Not if you keep the internal size the same and just increase the foot print, but thats the issue as you can no longer cram them into a field to max profit, I have been told it could reduce numbers per a given area by 30%. If we all do nothing then for a shorter period of time you won't need any insulation, just good aircon as the ambient global temperatures sore!
Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025
- Thread starter devonwoody
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Yes. if you look at the figures for double glazing the annual energy cost between (eg) A and A+ is minimal, but the cost of the windows often isn't.
In Canada in the 1980s they developed the R-2000 standard to build houses that were super sealed with thick walls in reaction to the energy crisis of the 70s. I was at a small party at one when it was -30C outside (in Manitoba) and they had to open the windows because it was getting too hot from the people inside. I suppose each person must be 100 watts or so. They ran into lots of trouble with moisture and mold with these houses, so they had to retrofit them with mechanical ventilation with exchangers so they would not lose too much heat.
That's what I was thinking - not the party part, but there needs to be some kind of calculated air turnover to get the nasties out of the house even if the nasties are just stink and moisture. Sooner or later, something in the house will get wet even if it's not people moisture, and if it's perfectly confined, it'll do bad things.
At some point, people living in 3000sf, etc, with two cars a long commute and traveling for business and vacation are going to have to reconcile with the idea that they are bigger polluters than people in poverty in small old inefficient houses. That doesn't seem to get recognized here, but I guess you can market to those folks by telling them they can go anywhere, anytime, all over the place and heat every corner of the house because it's "efficient". I wonder where the cars they turn over super often go.
At some point, people living in 3000sf, etc, with two cars a long commute and traveling for business and vacation are going to have to reconcile with the idea that they are bigger polluters than people in poverty in small old inefficient houses. That doesn't seem to get recognized here, but I guess you can market to those folks by telling them they can go anywhere, anytime, all over the place and heat every corner of the house because it's "efficient". I wonder where the cars they turn over super often go.
xy mosian
Established Member
Yes, I was expecting a quick return to power. This one was quite widespread, as far as I could see from the upper romm windows anyway, PUB out sadly. Without real clock watching I believe it lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. No harm done but it made me think.
xy
That is the plan.
UK energy policy was all over the place in the years 1998 to 2008 as the government was wrestling with so many vested interests, coal, gas, oil, renewables, nuclear lobby. Since then the debate has settled and a pretty decent energy policy has emerged with a strong decarbonising agenda.
Basically subsides for renewables in solar and wind to kick start the market have paid off and we now have electricity competitively generated by large scale solar and wind and costs falling as industrial scale production ramps up. Solar and Wind will be compatible to other sources of electricity and cost will continue to fall.
Coal is the big polluter and is being rapidly phased out.
Natural gas is a kind of stop gap solution, its emits half the co2 per Giga watt as does coal, so its is a good and quick replacement for coal. But it will have to be replaced. Gas and oil are cheap to produce, so there will be cost issues as they are replaced.
Nuclear is part of the mix. The problem with nuclear is, not so much the hazards of nuclear, but the huge capital cost of of large scale stations eg Hinkley point, it effectively needs government cash to get going. Roll Royce have been pushing the idea of SMRs small modular reactions, they are must more cost effective to build build as they can be build in a factory and then shipped to the power station. The result is a station such as Hartlepool or Sizewell would have dozens of small reactions rather than 3 or 4 huge ones. Its based on their submarine reactor, much easier to install and decommission. They planned this in the 2000 to 2010 period but then it ran into government quagmire and was finally announced as part of the nuclear deal last year with a £500m programme. Projected nuclear generation:
A source of confusion in the UK newpapers, the predomenant dicuson is about electricity going green, but electricity is only about 20% of our energy use, its all the other uses as well - tranport, industry, heating that also have to be replaced. The vast majority of our energy comes from oil an gas.
The biggest CO2 emissions are transport and domestic space heating so they are high up on the governments agenda for Net Zero. This will mean find ways to replace domestic gas heating. This graphic shows the total energy by source and also the source of energy for electricity generation. So whilst Wind, solar and hydro were 20% of electricity generation in 2017 ( 24% in 2020), that is only 20% of 21% so only 4% of total energy supply was renewables in 2017.
So its a massive challenge for the UK to complety replace its dominant energy sources.
This graphs shows government projecting to 2050 , cf 2019,sows coal, oil gas are replaced by hydrogen and electricity.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...g-our-net-zero-future-accessible-html-version
This final graphic from Bloomberg summarises the past from 2012 and projects the energy mix into electricity generation and I guess space heading to 2040 (its seems to have overlooked oil and diesel!).
So coal in red provided close to 50% of UKs energy needs in 2012 and will be gone by 2025. Gas has grown to fill the gap from coal but it then declines from 2022 onwards, Nuclear declines as old stations come off line, but picks up as new technology kicks in from late 2020 onwards and renewals continue to grow from less than 1% in 2012 to provide 75% of all energy by 2050, nuclear providing the rest. Not sure what happened to oil in this graphic! - edited for typos!
Attachments
Last edited:
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Plan is to go renewable and nuclear by 2050. I've just posted latest projections. We are paying for the transition to renewals from the levy on our existing gas and electric bills. I suspect in the next few years we will see tax on gas increase to encourage a switch to electric heating. You re tight the the fundamental issue is population size, we are consuming 6 planets worth of resources at present. Projects of world population have it peaking in 2070 at 9bn. We all need to become more frugal consumers if we aren't to go the way of the dinosaurs!
Politicians probably overpromising, but there is huge investments being made in the grid and generation, there is money being made, so there are incentives. But a lot of unknowns, the gas grid has had much more investment than the electricity grid over the past 50 years, so a huge overhaul of the electricity grid. Also there are more losses down the electricity grid than the gas grid, which adds quite a factor in sizing the different technologies. One options being looked at is green hydrogen, but that is fraught with costly technology and inefficiencies in conversion.
It huge but not that huge. Estimates for UK are about 1/10 of that. PWC estimated £40bn per year for 10 years. Infrastructure Investment in Net ZeroThe aim is to be carbon neutral by 2050. Apparently the only in depth study and costing of this has been done by New Zealand, and extrapolating these figures to suit our much larger population, this will cost the UK £440,000,000,000 every single year until then. Go figure.
Lane and partners latest estimate is £350bn by 2050. https://insight.lcp.uk.com/acton/at...nd energy investment toward Net Zero.pdfThere analysis of investor moneys to fund it is £250bn, so they estimate a £100bn shortfall. That kind of says that we can expect prices to rise to close the funding gap....
Last edited:
doctor Bob
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- 1,881
TominDales, you sound like you know your stuff ............................ someone will be along in a short while to argue as they have a mate down the pub who said..................
When we get public programs like that in the states, they have to be filled by private contractors. It becomes a two-payor setup and the price goes up. I'd believe their $400Bn cost only after it's implemented.
Reminds me of a work study that a friend here had - the company that he worked for (former private company bought by a scandi government and then run into the ground to make pension earnings for them) had two locations - they wanted to naturally move engineering to the cheaper location (despite the engineers objecting).
They got a management consultant (not PWC but one like them) to convince the workforce that half of the engineers would move, and it would be fine as they'd hire to fill in the holes.
They relocated at a rate of 1 out of each 40. Oops. Cost studies are notoriously oversimplified and the oversimplification is filled in with actual resolution only by experience. 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 is common and then the next contest is who you'll take money away from to get there and it gets worse from there as the program is sold by subsidizing "people who can't afford it".
There are some trials underway. Leeds region is looking at a trial for putting upto 20% hydrogen in the natural gas supply for a trial development. The Northwest hydrogen alliance is building a hydrogen grid linking the producers in Runcorn, Stanlow to the consumers in the region. Large companies have singed contracts including Johnson Matthey the catalyst tech developers and BP.It’s interesting how much electricity is now renewable.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysi...-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time
I did read an article a week or two back about converting to hydrogen gas. We can use excess electricity to generate hydrogen, store it, use it to replace methane.
Imagine, hydrogen to your home. Now how about replacing your petrol (or electric as I have) with a hydrogen cell. Starts to make sense to me.
Wonder how many remember the conversion from town to natural gas in the early 70‘s. Wonder if we will go through that again
There is concern as to how fast truly green hydrogen will be as the existing mass routes to blue hydrogen involves CO2 storage. Greener technologies are all being developed. Look at the share prices of ITM power a company developing hydrogen electrolysers past 10 years. Its taken them about that long to develpo the tech and for the market to realise its potential.. Volatile but its shows the demand for green hydrogen.
ITM power share price
I work in the chemical sector, there is a lot of excitement about this challenge/opportunity. The last time the industry had such a challenge was changing from coal to oil and gas in the 1950s and 1960s. The worry this time round is that the UK industry does not have some much investment capital especially compared to our competitors in Germany, Japan, US and most of all China.
Of course you are right. There are so many variables and unknowns, however this change has been happening for 20 years so some of the big uncertainties are now better known.
There is a lot of mature Solar and wind technology so we can make good projections on them. Battery technology and automotive electrification is also much more predictable than it was a few years ago. The Chemical industry uses lifetime experience curves to estimate the rate of cost reduction due to industrial expansion - the so called learning curve, these are pretty crude but at the macro level stand the test of time. Where these is a lot of uncertainty is with hydrogen, its has always been a difficult technology to get to work cost effectively.
My worry is not so much the total cost, there will be swings and roundabouts on this as some tech will work better than other. Its the lack of UK intensives for companies to innovate in manufacturing. We are always behind the curve offering technology development programmes so our competitors in Germany, Korea, Japan and more recently China get the tech out the door faster. We do first rate science in the UK, but we have very little incentives to develop it commercially in this country compared to our industrial competitors. The so called valley of death. We tend to wait until others have developed the tech and then just buy it in. The UK was the world leader in wind technology from 1950s though 1970s the Orkneys were grid wind0powered from 1950s onwards with John Brown Ltd. But we then let is go. The current investments are being lead by Siemens, GE. They are building assembly plant in the UK, but in reality we are importing most of the technology.
You are dead right about relocations etc. When I was in ICI, they used to downsize by telling the engineers and chemists they had to move. In one instance they moved a group from Cheshire to Teesside and back within 5 years. Its a way to lose talent, deliberately or otherwise.
Thanks for the reasoned response - I think the approach has to be more incremental, but the way we get things adopted is to make them economically competitive or very close - the discretionary purchases are more efficient, then. Some of that is going on in the US, though our solar is behind (it's growing fast now, though - wind has limited potential locations, but we have some much open ag land here that's affordable that solar will be moving up -and I'm a big fan).
Wind is only regional here on ridges, but we don't have good wind (as a relative of mine who put up a 10kw turbine four decades ago found - it moves some days. Lots of days, it doesn't - it seemed like getting something for nothing at the time ,though).
At this point, large wind installations are cost neutral vs. nuclear and that will be in the past soon. They are not as reliable as nat gas, but without 1 - 2 cents per kw/hr. the future is coming - i'm just not very impressed with my own government's undertakings when they try to control too many variables at once and budget for things.
The high speed rail project in california, for example, is appalling. It won't ever provide a net benefit and the maintenance will likely be far greater than any potential revenue plus subsidy. But they cannot let it go - while ignoring routine things on the surface that could improve lives.
Wind is only regional here on ridges, but we don't have good wind (as a relative of mine who put up a 10kw turbine four decades ago found - it moves some days. Lots of days, it doesn't - it seemed like getting something for nothing at the time ,though).
At this point, large wind installations are cost neutral vs. nuclear and that will be in the past soon. They are not as reliable as nat gas, but without 1 - 2 cents per kw/hr. the future is coming - i'm just not very impressed with my own government's undertakings when they try to control too many variables at once and budget for things.
The high speed rail project in california, for example, is appalling. It won't ever provide a net benefit and the maintenance will likely be far greater than any potential revenue plus subsidy. But they cannot let it go - while ignoring routine things on the surface that could improve lives.
By the way, I live in a valley that used to be heavy with coal. I have mild asthma, and east of me it was worse in the ridges. As we've switched to gas, my issues with asthma have declined considerably, and as I get bronchitis a couple of times a year, the recovery time is shorter and sometimes without medication (that didn't happen in the past).
These changes have real benefits.
At the same time, we have nuke plants in my state (TMI is the most famous, but the others are still running even though TMI isn't). Their cost to operate is enormous because the complement of employees and contractors is about 1200 for a 2.5GW plant. It just doesn't work out in the long run, and for a different reason than was first anticipated.
It becomes odd when you see power divisions of nuclear and gas not arguing with wind and solar, but with each other, as nuke wants a 2 cent subsidy over gas to keep operating.
These changes have real benefits.
At the same time, we have nuke plants in my state (TMI is the most famous, but the others are still running even though TMI isn't). Their cost to operate is enormous because the complement of employees and contractors is about 1200 for a 2.5GW plant. It just doesn't work out in the long run, and for a different reason than was first anticipated.
It becomes odd when you see power divisions of nuclear and gas not arguing with wind and solar, but with each other, as nuke wants a 2 cent subsidy over gas to keep operating.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
A long time ago that may have been the case but I would contend that standards of governance and scrutiny will be much higher now. I would also suggest it’s incongruous to claim bribery undoubtedly was a feature but it couldn’t be proved.
It is something that has always been around, once upon a time just accepted but now is frowned upon but still there. Happens at all levels and unfortunately not easily dealt with because as they say everyone has there price.
The future is certainly not Nuclear fussion, not cost effective when compared to wind farms and always leaves a legacy whereas a wind turbine although a blot on the landscape is temporary. The single biggest solution is to reduce consumption, stop all production of filament and fluorescent lighting and give more incentives to go LED, this will be a good start in the right direction.
