUT, weather forecast, inside temp and outside temp, with the objective of minimising cost. I’ve been running this way for the past four years. The future is here!
“ Another source of friction may be what Miliband might see as a lack of ambition about the installed capacity of renewables. In their manifesto, Labour promised to double onshore wind, triple solar and quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030. As Figure 9 shows, all the pathways miss Labour’s target except for onshore wind under the holistic transition pathway”
Because when the FES was written the ESO were working to the targets and timescales of the previous government
“ Second, Ed Miliband is stopping further exploration of the North Sea, meaning our domestic gas supply will fall faster than anticipated. However, NG ESO forecast that we will still be using gas beyond 2050 on all net zero pathways and we will be importing almost all of it. Something must fuel those gas plants with CCS and make all that blue hydrogen. Figure 8 shows the annual supply and import dependency for the Hydrogen Evolution pathway”
But we’re not following the Hydrogen Evolution pathway
“ There are some clouds on the horizon for NG ESO now the new Labour Government is in place. First, Labour have committed to decarbonise the grid by 2030, however, all of the FES pathways show there will be significant CO2 emissions from the electricity system by 2030 (17-44 Mt, compared to 55Mt last year). Presumably, NG ESO does not believe Labour’s plan is a “credible route to net zero.””
Or maybe most of the report was written and finalised before the election when the target date was 2035? I’m not aware Labour have revealed a plan for after 2030, other that net zero by 2050, which is what the FES describes
“ Basically, this means planting more trees and restoring peatlands. It is rather odd that they plan to chop down loads of trees for BECCS to produce negative emissions and also plant more trees under LULUCF for even more negative emissions.”
I thought the rate at which most tree species captured most carbon was in the first 30-50 years, so as these are crops, harvest them, burn them and capture the carbon underground
In the process we increase the land cover with trees (the land use change part) which increases soil carbon
“ BECCS is the process of chopping down trees in North America, pulping and drying them into pellets, then shipping them to power stations like Drax to be burnt to produce electricity.”
BECCS could also include, for example, the production of methane from grass silage and burning that in CCGTs fitted with CCS. The FES isn’t prescriptive of the type of bio energy
“ As can be seen from Figures 4 and 5, all three of the pathways that achieve net zero envisage significant power generation from hydrogen, and significant amounts of that hydrogen to be blue hydrogen made from methane. They are proposing to take methane, lose at least half the embedded energy to make hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen to make electricity”
Not really, it’s the holistic pathway we are following and which is being used for all the subsequent grid development work. You must remember that when the FES first started that hydrogen was a great hope, but until Ofgem formally rule out the hydrogen dominated pathway it has to remain for completeness. Scenario analysis correctly looks at less feasible scenarios as comparators for more feasible scenarios. Your comment builds the case for the holistic scenario which is exactly the point
“ They have subtly altered the report now to discuss “Pathways” instead of “Scenarios,” but confusingly the report is still called “Future Energy Scenarios,” not “Future Energy Pathways.””
As I’m sure you know, the development of the pathways is to comply with the Ofgem request isn’t it, and the relationship between pathways and scenarios is clearly explained
The report is still called “… Scenarios” as that is the title of their annual report series and it would be more confusing if this year it were retitled “… Pathways”
“ As I never tire of saying, halving energy use is extremely dangerous. According to Our World in Data, there are no rich countries with such low energy use ”
The FES energy data does not include the energy taken from ground or air in heat pumps, so a direct comparison is misleading
Why would you compare the U.K. at net zero, powered mainly by renewables and nuclear, and using heat pumps and EVs to other nations currently relying on fossil fuels as their primary energy source?
“ If this is the best they can do, we are in big trouble. And now Labour is in power, things can only get worse”
Please let us all know when you publish your version
“ They are obviously somewhat concerned about energy scarcity and intermittency because of their emphasis on TOUTs and automatic control of appliances. Instead of re-thinking and coming up with a plan for energy abundance, they continue down the path of expensive, scarce energy and Big Brother controls.”
I don’t think you have understood what they are talking about
Renewables are intermittent (that’s not news), but they are also government policy, so that’s what the FES has to work with. It’s not the role of FES to fundamentally challenge government on policy, but to work within policy and identify future areas for policy
Maybe you could share with them your ideas for energy abundance. I’ve always found them very approachable
“ Many of the technologies they are recommending are unproven at scale and woeful economics.”
Yes, they say the same, which helps make choices between technologies necessary to meet objectives. Exactly what you would hope to get from such analysis
“ the document makes a direct call for subsidising the cost of hydrogen and makes further demands for policy support, financial support, incentives, price signals, business models and market mechanisms”
Isn’t one of the objectives of the FES to provide early warning to government of the implications of meeting their objectives? Government policy is an input to the FES, and guidance on future policy is an output
“ Totalitarian control of energy use is bound to be a feature of an energy scarce environment, not a bug.”
LOL!
“ The report also recommends widespread use of time-of-use tariffs (TOUT) stating: “consumers need to be rewarded for turning down demand at peak times and turning up demand when there is excess generation”. In other words, consumers need to organise their lives around the grid rather than the grid being designed to meet the needs of their customers. They also call for appliances to be controlled automatically to “optimise” demand and coordinate with price signals in the TOUT tariffs”
This is exactly how my central heating works. My smart thermostat from Homely optimises when the heat pump runs based on the TOUT, weather forecast, inside temp and outside temp, with the objective of minimising cost. I’ve been running this way for the past four years. The future is here!
“ Another source of friction may be what Miliband might see as a lack of ambition about the installed capacity of renewables. In their manifesto, Labour promised to double onshore wind, triple solar and quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030. As Figure 9 shows, all the pathways miss Labour’s target except for onshore wind under the holistic transition pathway”
Because when the FES was written the ESO were working to the targets and timescales of the previous government
“ Second, Ed Miliband is stopping further exploration of the North Sea, meaning our domestic gas supply will fall faster than anticipated. However, NG ESO forecast that we will still be using gas beyond 2050 on all net zero pathways and we will be importing almost all of it. Something must fuel those gas plants with CCS and make all that blue hydrogen. Figure 8 shows the annual supply and import dependency for the Hydrogen Evolution pathway”
But we’re not following the Hydrogen Evolution pathway
“ There are some clouds on the horizon for NG ESO now the new Labour Government is in place. First, Labour have committed to decarbonise the grid by 2030, however, all of the FES pathways show there will be significant CO2 emissions from the electricity system by 2030 (17-44 Mt, compared to 55Mt last year). Presumably, NG ESO does not believe Labour’s plan is a “credible route to net zero.””
Or maybe most of the report was written and finalised before the election when the target date was 2035? I’m not aware Labour have revealed a plan for after 2030, other that net zero by 2050, which is what the FES describes
“ Basically, this means planting more trees and restoring peatlands. It is rather odd that they plan to chop down loads of trees for BECCS to produce negative emissions and also plant more trees under LULUCF for even more negative emissions.”
I thought the rate at which most tree species captured most carbon was in the first 30-50 years, so as these are crops, harvest them, burn them and capture the carbon underground
In the process we increase the land cover with trees (the land use change part) which increases soil carbon
“ BECCS is the process of chopping down trees in North America, pulping and drying them into pellets, then shipping them to power stations like Drax to be burnt to produce electricity.”
BECCS could also include, for example, the production of methane from grass silage and burning that in CCGTs fitted with CCS. The FES isn’t prescriptive of the type of bio energy
“ As can be seen from Figures 4 and 5, all three of the pathways that achieve net zero envisage significant power generation from hydrogen, and significant amounts of that hydrogen to be blue hydrogen made from methane. They are proposing to take methane, lose at least half the embedded energy to make hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen to make electricity”
Not really, it’s the holistic pathway we are following and which is being used for all the subsequent grid development work. You must remember that when the FES first started that hydrogen was a great hope, but until Ofgem formally rule out the hydrogen dominated pathway it has to remain for completeness. Scenario analysis correctly looks at less feasible scenarios as comparators for more feasible scenarios. Your comment builds the case for the holistic scenario which is exactly the point
“ They have subtly altered the report now to discuss “Pathways” instead of “Scenarios,” but confusingly the report is still called “Future Energy Scenarios,” not “Future Energy Pathways.””
As I’m sure you know, the development of the pathways is to comply with the Ofgem request isn’t it, and the relationship between pathways and scenarios is clearly explained
The report is still called “… Scenarios” as that is the title of their annual report series and it would be more confusing if this year it were retitled “… Pathways”
“ As I never tire of saying, halving energy use is extremely dangerous. According to Our World in Data, there are no rich countries with such low energy use ”
The FES energy data does not include the energy taken from ground or air in heat pumps, so a direct comparison is misleading
“ No energy intensive industry will want to locate in the UK if their main input cost is nine times more expensive than in America.”
Surely that depends on the form of energy they use. Your assumption is that the industry is consuming hydrogen
Why would you compare the U.K. at net zero, powered mainly by renewables and nuclear, and using heat pumps and EVs to other nations currently relying on fossil fuels as their primary energy source?