Energy lost in transmission

[Jane]

I'm currently helping with raising opposition to Kingsnorth coal power plant and we're trying to make up a leaflet with some quick stats on it, such as:

'the proposed kingsnorth station will release more carbon
dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than Ghana's total emissions pa.'

'The amount of C02 emmited is the combined total of the 30
poorest developing nations in the world'

'Greenpeace estimate that Kingsnorth will produce 8.14 million
tonnes of CO2 per anum'

'The Renewable Energy Association estimates that the UK could get 49%
of it's energy from renewables'

etc etc

Also, something like:

'On average, up to 30% of elecricitytransmitted over 400kms is lost.'

Just wondering if anyone can confirm this last statement or provide similar stats on energy lost over distance?

I have Energy Beyond Oil, which I know covers this well, but don't have it with me.

Thanks!

[danza]

Jane

I would think Miss Madam's your lady as she works in climate change research, although many others will be able to help.

Good luck with your campaigning. Should you need any further support, keep Powerswitch posted.

[clv101]

'On average, up to 30% of elecricitytransmitted over 400kms is lost.'

It's far far less. More like 7%, with 5% of that being in the local, low voltage grid. Certainly less than 10%. It is a big myth that the high voltage, long distance 400kV supergrid wastes energy. It is another example of environmental organisations like FoE and the Green Party twisting the facts.

In any case, last I checked quite a lot of people live in Kent. From a transmission point of view Kingsnorth is a good place for a power station. Much better than Scottish wind farms!

One other point from the Devil?s advocate, a significant amount of coal generating capacity is at end of life and is due to be decommissioned. Kingsnorth could be regarded as replacement for this capacity ? not additional. If Kingsnorth doesn?t get built it is more likely that the old power stations will continue to operate to keep the lights on. This is bad as roughly speaking, the old ones emit a third more CO2 than Kingsnorth (30% efficient compared with 40%) and also far more SO4.

[adam2]

As others state, the high voltage grid is actually quite efficient, I dont believe that an exact figure for losses could be produced, since losses vary according to load, ambient temperature, and distance the power is transmitted; all of which are continualy varying.
10% is a generally accepted average figure for TOTAL loses in transmission, this includes the local lower voltage distribution. Although local generation would reduce the losses in the high voltage grid, the somewhat greater losses in local distribution would still occur.

Whilst I agree that carbon dioxide emmisions from coal burning power plants are a matter of great concern, the people expect plentiful, affordable electricity.

If we are to reduce or even eliminate coal burning for electricty production then very dramatic changes to energy use, pricing and production will be required. Such changes to peoples rights and life stlyes are unlikely to be acceptable in a democracy.

Some options would include

1) A great expansion in the use of wind, solar and tide power. This cant be done under the present planning system, but would require major changes in the law. All rights to object to any renewable energy installation would have to be removed. Remember that we would need to build a large wind turbine EVERY DAY for decades, not much chance of that with a planning equiry for each one!

2) building a few dozen nuclear power plants, again this could not be done under the present planning system wherby public enquiries etc. can take years. All objections to be ignored.

3)Greatly increase the price of electrcity, to perhaps ?1 or ?2 a unit, such that most people would only be able to afford very limited use, non-coal sources would then be sufficient.

I doubt that any of these options would acceptable to the general public, any political party proposeing such actions would be voted out.

And anyway it all seems it a bit pointless when China is building two large coal burning power stations every week! no planning enquiries there!

[Joules]

In any case, last I checked quite a lot of people live in Kent. From a transmission point of view Kingsnorth is a good place for a power station. Much better than Scottish wind farms!

But Kent already has its own, offshore wind farms and more planned... touche!

[Jane]

Danza said:

Good luck with your campaigning. Should you need any further support, keep Powerswitch posted.

thank you!

clv101 said:

It's far far less. More like 7%, with 5% of that being in the local, low voltage grid. Certainly less than 10%. It is a big myth that the high voltage, long distance 400kV supergrid wastes energy. It is another example of environmental organisations like FoE and the Green Party twisting the facts.

Cool, OK, thanks, I thought I had better check!

clv101 said:

a significant amount of coal generating capacity is at end of life and is due to be decommissioned. Kingsnorth could be regarded as replacement for this capacity ? not additional. If Kingsnorth doesn?t get built it is more likely that the old power stations will continue to operate to keep the lights on. This is bad as roughly speaking, the old ones emit a third more CO2 than Kingsnorth (30% efficient compared with 40%) and also far more SO4.

Does this include the other eight coal plants proposed (which will probably get the go-ahead if Kingsnorth does)- can they be considered to be replacing existing coal plants?

Thanks.

[biffvernon]

It's worth reading the article by Fred Pearce in this week's New Scientist on the state of carbon capture and storage. To sum up, it'll take about the lifetime of a new power station before the technology will be rolled out on any meaningful scale so insisting that Kingsnorth will be CCS compatible is empty rhetoric.

[Jane]

adam2 said:

And anyway it all seems it a bit pointless when China is building two large coal burning power stations every week!

I know! clv101 just told me this at the weekend, so very depressing!!

My main opposition to coal, realistic or not, is that it's just so unsustainable and that the importance of energy efficiency/saving hasn't been fully pushed on the general public.

adam2 said:

the people expect plentiful, affordable electricity

I know, this is what everyone's got so used to, it's like trying to take a bone from a big, bad, scary dog!

Thanks for your points

[fifthcolumn]

1) A great expansion in the use of wind, solar and tide power. This cant be done under the present planning system, but would require major changes in the law. All rights to object to any renewable energy installation would have to be removed. Remember that we would need to build a large wind turbine EVERY DAY for decades, not much chance of that with a planning equiry for each one!

Exactly. And this is my objection to kaiboshing nuclear and coal plants.

Our optimal solution is a largescale build of centralised renewables much as we are doing (slowly) but coupled with a huge grass-roots uptake of micro-renewables. This would balance the system and remove the intermittency problem and potentially solve the need to upgrade the grid to provide power for such things as PHEVs.

Since we have the planning wankers deciding on everyone else's behalf what is good for us we are stuck with a sup-optimal solution which is massive centralised power-plants. So from the looks of this lady's objection we are going to get the worst of all worlds: neither large-scale centralised systems in adequate numbers combined with miniscule uptake of micro-renewables. In other words we will get a collapse.

Good work Jane. Good work planning department arseholes.

[clv101]

clv101 said:

a significant amount of coal generating capacity is at end of life and is due to be decommissioned. Kingsnorth could be regarded as replacement for this capacity ? not additional. If Kingsnorth doesn?t get built it is more likely that the old power stations will continue to operate to keep the lights on. This is bad as roughly speaking, the old ones emit a third more CO2 than Kingsnorth (30% efficient compared with 40%) and also far more SO4.

Does this include the other eight coal plants proposed (which will probably get the go-ahead if Kingsnorth does)- can they be considered to be replacing existing coal plants?

You'd have to look at the planned new capacity, compare that with the decommission schedule and take into account the relative efficiencies. My understanding is that by 2020 we will be burning less gas, there will be less nuclear, the balance won't be made up from renewable so we'll either be burning more coal or using less electricity.

Replacing gas and nuclear with coal is bad from a CO2 point of view.
Replacing old coal with new coal is good from a CO2 point of view.

Problem is in the future it will be easier to keep the old coal plants running than the gas (no fuel) or nuclear (properly worn out). Given than I think it is likely that the new coal won't replace the old coal - that will continue, but it'll replace the gas and nuclear.

As Adam said - what we really need is much more expensive electricity. Why not tax electricity like we tax petrol? Electricity is currently ~10p kWh with 5% VAT?

If I was in charge I'd increase VAT to 17.5%, add a duty escalator like we used to have on fuel and use the proceeds to retrofit poorer people's houses and subsidise the lowest power consumption appliances (think free A-grade fridge in exchange for your old one). The richer people can pay to retrofit their own houses (or pay more tax on the electricity and thereby pay for the poorer peoples houses to be retrofitted).

[Jane]

biffvernon said:

It's worth reading the article by Fred Pearce in this week's New Scientist on the state of carbon capture and storage. To sum up, it'll take about the lifetime of a new power station before the technology will be rolled out on any meaningful scale so insisting that Kingsnorth will be CCS compatible is empty rhetoric.

Yeh, I heard about the article but haven't had a chance to read it yet, I'll try and get a hold of it, thanks. I agree the CCS argument is completely unviable. At the moment, BERR have already conceded that Kingsnorth doesn't have to include CCS-ready technology.

[biffvernon]

It's not entirely clear just where the pinch points in expanding wind are.

There's planning, but there's also manufacturing capacity, with the turbine factories having full order books for a couple of years and, in the case of off-shore work, the lack of jack-up barges for installation. And perhaps most importantly, the investment funding steam.

All these things have to be in step.

There's a similar story with solar pv where planning is much less of an issue.

[fifthcolumn]

If I was in charge I'd increase VAT to 17.5%, add a duty escalator like we used to have on fuel and use the proceeds to retrofit poorer people's houses and subsidise the lowest power consumption appliances (think free A-grade fridge in exchange for your old one). The richer people can pay to retrofit their own houses (or pay more tax on the electricity and thereby pay for the poorer peoples houses to be retrofitted).

Jeez H.
In a post further up we've already identified the source of the problem as being too much government interference in the form of the planning department. So to "solve" things you'd add yet ANOTHER layer of government interference? Incredible.

If I was in charge I would execute the planning department's around the country and CUT V.A.T. off of purchases of micro-renewables and give a tax rebate to those who purchased them. In addition I'd fire enough members of the government to fund replacing all power usage of the government by micro-renewables.

[danza]

If I was in charge I'd increase VAT to 17.5%, add a duty escalator like we used to have on fuel and use the proceeds to retrofit poorer people's houses and subsidise the lowest power consumption appliances (think free A-grade fridge in exchange for your old one). The richer people can pay to retrofit their own houses (or pay more tax on the electricity and thereby pay for the poorer peoples houses to be retrofitted).

Why does no one in our political system even think like this??

Right thats settled then Chris for PM. Where do I vote!!

[Jane]

Chris, looks like our 'coal conference' at the weekend wasn't too exhaustive eh !!! ! got too distracted by wine and 'cupcakes'