Gas price

[biffvernon]

If it turns out to be true that gas prices will remain low then there is zero chance of fracking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... casts.html

Meanwhile, battery costs are projected to fall:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details ... 100022051/

[biffvernon]

Outlook for gas
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... et-in-2016

[johnhemming2]

I agree that the financial risks in fracking mean that we are unlikely to have a dash for fracked gas.

[fuzzy]

If it turns out to be true that gas prices will remain low then there is zero chance of fracking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... casts.html

Meanwhile, battery costs are projected to fall:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details ... 100022051/

That battery article says that Li batteries will fall by 5% in 5 years hardly a breakthrough. Li batteries are not required for anything except mobile use where their reduced weight is useful. We already have plenty of suitable batteries for renewable storage tech. What is required is national organisation - the very thing governments have refused to do since the 70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–iron_battery

[johnhemming2]

What is required is national organisation - the very thing governments have refused to do since the 70s.

Why does the government have to get involved in buying batteries?

If Solar electricity and Wind power is competitive with other electricity sources then appropriate storage systems (hydrogen or batteries) will be added on.

[adam2]

At present, electricity produced from wind or solar is competitive, or nearly so with FF derived electricity provided that the electricity can be used AS IT IS PRODUCED.
Wind or solar electricity that has been stored is not competitive with FF electricity due to both the capital costs of the storage facility and the ongoing losses.

Natural gas is not going to suddenly vanish anytime soon, but it may become too costly to use for baseload electricity generation, but I suspect that both gas and oil will have a part to play in meeting peak electricity demands for many years yet.

In order to reduce our reliance on FF and the resultant carbon emissions, IMO as a nation we need to take the following steps.

1) install more wind and solar generating capacity until NO FF generating plant is run for baseload, only for peaks.

2) then alter tariffs so as to shift more consumption of electricity to times of relatively plentiful renewable energy production, and to discourage electricity use when recourse must be had to FF generation. There are many ways of doing this without actually storing the electricity.

[vtsnowedin]

At present, electricity produced from wind or solar is competitive, or nearly so with FF derived electricity provided that the electricity can be used AS IT IS PRODUCED.
Wind or solar electricity that has been stored is not competitive with FF electricity due to both the capital costs of the storage facility and the ongoing losses.

Natural gas is not going to suddenly vanish anytime soon, but it may become too costly to use for baseload electricity generation, but I suspect that both gas and oil will have a part to play in meeting peak electricity demands for many years yet.

In order to reduce our reliance on FF and the resultant carbon emissions, IMO as a nation we need to take the following steps.

1) install more wind and solar generating capacity until NO FF generating plant is run for baseload, only for peaks.

2) then alter tariffs so as to shift more consumption of electricity to times of relatively plentiful renewable energy production, and to discourage electricity use when recourse must be had to FF generation. There are many ways of doing this without actually storing the electricity.

Before you get to a FF free base load there must be a point where there is off peak base load that is the minimum the grid ever uses. After all the demand is never zero. That minimum usage should be our first goal for renewables as that requires no storage at all just the turning off of other sources. After that there is the ability of hydro power to hold back water to peak hours etc to create even more room for variable renewables. After we have built enough renewables to meet those goals then we can move on to storage systems. By then there maybe enough plugin electric cars sitting in garages charging to store a significant amount of renewable energy from a sunny or windy day. The communications and computer system to manage that would be quite a project. It would need to know the weather and energy output forecasts plus the state of your cars battery and when you next need to use it plus have remote control of your charging station.

[johnhemming2]

Wind or solar electricity that has been stored is not competitive with FF electricity due to both the capital costs of the storage facility and the ongoing losses.

I accept this. I am simply asking why the government has to buy batteries.

[fuzzy]

The government doesn't have to buy batteries, although it's a perfectly viable option. The government owns roads, used to own railways [maybe it does again - I don't follow the politics], nuclear power stations and emergency food stores, it used to dig coal and deliver letters. People had well organised secure jobs. I would hope that the government should be capable of organizing the regulation of a national grid and storage infrastructure. Perhaps a job for a physics graduate like yourself?

[biffvernon]

If Solar electricity and Wind power is competitive with other electricity sources then appropriate storage systems (hydrogen or batteries) will be added on.

You have (again) fallen into the common trap of ignoring the externalities of CO2 emissions associated with burning fossil carbon fuels. If only these externalities were internalised it would be clear that renewables with storage is already far cheaper, more than competitive.

[johnhemming2]

that is a good point. You should remember that I was perhaps the first UK Member of Parliament to campaign for the Feed In Tariff. However, I see the solutions lying in using the wider resources of human invention rather than state power.

[biffvernon]

That would be fine if state power had not rigged the game by allowing pollution for no payment.

[johnhemming2]

There is a good argument for the idea that the polluter should pay. However, there is a difference between action and inaction.

[Blue Peter]

However, I see the solutions lying in using the wider resources of human invention rather than state power.

You should look at the work of Marianna Mazzucato, e.g. this. The state plays a very important role in many innovations. It has, or had, the great virtue of patience,


Peter.