'Without Hot Air'

[martin]

The usual "pie in the sky" percentage touted by the "pro" lobby is circa "30% of the energy mix", which is plainly nonsensical - I've seen suggestions that 8% may be possible...
I too believe that it could possibly be "done reasonably safely", but the problem is that it won't be........ To be anywhere near "safe", and to clear up properly afterwards (which has never been done before, why should this bunch be any different) would be catastrophically expensive - it is already heading for being the most expensive power source by miles, if they stopped hiding the real costs, then spent what's needed to make it even remotely safe, you could develop several REAL renewable technologies far cheaper, which will last longer into the future, and could probably be brought onstream faster..............

[Simon]

- even it's proponents will admit that the most it could ever give is under 10% of our needs, .....
.....
It's SO simple, just cut needs by the 10% that nukes might give us sometime in the future, then spend the savings on REAL renewables!

AS EccentricAnomaly asked, precisely what 10% would that be? Perhaps more interesting (to me that is) is what are the REAL renewables you are talking about. Bearing in mind this thread concerns MacKay's " ... - without the hot air", any energy plan has to add up.

France produces about 75% of its electrical power from nuclear stations, some of which is exported to UK through the interconnector so I am not sure about your 10% at the most assertion.

Sticking with MacKay, he estimates that the total energy (not just electricity) consumption in UK amounts to about 193 kWh per day per person. In 2008, renewables contributed less than 1kWh/day/person  ( http://www.restats.org.uk/electricity.htm )  which was about 5.5% of total electricity generation.

..........so, in the next 20 years, say, what is your plan for UK energy?

By the way, I total agree that we should reduce our consumption by 10% or more and I think I am achieving this based on the past few years but just how do we convince everyone else!

Simon

ps a good way to reduce  consumption is for everyone to become a pensioner/retire - 10% reduction is easy and forced on you then ... though the economists might have something to say about the consequences.

[martin]

10% over 20 years? - I'm thinking 80%!
What renewables? - obviously wind, we have an excellent and grossly under-used resource, solar hot water, support for community local generation projects, hydro, decide one way or another over the Severn barrage, and get on with it (that alone could supplant nearly all of what could be supplied by nukes), tidal power, biomass, massive reforestation, methane, ("poo power") - allied to deep cuts in consumption - if it's an energy guzzler, it gets taxed to bits!
And what is probably a radical thought these days - rather than waste money on nuclear, pour large quantities into our real universities to fund totally independent research into renewables.............

[Simon]

Sticking with the main topic, namely MacKay's book, a grossly simplified ("cartoon") depiction of UK's energy consumption is ...



Note this excludes a huge chunk of energy amounting to about 50% greater than the total shown of 125kWh/day/person. Note also that one really should read the context of these numbers as they are presented with an armful of caveats but are useful nonetheless.

MacKay then presents 5 "plans" which meet these demands. Sanity warning - "All these plans are absurd" to quote MacKay. The point being is to show how whatever your plan is, it needs to add up. Currently electricity generation is a relatively small chunk of out total energy consumption - look at transport for example which is greater than electricity in energy terms.

MacKay's "plans" are ...


..and before anyone shouts that these numbers are rubbish, please look at their context http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

An example of the problem is that the energy density of onshore wind equates to approx 2W/m**2 and offshore wind 3 W/m**2. So for 60 million people, we would need a huge area! We could, of course, reduce our population but that is another story ...................!

So coming back to Martin's points, what ACTUALLY would you propose with a few enumerated examples. I am quite happy to have many more wind turbines here in West Wales but please also explain how you are going to convince the rest of the population. I have sat in on public debates about various wind farm proposals here and you would think that everyone's daughters were going to put on the streets (best place for some of them )

One point Martin makes which I totally agree with is taxing energy properly. Frankly until we do, there seems little prospect for real progress with renewables. Now tell me which politicians have got elected on "I'm going to increase your taxes substantially" hence my pessimism.

Simon

ps my 1.4kWp PV (10 m**2) is generating 0.4kW at the moment which is more than my electrical consumption - yippee

[EccentricAnomaly]

France produces about 75% of its electrical power from nuclear stations, some of which is exported to UK through the interconnector so I am not sure about your 10% at the most assertion.

That's an odd statement when other things you say show you are quite clear on the distinction between electrical energy consumption and total energy consumption.  Increasing France's nuclear to 100% of electrical generation would make it provide about 10% of their total energy.  The question is, could France add another 25%, and Britain, Germany, the US, Japan, Finland, etc, another 80% or so to their generation without running out of uranium or having a nasty accident?

[martin]

I note his consistent, and quietly included "pumped heat" across all scenarios as if it's "gospel", and including such nonsenses as "clean coal", and a virtually totally undiminished consumption - to be frank, the figures are just so flawed they're "start again with a clean sheet of paper Mc Kay, and do your homework FIRST!"
we need to stamp out pleasure flying, commuting, second cars, unsustainable "chemical" farming, and if we're going to "do sums" let's base them on realistic scenarios, taking into account meaningful cuts and changes in lifestyle - not just a gentle rearrangement of the deckchairs!

[Simon]

An additional thought, Martin mentions the Severn Barrage. The reference project proposes an annual output of 17 TWh which is lots of watts per hour but is "only" equivalent to two Sizewell "B" nuclear stations (i.e. add in Sizewell "C"). Drax (coal) had an estimated output of about 24 TWh for 2009.

To put these numbers into perspective, the Severn Barrage would generate about 0.8kWh/day/person in the UK and an electric kettle will consume about 0.1 kWh to boil 1 litre of water (go on, measure it yourself). Moral of the story - drink less tea

On a more serious note (and it is a serious topic), there isn't a single "simple" solution - to move to a totally renewable scenario we will have engineer a truly monumental shift in our way of life and the manner in which we power it.

I must get out more when the snow clears.

Simon

ps I note there have been several other posts since I started writing this msg, I will look at those shortly and respond where appropriate.

[martin]

I'm always deeply suspicious of "figures" - they're easily manipulated, and often don't give a true picture - I'm all for "starting at the other end" - as in all worthwhile "renewables "projects, rather than saying "this is where we are", we should be starting with "where we need to be".....
I will confess to being somewhat atypical (ok, a nutter! ), who has noticed that 5 litres of water at 38 degrees C is perfectly adequate for a shower and hair wash (any more is a luxury), and that in summer 2 of us can exist quite happily while caravanning on the electricity supplied by a 20w pv panel and 85 amp hr battery - any more is a luxury........and so on........

[Simon]

France produces about 75% of its electrical power from nuclear stations, some of which is exported to UK through the interconnector so I am not sure about your 10% at the most assertion.

That's an odd statement when other things you say show you are quite clear on the distinction between electrical energy consumption and total energy consumption.  Increasing France's nuclear to 100% of electrical generation would make it provide about 10% of their total energy.  The question is, could France add another 25%, and Britain, Germany, the US, Japan, Finland, etc, another 80% or so to their generation without running out of uranium or having a nasty accident?

I am neither proposing nor opposing nuclear here but simply but trying to get a handle on the relative sizes of our energy supplies and demands. Electricity is but one slice of the cake.

My statement about France's nuclear output was simply a response to Martin's rather undefined "10%" statement (which you also sought explanation). Basically I had been trying to tease out a slightly more informative comment from Martin as to what exactly he was referring to. You are right, I am quite clear about the distinction about electrical output/consumption and the wider total energy consumption figures. The difficulty is that power station outputs are easily measured and the data are freely available. When it comes to our total energy consumption, things are not so clear. I just don't know what is the energy value of the Xmas crackers (from China no doubt) that my family brought when they came to stay. I can calculate the fuel consumed for their journey quite easily. God knows what the carbon footprint of the Xmas pudding was!

Not being a nuclear expert (nor in the payroll of a nuclear energy company in case there are any cynics out there  ), I can't easily verify the potential uranium resource. However numerous independent sources seem to indicate that there is a vast reservoir but economics dictate the extent to which this is recoverable. Sea water alone contains truly vast reserves. Of course it is wrong to think solely in terms of uranium. There are a number of other elements with "nuclear" potential.

What I am personally sure of is that in the SHORT term, nuclear had to be on the agenda if we are to make any impact on our global carbon footprint. By short I mean up to the next 50 years or so. After all, the Earth Summit in Rio was in 1992 and look at the progress since then. Perhaps 50 years is too short!

The safety question is tricky. To date there has only been one major nuclear accident resulting in loss of life that I am aware of. The long term effect of "minor" radiation leakages is extremely hard to quantify though many have attempted to do so usually betraying their loyalties in the process. The only useful comment I can make is that the radon released naturally in Cornwall is substantially greater than the contribution made by man-made leakages. I believe most if not all granites  are a good source of radiation so keep away from Aberdeen, the "Granite City".

Perhaps this is tending to stray off-topic as nuclear is not truly "sustainable/renewable" but does have a significant long term potential at least until we can move on to "real" renewables.

Simon

[martin]

If you count the true costs it has NO potential!
Forget all about the dangers - economically alone, it's a non-starter!

[Simon]

I note his consistent, and quietly included "pumped heat" across all scenarios as if it's "gospel", and including such nonsenses as "clean coal", and a virtually totally undiminished consumption - to be frank, the figures are just so flawed they're "start again with a clean sheet of paper Mc Kay, and do your homework FIRST!"
we need to stamp out pleasure flying, commuting, second cars, unsustainable "chemical" farming, and if we're going to "do sums" let's base them on realistic scenarios, taking into account meaningful cuts and changes in lifestyle - not just a gentle rearrangement of the deckchairs!

I'm not sure where you are coming from here Martin. Navitron are selling a heat pump with a Coefficient of Performance of over 4 and I believe figures up to 6 are obtainable. Again trying to get a handle on what this means, if I generated 1 kWh from my hypothetical wind turbine and simply used this in a piece of wire (a.k.a an electric fire) then I would only get about a quarter of the heat I could have got via a heat pump .. honest, gospel! Quite where you think Mackay's figures are flawed isn't clear to me. He certainly has done more homework than most of us. His blog is a good forum to challenge any/all of his statements and assumption. By the way, I trust that you did read the book (which is the true subject of this topic)?

Quite how you think we are going to get to the situation where we are 100% renewable I just don't know as you seem keen on the "stamp it out" style of government. China and Russia (formerly known as USSR) and others have experimented with this style and I haven't read their success in many things. I can say and probably guarantee, that it isn't going to happen in my lifetime nor your probably. The best I can hope for is that my grandchildren (yet to be born) are nearer the goal.

Simon

[Simon]

I'm always deeply suspicious of "figures" - they're easily manipulated, and often don't give a true picture - I'm all for "starting at the other end" - as in all worthwhile "renewables "projects, rather than saying "this is where we are", we should be starting with "where we need to be".....
I will confess to being somewhat atypical (ok, a nutter! ), who has noticed that 5 litres of water at 38 degrees C is perfectly adequate for a shower and hair wash (any more is a luxury), and that in summer 2 of us can exist quite happily while caravanning on the electricity supplied by a 20w pv panel and 85 amp hr battery - any more is a luxury........and so on........

I am not sure how you know whether something is "worthwhile" unless look at the "figures". And no, I don't think you are a "nutter", for many years my family happily camped and caravanned with very low energy inputs apart from the journey there and back, oh, and the food .... We found that the black, solar shower bags work a treat especially in sunny climes.

and that in summer 2 of us can exist quite happily while caravanning on the electricity supplied by a 20w pv panel and 85 amp hr battery - any more is a luxury........and so on........

To cook or boil a litre of water takes about 100Wh however generated though does depend on the starting temperature. A 20Wp PV will barely give you enough power to do this once a day in the summer. Are you sure you don't have another heat source? I rather like Ivan's solar tube water boiler, I tried it when I was installing my solar panel and it worked a treat. Pity it can't make my cocoa when I go to bed

Simon

[dhaslam]

I don't  see people having to live like  pilgrims is  necessary but it does mean  using a bit of ingenuity to avoid that need.   There area  lot of developments in wind turbines and in PV.  Also  tidal  generation  is beginning to become usable.     A massive investment in energy storage is needed to be able to uses renewable energy properly.  It is the storage side that will cause most  environmental issues.   Even in the England with  a largely urban population it should be possible to generate the same electricity as today without using fossil fuels or nuclear.    At present houses have only a few square metres of solar collectors.   Five times as much would take care of most heating and DHW needs if there is seasonal storage.  In a few years domestic PV  should be feasible without grants or subsidies.    California is now considering  compulsory  PV on new estate houses even though it would only apply to 20% of needs  it isn't hard to see  how that sort of legislation would lead to big reductions in central energy generation requirement.       

[Simon]

If you count the true costs it has NO potential!
Forget all about the dangers - economically alone, it's a non-starter!

OK, help me here, what is the "true cost" that justifies your "No potential" assertion? This is where I think you have to do the numbers that you are so set against to test your assertion. You say you are deeply suspicious of "figures" because they are easily manipulated but surely you can always check "figures" whilst opinions and statements remain just those, i.e. words. I would really like to see your take on this as I can handle "facts", even if very rough and ready but get a bit put off by unsupported opinions. As an analogy, I stopped considering homoeopathy when I realised that there would not be a single atom of active ingredient in the liquid dilution and, more importantly, I could not locate a single double-blind research project that could demonstrate reproducible results (I had better close this can of worms quickly!). And trust me, I don't put renewable energy in this category at all, I believe renewables are the ultimate goal and have put my money where my mouth is.

Rather boringly, I bring the post back to the main topic, i.e. MacKay's book. While he asserts in many places that his is not an economic treatise, in the case of nuclear, he does put some numbers on the table because of the vast potential of uranium extracted from seawater. Now he could be in the pay of the nuclear lobby though I doubt it because there are plenty of references to take up to support his figures. The problem with any book like this is that reading the book is the easy part, checking references is VERY time consuming so I have only made spot checks on topics that particularly interest me. Maybe you could do the same? Interestingly, basic nuclear physics forms part of the A-level curriculum these days so you don't need a degree in rocket science to do a few sums yourself. Even Eistein's E=MC**2 can produce some useful results.

I don't doubt that we are both sincere in our beliefs and opinions and this does highlight the difficulty we are in. Two people ostensibly on the same side but having a robust debate on what comes next. At least we can conduct this debate in public without risk of being carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police (but I won't publish my address just in case ).

Simon

by the way, my PV generation so far this year is


The daily totals are a bit low for a 1.4kWp installation but with the sun being low at about 14 deg, there is a tree shading part of the panel for just over an hour per day. I estimate that things should have improved by end of January.  In any event, a few cups of tea here .

[martin]

do you know what - for once in my life I'm "walking away" from a discussion  - I banged my head against a similar nuclear proponent a while back on this forum to no avail - I'm really not prepared to go through it all again (you may care to look the thread up) - I've made my case umpteen times, doubtless my good friend David will be happy to give you chapter and verse - as for me - I've been there, done that, got the "banging my head against a brick wall t-shirt" - I will however observe in passing that for someone who claims impartiality, you seem to be remarkably keen to argue the "nuclear case", yet pass my comments about heat pumps, "clean coal" and the necessity for deep cuts completely uncommented......... chuck into the mix your mention of homoeopathy, I KNOW I'll be wasting my time........... have fun! (but not with me.......... )