I really want to see some attempts at closed-loop renewable industry. Power generated from wind turbines built from steel made in direct hydrogen reduction steel plants (and the circuitry made with copper mined using electric mining gear, and so on and so on). It’s the project of our generation to rebaseline industry to work without fossil fuels. Renewable electricity generation is just the first step.
between that and "Green Chemistry" there was quite a push about 20 years ago.. in hindsight, it is not clear that there was more than sporadic implementation, despite excellent design and communications work from some circles
There is one big UK powerplant that does that, Drax and it's a big controversy. It's about 5% of the UK's electricty capacity.
To quote the BBC:
"In response to the latest findings by the BBC, Drax admitted it has taken wood from old-growth forests. But it told Panorama that 77% of the material for its Canadian wood pellets came from sawdust and sawmill residues, with the rest coming from forestry residues and low-grade logs."
So the UK government is, IMO, full of bullshit on this one but it shouldn't dampen our spirits - the news is very good excluding this one blemish.
Dieter Helm, the well world renowned professor of energy policy, recommends we measure carbon consumption not carbon production, else we have a perverse incentive to increase total carbon footprint by outsourcing it.
That's the magic thing about a carbon tax & tariff -- you don't need to.
The tariff for cooperating countries is 0%. The tariff for non cooperating countries is set appropriately for the estimated carbon content of the import or higher.
"Fix" the problem, like, sate the core tax-motivation behind most top-down domestic political issue incitement? How? Via a rigidly capped tax?
Or would it be a beginning tax that is mere precedent and has a de facto uncapped potential? In order to allow limitless and much easier siphoning of production value by those who control the tax.
Can the tax go to 99% to take us back to the stone age? Can the tax be abused against powerful political enemies who derive their incomes from industry?
As an adult you can't possibly believe that taxes, let alone punitive taxes like this proposal, are implemented to solve problems. There's nothing "brave" about voting to move money from the coffers of others to one's own. But as governments become more broke, do expect to see more agitation in favor of such taxes.
Tell me about your problems, and maybe I'll even get on board to help solve them. But end up at a final act of utilizing taxation to "solve the problem" and I then know that you are running a mafia hustle and were the entire time.
Carbon taxes are supposed to be revenue neutral. Handed out as a fixed dividend to all citizens. That way it becomes a wealth transfer from high carbon emitters to low carbon emitters but doesn't fund the government.
As renewables started to increase, people were saying it wouldn't be possible to keep the grid stable once renewables reached 50%, due to the lack of spinning mass in fossil generators. That obviously has been proven wrong. If I understand correctly, they could have run without any fossil sources on a few occasions recently, but keeping some helps with grid stability. Next step is to reduce fossil fuels to zero for some short periods. But there will be some spinning mass still in nuclear and in biomass generation. Eventually the biomass needs to go too, but each step is good and not completely trivial to achieve.
> Gas and coal accounted for just 2.4% of power generation for an hour last week,
> earlier this month the share of fossil fuels in the generation mix taken over an entire day fell to a record low of 6.4%, on 5 April.
> 15 years ago, when gas and coal power plants made up 75% of the electricity mix, while renewables accounted for only 2%. Last year only a third of Great Britain’s electricity came from fossil fuels, compared with 40% from renewables.
There are several metrics in the article, not just short ones.
You can see here[1] that the trend is extremely good. 25.1 GW of fossil fuel power in 2012 compared to 9.3 GW now. IIRC the UK was the first western power to half its CO2 output compared to its peak.
I am not saying that "Gas and coal accounted for just 2.4% of power generation for an hour last week" is good but not good enough, I am saying that it is meaningless. The problem here is not the degree progress, but the choice of measurement.
I will happily celebrate incremental progress with the measurements that I think actually matter.
I'm not misunderstanding anything, I just disagree with you.
You're totally right that it's a relatively poor metric, but assuming we agree it's unlikely that the energy companies actively 'gamed' the metric (e.g. by agreeing to shut down gas and coal generation for that hour) it's still better to have that result, than to not have it.
Nothing to do with the upcoming frequent blackouts that are widely predicted (and the gaps in power that are becoming more common and were unheard-of 20 years ago).
In the US, the "the gaps in power" have very little to do with renewables. They have to do with deferred maintenance and an unwillingness to maintain existing infrastructure.
Remember, the massive blackout in Texas in 2021 happened because most Texan powerplants weren't winterized. (Natural gas couldn't get to the power plants because it contains moisture that condensed and froze.)
> The findings lend support to the aims of the ESO to begin the “groundbreaking and world-leading” step of running a zero-carbon electricity grid for Great Britain for short periods from next year.
Running a „zero-carbon“ electricity grid also means to switch off nuclear since nuclear isn’t zero-carbon (even the ICCC estimates are disputed) nor renewable.
When you take into account that nuclear reactors are not particularly fond of being ramped up and down (load-following operation), because this is neither economically nor technically desirable, these 15% must also come from renewable energy sources in order to truly speak of zero CO2 emissions.
Your logic that claims nuclear power isn't carbon neutral makes no sense. The ramp up and ramp down issue is handled by pairing nuclear power with storage, the same kind of storage that renewables uses.
Edit: Furthermore, a lot of the storage facilities that were paired with nuclear power often pivot to providing storage to renewables when the nuclear power plant decommissions. An example is the Bear Swamp storage facility in Western Massachusetts on the Deerfield River.
> Because you wrote incorrect information.
Your logic that claims nuclear power isn't carbon neutral makes no sense.
Sorry but that’s not true:
Show me an academic source (a study and please no website that claims something with no sources) that claims nuclear power is carbon neutral. Just look at the 2(!) meta-studies that led to an estimated range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in IPCCs AR5 2014.
It's long been assumed that nuclear plants generate an average of 66 grams of CO2/kWh — (some studies believes the actual figure is much higher). New power plants, for example, generate more CO2 during construction than those built in previous decades, due to stricter safety regulations. Look at the statement in IPCC 2014 and the (self)critical statements of the authors. And then think again why even the IPCC keeps nuclear power relatively small.
> The ramp up and ramp down issue is handled by pairing nuclear power with storage, the same kind of storage that renewables uses.
That means they avoid ramp up and downs? Believe me,
load-following power plants are very complex:
Is the operation of nuclear power plants compatible with renewable energy expansion plans?
To assess whether the continued operation of nuclear power plants is compatible with the planned expansion of electricity generation from renewable energies, a model-based analysis of the future generation system was conducted. This analysis used framework data (including future electricity demand, energy carrier prices, and renewable energy expansion path) based on the assumptions used in the scenarios for the federal government's energy concept (Prognos/EWI/GWS 2010) and in the lead study of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU) (DLR/IWES/IfnE 2010).
Through minimizing the overall system costs for power plant and storage expansion, a power plant park was simulated for the model years 2020, 2025, and 2030. The combined operation of nuclear power plants, fossil fuel power plants, and renewable energy facilities was analyzed using an electricity market model.
Based on the previously described technical possibilities for load-following operation of nuclear power plants, three possible future operating strategies were defined and examined in the scenarios:
Conditionally flexible operation: This allows routine load change cycles of 100-50-100 (PWR) or 100-60-100 (BWR), meaning the minimum load of 50% (PWR) or 60% (BWR) of the nominal output is not undercut. This operating strategy has already been tested in some German nuclear power plants.
Flex20 operation: It is assumed that nuclear power plants can also flexibly operate in the lower load range. For PWR, 20% was set as the minimum load level, as suggested by operating manuals. For BWR, based on expert discussions, 40% was assumed as the minimum load.
Flex0 operation: Additionally, short-term downtimes are allowed. To take into account start-up and shut-down times, a minimum downtime of 3 hours and a minimum operating time of 1 hour were established.
As a measure of the flexibility of the conventional power plant fleet (including nuclear power plants), the amount of renewable energy (RE) electricity that needed to be curtailed was used for the various scenarios. The results for the model year 2030 are summarized below. The RE share of electricity generation here is – analogous to the BMU lead study – about 65%. The reference case is the scenario without extending the operating life of nuclear power plants, meaning that electricity generation from nuclear power plants is zero. Nevertheless, about 12 TWh of RE electricity would need to be curtailed.
With a 12-year extension of the operating life of nuclear power plants, this figure increases to about 21 TWh and with a 20-year extension to 28 TWh. This assumes a conditionally flexible operation of the nuclear power plants. This highlights the conflict potential between high RE penetration and the continued operation of nuclear power plants.
That the adherence to the minimum load is the critical limiting factor becomes clear when this assumption is relaxed and a Flex20 operation is assumed (i.e., the minimum load is only 20% for PWR and 40% for BWR). In the scenario with a 12-year extension, the amount of electricity that needs to be curtailed drops from 21 TWh in the conditionally flexible operation to 14 TWh (Flex20). Moreover, if short-term outages are also allowed (Flex0), this value drops to below 10 TWh. Remarkably, this is less than the amount of RE electricity that would need to be curtailed without nuclear power plants (12 TWh). This means that in the Flex0 scenario, electricity from RE could even be better integrated into the system than without nuclear power plants, as in this case the nuclear power plants can be operated more flexibly than the fossil power plant fleet.
To illustrate what the operation of a nuclear power plant would look like under these conditions, the number of cycles that would need to be driven in the various load ranges was calculated. In the scenario of a 12-year extension, about 350 cycles of 100-60-100 would be necessary in 2030 in the conditionally flexible operation. In the Flex20 operation, there would be about 200 cycles of 100-20-100 and an additional 200 cycles of 100-60-100. In the Flex0 operation, each nuclear power plant would on average run the cycle from full load to no load and back (100-0-100) about 100 times per year. Overall, each nuclear power plant would thus average about 2 to 3 start-up processes per week.
> Just look at the 2(!) meta-studies that led to an estimated range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in IPCCs AR5 2014.
Are you referring to carbon emissions from building nuclear plants, or something else? If you're referring to emissions from building nuclear plants, well, the people who installed my solar panels pulled up in an ICE van.
(Either way, I have no interest in figuring out what the carbon emissions of nuclear fission or photovoltaic solar panels are; nor am I going to entertain an argument that holding two pellets of uranium together somehow emits carbon.)
> Construction started ... was completed in 1974. New England Power Company developed Bear Swamp with the intention of absorbing and storing some of the excess electrical power from the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station which was located nearby... Bear Swamp continues operate by absorbing electrical power from the grid and later returning electrical power to the grid.
Today, it's used to absorb excess solar production in MA. It's also really cool. I toured it as a teenager.
If you want more modern technology you could pair a nuclear plant with Tesla megapacks. You seem to be more motivated to study that feasibility than I am, though.
I should also add that with renewables, (wind & solar,) the ramp-up issue is rather similar. The sun and wind aren't going to shine/blow when electricity demand is high, and will shine/blow when demand is low.
The same storage technology (megapacks, pumped storage,) that's needed to solve the problem with renewables also works with nuclear.
(Otherwise, if your logic ignores that renewables need storage, and/or that the same storage technologies work with nuclear, I think you have some kind of anti-nuclear bias tainting your conclusions.)
