"Sustainable Energy — Without the hot air." No bullshit approach to carbon issue.

[Brainaddict]

Yep. After you've considered what we'd need to build to do any version of 'business as usual' sustainably e.g. turning an area the size of Wales into a wind-farm etc, some of the 'unthinkable' demand reduction scenarios start to look a bit less unthinkable, or so one might hope.

You've got to think about political viability too though. I'm constantly bugged by the failure of a lot of the green movement to offer *palatable* solutions - rather than what their ideals demand. It's important to accept that most of the world doesn't think the way you do and likely never will.
A bit of demand reduction should be possible but I reckon any government that tried to press it too hard would be out on their ear.

 

[two sheds]

You've got to think about political viability too though. I'm constantly bugged by the failure of a lot of the green movement to offer *palatable* solutions - rather than what their ideals demand. It's important to accept that most of the world doesn't think the way you do and likely never will.
A bit of demand reduction should be possible but I reckon any government that tried to press it too hard would be out on their ear.

Biofuels are perhaps showing the trouble with palatable solutions, though. Great idea but as soon as agribusiness gets hold of it, that starts distorting the market and leading to large amounts of forest being cut down, sending the life-cycle calculations (the ideal) all to shit.

If the government knew what it was doing, the demand reductions shouldn't really be visible to people. It's a question mainly of setting the 'systems' up so that they run themselves. To reduce energy consumption you install the insulation, improved controllers and other energy saving equipment etc and (as long as you monitor to make sure the improvements have worked) they should pay for themselves within a single parliament.

The problems we've got are down to decisions governments have made in the past. Standard Operating Procedure is for the government to ignore a problem for years (energy, environmental, sugar etc in foods, smoking ...) and then when they can't avoid the problems any more their 'control mechanism' is to try to make individuals feel guilty about it.

Standby consumption is great example - people are told in ads about the wonders of equipment working on standby (record what you want when you want etc). It's the equipment manufacturers that design the equipment and so determine the standby consumption, and governments that have allowed them to do it. Now that they've both failed in their responsibilities, the solution is to make people feel guilty about using them.

 

[elbows]

Oh my, I totally missed the fact that Noel Edmonds has been warning Mirror readers about the looming problems with our electricity supply:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/06/09/fuel-or-no-fuel-89520-20600642/

There are a few things wrong with what he says, such as where the gas is going to come from (he didnt mention UAE), and excessive negativity about wind power, but hey, the basic premise seems accurate to me.

Its time for a war on waste.

 

[Dr Jon]

Oh my, I totally missed the fact that Noel Edmonds has been warning Mirror readers about the looming problems with our electricity supply:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/06/09/fuel-or-no-fuel-89520-20600642/

I spotted a familiar bit:

They [power cuts] will be occasional at first but I predict that within three years we will get used to them at certain parts of the day

This has been happening in India for years. Load shedding and system failures are common.
You want backup generator? Good price, best price...

 

[Cid]

I agree, but spot the one option out of five there that (a) is a prime target for terrorist attack - if we're as serious about reducing vulnerability to terrorist attack as our recent reductions in civil liberties would suggest and (b) creates volumes of poisonous radioactive waste that we can't dispose of.

They also take years to come on line. If the money that had gone into the nuclear industry had instead gone to renewables we simply wouldn't have a problem now. And we're off on making the same mistake again.

The terrorist attack view of nuclear power is pretty much completely irrational, and accidents like Chernobyl are now spectacularly unlikely. I don't particularly like nuclear; waste, imbedded energy, running cost etc, but tbh it's the only viable option at the moment, even if we were to start being more energy conscious. Roll on fusion I say, only hope in the long run.

 

[two sheds]

The terrorist attack view of nuclear power is pretty much completely irrational

Why?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Quite. Entirely rational, but perhaps low probability. I'd certainly be quite concerned if it didn't feature in the security risk analysis somewhere.

I'd worry more about accidents myself though.

Of course if you increase your use of nuclear power by orders of magnitude, the probability of lethal mishaps, however small per site, increases in proportion.

If you're using breeder technology as well, which is typically the answer offered when one queries the amount of suitably pure uranium ores available for 'going nuclear' on a massive scale, the quantities of plutonium you have lying around also increase significantly.

 

[two sheds]

Quite. Entirely rational, but perhaps low probability. I'd certainly be quite concerned if it didn't feature in the security risk analysis somewhere.

True, although i think before 2001 you'd have got fairly long odds against the Twin Towers being targeted. And I'm fairly sure nuclear power station managers take the threat seriously.

It just seems to me hypocritical for governments to continually reduce our freedoms in the name of 'fighting terror' while leaving the back door wide open. On one past thread I kept saying 'ok - how do you prevent a terrorist attack against all these new nuclear power stations we're going to build' and naturally enough answer came there none. The only reply i got was that i should stop asking the question because i could be giving terrorists ideas.

What is it young people say nowadays? 'Well, duh ...'

 

[Cid]

You can scram (emergency shutdown) a nuclear plant in a matter of seconds... if security was bipassed, all the many failsafes in a plant were somehow overidden and a meltdown occurred there's still the fact that nuclear powerplants are now designed to contain them. The economic damage would be significant but the threat to human life is tiny.

 

[two sheds]

You can scram (emergency shutdown) a nuclear plant in a matter of seconds... if security was bipassed, all the many failsafes in a plant were somehow overidden and a meltdown occurred there's still the fact that nuclear powerplants are now designed to contain them. The economic damage would be significant but the threat to human life is tiny.

Yes, fair enough perhaps an open web site isn’t the best place to discuss vulnerabilities. If nothing else, the feeling of invulnerability is itself a danger, because people start taking risks. Let’s just put it down to a difference in views. But if you really do think it’s irrational to suspect the divinity of human control systems I have this interesting design for an unsinkable double-bottomed ocean liner you might be interested in. The maiden voyage experienced a couple of difficulties but I’ve got it right now

It’s only partly why I’m against nuclear power anyway. Big centralised things are soooooo 19th century. There’s only one way to get rid of the risk, and that is not have a nuclear industry. Then, you do away with the radioactive material all over the bloody place. Why would you want “a thousand extra nuclear power stations” in the world, demanding a whole dangerous industry behind them that has to be protected at every step from here in out?

We’ve thrown billions at nuclear without solving the basic problems, and the waste is still building up. We’re in a world that’s going to be fighting for resources – whether oil, gas, water or uranium. (Straying off nuclear, the costs of fossil fuel stations should also really include wars fought to keep the fuel flowing). We need to make decisions according to ‘real’ costs over at least 25 years not just look at up-front cash investments.

Lets throw some billions instead at solar systems in Spain/North Africa/Australia/southern US, and sensible distributed international grids flowing power back down from wind/tidal farms in the north. Use even bigger systems, and you could charge electric vehicles overnight so they’d actually be of some benefit. Some billions more for profitable projects like public transport and replacing/upgrading the most wasteful equipment in industry/housing and I’d have thought job done – the "energy too cheap to meter" we were originally promised by nuclear.


We should move some of the EU funds towards that. It would also create more jobs because it is work that can be distributed at local level and bring valuable skills to people, rather than concentrating contracts into a few hands.

Anything else seems like expensive and dangerous sticking plaster: business as usual.

 

[what]

Just saw this today which appears to be the follow on from the book
http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/
had a reread of the book and rembered how the heating section seems so wrong
air source heat pumps are not the answer

 

[what]

Just realised this guy is now chief scientific advisor to DECC.
Considering what appears a real basic error in the section i have enough knowledge to comment on, it is very worrying.

 

[spacemonkey]

Just saw this today which appears to be the follow on from the book
http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/
had a reread of the book and rembered how the heating section seems so wrong
air source heat pumps are not the answer

The recent air source heat pump trials show there is certainly a long way to go But I'd say 'not the answer' is a bit of a strong conclusion. Trials in Japan and Germany have shown COP efficiencies of 4,5 and even 6 with air source heat pumps. As you probably know our building stock is the real barrier, as it presently stands none of the low carbon heating choices have a chance.

 

[what]

SM
Your right re the building stock being the real barrier. But that also explains my comments. If your going to get a good COP from an ASHP then you need to be delivering low grade heat (say 45 deg C max). This means your almost definitely looking at an underfloor heating system. To get an underfloor heating system to work you need a fairly well insulated property, which means most likely new build. Now if you have a new build to current building regs then the levels of insulation mean that internal gains from people lights etc will offset heat losses and keep a reasonable temp in the room until you get a fairly low outside temp. This means the ASHP does not need to turn on until it is fairly cold outside. The downside of this is that below about 7 deg C outside temp the COP of an ASHP goes downhill rapidly until it reaches parity (i.e. 1kw electricity in 1 kW heat out) and in very cold weather due to the requirement to defrost its self can actually be worse than a COP of 1. As this book is looking at energy at a national level you then need to consider how the electricity is produced. Predominately and for some time to come it is generated from fossil fuels. As only about a third of the input power reaches the end user the COP of the whole system (building, grid and power station) now is about 0.3 when you really want the heat. This is much worse than a gas boiler. So until we have a grid which generates carbon free electricity it is a very wasteful way of using raw fossil fuel on a national level. Don’t forget also that when trying to heat hot water above 60 degrees the COP again goes to about 1. So again in winter it is not very effective.
So an ASHP is not much use for a refurb unless you significantly upgrade the insulation levels and in a new build its not needed until the point where its COP is fairly poor.

 

[WouldBe]

As you probably know our building stock is the real barrier, as it presently stands none of the low carbon heating choices have a chance.

I'm getting a wood burning boiler stove installed. How does that rate on the low carbon front?

 

[Crispy]

I'm getting a wood burning boiler stove installed. How does that rate on the low carbon front?

depends where the wood comes from

 

[WouldBe]

depends where the wood comes from

Locally sourced.

 

[Idaho]

depends where the wood comes from

A tree presumably

 

[what]

I'm getting a wood burning boiler stove installed. How does that rate on the low carbon front?

If your in the right location and have high efficiency, low emission equipment its part of the future energy mix. If your in a city, transport energy and the damage to your neighbours health from emissions is not great.

 

[WouldBe]

If your in the right location and have high efficiency, low emission equipment its part of the future energy mix. If your in a city, transport energy and the damage to your neighbours health from emissions is not great.

Im going for a Dunsley Yorkshire stove. 75% efficient and approved for use in smokeless zones with emissions well below the smokeless limit.

 

[ymu]

I'm getting a wood burning boiler stove installed. How does that rate on the low carbon front?

Carbon neutral, if you use sustainably sourced wood. However, they're not that great for heating if you only light them up when it's cold - they take a while to heat the room up. Ours never goes out from ~November to ~March. Unfortunately, this is only possible with coal. Which is very much not sustainable.

We use about a ton of coal (= 3 tons of CO2) every winter, supplemented with whatever free wood we manage to find.

 

[teqniq]

... Unfortunately, this is only possible with coal. Which is very much not sustainable....

Hmmm I recall having no problems whatsoever keeping a woodburner in overnight; admittedly it would be fairly cold in the morning but wouldn't take very long to heat up.

 

[ymu]

Hmmm I recall having no problems whatsoever keeping a woodburner in overnight; admittedly it would be fairly cold in the morning but wouldn't take very long to heat up.

You need to pay much more attention to a wood fire to stop it going out - especially if it's soft sustainable-type wood. The stove is our only form of heating and it takes a loooong time to heat the place up once it's gone cold - like, a day or so. With wood you might have some smoldery bits left in the morning if you banked it up last thing, but probably not enough to get the fire going again, and it'd be cold for hours. With coal you just need to riddle the ash and shove some fresh coal on two to three times a day. Light it in November and let it go out in March.

If it's just for occasional use in a single room on a chilly night, wood is better - it gives out a fiercer heat and it's fun to play with. If it's for regular heating, coal is a lot easier to deal with, gives out a nice steady heat and uses a much smaller volume of fuel.

 

[spacemonkey]

Just realised this guy is now chief scientific advisor to DECC.
Considering what appears a real basic error in the section i have enough knowledge to comment on, it is very worrying.

So has Dr McKay changed his mind about heat pumps?

If you were to re-write that chapter on heating in SEWTHA, what would it look like?

 

[i_got_poison]

recyclable waste turned into gas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/05/human-waste-turned-renewable-gas

just like town gas was used before petroleum replaced it. it seems as though we're going back to the future (as in we're using old methods
to meet our future needs)

 

[what]

Im going for a Dunsley Yorkshire stove. 75% efficient and approved for use in smokeless zones with emissions well below the smokeless limit.

Good stuff. One thing to be aware is you need air to the unit to make it work. Be careful where this comes from as you can get really nasty draughts

 

[what]

So has Dr McKay changed his mind about heat pumps?

If you were to re-write that chapter on heating in SEWTHA, what would it look like?

I really do not know if he still advocates ASHP. That said reading a bit more I would guess he probably does, as it does seem like he may have heard the argument that ASHP COP’s are low in practice and just dismissed the argument without much in depth research. He also states
“First, when comparing different ways of using fuel, the wrong measure of “efficiency” is used, namely one that weights electricity as having equal value to heat. The truth is, electricity is more valuable than heat.” This surely is not correct for heating.

How would I rewrite this chapter well I’m not sure I would. The book takes on a huge subject and from somebody who has no background in it does seem rather strange.

The first thing I would say is that there is unlikely to be a one fit solution. For example a city centre flat is likely to require a very different solution to a large country house. The next thing I would say is that things need to be looked at in a non linear approach i.e. you keep testing your solutions to get the best mix of answers for each problem.

The things you probably need to investigate are building physics, demand reduction, appropriate systems, fuel delivery, heat recovery and heat generation amongst many other things.

I also keep having alook at thte heating sections and keep coming up witht things that do not seem correct

The book rubbishes CHP as he has come to the conclusion that it’s a bad idea, because there’s a better technology for heating, called heat pumps. As such it is probably worthwhile looking at CHP in more depth.

The book makes no note of Biomass CHP which may be appropriate in a future mix.

It’s a huge subject, but not as sexy as planes and trains etc, but deserves a lot more than the little in the book.

 

[ymu]

Good stuff. One thing to be aware is you need air to the unit to make it work. Be careful where this comes from as you can get really nasty draughts

Also, fit a carbon monoxide alarm. It's very unlikely to be a problem, but if the stove develops a fault it could save your life.

 

[WouldBe]

Good stuff. One thing to be aware is you need air to the unit to make it work. Be careful where this comes from as you can get really nasty draughts

I'm also getting an air kit so it draws it's air directly from outside.

Also, fit a carbon monoxide alarm. It's very unlikely to be a problem, but if the stove develops a fault it could save your life.

Not necessary at the moment as there are so many drafts in this house but will bear it in mind for when the major insulation program starts next year.

 

[fredfelt]

I'd be very interested to read some more detailed stuff from this guy. I'm very strongly supportive of the quantitative approach to this sort of stuff and I've long been cynical about the popular emphasis on low impact 'feelgood' measures like turning off appliances when you drive a car and eat industrially grown food.

I'm very interested in where he's getting his numbers on the availability of ores for nuclear generation though, because the figures I'm familiar with are far less promising than the article suggests.

I don't rate Lewis Page, the author of the linked article from The Register. I posted criticism of his review of another paper on another thread. 'The Register' seems no better than the Daily Mail in its science reporting, specifically reporting of the science related to climate change.

More reciently in a Register article he's (mis)represented research published in Nature. For a far better critique of his story than I can do go here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/oct/11/2

If you are interested in the reporting of climate change its well worth having a look at this link.