The true cost of Diesel?

I wonder if *all renevable* energy economy is at all possible.

For example how much cement made by electric heating of starting components would cost?

How iron ores would be converted to iron metal without resorting to carbon as reducing agent? How much would cost Iron made that way?

How much aluminium would cost If we cannot use carbon sacrificial electrodes? Yes, electrolysis producing aluminium is still using substantial quantities of carbon in form of sacrificial electrodes (about 1.5 ton of carbon for each ton of aluminum).

How shipping industry and aviation would look like without carbon based fuels etc.

Also, is it possible at all to maintain renewable infrastructure without these pesky polluting FF here and there?

After a deepe thought it seems that high tech carbon free economy is just utopian nonsense.

Solution to pollution is *fewer peoples* on the Earth and not more technology. 0.5 billion of peoples could burn as much as they wish and bash on regardless without too much damage to ecosystem.

One can wonder, how such a goal can be achieved or (much more likely) when it will be imposed by Nature?

Martin

One of the main problems is that renewable energy is shut down in order that nuclear gets paid for every watt it can generate. If it were the other way round, and we used every available watt from renewables, and then topped up with nuclear, nuclear would cease to be financially viable. Demand is falling, that is why Hinkley point is shuddering to a halt, because by the time it is completed, it may not be viable, even at the three times the cost of todays energy that has been accepted by the government.

Absolutely, categorically, incorrect.

Rather than refuse a connection until fully upgraded grid infrastructure is in place there has been a policy of 'connect and manage' for a number of years now where a grid connection that may be constained in output at times is offered to a potential market participant. This basis of connection is offered regardless of the 'fuel source' The grid operator is not allowed by law to discriminate. Constrained connections exist for gas and renewables (coal and nuclear being built in the days when the generation operator and the grid operator were the same entity and long term planning and long build times ensured some high degree of coordination in project completion)

Compensation to the operator of the generation is then paid for the restrictions on their generation as and when they arise. While there are constraints on wind generation the compensation paid per annum for restrictions to gas generation far outweighs that for any renewables.

In addition much grid infrastructure is now capable of carrying higher loads, for instance circuits in Scotland have been upgraded from 132kV to 400kV specifically to remove constraints for renewables and there is significantly higher transfer capability across the Scottish borders, and as part of that there is a new 2.2GW 600kV DC link from Hunterston, North Ayrshire to Deeside, Flintshire, around 260 miles, the majority underwater that is nearing completion. With closure of much of the fossil fuelled generation across the UK the majority of this £1bn investment will be used for renewables.

Edited By Martin 100 on 09/11/2017 20:38:44

In the UK gas powered generation is varied with load/demand with nuclear just providing the base load and renewables supplying as and when as they are reliant on variables like wind or sun. Gas is relatively quick to bring on line as the demand requires hence the reason to use it that way, Until we get to a point that there is large capacity storage then I can not see things changing much.

I sm sure that nuclear gets paid at the going rate, depending on demand. If, at night, when demand is low, nuclear will be paid rather less than at peak periods. The only difference with nuclear is that they will sell at any price,in the short term, rather than curtail generation. The pumped storage operators most certainly take advantage of the cheap night tariffs, for instance.

Most wind curtailment is simply down to feeding the power in at the 'capillary' parts of the grid, rather than into the 'arteries'.

If it were used locally, t

here would be less curtailment but (as above) transmitting huge amounts from a wind farm may overload the grid at the periphery - until the grid is sufficiently reinforced. The National grid have to prioritise where they make improvements and they will accept the curtailment costs because they have worked out the cheapest route to grid reinforcement.

Unfortunately joe public don't understand the financial implications and are misl

ed by newspaper headlines that are often politically, or otherwise, motiva

ted.

Just spotted this on the BBC news website this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42021713. The claims look impressive.

Dream on Mr Musk.

The new Tesla Semi is claimed to have a very long range on one charge. (looked very aerodynamic)

How much will the vehicle cost compared to current Compression Ignition powered vehicles?

What is the payload compared to the current trucks?

What are we actually debating here?

Over the past years the bogey has been, variously: CO ; CO2; NOx and now particulates.

Were these someone's hobby horses; revealed as knowledge increased; or even driven by commercial considerations masquerading as being "green"

If you burn carbon in air, you will get CO2 and / or CO, depending upon the efficiency of combustion, and probably some particulate carbon.

But burning anything in air (even "clean" Hydrogen) will be likely to oxidise the Nitrogen and result in NOx.

CO does not readily dissolve in water, CO2 and NOx do, producing acidic solutions, of strength depending upon just which oxide is in solution.

The danger with particulates is the size. For air breathing mammals, less than 10 microns are likely to be breathed in, and then expelled with the next exhalation. The 10 - 25 micron particles are the ones likely to remain in the respiratory tract, and do damage. Above 25 microns the nose will probably fulfill one of it's functions and trap the particulate. (Which is why your handkerchief is black when you blow your nose after being near a bonfire (Don't get started on the carcinogens contained in the smoke!)

The danger from larger particulates only comes when they are so big that impact with them is likely to cause physical injury, (Think of lumps of coke flying through the air)

Assuming that the electricity is generated from pollution free sources, such as tide, wave, hydro or wind power, how about the pollution produced in manufacturing the batteries, and the generators and power units, (from raw material to end product)?

Maybe, some of the horses on which we choose to ride are not so high as we all like to think!

Howard

The 10 - 25 micron particles are the ones likely to remain in the respiratory tract, and do damage.

It is the nano-particles which are causing concern, so sub-micron particles. Three orders smaller, but it may depend on whether it is linear, area or volumetric measurements which are being discussed at that level. These less thsn microscopic particles are, apparently, easily able to pass across the surface membranes of the lung can enter the blood stream.

The battery alone was quoted at £150.000. There will no doubt be over-run charging when going down hills.

Clive