Diesel

[Vic]

On Vic Said:

On V8Eng Said:

I read an article yesterday that showed burning waste in incinerators to produce electricity is producing close to the amount of pollution as the coal we used to burn!
The story was on the BBC web but I was unable to link that.

Perhaps all we’ve proved with our industrial history is that the Luddite types were right after all.

I find it increasingly difficult to believe anything the BBC say these days but I’m sure I saw another reference to this topic somewhere that said something similar.

With all the stuff out there and self proclaimed experts on just about everything available on the Net etc finding any truth is becoming more & more difficult.

At least the BBC must be doing something right because so many organisations and people with opposing views to each other all seem to say the BBC is biased and supports the other side’s views.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

EU proposed regulation to paint hot surfaces yellow, is not a myth.

I was a member of the Heritage Railways Association, visiting the E U Parliament building, when the matter was being discusssed.

Thanks to pressure from sensible M E Ps, commonsense prevailed.

Politicians are good at making promises for others to keep. Often resulting from, at best, a lack of understanding, but being keen to be seen to be doing “something”.

I’ll guarantee that those insisting on a tenfold decrease in particulate emissions, in a years time, had ABSOLUTELY no idea what was involved in complying with that legislation.

“But look how “green” I am”  Definiterly, but not the definition of green that they thought!

Howard

[V8Eng]

On V8Eng Said:

On Vic Said:

On V8Eng Said:

I read an article yesterday that showed burning waste in incinerators to produce electricity is producing close to the amount of pollution as the coal we used to burn!
The story was on the BBC web but I was unable to link that.

Perhaps all we’ve proved with our industrial history is that the Luddite types were right after all.

I find it increasingly difficult to believe anything the BBC say these days but I’m sure I saw another reference to this topic somewhere that said something similar.

With all the stuff out there and self proclaimed experts on just about everything available on the Net etc finding any truth is becoming more & more difficult.

At least the BBC must be doing something right because so many organisations and people with opposing views to each other all seem to say the BBC is biased and supports the other side’s views.

Not bothered to read it myself.  Was there any reference to how much of the incinerated waste was actually plastics?  A lot was likely waste that would be anaerobically reduced to methane in many land-fill sites and lost to the atmosphere.  Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so better to burn it usefully (to provide high grade energy for the grid.  What is the alternative to incineration?

Leaving it to remain in land-fill sites for many years to come?  I happen to think that’s not a good plan.  I’ve been around our nearest incineration plant.  Cleaner than any waste tip at a land-fill site, very much regulated on emissions – and they would not admit drivers, who parked frontwards, from the carpark until they re-parked by reversing into the parking bays.  I like that, especially when there are notices to instruct drivers how they ate expected to park.🙂

[mgnbukParticipant @mgnbuk]

though renewable energy will be cheaper than fossils in the long run, it will cost big money to set up in the first place.

IIRC similar claims were made for nuclear in the ’60s – remember “electrictity to cheap to meter” ?

Wind & solar generators have a limited life and currently there are “issues” recycling parts of both wind turbines & solar panels. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of “life expired” GRP turbine blades being stacked up in disused quarries, for example, and there was a report in one of the newspapers this week of GRP pollution on a beach in the US from a failed off shore wind turbine blade.

Germany is facing a significant backlash against on shore wind turbines, with claims of them causing health problems for those unfortunate to live near them – ground transmitted low frequency vibrations caused by the blades passing the column IIRC – and a subsequent inability to sell properties nearby. Having stopped for lunch breaks in laybys close to large turbines over there I have experienced the heavy “WOP, WOP, WOP” as the blades pass the column – certainly not restful places to stop briefly, so I can sympathise with those who have turbines imposed upon them.

Energy transmission is not without cost – National Grid say they loosed 8% through their network, which was around 25 TWh in 2022. So probably not feasable to transmit power generated in the Shetlands to London.

Local small scale generation (probably compact nuclear reactors) close to the end users would seem to be a better idea than building mega windfarms out at sea or covering agricultural land with solar farms from a transmission efficiency POV.

Nigel B.

 

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

I too have stayed close enough to wind turbines to know the problems they cause to locals.

Just for the interest here is a link to the story I read yesterday:-

https://apple.news/AvG0xdBbUR0KCk_cX108NYg

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

there are vast areas of upland where no one lives, so put the windmills there. It’s windier up hills as well, and the Pennine moors are close to big conurbations.

Solar panels should be on warehouse roofs, not Good arable of pasture land

[VicParticipant @vic]

I just saw this which is interesting.

https://youtu.be/4Ecs7uP3be8?si=lzQRKkbDxXCHwSRG

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

EU proposed regulation to paint hot surfaces yellow, is not a myth.

I was a member of the Heritage Railways Association, visiting the E U Parliament building, when the matter was being discusssed.

Thanks to pressure from sensible M E Ps, commonsense prevailed.

Politicians are good at making promises for others to keep. Often resulting from, at best, a lack of understanding, but being keen to be seen to be doing “something”.

I’ll guarantee that those insisting on a tenfold decrease in particulate emissions, in a years time, had ABSOLUTELY no idea what was involved in complying with that legislation.

“But look how “green” I am”  Definiterly, but not the definition of green that they thought!

Howard

 

Got any sources? I couldn’t find anything about it, I’d be interested to read it.

[mgnbuk]

On mgnbuk Said:

….

 

Energy transmission is not without cost – National Grid say they loosed 8% through their network, which was around 25 TWh in 2022. So probably not feasable to transmit power generated in the Shetlands to London.

Local small scale generation (probably compact nuclear reactors) close to the end users would seem to be a better idea than building mega windfarms out at sea or covering agricultural land with solar farms from a transmission efficiency POV.

Nigel B.

 

Most of the internal GB grid network is by AC.  HVAC for the national grid and lower voltage AC for the local distribution networks.

HVAC transmission over longer distances (600miles/1000km) is shown to incur twice the losses of a HVDC transfer.  Obviously, shorter AC transfers may be cheaper to install because of the need to convert from DC to AC close to the point of usage.

It has been indicated, on the internet, that for a 500kV supply, over a 1000km transmission distance, the AC loses 60kV while the DC loses only 30kV.  That means for a HVDC transmission line from the Shetlands to London would incur less losses than HVAC from Aberdeen to London (destination only as a comparison).

SMRs will need to be grouped (but, yes, still fairly local) as they would most certainly require permanent security measures to be in place.

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Paul Kemp Said:

Malcolm,

You are pursuing a lost cause I am afraid.  In the perfect world of Dave there is plenty of generating capacity to support the demand of customers transitioning to electricity from other forms of energy, the grid has plenty of capacity to distribute this energy and once everyone has moved from any kind of fossil fuel it will all be as cheap as chips.

Any mention of practical or real world barriers to the process will result in you being labelled as a climate denier irrespective of any acknowledgement that a transition from fossil fuels to alternatives is a good plan.

A quote from one of Dave’s recent posts really made me chuckle.

“Fortunately given humanities need to cope with future challenges, old engineers are often badly out-of-date!  When old engineer tells you something is impossible today, or in the next few decades, he’s likely to be wrong!   His understanding of the art of the possible now is flawed, and he has no idea what’s cooking in Research and Development.”

Not that there is no truth in that statement but Dave obviously sets himself apart and even above the old engineers and even comment from people currently involved with renewable energy and has kept himself intimately current on latest developments to be able to speak with such authority on the subject.

Paul.

Paul makes stuff up to suit his argument!  Very bad Paul, it means you can’t be trusted.   For example I’ve never said anything that justifies this libel:

‘In the perfect world of Dave there is plenty of generating capacity to support the demand of customers transitioning to electricity from other forms of energy, the grid has plenty of capacity to distribute this energy and once everyone has moved from any kind of fossil fuel it will all be as cheap as chips.’

Nonsense – elsewhere on the forum I’ve said the exact opposite.   I do not believe in a perfect world.  There isn’t enough generating capacity, nor is the grid* ready, and, though renewable energy will be cheaper than fossils in the long run, it will cost big money to set up in the first place.    Instead there is a problem than needs fixing.

In this thread I said:  ‘It’s bad news. Oil and gas are within 30 years of becoming a permanent shortage. And at the same time the evidence for Climate Change has grown for 40+ years, whilst nothing to gainsay it has appeared in the same period. Both problems can be tackled, but only if we get on with it. The world is changing whether we like it or not and choosing to disbelieve unpleasant facts never helps.’

Also unjustified is: ‘Dave obviously sets himself apart and even above the old engineers …‘.   Rubbish, I am an old engineer!  What I’m warning against is relying on out-of-date knowledge rather than current best practice and what’s in the pipeline.   Nothing personal.

I don’t mind being challenged provided critics stick to the facts.  Paul breaks that rule by criticising what he imagines I mean rather than what I actually said!   Everything Paul and I have posted on the forum is available if anyone wishes to confirms who said what and when.

I don’t recall Paul offering any answers to the fossil fuel problem.  How about it Paul, what’s your plan?   I hope it’s not “wait until all the old people are dead”, or another assault on my alleged personality!

🙂

Dave

* the distribution part of the grid is OK, the problem is connecting new generators to it, and upgrading the substation to homes part.

 

 

 

Dave,

Firstly my apologies if I have misinterpreted or misunderstood your points, that is not a problem I usually suffer but maybe I just don’t manage to follow your train of thought / or the way you convey it.  However the assertion that I make things up to suit my arguments is stretching things a little when I have previously (in other threads) provided references to support my statements.  I do try to use credible sources but none of us have the the ability to precisely verify a lot of the information available other than cross checking sources which I do try to do.  As a point of order I made no inference on your agreement or disagreement with JSO I merely agreed with a challenge on your emphasised interpretation of a quoted statement.

The fact that oil and gas reserves are a finite resource I don’t think has been disputed by anyone and certainly not by me.  Therefore there is nothing to be gained by continually restating it.

At least three times in this thread alone you have alluded that progress to transition is slow and we need to get on with it.  I do not completely agree progress has been slow in the UK compared to other nations, there is plenty of evidence quoted before, that considering the magnitude of the problem and with multiple motives, actually quite good progress is being made.  There are many factors that may influence whether this could be done faster but when you consider energy is a fundamental to the function of the nation in so many areas, it is a delicate balance.  Facts are there has been significant progress in adopting renewable energy (% of renewable energy of the national total demand), there has been government focus on driving this and only recently we turned off our last coal fired power plant.  If the current progress is not fast enough for you, what do you think the deadline for a complete transition to 100% renewable energy should be for the UK?  Let’s just concentrate on the UK here over which we (government) have direct control and ignore for a minute the international picture, just give me a year.

Then can I examine your last statement “* the distribution part of the grid is OK, the problem is connecting new generators to it, and upgrading the substation to homes part.”. That is a direct quote and to illustrate where I may be misunderstanding I will lay out my interpretation by breaking it down.  “The distribution part of the grid is OK” I agree that for now that is true as the annual demand for power has reduced in recent years so that must give a little headroom in the existing 275kv and 400kv network (that headroom is not necessarily proportional to the reduced annual consumption as the demand needs to be considered relative to time).  However, from the National Grid’s own statements regarding its 17 major infrastructure upgrades on its website we have the following;

“The UK’s electricity grid was originally built to connect electricity generated in power stations from fossil fuels, such as coal from the North and Midlands of England and South Wales.

As the UK moves away from fossil fuels and increases clean energy generation, we’ll all be using more electricity than ever before. Demand for electricity is expected to increase by 50% by 2035 and double by 2050, as we decarbonise the energy that’s used for things like heating and transport.

So significant new infrastructure is needed to connect this clean energy from where it’s generated to where it’s needed.”

Also;

“In some areas we’ll be able to upgrade the infrastructure that already exists. In other areas, we’ll need to install new wires, cables and pylons.

All of this is to ensure that there’s sufficient capacity to transport the required amounts of electricity, to make sure everyone in England and Wales has access to clean, secure energy.”

https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade/whats-happening

Now you can interpret these statements in two ways, one being the way you present that the additional capacity is only needed to connect the new renewable sources.  However, if you look at the 17 major projects you can also glean that actually the existing grid will not have the capacity to transmit the anticipated demand of double today’s value by 2050 and at least one of the projects (I haven’t looked at them all) illustrate that.  You have to consider that National Grid like any corporate entity cannot really tell lies but will present the information in the best possible light but by looking at ALL the information the true picture emerges.  No conspiracy theory.

It is in fact a requirement to upgrade the whole system including the local level.  I have previously presented broad examples of both in my actual experience of trying to get power to various locations including one example where it is not just a local upgrade to a substation that is required but that substation upgrade is limited in capacity by the capacity of the grid feeding into it.  I have not made any of that up!

So simple question, are you asserting the main HV grid backbone is fit for purpose through to 2050 without upgrade, except to connect new energy sources?

Dependent on your answer to that, can you accept that actually the condition of the main backbone now despite keeping the lights on is in some circumstances / areas already holding back progress?

I am not looking for a long explanation or justification or political answer to make sure I understand where you are on this simple yes or no’s will do.

Lastly I don’t think any of us can present a definitive plan to achieve a complete all area 100% transition to renewable energy.  There is no single magic bullet to replace fossil fuels and the solution will be a mix of renewables.  My personal focus (stated previously but maybe you missed it then) is in the maritime sector for passenger and freight transport on short sea and inland waterway routes.  Like everything else electric propulsion plays a part either through battery storage and green power charging or by hydrogen fuel cell combined with batteries.  The latter gives tailpipe zero but the green credibility of the hydrogen depends on source production.  Because of the poor TRL and maturity of both equipment and regulation it’s not possible to move directly from MGO tomorrow so part of the journey requires hybrid solutions.  Sadly all the solutions and greener “fuels” are much more expensive and despite the customer wanting green solutions the fact is currently they are unwilling or actually unable to pay!  My only view on road transport is from the personal perspective and the fact there is no affordable vehicle available that meets my needs (I have made that clear in the past too).  On national energy supply / security the main solutions will be a combination of wind, solar and because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun shine, nuclear and stored reserve.  How the stored reserve is achieved for me is not yet clear with the current available technologies.  How well the “smart grid” will work at scale for me is yet to be proven, especially customer tolerance to “shared EV storage”

All this is a significant drift from the original post that kicked off this thread!

Best regards,

Paul.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

…… Like any corporate entity cannot tell lies….

Post Office about Horizon

Water boards about pumping sewage into Windermere

Need I go on?

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Lol, hence the way I wrote it.  It’s not good for reputation as per your examples.  Generally they hope not to get caught out so will present the negative information in ‘woolly’ language such as could, may, expected etc.  They try not to present direct untruths but they will not highlight the bad stuff.

[Alan MellorParticipant @alanmellor68824]

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/news/article/2074/council-demands-data-used-to-justify-hundreds-of-pylons-across-our-countryside

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

The post office told bare faced lies in court, called out by the judge.

North West water have been saying for 3 years that they were not pumping sewage into Windermere. As has just been revealed this is not true. Call me naive, but someone in a position of authority, who ought to know the answers, spouting things that are not 100% true is a liar. We should stop being ultra polite and say so

I’ve come across this behaviour numerous times, including HMRC, who just wanted a easy life rather than sort out my daughter’s tax. I eventually found a very helpful tax man on the phone, sorting it out was fairly painless once I’d had the labyrinthine system explained.

Remember, a cynic is an optimist with experience

[Alan Mellor]

On Alan Mellor Said:

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/news/article/2074/council-demands-data-used-to-justify-hundreds-of-pylons-across-our-countryside

Stupid NIMBYs…

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

With all the debate, and using good arable land to produce electricity rather than food (“We can import that, so the emissions in shipping don’t belong to us”), no one seems to attach much importance to a regular daily supply of natural energy; TIDES.

A few years ago, a local company was developing an air turbine, (Powered by waves rushing to and fro in a conical  inlet) which always rotaed in the same direction. Presumably this generated DC electricity which an invertor could change to 50Hz AC for connection to the grid.

The company changed hands, so presumably the new owners considered the project not worth pursuing.

Combining the two technologies would allow power to be generated at predictable times around the UK.

Why does no one seek to develop a predictable, amd safe energy ( No nuclear half life / disposal/storage issues) source?

Howard

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

With all the debate, and using good arable land to produce electricity rather than food (“We can import that, so the emissions in shipping don’t belong to us”), no one seems to attach much importance to a regular daily supply of natural energy; TIDES.

A few years ago, a local company was developing an air turbine, (Powered by waves rushing to and fro in a conical  inlet) which always rotaed in the same direction. Presumably this generated DC electricity which an invertor could change to 50Hz AC for connection to the grid.

The company changed hands, so presumably the new owners considered the project not worth pursuing.

Combining the two technologies would allow power to be generated at predictable times around the UK.

Why does no one seek to develop a predictable, amd safe energy ( No nuclear half life / disposal/storage issues) source?

Howard

That would be a Wells turbine, Howard.  Most generated turbine derived power is AC but if the frequency is incompatible with the grid, I expect it is easier to convert to DC (like a three phase automotive altertnator) and then convert the DC to grid/mains frequency AC.

[Author]

Posts