Energy lost in transmission

[clv101]

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.

Would you cut VAT or duty from petrol? If not then why not add it to electricity as well? In fact there already is VAT, it's just at a lower rate. How do you justify the dramatically differing tax regime on electricity and petrol?

The new road tax system is also used to make efficient cars more attractive than inefficient cars at the point of sale, would you scrap that too?

[Andy Hunt]

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.

The law has recently changed (PPS1) which means that any large-scale renewable development can simply be OK'd by the Secretary of State, and local opposition can be ignored.

The same PPS has made all micro-renewables 'permitted development' within certain guidelines (don't overshadow your neighbour etc), which means you don't need a planning application.

[fifthcolumn]

Would you cut VAT or duty from petrol? If not then why not add it to electricity as well? In fact there already is VAT, it's just at a lower rate. How do you justify the dramatically differing tax regime on electricity and petrol?

I don't justify the tax regime at all.
But I don't think raising tax is going to get us to the optimum solution of a mix of largescale renewables and small scale renewables.

The fact is: we have population who are up to their neck in debts, are being taxed to the teeth and are dependent on fossil fueled transport and fossile fuel powered electicity generation.

The cheapest way to get us towards the optimum solution is to cut bureacracy for the large scale plants - build SOME base load nuke and coal to be phased out later, to cut bureacracy hugely on the micro side and encourage people to install them by carrot rather than stick.

The new road tax system is also used to make efficient cars more attractive than inefficient cars at the point of sale, would you scrap that too?

It's not how I would have done it. So yes I would scrap it.
I would give rebates for those who buy energy efficient and especially electric vehicles instead of just lowering taxes on them.

[skeptik]

'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%.

yup... I looked this up recently. Average distribution loss for the whole of the UK from electricity generating plant to the socket where it comes out of your wall is 9 point something % ...9% will do.

[RenewableCandy]

'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%.

yup... I looked this up recently. Average distribution loss for the whole of the UK from electricity generating plant to the socket where it comes out of your wall is 9 point something % ...9% will do.

Distribution loss yes, but...

Any thermal power station (coal gas or come to that nuclear), i.e. one with hot steam driving turbines, tends to have an efficiency of 30% to 40%. Perhaps this is the origin of Jane's figure? That means, 2/3 of the energy in the original coal goes out the cooling-towers as heat. This low-grade heat could do something useful, such as extend the growing season in The Garden Of England by heating greenhouses, or get piped round the local houses/workplaces and detract from the amount of gas they need for heating.

So you can have a 2-stage campaign: first fight against the construction, after all there are lots of wind-farms being built off the coast near Kent, second if they do get the go-ahead, insist on the waste heat being captured and used: "Combined Heat and Power" technology is tried-and-tested (by Danes, mostly, but also by the good people of Sheffield). One of the power-stations here in Yorkshire has a CHP to some purpose-built greenhouses, not viable to use them for growing food yet, but their time will come...

[emordnilap]

It's interesting from the point of view of just how valuable electricity is: and is the true cost actually paid by the consumer? How does one work it out? What about the EU ETS - the costs involved in that? Exactly where are the subsidies?

The power station nearest me (the grid and generating in Ireland are still publicly owned) uses coal from where ever it is cheapest (meaning dirtiest too). Think about the power required in the process.

Energy is required for each of the following:

• mine the coal
  transport it to the port
  load it
  carry it by sea
  unload it
  pulverise it
  blow it into the furnace
  remove the ash
  transport it
  bury it

Meanwhile, we use the energy released by burning to:

• heat water
  turn a turbine
  release heat into the atmosphere
  generate electricity
  send it long distances
  step it down for household use
  heat water

Hmmm...

Anyways, there is some good news over here in this once-beautiful country.

[RenewableCandy]

Eur22Bn is a lot of dosh!! I read that somewhere else and I really thought they'd got the suffix(?) wrong and meant million. I wonder if it's owt to do with the chap who left AirTricity when it got bought by SSE...?
It intends funding the ?22 billion spend from a combination of its own resources and debtI hope they've found a lender!

[emordnilap]

Tis a lot, innit? Around five grand per person? Or do I have my zeroes askew?

[Jane]

RenewableCandy said

Any thermal power station (coal gas or come to that nuclear), i.e. one with hot steam driving turbines, tends to have an efficiency of 30% to 40%. Perhaps this is the origin of Jane's figure?

I'm not sure where the figure came from- the points came to me by group email and we thought we should check it out.

Thanks for the interesting points on CHP too.

[Keepz]

This is the case against Kingsnorth?

'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'

Unless you can show that these countries deliver as much secure and reliable electricity supply to their citizens as Kingsnorth will to the UK, this comparison is entirely irrelevant. If Greenpeace's intention is that energy use in this country should be reduced to levels comparable to those enjoyed by the people of the poorest counties in the world, let them say so.

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

Over what timescale? At what cost? At what level of security? On the basis of what demand assumptions? And where do they think the remaining 51% is going to come from?

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

what clv said

Behind all this is the point that preventing the construction of coal fired power stations will have no impact on total carbon emissions at all. This is because total carbon emissions from electricity generating and other heavy industry is constrained by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, specifically the number of allowances to emit carbon. This total is reducing and will continue to do so. If Kingsnorth gets built, it (in common with other electricity generators) will receive no allowances after 2012, so for every tonne of caron it emits it will have to buy an allowance from somebody else, which will mean that somebody else cannot emit carbon.

This system is designed to force participating industries to find their own way towards the most cost effective way of achieving carbon emissions reduction. Why would you want to force them towards one particular means of reduction if there are others which are more cost effective?

This isn't something which is necessarily immediately obvious to a non-specialist. But Greenpeace's economists and policy advisers must understand it and I find it profoundly demoralising that they choose to conceal that behind specious and illfounded argumentation.

[Keepz]

It's interesting from the point of view of just how valuable electricity is: and is the true cost actually paid by the consumer? How does one work it out? What about the EU ETS - the costs involved in that? Exactly where are the subsidies?

The power station nearest me (the grid and generating in Ireland are still publicly owned) uses coal from where ever it is cheapest (meaning dirtiest too). Think about the power required in the process.

Energy is required for each of the following:

• mine the coal
  transport it to the port
  load it
  carry it by sea
  unload it
  pulverise it
  blow it into the furnace
  remove the ash
  transport it
  bury it

Meanwhile, we use the energy released by burning to:

• heat water
  turn a turbine
  release heat into the atmosphere
  generate electricity
  send it long distances
  step it down for household use
  heat water

Hmmm...

I can't answer for Ireland. But none of this activity receives any subsidy in the UK.

[clv101]

Behind all this is the point that preventing the construction of coal fired power stations will have no impact on total carbon emissions at all. This is because total carbon emissions from electricity generating and other heavy industry is constrained by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, specifically the number of allowances to emit carbon. This total is reducing and will continue to do so. If Kingsnorth gets built, it (in common with other electricity generators) will receive no allowances after 2012, so for every tonne of caron it emits it will have to buy an allowance from somebody else, which will mean that somebody else cannot emit carbon.

That's all very well in theory but do you actually think the situation could arise where the lights would be off - rolling blackouts in place - for the sole reason that not enough allowances exist in the EU to generate (with the infrastructure on the ground) the amount of electricity needed to keep the lights on?

We've seen time and time again that environmental legislation is the first to be relaxed when security of supply issues raise their heads. You cannot count on EU legislation to negate the carbon impact of building new coal power stations - no way sir.

[Bandidoz]

insist on the waste heat being captured and used: "Combined Heat and Power" technology is tried-and-tested (by Danes, mostly, but also by the good people of Sheffield). One of the power-stations here in Yorkshire has a CHP to some purpose-built greenhouses, not viable to use them for growing food yet, but their time will come...

Totally agree; campaign to make use of the heat that would otherwise be wasted.

[Keepz]

Behind all this is the point that preventing the construction of coal fired power stations will have no impact on total carbon emissions at all. This is because total carbon emissions from electricity generating and other heavy industry is constrained by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, specifically the number of allowances to emit carbon. This total is reducing and will continue to do so. If Kingsnorth gets built, it (in common with other electricity generators) will receive no allowances after 2012, so for every tonne of caron it emits it will have to buy an allowance from somebody else, which will mean that somebody else cannot emit carbon.

That's all very well in theory but do you actually think the situation could arise where the lights would be off - rolling blackouts in place - for the sole reason that not enough allowances exist in the EU to generate (with the infrastructure on the ground) the amount of electricity needed to keep the lights on?

We've seen time and time again that environmental legislation is the first to be relaxed when security of supply issues raise their heads. You cannot count on EU legislation to negate the carbon impact of building new coal power stations - no way sir.

At the moment that isn't a problem because there's (just about) enough allowances sloshing around to met the needs of all EU ETS participants, which includes carbon intensive industry such as cement, paper, glass etc as well as power generation. As such EU ETS may not do much more at this stage than restrict growth in carbon emissions from these industries rather than actually cutting them. But the amount of allowances will reduce over time and that should deliver real reductions in emissions, lowest hanging fruit first.

Now I don't know (although I'm very confident we are nowhere near it yet) how far you would have to reduce total carbon allowances in the system to reach the point where there will be no allowances available to allow coal fired power generation to continue. That point would be reached be when there was no EU ETS participant who was able to reduce their carbon output (and so release some carbon allowances for sale) for the price that coal fired generators were prepared to pay for it - or rather, the price that electricity consumers were prepared to pay for electricity + carbon, which is what they are (rightly) now paying for. Actually it's a bit similar to the peak oil argument - will the allowances run out, or will they become so expensive that we find ways to do without them and so stop needing them - except of course that this is a commodity whose supply depends on political willpower rather than geological constraints.

You're suggesting that it won't happen because political cowardice (now that is a commodity in almost limitless supply) will prevent that point from being reached - politicians will intervene to prevent prices reaching such levels. But that seems to me to be a counsel of despair for the environmental cause (which is not to say that it's wrong); if politicians are too cowardly to let the electricity price reach the level that would economically justify turning away from (or fitting CCS to) coal, how are they ever going to let it reach the level that would pay for tens of gigawatts of large-scale renewables, let alone microgeneration?

It's not sir, by the way, it's ma'am. You should be able to tell that from the fact that my technological ineptitude has so far prevented me from working out how to make myself an avatar ( dives for cover against the bombs launched by rightfully enraged and technologically advanced Powerswitchettes) .