Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

  1. #1
    TJ
    Guest

    Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    There's an article in today's Sunday Times concerning a report published by KPMG which concluded that the UK could meet its CO2 targets by 2020 and save £34 billion by ditching renewables in favour of more gas and nuclear power plants. By 2050 this saving will increase to £150 billion. The report was originally published in November 2011 and the renewables industry hit the roof. So KPMG asked AF Consulting, the report's authors to rework their figures. But this time the results have come out even more in favour of gas and nuclear. The report is expected to be greeted with further outrage from the renewables industry.
    However there appears to be at least one renewables sceptic in the Cabinet Office.
    George Osbourne has said 'We're not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business'.

  2. #2
    BigAndy
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    how can it save CO2 by installing more gas plants, load of crap. As for nuc well just dont want them.

    Germany has come up with a combined energy policy whereby it sells/gives surplus electric to Norway from it wind turbines so that they can pump water back up for their hydro plants. Then they return the electric when germany needs it. Now that sounds like an energy policy to me.

    England had better hope that scotland doesnt devolve as the rest of us have bob hope of meeting renewable targets without them, too many NIMBYs around. Wind can be cheaper than nuclear and is forcast to be around 2015 but only if we can install decent turbines and not restricted to old models on small hub heights.

  3. #3
    Landandsea
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    There's an article in today's Sunday Times concerning a report published by KPMG which concluded that the UK could meet its CO2 targets by 2020 and save £34 billion by ditching renewables in favour of more gas and nuclear power plants. By 2050 this saving will increase to £150 billion. The report was originally published in November 2011 and the renewables industry hit the roof. So KPMG asked AF Consulting, the report's authors to rework their figures. But this time the results have come out even more in favour of gas and nuclear. The report is expected to be greeted with further outrage from the renewables industry.
    However there appears to be at least one renewables sceptic in the Cabinet Office.
    George Osbourne has said 'We're not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business'.
    This is hardly surprising or indeed groundbreaking information. Itís always been known that nuclear was cheap but itís one thing the complaints about having a wind turbine in your back garden a potential Fukushima is another thing altogether. As for Gas well itís the age old problem there is only so much available. WE may be better off in 2050 however what will happen after that. The planets hydrocarbon resources needs to be looked after they will continue to be needed. The future may well be in efficiency and a combination of technologies rather than any individual way.
    I have worked in the Oil and Gas industry all my life, I am certainly not anti Oil and Gas its just that its impossible to continue the way we are. It will also get more expensive even to produce, the platform I am on at the moment produces very little compared to what it did. All the cheap stuff has been used up.
    As for nuclear I think it needs work I heard there are next to nuclear engineers in this country that needs to be righted and money needs to be invested before we can even think about opening more stations. The money invested in wind and solar now has an immediate effect on CO2 and in the future the technology will be better, cheaper and reliable, we will no longer need grants. The wheat from the chaff in terms of turbines, the Giaís from the Provenís if you want.
    I think anyone who things we can rely on Hydrocarbons and nuclear in the short or long term is being a little narrow minded.

  4. #4
    Courier
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    the UK could meet its CO2 targets by 2020 and save £34 billion by ditching renewables in favour of more gas and nuclear power plants.
    So all this nuclear power will be available within 8 years? :lolk: :lolk: :lolk: It will take much longer than that to build & commission the plants even when all the planning issues have been sorted out

  5. #5
    Lodestar
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    I think we should hit two birds with one stone and do research into Thorium powered nukes with Iran (as i understand it, it doesnt involve plutoium so no bomb.

    The whole Thorium process is cleaner and safer than the current nuclear methods, but I cant see it being implemented in 8 yr.

  6. #6
    tom
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by Landandsea View Post
    As for Gas well itís the age old problem there is only so much available. WE may be better off in 2050 however what will happen after that.
    Agree with all that. It is also worth noting that with renewables most of the spending is up front before they start generating, with nuclear some of the greatest cost is long after they have finished generating.

  7. #7
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAndy View Post
    how can it save CO2 by installing more gas plants, load of crap. As for nuc well just dont want them.
    I believe that the actual report is due out tomorrow. It will be interesting to see how the figures stack up, assuming they put it in the public domain this time. In any case, even with the renewables plan achieved, we will still be producing around 70% of our electricity from non-renewables and we will very likely still need the same number of nuclear/gas plants to take the load when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. They will just spend more time idled.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAndy View Post
    Germany has come up with a combined energy policy whereby it sells/gives surplus electric to Norway from it wind turbines so that they can pump water back up for their hydro plants. Then they return the electric when germany needs it. Now that sounds like an energy policy to me.
    Not sure if the residents of the upper reaches of Scotland and Wales will be very happy about having more of their valleys flooded in the name of climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAndy View Post
    England had better hope that scotland doesnt devolve as the rest of us have bob hope of meeting renewable targets without them, too many NIMBYs around. Wind can be cheaper than nuclear and is forcast to be around 2015 but only if we can install decent turbines and not restricted to old models on small hub heights.
    Does this mean that wind farm operators will be charging less for their electricity than nuclear/gas power plants by 2015 ??

  8. #8
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by Courier View Post
    So all this nuclear power will be available within 8 years? :lolk: :lolk: :lolk: It will take much longer than that to build & commission the plants even when all the planning issues have been sorted out
    Without nuclear we will have a serious shortage, irrespective of what we get from renewables. So they'd better get their fingers out.

  9. #9
    Courier
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by tom View Post
    Agree with all that. It is also worth noting that with renewables most of the spending is up front before they start generating, with nuclear some of the greatest cost is long after they have finished generating.
    At the moment nine of the UK's nuclear power stations are being de-comissioned, a process which takes an initial 15 years and during which not a single job is lost.

  10. #10
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by Lodestar View Post
    I think we should hit two birds with one stone and do research into Thorium powered nukes with Iran (as i understand it, it doesnt involve plutoium so no bomb.

    The whole Thorium process is cleaner and safer than the current nuclear methods, but I cant see it being implemented in 8 yr.
    Agreed.
    Also shale gas and hydrogen fuel cell technology.
    A lot of research going on in nuclear fusion, not a short term fix, but will almost certainly come before the oil and gas runs out.
    (IMO)

  11. #11
    Courier
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    Without nuclear we will have a serious shortage, irrespective of what we get from renewables. So they'd better get their fingers out.
    Couldn't agree more, but in the meantime renewables are what is being pushed by government.

    Farm scale medium wind (sub 500kw) has the added advantage in that the power is generally used within a few 10's of miles of where it is produced thus easing the strain on an already near capacity National Grid.

    A bit like a household ring main really.

  12. #12
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by Courier View Post
    At the moment nine of the UK's nuclear power stations are being de-comissioned, a process which takes an initial 15 years and during which not a single job is lost.
    Good for employment.

  13. #13
    BigAndy
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    I believe that the actual report is due out tomorrow. It will be interesting to see how the figures stack up, assuming they put it in the public domain this time. In any case, even with the renewables plan achieved, we will still be producing around 70% of our electricity from non-renewables and we will very likely still need the same number of nuclear/gas plants to take the load when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. They will just spend more time idled.


    Not sure if the residents of the upper reaches of Scotland and Wales will be very happy about having more of their valleys flooded in the name of climate change.


    Does this mean that wind farm operators will be charging less for their electricity than nuclear/gas power plants by 2015 ??
    Not sure that residents anywhere will be happy living next to a nuclear plant. Given the objection to wind it is likely the plants will be sited where objections are the fewest and that is equally likely to be scotland and wales.
    Doesnt mean they have to flood loads of valleys anyway, just pointing out the options taken in germany and the thought gone into them, could equally use extra electric to pump water around the uk, its much needed on east coast for instance, that could be used to irrigate biofuel crops for example.

    The cost of producing electric is important because it means if we have our own, sure the cost to public is likely to be the same regardless but we wont be importing gas from the russians etc so country better off.

    As for fusion, it was mooted when I was at school and that was a long time ago, maybe someday but I dont want to rely on it coming when oil is $400 a barrel and gas will track.

    Wind not answer on its own but could and should form part of a combined energy balance mix. Hydro is an option in places, biofuel and others.

  14. #14
    BigAndy
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    Good for employment.
    But it is a cost to the public purse the same as wind, so needs to be added to the cost of nuclear- cant have it both ways

  15. #15
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAndy View Post
    Not sure that residents anywhere will be happy living next to a nuclear plant. Given the objection to wind it is likely the plants will be sited where objections are the fewest and that is equally likely to be scotland and wales.
    Doesnt mean they have to flood loads of valleys anyway, just pointing out the options taken in germany and the thought gone into them, could equally use extra electric to pump water around the uk, its much needed on east coast for instance, that could be used to irrigate biofuel crops for example.

    The cost of producing electric is important because it means if we have our own, sure the cost to public is likely to be the same regardless but we wont be importing gas from the russians etc so country better off.

    As for fusion, it was mooted when I was at school and that was a long time ago, maybe someday but I dont want to rely on it coming when oil is $400 a barrel and gas will track.

    Wind not answer on its own but could and should form part of a combined energy balance mix. Hydro is an option in places, biofuel and others.
    You make some good points, but do you think the UK government have approached this with proper joined up thinking, or are they just invoking knee jerk reactions without a proper strategy ??

  16. #16
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by Landandsea View Post
    I have worked in the Oil and Gas industry all my life, I am certainly not anti Oil and Gas its just that its impossible to continue the way we are. It will also get more expensive even to produce, the platform I am on at the moment produces very little compared to what it did. All the cheap stuff has been used up.
    I think anyone who things we can rely on Hydrocarbons and nuclear in the short or long term is being a little narrow minded.
    Has anybody informed Alec Salmond of this ??

  17. #17
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by tom View Post
    Agree with all that. It is also worth noting that with renewables most of the spending is up front before they start generating, with nuclear some of the greatest cost is long after they have finished generating.
    Two things concern me:-
    1. Will we have enough power.
    2. Will we be able to produce it at a cost that enables our industries to compete with the rest of the world.
    If we cannot achieve both of the above, we are stuffed.
    This is why I find the KPMG report intriguing.

  18. #18
    peasantman
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    We need a bit of everything really. That way we spread the risk and improve the resilience of the system to both long and short term effects that are either unforseen or beyond our control.

    I was employed on the tail end of the "dash for gas" and just as we finished commissioning a 750 MW power station (at Little Barford), it was unable to operate at full capacity throughout the winter months due to lack of gas supply.

    I have never had a problem with wind turbines, but there are plenty of nimbys round here who, on their one annual visit to the "countryside", prefer an unspoilt horizon of wizzened old thorn bushes and tedious monoculture, to the occasional graceful example of the fine art of engineering rotating in the morning sunlight. They always reach for the nuclear option, but bet they would not like that in their back yard either.

    What we also need is a few more coal fired stations burning high sulphur coal to save us having to buy the stuff (sulphur) at extorionate prices.

  19. #19
    Exfarmer
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    Has anybody informed Alec Salmond of this ??
    I think several commentators are just waking up to this

  20. #20
    TJ
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by peasantman View Post
    We need a bit of everything really. That way we spread the risk and improve the resilience of the system to both long and short term effects that are either unforseen or beyond our control.

    I was employed on the tail end of the "dash for gas" and just as we finished commissioning a 750 MW power station (at Little Barford), it was unable to operate at full capacity throughout the winter months due to lack of gas supply.
    Having worked in the industry, what's your view on shale gas ??

    Quote Originally Posted by peasantman View Post
    What we also need is a few more coal fired stations burning high sulphur coal to save us having to buy the stuff (sulphur) at extorionate prices.
    40 years ago very few farmers bought sulphur, it fell from the sky.
    I believe that the few coal fired stations left de-sulphur it by injecting ammonia into the flue gas to produce ammonium sulphate.
    Nice little earner.

  21. #21
    Landandsea
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    Has anybody informed Alec Salmond of this ??
    Its still profitable there is still a lot here its just that oil prices will (or will have to) sustain high prices to keep it profitable. The easy stuff is gone but then the easy stuff was taken out of the ground when the oil price was $20 a barrel. With prices only likely to rise I think Mr Salmond is safe enough in his assumptions.

    Another oil and gas cost that is sometimes overlooked is like nuclear the cost of decommissioning. There are funds set up by the operators to cover this but we will have to wait and see if its enough.

  22. #22
    joe soapy
    Guest

    Re: Meeting CO2 Targets without Wind

    Quote Originally Posted by peasantman View Post
    We need a bit of everything really. That way we spread the risk and improve the resilience of the system to both long and short term effects that are either unforseen or beyond our control.

    I was employed on the tail end of the "dash for gas" and just as we finished commissioning a 750 MW power station (at Little Barford), it was unable to operate at full capacity throughout the winter months due to lack of gas supply.

    I have never had a problem with wind turbines, but there are plenty of nimbys round here who, on their one annual visit to the "countryside", prefer an unspoilt horizon of wizzened old thorn bushes and tedious monoculture, to the occasional graceful example of the fine art of engineering rotating in the morning sunlight. They always reach for the nuclear option, but bet they would not like that in their back yard either.

    What we also need is a few more coal fired stations burning high sulphur coal to save us having to buy the stuff (sulphur) at extorionate prices.
    Holland ran a huge tourist industry on the back of a lot of windmills and tulips

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •