Page 1 of 5
Energy efficiency and embodied energy split from "gas&q
Posted: 27 May 2018, 14:26
by PS_RalphW
The last 24 hours looks to have been the lowest UK CO2 emissions for a century, at least as far as electricity goes. Averaging about 4000 tonnes per hour, as low as 2500 tonnes overnight.
Still 40% above our 2030 target for carbon intensity
Note this post and those following have been split from the long running thread about natural prices, stock levels and future supplies.
The original thread may be found here http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=13150
Posted: 28 May 2018, 02:05
by BritDownUnder
I think that 80% of UK houses still have gas heating, cooking, hot water or a combination of the three. The only solution is more wind, more solar and more storage. Tidal and small hydro may help but there is really no alternative if the UK (and world) is to survive in the long term. It would also help the UK economy not to import such large quantities of fossil fuels.
I hear that SSE are considering building another gas fired power station near to a town in North Lincolnshire that has a rude word embedded into its name.
Some people never learn.
Posted: 28 May 2018, 07:38
by clv101
BritDownUnder wrote:I think that 80% of UK houses still have gas heating, cooking, hot water or a combination of the three. The only solution is more wind, more solar and more storage. Tidal and small hydro may help but there is really no alternative if the UK (and world) is to survive in the long term. It would also help the UK economy not to import such large quantities of fossil fuels.
I hear that SSE are considering building another gas fired power station near to a town in North Lincolnshire that has a rude word embedded into its name.
Some people never learn.
To address the gas heating (cooking is a very small amount) the 'solution' is more along the lines of improving building performance, insulation, than more generation.
Posted: 28 May 2018, 23:38
by BritDownUnder
clv101 wrote:
To address the gas heating (cooking is a very small amount) the 'solution' is more along the lines of improving building performance, insulation, than more generation.
Yes worth a go putting in insulation and double glazing etc but the slow turnover of the housing stock may prevent a serious reduction in housing energy consumption. Having a former PM who goes on about "Green CR@P" as justification to stop insulation grants also does not help.
Posted: 31 May 2018, 18:30
by kenneal - lagger
BritDownUnder wrote:clv101 wrote:
To address the gas heating (cooking is a very small amount) the 'solution' is more along the lines of improving building performance, insulation, than more generation.
Yes worth a go putting in insulation and double glazing etc but the slow turnover of the housing stock may prevent a serious reduction in housing energy consumption. Having a former PM who goes on about "Green CR@P" as justification to stop insulation grants also does not help.
It is perfectly possible to retro fit any house with insulation to, say, 80% or with older solid walled houses 90% of previous energy use.
Is it economic? Why ask. We don't have an economic problem we have an environmental problem so, if we value our environment, we provide an environmental solution. You wouldn't expect an environmental solution to an economic problem so why the other way round.
We also have a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act to save 80% of our energy use by 2050 which might be put up to 100% soon. The government's Climate Change Committee have already said that if we insist on pandering to the airline lobby and allowing them to continue to pollute the environment unchecked and even at an accelerating rate we will have to save 100% of the energy use of our buildings. So why are we putting an economic block on complying with the law?
Economists (bar a few such as Nicholas Stern) want shooting in my view. Twats, most of them!
Posted: 31 May 2018, 18:39
by kenneal - lagger
California is going Net Zero energy by 2020. Our builders can't, or rather won't, afford it!!
Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 14:05
by Little John
There is no such thing as "net zero energy" in a modern, industrial society. And that includes housing. Any claim to that effect is bullshit, plain and simple.
Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 16:19
by kenneal - lagger
Perhaps the full description should be Net Zero Energy in Use which is perfectly possible to design and build especially in a state like California with its high levels of sunshine. Net Zero Energy including Build could be achieved over time in places like California.
Net Zero Energy houses in the UK would probably require some off site development of renewable energy or a contribution to someone else building the energy generation capacity.
Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 18:37
by woodburner
Since, as an example, a wind turbine generator has to run for twenty years to cover the energy used in making the concrete for supporting the colums, where is the zero energy bit actually coming from?
Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 21:22
by Bornagain
[quote="woodburner"]Since, as an example, a wind turbine generator has to run for twenty years to cover the energy used in making the concrete for supporting the colums, where is the zero energy bit actually coming from?[/quote]
I find this difficult (=impossible) to believe.
If we take the example of a 9 MW turbine with a capacity factor of 35% then it would produce 27,600 MWHrs of electricity per year.
This has a commodity value of perhaps £1.1M (@ £40/MWHr)
I have no idea how much concrete is in the foundation for a wind turbine, but I think it is vanishing unlikely to be worth even one years production value of £1.1M
Please correct me if I'm missing something.
P
Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 21:50
by clv101
woodburner wrote:...a wind turbine generator has to run for twenty years to cover the energy used in making the concrete for supporting the colums...
This is complete rubbish - where did you read this?
Chap I know recently published this incredibly thorough and up to date look at electricity generating technologies. It's clear the EROEI for plenty of renewable technologies is perfectly competitive with the global grid:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1518303239
On-shore wind uses *less* concrete per kWh than the global generation average and off-shore uses none!
Fig. 3.
Life cycle material use, primary energy input, job generation GHG emissions comparison across technologies. A. Material use excluding fuels in 1000 t per PJ electricity output. B. GHG emissions related to material flows, excluding fuel extraction, fuel transport and operation. Expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2 eq.) per PJ of electricity output. C. Life cycle job equivalents to provide one PJ per year. D. GJ primary energy input per GJ of electricity output.
Posted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:06
by adam2
Bornagain wrote:woodburner wrote:Since, as an example, a wind turbine generator has to run for twenty years to cover the energy used in making the concrete for supporting the colums, where is the zero energy bit actually coming from?
I find this difficult (=impossible) to believe.
If we take the example of a 9 MW turbine with a capacity factor of 35% then it would produce 27,600 MWHrs of electricity per year.
This has a commodity value of perhaps £1.1M (@ £40/MWHr)
I have no idea how much concrete is in the foundation for a wind turbine, but I think it is vanishing unlikely to be worth even one years production value of £1.1M
Please correct me if I'm missing something.
P
I agree. It is often said that energy=money, and whilst this is only approximately true, it is a useful guide.
Wind power is getting cheaper and does indeed repay the invested capital within a year or so. This suggests that the embodied energy is also repaid in a broadly similar time.
And anyway the concrete foundation can be used for used for the next wind turbine.
And BTW, welcome to PowerSwitch.
Posted: 02 Jun 2018, 13:37
by kenneal - lagger
Any tech nerds know why Bornagain's use of the quote function has not worked in his post but it has worked in Adam's quote of the quote. I have tried to edit it, including cutting and pasting from Adam working version, but nothing seems to make it work!!
Welcome Bornagain. I feel you will be left wondering about Woodburner's contributions many times in the future. I even wonder about his tag line!!
Science is not about consensus but it is about proving your thesis such that a consensus can be achieved.
Posted: 02 Jun 2018, 14:03
by vtsnowedin
You might find this interesting reading.
http://www.windustry.org/community_wind_toolbox_8_costs
Installation Costs
Installation costs are all the expenses required to construct and get a turbine up and running once it arrives. Most owners hire experienced contractors to prepare the site and install the turbines. Connecting the turbine to the grid is often done through a team effort involving the contractor, representatives from the turbine manufacturer, and engineers from the utility company that owns the power lines. Contractors who install turbines should be able to give a comprehensive cost estimate for a job that includes the following major items: access roads, foundations, wiring to the tower bases, and turbine erection.
Access roads. If required, an access road typically is a 15’ wide gravel road at grade. Budget for at least $25 per foot, plus additional money for road turnouts, culverts and a crane pad. These costs could add up to $35,000 or more for a quarter-mile access road built over a farm field to the turbine location.
Foundation. This cost depends on the height of your tower and weight of the generator assembly and rotor, plus the soil conditions at your site. A turbine foundation is very large: 8-20 truckloads of concrete, with costs ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 including soil boring and engineering design.
Wiring to turbine base. This includes installation of a pad mount transformer at the turbine base if required, underground wiring on the property, electric poles to carry the power to the utility line if required, and installation of all these components. The cost range is $40,000 to $200,000 or more, should you require several miles of feeder line.
Turbine erection. The major cost in the erection process is the rental of a crane. A 300-foot crane with the necessary 400- plus ton capacity can cost $80,000 or more for a single day. Should you have weather delays or other difficulties, the rental charge of the crane might add 10% per day to construction costs. A comprehensive price estimate from a qualified installation company will likely be in the range of $100,000 to $150,000 per MW.
Take the average of fifteen loads of concrete at ten yards per load you get 150 yards. A local readymix company charges $150/ yd. for the stronger mixes so you have a material cost of $22,500 for the foundation concrete. if two thirds of that cost was the fossil fuel needed to make the cement and mine the sand and stone at $3.00/gallon it would be 120 barrels of oil tied up in the concrete.
Posted: 02 Jun 2018, 15:24
by kenneal - lagger
Shows one of the reasons why off shore is better.
Compare those concrete costs to a nuke and its attendant disposal costs. Oops! Who bothers about disposal costs? Certainly not the nuke installers and the government doesn't because it is 100 to 150 years in the future and they won't be around then!