Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Tommy Cookers]

So... what's wrong with https://www.withouthotair.com/, which comes to much the same conclusions about the UK?

Interesting, had not seen that site before. It looks quite well resourced and argued. Thanks.

I second that .....

about tidal power .....
I remember nearly 40 years ago .....
telling an electronics engineer a known was exactly how much potential was in a tide ....
he (from a landlocked country rather behind in technical matters) said that it was not a known .....
I saw when Parliament did the report on the intended 'Bondi' Severn Tidal Barrage (1300 MW equiv. c.8000 MW max)
since then I discovered that Bondi disagreed others eg whether tides are gravitational waves or progressive waves
Bondi's output was politically and commercially convenient - but now again seems wrong (& different to MacKay's)
ie B said there was no benefit siting the barrage west of his chosen Cardiff-Weston line - but M shows otherwise
and now shipping interests have expanded their position

M seems to show us there's still scientist's differences of opinion about fundamentals - despite experimentation
maybe additive to the usual slippage from science's concepts to legitimate engineering targets
eg do we know if Severn Tidal Lagoons make unviable a Severn Tidal Barrage (or vice-versa) ? or each other ?
or whether 'outer' Severn tidal stream generation wouldn't downgrade a STB ?
Joe Public has more faith in 'science' than engineers (should) have

ok modern power electronics seem to have enabled tidal stream generation (as they did for wind)
they also help wave-energy generation - but it's beyond help eg with worsening storms expected from climate change

nuclear-powered thermal generation has low efficiency - so suffers more with climate raising of coolant water temp

[Andres125sx]

When/if you'll read it you'll find out why tidal is not emough. I'll wait.

"Only ignorants have said nuclear power is not needed"

Ignorant they may be but that is the effective position of the USA German and Australian governments by 2050. No nukes.

If it´s not enough it must be ignored?

No energy source is enough by itself, and I didn´t say renewable source. Nuclear is not enough either, fossil fuel aren´t either. But now we must find a renewable source wich is enough by itself?

Demagogy in these debates is omnipresent. Same as no source is enough to feed any country in the world, no renewable source will be enough either, we need diversification, as we have always needed

Debating if solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear... is pure demagogy. We need solar, and wind, and hydro, and nuclear, and tidal, and waves, and any other source we can find in next decades.


But obviously there are many sectors willing to discredit renewables with these kind of demagogy. Not new at all

People take this as if some specific day we should turn off current grid and turn on a new one, when we must only replace polluting sources with renewables progresively, as we´re doing for many years.

If we all know how absurd are political decisions frequently, do not add absurdity to the debate, no source, renewable or not, is enough by itself. But if we can replace as much polluting sources with renewables, then it will be good for everybody, except for oil, gas and coal companies and countries with these energies as their primary source, so they will try anything to stop and discredit this route.

Perfect is the enemy of good

[Greg Locock]

I think nukes are essential if you are aiming at no or very little fossil fuel. But the official or practical stance of all those legislatures is no new civilian nuclear power stations, and those that exist are being EndofLifed. This is absurd and just shows how stupid the entire subject is. Pie in the sky battery storage proposals are touted by men in stripy trousers, deliberately confusing instantaneous power (at which they can be good) and long term baseload (at which they are very bad).

[Big Tea]

Is there to much attention on the "we want it all now" option?

Imagine watching the Wright Bros flight and saying "pyft , I could almost have thrown it that far".
10 years later the first transatlantic flight 30 years later there were jets flying, 25 years later it was to the moon.

Things don't happen overnight, and for what usually turn out to be the better option, we do not even have the technology for. We should not dismiss things as not worth it just because they are not worth it now.

We do need to do things now, but things are not going to be fixed in one life time.

[Andres125sx]

[johnny comelately]

https://youtu.be/tPHkCbeQNxI

Very good Andre, thank you

[johnny comelately]

This was recently announced by Australian mining company Fortescue regarding one of their subsidiaries. It is a step towards infrastructure that is involved in the production of green steel and other energy processes:

5 October 2022
FORTESCUE FUTURE INDUSTRIES AND TREE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PARTNER TO
DEVELOP WORLD LEADING GREEN HYDROGEN ENERGY IMPORT FACILITY IN GERMANY
Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (Fortescue, ASX: FMG) advises that Fortescue Future Industries (FFI)
has entered a global strategic collaboration with energy infrastructure developer Tree Energy
Solutions (TES) which aims to accelerate the development of a world leading green hydrogen and
green energy import facility in Germany. The investment of €130 million (US$127 million) will be
funded by FFI’s unutilised capital commitment and provides FFI with a pathway for access to critical infrastructure to execute its strategy.
Through the agreement, FFI subsidiary Netherlands Fortescue Future Industries Holdings B.V. will
invest €30 million (US$29 million) to become a shareholder in Tree Energy Solutions B.V. as well
as invest €100 million (US$98 million) in the construction of the TES terminal in Wilhelmshaven,
Germany, and be a major shareholder with a 30 per cent stake in Deutsche Grüngas und
Energieversorgung GmbH (a subsidiary of TES), the project company that will build the TES Green
Energy Hub in Wilhelmshaven, Germany.
TES is developing a portfolio of terminals globally that will enable transportation of green energy.
The first phase of this partnership is to jointly develop and invest in the supply of 300,000 tonnes
of green hydrogen with final locations being currently agreed, and a financial investment decision
targeted in 2023.
The first delivery of green hydrogen into TES’ terminal in Wilhelmshaven, Germany is anticipated
to take place in 2026. Initial collaboration projects will be focused on Australia, Europe, the Middle
East and Africa.
The new strategic collaboration demonstrates FFI’s and TES’ commitment to reducing global
emissions by accelerating the import and production of green molecules as a lower cost alternative
to fossil fuels. FFI joins a group of investors in TES comprised of international financial institutions
and multinational energy companies including E.ON, HSBC, UniCredit and Zodiac Maritime.
The collaboration will combine FFI’s market leading expertise in developing large scale renewable
energy production, with TES’s unique sustainable business model and access to the European
green hydrogen market.
In accordance with Fortescue’s capital allocation framework, the investment will be funded by FFI’s unutilised capital commitment at 30 June 2022 of US$1.1 billion. To reflect this investment,
guidance for FFI’s anticipated capital expenditure in FY23 is revised to US$230 million (from
US$100 million). The guidance for FFI’s anticipated operating expenditure of US$500 - US$600
million is unchanged.
Fortescue Executive Chairman, Dr Andrew Forrest AO said, “The United Kingdom and Europe
urgently need green solutions to replace fossil fuels and this investment will enable Europe to do
exactly that. Not in 2050, but in four years from now.

“From the beginning of FFI, our philosophy was to drive performance across the entire new
renewable GH2 value chain while delivering returns to our shareholders. This investment reinforces
this commitment and is a significant step forward in FFI’s journey to become one of the world’s
largest green energy producers.”
FFI CEO Mark Hutchinson said, “This investment supports the delivery of Fortescue’s supply
agreement with E.ON, Germany’s largest energy distributor, following our announcement in March
this year to supply five million tonnes of green hydrogen to Germany, with supply commencing from mid-decade.”
TES CEO, Marco Alvera’ said, “We are delighted to announce this partnership which marks a new
milestone in delivering scalable, affordable green hydrogen as well as securing renewable energy
production. This agreement is another stepping stone in building TES as one of the leading
hydrogen players in the world to accelerate the energy transition with the most cost-effective,
bankable and scalable green alternative to today’s fossil fuels.”
Authorised by
Cameron Wilson
Company Secretary

[johnny comelately]

[Andres125sx]

[johnny comelately]

https://seatwirl.com/

"The world's first offshore wind farm was installed in 1991 off the coast of Vindeby on the Danish island of Lolland. It included 11 turbines with a capacity of 450 kW each, and the project cost 10 million euros. At the time, offshore turbines were considered ludicrous by the electric power industry as they had to operate in salty conditions and have much less power than central power plants. The skepticism changed 6 years later as offshore wind powers produced more energy than land winds. The wind farm produced a total of 243 GWh over 25 years of operation and was decommissioned in 2017 for economic reasons. What has changed since then? Why are we still not making the most of offshore wind? And how can innovative vertical-axis wind turbines make a difference? What are the benefits of offshore wind energy? The wind in the sea is stronger and more constant – it gives more energy on a stable basis. Wherein the wind speed increases the amount of energy non-linearly – you will get it twice as much if the wind starts blowing at a speed of not 20, but 25 km/h. An offshore windmill may operate for up to 50%–60% of the time, compared to only 35% along the coast and even less on the continent."

[Greg Locock]

Offshore wind is very expensive compared with onshore wind, around the UK for example the average offshore wind farm is about 2.5 times more expensive per kWh delivered as onshore. The two are fairly well correlated as well, that is when the offshore wind farms hit a calm, so do the onshore ones (not very surprising really). The primary thing in their favor is less NIMBYism, and they used to be heavily subsidised.

Then there's this https://newbedfordlight.org/major-massa ... er-viable/

[Greg Locock]

While we're posting youtubes, TV interviewer is well informed and completely explodes the muddlehead's lies and evasions

[johnny comelately]

Is there to much attention on the "we want it all now" option?

Imagine watching the Wright Bros flight and saying "pyft , I could almost have thrown it that far".
10 years later the first transatlantic flight 30 years later there were jets flying, 25 years later it was to the moon.

Things don't happen overnight, and for what usually turn out to be the better option, we do not even have the technology for. We should not dismiss things as not worth it just because they are not worth it now.

We do need to do things now, but things are not going to be fixed in one life time.

Warren Buffet says that he wished the Wright brothers had not been successful ....but I digress

[Andres125sx]

While we're posting youtubes, TV interviewer is well informed and completely explodes the muddlehead's lies and evasions

The cinism and arrogance of this interviewer is really disgusting . If I was his boss she´d be fired instantly after the interview, she laugh on the guest, she show lack of evidence as the evidence of the opposite (falacy), she constinously prevent the guest from explaining... all from an extremelly haughty position, like if she knows better than the guest. Then, why are they inviting the guest?

Really disgusting interview and interviewer

[Tommy Cookers]

our Channel 4 (subsidised by compulsory levy) once did a programme on 'dieselgate' cars ....
stating these gave illegal NOx in cities - (quoting the report on independent test runs commissioned by CH 4)

Channel 4 simply lied ...
I read every word of the report - it didn't say what CH 4 said it did say (that the cars gave illegal levels of NOx in cities)
it said the cars gave .....
at speed NOx levels that were at speed legal ... and ....
in city conditions NOx levels (near-zero) that was in city conditions legal


btw
interesting to see how much of France's TGV runs on 1500 V DC
substation-to-train losses 15-20% ?
'end-to-end' losses 30-40% ?