'Without Hot Air'

[Simon]

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.       

I agree that the storage issue is a difficult one and is a whole new topic!! As far as roof-mounted solar is concerned, the figures are quite interesting.

The insolation figure for my own solar PV (based on Cardiff data though I live in Pembrokeshire) are



so you can see my 10m**2 array have an annual potential of around 1000kWh.

Taking the UK as a whole and juggling around a bit you can conclude that domestic residences have a total land use are of about 30m**2 per person. MacKay (yes he!) suggests that one takes 25% of this for south-facing roofs and boosts it a bit because of the roof slope (40%) giving about 10m**2 per person. What percentage of this could actually be used? Don't know but 50% wouldn't be too far off the mark so we now end up with 5m**2 per person. MacKay also adds in commercial and industrial roof space but I don't really have a feel for this.

The conclusion is that we could generate about 500kWh per person per annum (or 1.37kWh per person per day). OK so you can juggle around with the numbers and the assumptions but it is hard to see these being other than a "top-up" for the daily demand. I found this pretty disappointing I have to say. Nonetheless I am with you in demanding that the Building Codes make solar PV and/or HW mandatory. California is sunnier than Cardiff .

Solar HW seems more promising but local storage becomes an issue. We want more heat in the winter than we do in the summer. For example my 20 tube Navitron panel has a gross area of 2.25m**2. This provides me (and 1 wife) with more than enough HW in summer and not enough in winter. I can't think of the storage mechanism that would solve this though others may have a solution (patent it quickly if I was you).

We need some pretty earth-shattering social engineering to get everyone off their carbon fix. Ideas please.

Simon

[Simon]

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.......... )

Sorry you are abandoning the debate with another disappointingly fact-free posting. At least point me to the other posts you mention so I can get the gist of your economics argument. I am keen to understand all sides of the debate so I can make an informed judgement myself.

Lastly, I am not a proponent of nuclear, in fact pretty concerned about it but will base my ultimate judgement on the facts of the cases made by all sides.

So farewell and here's to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren etc.

Simon

[CeeBee]

I'm not adding anything new to the discussion: just want further to encourage anyone who hasn't to read Prof. MacKay's book (all available free online, or you can buy a copy if you want). Or go to one of his talks - I've been to (I think) 2 now - I see another one coming up (helps being near Cambridge).

I'm amazed that some people manage to attack him on the forum: if ever there's a writer who _has_ done his homework, then I think it's Prof. MacKay. And he's forever emphasising that he's not pro or anti anything - he just wants to present hypothetical plans that 'add up'. As someone wrote earlier, you have to read his charts and graphs in the context of the book. See his map where we colours a map of the country black in and near civilisation and white everywhere else - then says that if  you want a wind farm (with present public opinion) then just site it in one of the places that isn't black or white! [Can't have it too near people, and everyone objects if you want it in a remote area.]

Given that there is no sign of us managing to cut energy consumption - even holding it steady would be a miracle - then I think working out how you might generate present consumption while emitting less CO2 isn't a bad approach. If it turns out that we don't need to generate so much after all, then great.

Why not 'pump heat'?? The assumption is that in the future, we won't be burning gas/coal/oil to heat houses (they'll be running out) - electricity will dominate, since renewable sources tend to produce electricity - not gas or lumps of coal. So indeed you might as well drive a heat pump with the electricity rather than just wasting it by running it through hot pieces of wire. Read the calculations in the book about how (with 'decent' heat pumps, which don't seem too common in this country) you can be better off burning gas in a modern power station and running an electric heat pump in the house, than burning the gas in the house directly.

[renewablejohn]

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.       

I agree that the storage issue is a difficult one and is a whole new topic!! As far as roof-mounted solar is concerned, the figures are quite interesting.

The insolation figure for my own solar PV (based on Cardiff data though I live in Pembrokeshire) are



so you can see my 10m**2 array have an annual potential of around 1000kWh.

Taking the UK as a whole and juggling around a bit you can conclude that domestic residences have a total land use are of about 30m**2 per person. MacKay (yes he!) suggests that one takes 25% of this for south-facing roofs and boosts it a bit because of the roof slope (40%) giving about 10m**2 per person. What percentage of this could actually be used? Don't know but 50% wouldn't be too far off the mark so we now end up with 5m**2 per person. MacKay also adds in commercial and industrial roof space but I don't really have a feel for this.

The conclusion is that we could generate about 500kWh per person per annum (or 1.37kWh per person per day). OK so you can juggle around with the numbers and the assumptions but it is hard to see these being other than a "top-up" for the daily demand. I found this pretty disappointing I have to say. Nonetheless I am with you in demanding that the Building Codes make solar PV and/or HW mandatory. California is sunnier than Cardiff .

Solar HW seems more promising but local storage becomes an issue. We want more heat in the winter than we do in the summer. For example my 20 tube Navitron panel has a gross area of 2.25m**2. This provides me (and 1 wife) with more than enough HW in summer and not enough in winter. I can't think of the storage mechanism that would solve this though others may have a solution (patent it quickly if I was you).

We need some pretty earth-shattering social engineering to get everyone off their carbon fix. Ideas please.

Simon

No need to patent the solution it has been around for the last 50 years. It is MacKay and his cronies at DECC which is blocking the spread of the technology. We applied last year for a government grant for a CHP plant which uses both Solar Energy and Woodchip to generate 600Kwe and 2400Kwt for a district heating scheme.  The response from DECC was that it was to sophisticated as it used thermal oil as the heat transfer medium. The fact that this is standard commercial practice in Austria Germany and Italy was beyond the comprehension of the vetting authority AEA technology. They even queried the capability of the largest boiler manufacture in Italy and were shocked to find out that this manufacturer produced in excess of 10,000 commercial boilers per year.  We have been notified that the grant scheme is again open but unless we get some intelligence within DECC it will be pointless to apply.

[Simon]

Congratulations CeeBee, someone else who confesses to have read MacKay! I thought I was the only one on the forum. I agree with you that the attacks on him do seem unwarranted. I have tried very hard to elicit serious opinions as to what the objections are but no one seems to be prepared to come up with any hard facts. Plenty of emotion though!

The debate has illustrated the difficulties in cutting through the emotion and getting some real data. Oh well, struggle on in my ignorance .....

Simon

[Ancient Brewer]

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!

How do you achieve this in anything other than a Stalinist type state?

[Ancient Brewer]

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.       

I agree that the storage issue is a difficult one and is a whole new topic!! As far as roof-mounted solar is concerned, the figures are quite interesting.

The insolation figure for my own solar PV (based on Cardiff data though I live in Pembrokeshire) are



so you can see my 10m**2 array have an annual potential of around 1000kWh.

Taking the UK as a whole and juggling around a bit you can conclude that domestic residences have a total land use are of about 30m**2 per person. MacKay (yes he!) suggests that one takes 25% of this for south-facing roofs and boosts it a bit because of the roof slope (40%) giving about 10m**2 per person. What percentage of this could actually be used? Don't know but 50% wouldn't be too far off the mark so we now end up with 5m**2 per person. MacKay also adds in commercial and industrial roof space but I don't really have a feel for this.

The conclusion is that we could generate about 500kWh per person per annum (or 1.37kWh per person per day). OK so you can juggle around with the numbers and the assumptions but it is hard to see these being other than a "top-up" for the daily demand. I found this pretty disappointing I have to say. Nonetheless I am with you in demanding that the Building Codes make solar PV and/or HW mandatory. California is sunnier than Cardiff .

Solar HW seems more promising but local storage becomes an issue. We want more heat in the winter than we do in the summer. For example my 20 tube Navitron panel has a gross area of 2.25m**2. This provides me (and 1 wife) with more than enough HW in summer and not enough in winter. I can't think of the storage mechanism that would solve this though others may have a solution (patent it quickly if I was you).

We need some pretty earth-shattering social engineering to get everyone off their carbon fix. Ideas please.

Simon

No need to patent the solution it has been around for the last 50 years. It is MacKay and his cronies at DECC which is blocking the spread of the technology. We applied last year for a government grant for a CHP plant which uses both Solar Energy and Woodchip to generate 600Kwe and 2400Kwt for a district heating scheme.  The response from DECC was that it was to sophisticated as it used thermal oil as the heat transfer medium. The fact that this is standard commercial practice in Austria Germany and Italy was beyond the comprehension of the vetting authority AEA technology. They even queried the capability of the largest boiler manufacture in Italy and were shocked to find out that this manufacturer produced in excess of 10,000 commercial boilers per year.  We have been notified that the grant scheme is again open but unless we get some intelligence within DECC it will be pointless to apply.

Hows a refusal to subsidise blocking technology?

If the proposal is that great put your own money in. Why do you need to dip into my pockets to fund your project?

[renewablejohn]

Congratulations CeeBee, someone else who confesses to have read MacKay! I thought I was the only one on the forum. I agree with you that the attacks on him do seem unwarranted. I have tried very hard to elicit serious opinions as to what the objections are but no one seems to be prepared to come up with any hard facts. Plenty of emotion though!

The debate has illustrated the difficulties in cutting through the emotion and getting some real data. Oh well, struggle on in my ignorance .....

Simon

Simon

You will find many threads on this forum were MacKay has been discussed at great length with a great deal of passion at times. I am one of those in the real world of renewables who has been hampered by the spurious information put forward by MacKay and his appointment to DECC is very worrying.

[Ancient Brewer]

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.......... )

Sorry you are abandoning the debate with another disappointingly fact-free posting. At least point me to the other posts you mention so I can get the gist of your economics argument. I am keen to understand all sides of the debate so I can make an informed judgement myself.

Lastly, I am not a proponent of nuclear, in fact pretty concerned about it but will base my ultimate judgement on the facts of the cases made by all sides.

So farewell and here's to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren etc.

Simon

Without nuclear in the energy mix for the UK we will be steam rolled by the BRIC nations in the coming decades. Primary energy demand in the Uk is something like 2500 TWH equivalent. Even if efficiency halved that there is no way renewables could in the Uk produce anywhere near that figure. Then there is the intermittancy issues to contend with.


Unless the UK starts dealing with this issue pretty dam quickly my advice to anyone with kids is to buy them a shoe shine kit and teach them how to say please, thank you and sir in cantonese  

[Ancient Brewer]

What always amazes me is the number of people who seem to be labouring under the complete delusion that "nukes" are the "cavalry" needed to save us from all our problems - even it's proponents will admit that the most it could ever give is under 10% of our needs, so far in the future that any real supply problems will have already kicked in, and then only for a very few decades before it "runs out" - chuck in a few realities, like the extreme cost, that the sea will be lapping around many of the proposed sites, that they're perfect targets in an increasingly unstable world by whoever wants to "do terrorism"- "sensible" nuclear generation is a myth, only propounded by those directly funded by, or those hoodwinked by the incredibly strong, powerful, well-connected and funded nuclear industry!
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!

[renewablejohn]

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.       

I agree that the storage issue is a difficult one and is a whole new topic!! As far as roof-mounted solar is concerned, the figures are quite interesting.

The insolation figure for my own solar PV (based on Cardiff data though I live in Pembrokeshire) are



so you can see my 10m**2 array have an annual potential of around 1000kWh.

Taking the UK as a whole and juggling around a bit you can conclude that domestic residences have a total land use are of about 30m**2 per person. MacKay (yes he!) suggests that one takes 25% of this for south-facing roofs and boosts it a bit because of the roof slope (40%) giving about 10m**2 per person. What percentage of this could actually be used? Don't know but 50% wouldn't be too far off the mark so we now end up with 5m**2 per person. MacKay also adds in commercial and industrial roof space but I don't really have a feel for this.

The conclusion is that we could generate about 500kWh per person per annum (or 1.37kWh per person per day). OK so you can juggle around with the numbers and the assumptions but it is hard to see these being other than a "top-up" for the daily demand. I found this pretty disappointing I have to say. Nonetheless I am with you in demanding that the Building Codes make solar PV and/or HW mandatory. California is sunnier than Cardiff .

Solar HW seems more promising but local storage becomes an issue. We want more heat in the winter than we do in the summer. For example my 20 tube Navitron panel has a gross area of 2.25m**2. This provides me (and 1 wife) with more than enough HW in summer and not enough in winter. I can't think of the storage mechanism that would solve this though others may have a solution (patent it quickly if I was you).

We need some pretty earth-shattering social engineering to get everyone off their carbon fix. Ideas please.

Simon

No need to patent the solution it has been around for the last 50 years. It is MacKay and his cronies at DECC which is blocking the spread of the technology. We applied last year for a government grant for a CHP plant which uses both Solar Energy and Woodchip to generate 600Kwe and 2400Kwt for a district heating scheme.  The response from DECC was that it was to sophisticated as it used thermal oil as the heat transfer medium. The fact that this is standard commercial practice in Austria Germany and Italy was beyond the comprehension of the vetting authority AEA technology. They even queried the capability of the largest boiler manufacture in Italy and were shocked to find out that this manufacturer produced in excess of 10,000 commercial boilers per year.  We have been notified that the grant scheme is again open but unless we get some intelligence within DECC it will be pointless to apply.

Hows a refusal to subsidise blocking technology?

If the proposal is that great put your own money in. Why do you need to dip into my pockets to fund your project?

Ancient Brewer

We have put our own money in and can manage quite well without government funds but why should I have to pay for a nuclear solution when I could provide a renewable solution before any nuclear power plant has been built.

The refusal is blocking European Biomass technology which works by keeping the old order of large centralised generators.

[Ancient Brewer]

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..............

How do you work that one out?


If the UK commissioned 1 1500MW Nuc every year for the next 20 we would have 30GW of generating capacity. Costs - £5bn per nuc would be a reasonable figure and economies of scale bring down costs.

This would produce 250TWH or approx 70% of current electricity demand which from a fag packet calculation would be the equivalent of 25% of primary energy needs.

[Ancient Brewer]

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.       

I agree that the storage issue is a difficult one and is a whole new topic!! As far as roof-mounted solar is concerned, the figures are quite interesting.

The insolation figure for my own solar PV (based on Cardiff data though I live in Pembrokeshire) are



so you can see my 10m**2 array have an annual potential of around 1000kWh.

Taking the UK as a whole and juggling around a bit you can conclude that domestic residences have a total land use are of about 30m**2 per person. MacKay (yes he!) suggests that one takes 25% of this for south-facing roofs and boosts it a bit because of the roof slope (40%) giving about 10m**2 per person. What percentage of this could actually be used? Don't know but 50% wouldn't be too far off the mark so we now end up with 5m**2 per person. MacKay also adds in commercial and industrial roof space but I don't really have a feel for this.

The conclusion is that we could generate about 500kWh per person per annum (or 1.37kWh per person per day). OK so you can juggle around with the numbers and the assumptions but it is hard to see these being other than a "top-up" for the daily demand. I found this pretty disappointing I have to say. Nonetheless I am with you in demanding that the Building Codes make solar PV and/or HW mandatory. California is sunnier than Cardiff .

Solar HW seems more promising but local storage becomes an issue. We want more heat in the winter than we do in the summer. For example my 20 tube Navitron panel has a gross area of 2.25m**2. This provides me (and 1 wife) with more than enough HW in summer and not enough in winter. I can't think of the storage mechanism that would solve this though others may have a solution (patent it quickly if I was you).

We need some pretty earth-shattering social engineering to get everyone off their carbon fix. Ideas please.

Simon

No need to patent the solution it has been around for the last 50 years. It is MacKay and his cronies at DECC which is blocking the spread of the technology. We applied last year for a government grant for a CHP plant which uses both Solar Energy and Woodchip to generate 600Kwe and 2400Kwt for a district heating scheme.  The response from DECC was that it was to sophisticated as it used thermal oil as the heat transfer medium. The fact that this is standard commercial practice in Austria Germany and Italy was beyond the comprehension of the vetting authority AEA technology. They even queried the capability of the largest boiler manufacture in Italy and were shocked to find out that this manufacturer produced in excess of 10,000 commercial boilers per year.  We have been notified that the grant scheme is again open but unless we get some intelligence within DECC it will be pointless to apply.

Hows a refusal to subsidise blocking technology?

If the proposal is that great put your own money in. Why do you need to dip into my pockets to fund your project?

Ancient Brewer

We have put our own money in and can manage quite well without government funds but why should I have to pay for a nuclear solution when I could provide a renewable solution before any nuclear power plant has been built.

The refusal is blocking European Biomass technology which works by keeping the old order of large centralised generators.

I don't dispute that and would agree biomass projects can be brought online quickly. However in a UK context there isn't a hope in hell of biomass producing anything near what a 3rd gneration Nuclear fleet would. We simply haven't got the land.

So if its a runner - best of luck and I hope they do reconsider and help fund it. However its not either nuc or biomass - the UK realistically needs both along with wind, tidal, wave, solar.

[brackwell]

I like McKay, it is logically argued and there will be as many takes on it as there are forum members. I personally was already leaning to the ASP idea and have yet to see any facts, not emotions, that suggest the manufacturers figures are incorrect bearing in mind that in countries where they are popular eg Sweden,Japan etc they are tested by independent bodies.

A lot is being said about what is our personal energy consumption but i believe this aspect is/has been taken care of.
1) It is proposed that from 2016 all new houses will have to be energy self sufficient
2) Car CO2  emissions have been screwed down by forcing the manufacturers to change as well tax changes.  Electric cars will mop up surplus/ wasted night electricity and help as storage units for renewable electricity
3) gas boilers have improved immensely
4) Infrastructure is already being changed to accommodate renewables. eg Scotland aiming to achieve 50% renewable by 2050 !!

The list goes on.

The 3 biggest problems i see are those who fly here and there for a weasel pee up, those who think it is OK to have a 15 min power shower and those bloody nimbies

Ken

[Richard Owen]

If the UK commissioned 1 1500MW Nuc every year for the next 20 ............................

But there's the rub.

The UK has no chance of commissioning anywhere near that level.

There isn't enough construction expertise around to build the plants at that rate.

There isn't enough commissioning expertise around to bring plants on-line at that rate.

There isn't enough operating expertise around to run all those plants.

There isn't enough uranium processing capability to produce fuel for all those plants.

There isn't enough uranium mining capacity to produce the raw material for the fuel for those plants.

And....... There isn't enough uranium in the ground to mine to produce the raw material for the fuel for those plants.

Other than that, it's fine.