OT: energy infrastructure

[Clive Page]

The recent fuss about moving the requirements to go energy-efficient from 2030 to 2035 seem to have missed the point, or else there has been a discussion that I have not seen.

If most of us have to switch from gas boilers to heat pumps, all that energy has to come from the electricity grid. At present in our home we use between 3000 and 3500 kWh a year. A heat pump is supposed to extract about 3 times as much energy as it uses from the ground/air so this would need over 1000 kWh/year of electric power from the grid in addition to what we use now.

Then cars: a typical electric car with a battery of 60 kWh seems to have a range of about 200 miles. That may get a bit better, but that's probably the range on long journeys, and I suspect like petrol vehicles efficiency is lower on short runs. So if we continue to do about 12,000 miles/year in our car, that would imply having to charge its battery with around 3200 kWh per year. So an additional total of say 4200 kWh per year. That will more than double, indeed roughly triply, our home's current electricity consumption.

Unless I've got my calculations wrong, this is presumably going to apply to most households, whether they charge their cars at home or at some remote charging point. So both the generating system and the electricity grid will need a capacity between twice and three times what they have now. Whether that is to happen by 2030 or 2035 seems a minor factor: it surely needs a pretty hefty plan which ought to have been started some time ago. Or have I missed something?

[Jack Harry Teesdale]

Most DNO's (Distribution Network Operators) have plans for network upgrades already.

The main problem issue is that the power grid has insufficient generation and distribution capacity at a national level.

It is not so much an increase in kWh consumption that will be the problem more the simultaneous Maximum Demand on the generation and distribution.

[Andy Burns]

Sometime around 2011, the UK first proposed banning petrol/diesel vehicles by 2040. In 2020 it was Boris (wishing to willy-wave over how green he was) that that consulted on bringing the date forward to 2035, and ended-up actually bringing it forward to 2030.

So we've only dropped back to the same deadline adopted by the rest of Europe.

[The Natural Philosopher]

As far as I am concerned your calculations are in the ball park. In around 2011 I asked the same question and approached it by analysis of the UKs *total* energy usage in terms of fossil and nuclear fuel (there were sod all renewables back then) and making reasonable estimates in efficiency gains by using electric instead of IC motors and so on) came up with 3x increase needed in total *reliable* electricity generation capability.

Patently this couldn't be done with wind mills and solar panels, and the answer was around 100 big nuclear power stations dotted around the coast near to where the main population centres were. To minimise the need for extra long grid connections.

We are sleepwalking into a crisis of monumental proportions and *no one is even talking about it*.

They are just hoping that some 'breakthrough' based on unicorn dung and fairy farts will come along and save the day. It wont.

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe the CilmateCrap™, because in any case the world is running out of *cheap* fossil fuel, and not very nice people are going to sell what's left for the highest price they can screw out of you.

As an engineer, the only solution that makes sense is a war footing crash program of small nuclear reactors and a massive increase in local electricity network upgrades to about 3 tomes current levels. Each house basically needs a 200-300A supply, or three phase, or both.

And then developments and research will be needed to transfer every industry that uses fossil fuel over to use of electricity as the energy, and probably some synthetic hydrogen or hydrocarbon source as a reducing agent for e.g. steelmaking.

But today's government would far rather you got excited about Brexit, transgender issues and ClimateChange™ than look at the realities of the inevitable up coming end of fossil fuel usage and its implications for society and national infrastructure.

[Fredxx]

That's by far one of your better posts based on realism.

I disagree about the 200-300 amps incoming, though it may be necessary for large households. Most households are quite small. I would expect economy 7 and night time rates will equal day time prices as demand for night car charging will skyrocket. 100A gives 23kW and 500kWhrs per day and it's not overly difficult to have a smart system to limit current to the company fuse rating.

Apart from that, I am amazed that on one else has noticed the mismatch between demand and supply. We need more power-cuts.

I intentionally put on the washing machine, dishwasher and tumble drier when people with smart meters were encouraged, through a derisory discount, to reduce their loading.

[alan_m]

How many decades has it taken for the water companies to fix water leaks on their infrastructure - ongoing?

How many decades has it taken to re-line gas mains - ongoing?

How many decades has it taken to roll out smart meters - ongoing?

How many decades is it going to take to provide street charging points for all the houses in our towns and cities for houses that have no off street parking?

A year or two back wasn't some "official" sacked for suggesting the (old) targets were unrealistic and was he replaced by a "Yes" man.

How many decades is it going to take to extend the national grid to those far flung god forsaken mountain tops where they are going to build the thousands of wind generators?

Can the existing underground cables running down are streets cope with the extra demand?

In reality the extra demand isn't going to be spread out over a 24 hour period but required in a short time on a adverse weather day.

We also need 3 to 4 times the backup for when the wind doesn't blow for a week or two and the sun barely rises about the horizon.

[Fredxx]

The Green lobby has created these issues but has no answers, hence the breakaway green movement that advocates nuclear power.

[alan_m]

It may have been better to have waited until the end of the period when all those who delayed putting on their washing machine, dishwasher, kettle etc. then just switched then all on.

Those of us with a smart meter just saved a small amount of money by doing not much. If the period of the experiment had been a longer period in the day I doubt if they would have achieved the same (insignificant) result.

[Spike]

The UK contributes 1.03% to the current increase of CO2.

Using the IPCC’s own equations and constants, from which they draw their ‘1degC per doubling of CO2’, it is straightforward to calculate the decrease in temperature if the UK emitted no CO2 at all - never mind the ‘net zero’ mirage.

If the UK ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, the planet would cool by 0.004degC.

I leave it to the group to decide whether this is worth £several_trillion.

Well said.

[Spike]

Apologies for the fumble-finger early send, that result should be

0.014degC.

[Ian Jackson]

Presumably that's calculated as being only because of the increase of CO2. What no one (including the experts) can really be completely sure of is whether the present global warming has other contributory causes.

[The Natural Philosopher]

you could negate the effect of this entirely by standing on a brick.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Sure. It almost certainly does. But they dont justify taking control of the global energy industry so they are not useful are they?

[Spike]

Your getting there, Ian.

When the planet swings some 15-20degC in temperature on a regular basis, you can bet your bottom dollar that ‘other contributory causes’ are at okay.

On another group I put forward the idea of taking the temperature record over a long period, and transforming that time-domain signal into the frequency domain, to determine any cycles that are operating.

The only reply I got from those climate watchers was a puff piece by a warmist organisation.

I got the impression that transforming the data in this way was either an alien concept, or they weren’t interested in the exercise because it might upset cherished beliefs.

[Chris Hogg]

Not sure if this is what you had in mind, but the Earth experiences several temperature cycles, for example the Dansgard-Oeschger cycles of some 1500 years.

Then there are things called Heinrich events which seem to occur less regularly. There are also Milankovitch cycles, Then El Nino cycles. with periods of roughly ten years, but that is a bit variable.

[Tim Streater]

Partly (mostly) because not much was done while it was nationalised, and, being nationalised, it was probably hard to get facts and figures and actually make any criticism that would stick.

Of course my LibDem sister imagines that all was wonderful - and cheap - while it was nationalised and look how expensive it is now. So for her, QED - renationalise.

[Tim Streater]

This sort of maintenance is *always* going to be ongoing. Like fixing roads, or any other infrastructure. I don't imagine the rails over which I take trains today are the same rails that were in service 50 years ago.

[Tim Streater]

I already made an estimate for that and it will cost you £1,000,000,000,000.00 in AA batteries.

Or you might kick the Celts out of some of their valleys and dam them up. But good luck with that.

[Brian Gaff]

No, people have been saying this for many years. You cannot really change your fuels and expect the supply chain to cope with all the extra demand. To me, All this is doing is moving the pollution and emissions from dispersed locally, to located where the power is generated. I don't see the renewable power generation being able to increase enough to cover the demand. Wind does not always blow, and sun does not always shine, particularly at night, in the latter case. Somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and build some big tidal schemes, and this will go down like a lead balloon with the environmentalists. Also, and it pains me to say this, but there will have to be some limit to population numbers, which is unpopular with everyone, as Governments need more people to pay taxes to run the country, and that will mean more to be paid by all those left. I see big problems, and probably a good thing that I'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan. Brian

[The Natural Philosopher]

Climate is a *fully chaotic system* with massive but time delayed negative feedback loops. This means it is never zero. The climate is

*always* changing and needs no inputs to do it. This is important. There is no 'cause' of climate change. It happens 'all by itself'. There may be inputs that affect it, but the dominant changes are due to the inherently quasi-stable chaotic system of climate itelf. And like all chaotic systems it has attractors and will appear to be oscillating around one of these until it decides to osciillate around another. Right now we have exited the little ice ace and are in a wobbly orbit around a slightly warmer climate, and have been since about 2000.

Many of the cycles are simply related to the delay time of various heat transport effects like ocean currents and so on. Others are genuinely outside events. Our connection to the galaxy is tenuous, but it is still there, and Svensmark et al hypothesise that the galactic orientation influences cosmic rays which modulate cloud cover, for example.

Clear evidence exist to support the theory that plate tectonics and continental drift have a major influence on cliamte.

Almost no evidence exists to clearly indicate that CO2 does, of course. This is a most convenient lie.