Wood burning

[Dave2002]

Probably not surprising that EDF has the largest percentage of nuclear energy (72% last year) - scroll down for chart. British Gas was best for renewables (56%) but all the others have significant reliance on natural gas - except EDF!

If you look at the US market you'll find that a very small fraction of the total generating stations generate around a fifth of the total energy delivered. That very small fraction is of course nuclear. Nuclear power stations are much better than other generating methods - if one can ignore the possible hazards.

Ignoring infrastructure and other aspects of electricity generation and distribution is one way to try to justify claims of "greenness", just as exporting waste to other countries, or having products made in other countries with poor emissions standards is another way for the UK to declare its world leading eco credentials.

[french frank]

Nuclear power stations are much better than other generating methods - if one can ignore the possible hazards.

Yes, it's clean so why not 'ignore the possible hazards'? Chernobyl, anyone? What other advantages does nuclear have over renewables? Why are the infrastructure costs lower than for solar or hydro-generated schemes?

[oddoneout]

Is it so difficult to explain that the generating companies (hydro, solar, wind) feed into the grid 100% renewable/green electricity. And we - your 'retail' supplier - pay them for, or buy, that electricity; you, in turn - the customer - pay us. Just because a fresh mountain stream feeds directly into a chlorinated swimming pool doesn't mean that any of the swimming pool water is fit to drink

I think the kind of customer who is prepared to pay a premium for 'guaranteed' green electricity is the kind of person who understands that. On numerous occasions I've had to explain to power companies touting for new customers that I'm not interested in the cheapest deal. Customers are also notified now and again that they can become shareholders. If they take up the offer, they're not expecting to make money out of it ("The value of your investment can go up or down"). They do it for the ideal.

I had assumed that but over the years I have read and heard so many of the ignorant comments from those very people that I'm inclined to think it is(or certainly was) verging on the norm.
And no, it shouldn't be difficult to explain how the generation and distribution of electricity work, although it has to be said the use of the term "supplier" really doesn't help, especially with the opaque way those companies present themselves. The panic arising from the collapse of so many suppliers has highlighted how many people think that the company to which they pay their bills is directly and physically responsible for sending the juice down the wires.

[oddoneout]

Yes, it's clean so why not 'ignore the possible hazards'? Chernobyl, anyone? What other advantages does nuclear have over renewables? Why are the infrastructure costs lower than for solar or hydro-generated schemes?

Even if one can set aside the possible dangers and the long term cost implications(decommissioning and waste storage) of nuclear it isn't a quick solution. We need solutions and action NOW, which nuclear can't provide, as well as 10, 15, 20 years down the line which is the sort of time scale that seems to be involved for nuclear, even with a following wind - which seems to have been noticeable by its absence of late judging by the stalled projects.

[Bryn]

Yes, it's clean so why not 'ignore the possible hazards'? Chernobyl, anyone? What other advantages does nuclear have over renewables? Why are the infrastructure costs lower than for solar or hydro-generated schemes?

As an emergency measure with a relatively short lead-time, it may turn out to be preferable, as part of an overall contribution to low-carbon electricity generation, to run-away global warning, which is truly on the cards.

[Frances_iom]

Nuclear Power is yet another area where fear was unnecessarily generated by certain parties - the Germans turned off their Nuclear Power and burnt more lignite because of it - the UK didn't push on with its once leading role - yes the early reactors had problems compounded by their dual role in providing the material for our nuclear deterrent but unlike France who pushed on with civil nuclear power the UK took the short term option of gas and we will most likely see power cuts this winter.

[french frank]

This is the FoE argument

https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/policy-positions/nuclear-energy-our-position

and this the Greenpeace

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/nuclear-power/

Yes, well, they would say that, wouldn't they? But why should they? Yes, they put climate and environmental considerations first, but shouldn't we all?

[Dave2002]

I haven't decided whether I'm in favour of nuclear power or not, but unless there is a drop in demand it seems to me unlikely that there will be enough so called "renewable" infrastructure in place fast enough to avoid all problems. It might be necessary to have some nuclear power stations simply in order to provide enough energy to create further infrastructure.

While admiring the efforts made to increase wind, solar and wave/tide generation of electricity, these do not come with a zero carbon rating. Cement which is used in a lot of construction is a significant factor in the release of greenhouse gases, and also the metal and other materials used for all of these so-called "renewable" generators do require both raw materials and energy in order to create them. Further, it is unlikely that any such infrastructure would last a long while without maintenance or replacement. The claims for "zero carbon" are at least partly based on ignoring any such problems and any renewal or maintenance of generating and distribution systems.

Perhaps if there were a very large scale step up in these methods of electricity production so that there were an excess of energy available, that could then be used in the creation of further infrastructure, but that possibility is going to be years beyond my lifetime.

A slight aside from these considerations is the current expected shortage of CO2 used for food preservation. Ironic isn't it that while we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions, we are now facing problems with insufficient production - though presumably that's because the gases that are released are in the wrong places and at the wrong times?!

[oddoneout]

I haven't decided whether I'm in favour of nuclear power or not, but unless there is a drop in demand it seems to me unlikely that there will be enough so called "renewable" infrastructure in place fast enough to avoid all problems. It might be necessary to have some nuclear power stations simply in order to provide enough energy to create further infrastructure.

While admiring the efforts made to increase wind, solar and wave/tide generation of electricity, these do not come with a zero carbon rating. Cement which is used in a lot of construction is a significant factor in the release of greenhouse gases, and also the metal and other materials used for all of these so-called "renewable" generators do require both raw materials and energy in order to create them. Further, it is unlikely that any such infrastructure would last a long while without maintenance or replacement. The claims for "zero carbon" are at least partly based on ignoring any such problems and any renewal or maintenance of generating and distribution systems.

Perhaps if there were a very large scale step up in these methods of electricity production so that there were an excess of energy available, that could then be used in the creation of further infrastructure, but that possibility is going to be years beyond my lifetime.

A slight aside from these considerations is the current expected shortage of CO2 used for food preservation. Ironic isn't it that while we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions, we are now facing problems with insufficient production - though presumably that's because the gases that are released are in the wrong places and at the wrong times?!

The whole business of zero carbon and zero emissions is a smoke and mirrors exercise of creative accounting and interpretation of terms and regulations. Electric cars are zero emissions in terms of not having exhaust fumes when in use and as such are a good ting for urban use in particular; however the production of what powers them isn't zero emissions unless done through an off-grid renewable set-up. And even that set-up carries its other baggage of materials and energy to construct in the first place as you say, although once the complete audit is done it might come out as positive rather than negative overall. Trying to do a complete audit can be difficult - getting all the information about components, manufacturing process and such like relies on companies having that info in the first place and then being prepared to give it. The difficulties of companies in this country trying to export to the EU post-Brexit has shown the hurdles involved.
We are increasingly reaching the stage with renewable generation in this country of having excess generation at times, a situation which will become more frequent. Unfortunately the strategy to deal with such surplus seems to be inadequate to non-existent. There are patchwork schemes for the likes of warehousing and freezer stores to accept surplus load when it arises and of course the electric car is being seen as a way to manage such situations as well, with owners agreeing (upfront or by default) to "loan" their batteries. Such generating sources currently have to be stood down until there is capacity in the grid - and according to something a colleague mentioned last week the wind turbines then need a diesel generator to get them turning again... I haven't checked that out but I believe that a number of such "dirty" facilities are regularly used to help smooth short term, short notice imbalances - I think I read recently that the amount being charged (demanded?) to provide such a service is proving a "nice little earner" for those involved.
Then there is the interesting matter of the surplus wind powered renewables exported from Scotland to England and the implications of any greater degree of autonomy for Scotland.
Yes the CO2 issue will be a puzzle for most to understand, and would have been an excellent opportunity for a bit of official teaching and learning - but no. Just bung some money to an American firm to start manufacturing fertiliser again and ignore quite reasonable requests for support from sectors struggling with the shortages. As I understand it methods of extracting and purifying CO2 from air don't exist in ways that can provide what is necessary, and even concentrated sources such as manufacturing industry have long done their best to avoid the expense of scrubbing their emissions at source so aren't set-up presumably for CO2 capture.

[Frances_iom]

T... I haven't checked that out but I believe that a number of such "dirty" facilities are regularly used to help smooth short term, short notice imbalances - I think I read recently that the amount being charged (demanded?) to provide such a service is proving a "nice little earner" for those involved.
....

The Isle of Man utilities with both a 2-way cable collector and fast start up Gas-fed power station used to make money some years ago from this standby peak supply service but I understand that in recent years it either cannot supply the capacity or has been undercut in price

[Frances_iom]

...Yes, they put climate and environmental considerations first, but shouldn't we all?

I have zero respect for the scientific ability of Greenpeace to understand a problem - however I await the start of powercuts and the public reaction to them

[ardcarp]

The whole business of zero carbon and zero emissions is a smoke and mirrors exercise of creative accounting and interpretation of terms and regulations. Electric cars are zero emissions in terms of not having exhaust fumes when in use and as such are a good ting for urban use in particular; however the production of what powers them isn't zero emissions unless done through an off-grid renewable set-up. And even that set-up carries its other baggage of materials and energy to construct in the first place as you say, although once the complete audit is done it might come out as positive rather than negative overall. Trying to do a complete audit can be difficult - getting all the information about components, manufacturing process and such like relies on companies having that info in the first place and then being prepared to give it. The difficulties of companies in this country trying to export to the EU post-Brexit has shown the hurdles involved.

Wise words. It takes a vast amount of energy to move one vehicle. That energy has so far come from millions upon millions of years of sunlight ending up as fossil fuel which we have burnt up in a few human lifetimes. Just imagine how much electrical energy it would take to keep the current number of cars and lorries on the go? Not to mention aircraft. It needs a proper scientist/mathematician to do the sums, but our best efforts at harnessing 'green' power would only provide a tiny fraction of the energy needed. I guess the only answers are either (a) return humanity to the stone age or (b) invest hugely in nuclear power...maybe even fusion, if they can get it to work. I'm not sure either solution would be popular.

[oddoneout]

Wise words. It takes a vast amount of energy to move one vehicle. That energy has so far come from millions upon millions of years of sunlight ending up as fossil fuel which we have burnt up in a few human lifetimes. Just imagine how much electrical energy it would take to keep the current number of cars and lorries on the go? Not to mention aircraft. It needs a proper scientist/mathematician to do the sums, but our best efforts at harnessing 'green' power would only provide a tiny fraction of the energy needed. I guess the only answers are either (a) return humanity to the stone age or (b) invest hugely in nuclear power...maybe even fusion, if they can get it to work. I'm not sure either solution would be popular.

There is another way of looking at energy demand. Instead of trying to provide an alternative power source for everything that uses power currently, whci assumes that the current way of doing things has to be continued, it would be better to look at the current uses and demands and ask - what needs to be kept, what can be done differently, and how? The number of cars on the road is unnecessarily high for all sorts of reasons, but there are solutions. Why are there so many flights - are they all essential? It was depressing the other day to look out on what should have been a lovely clear blue early morning sky and see that the number of contrails scarring and hazing it was back to pre-pandemic levels. Does so much of our food really have to come from thousands of miles away?
The big block on solutions and alternatives is not that they don't exist or couldn't be found it's that politicians don't want to make it happen as far as I can see. We could in this country have had far more PV generation than we now have, funded in large measure by householders and helping to reduce the conflicts caused by large scale greenfield arrays, but the government having made what it saw as a mistake with the Feed-In Tariff didn't attempt to rectify the situation properly, but just in effect pulled the plug on it. Successive versions of much trumpeted green(so-called) initiatives have failed to deliver through ineptitude and lack of awareness of what private individuals and the various construction and other businesses are able and willing to do, so again have been killed off. I think there may still be some (now elderly) householders that have non-functional storage heaters cluttering up their homes because a long time ago a government bright idea warm front scheme installed them but didn't facilitate the connection to a power supply.Nothing has been learned from those failures, no support or even interest seems to be in evidence in dealing with quite fundamental issues, and in my view there is an alarming level of ignorance in the half-baked ideas that do see the light of day. Heat pumps are not a direct bolt-on replacement for gas boilers, and their forced imposition is going to leave far too many people with totally inadequate heating - and that's even before you start to consider the appalling lack of insulation in British homes, including(or even especially, since being new they should be an improvement on what went before) the ones currently being thrown up all over the country. Inefficient, poorly ventilated, badly designed and constructed, cramped homes with no local facilities or enough provision for doctors, schools etc, that need cars for residents to work, shop, go to school - and they are all "sustainable" according to the lala land that is the current National Planning Policy Framework. Even before Brexit there was no attempt to look at what other N European countries did to address such issues as power generation, urban air quality, housing design, reducing ICE dominance, and using that experience to inform policy.

[Dave2002]

The whole business of zero carbon and zero emissions is a smoke and mirrors exercise of creative accounting and interpretation of terms and regulations. Electric cars are zero emissions in terms of not having exhaust fumes when in use and as such are a good ting for urban use in particular; however the production of what powers them isn't zero emissions unless done through an off-grid renewable set-up. And even that set-up carries its other baggage of materials and energy to construct in the first place as you say, although once the complete audit is done it might come out as positive rather than negative overall. Trying to do a complete audit can be difficult - getting all the information about components, manufacturing process and such like relies on companies having that info in the first place and then being prepared to give it. The difficulties of companies in this country trying to export to the EU post-Brexit has shown the hurdles involved.
We are increasingly reaching the stage with renewable generation in this country of having excess generation at times, a situation which will become more frequent. Unfortunately the strategy to deal with such surplus seems to be inadequate to non-existent. There are patchwork schemes for the likes of warehousing and freezer stores to accept surplus load when it arises and of course the electric car is being seen as a way to manage such situations as well, with owners agreeing (upfront or by default) to "loan" their batteries. Such generating sources currently have to be stood down until there is capacity in the grid - and according to something a colleague mentioned last week the wind turbines then need a diesel generator to get them turning again... I haven't checked that out but I believe that a number of such "dirty" facilities are regularly used to help smooth short term, short notice imbalances - I think I read recently that the amount being charged (demanded?) to provide such a service is proving a "nice little earner" for those involved.
Then there is the interesting matter of the surplus wind powered renewables exported from Scotland to England and the implications of any greater degree of autonomy for Scotland.
Yes the CO2 issue will be a puzzle for most to understand, and would have been an excellent opportunity for a bit of official teaching and learning - but no. Just bung some money to an American firm to start manufacturing fertiliser again and ignore quite reasonable requests for support from sectors struggling with the shortages. As I understand it methods of extracting and purifying CO2 from air don't exist in ways that can provide what is necessary, and even concentrated sources such as manufacturing industry have long done their best to avoid the expense of scrubbing their emissions at source so aren't set-up presumably for CO2 capture.

I can give some insight into EVs. Of course they have very low emissions in the vehicle, but there will almost certainly be emissions in the generation and even the infrastructure used to distribute the electricity. The up front loading of EVs in terms of manufacturing emissions are probably very similar to petrol and diesel cars. Some EVs are capable of doing around 5 miles per kWh - but that requires very careful and slow driving. On the other hand a faster car - with a long range would probably work out at 3 miles/kWh. Range is still a problem for longish distances - 200 miles is typically a good range - and of course it is weather dependent. With lights, heating and windscreen wipers on, the effective consumption increases considerably, and the effective range reduces.

Based on this kind of data, over a 200 mile journey - which can be done non-stop in some EVs, that would require around 67kWh stored in the battery. Some cars can do that
One litre of petrol is roughly equivalent to 8.9 kWh of energy. 200 miles in most petrol cars would require 4 gallons of petrol, or about 18 litres of fuel. That's equivalent to around 160 kWh of energy, so yes - EVs are better than that.

Under real world conditions they may actually use about 45% of the energy of an equivalent fossil fuel vehicle over the same distance.
Diesel fuel is at roughly 10 kWh per litre of fuel, and diesel engines are effectively slightly more efficient that petrol engines, but EVs are still better in terms of consumption for comparable distances travelled.

It is possible that plug-in hybrid cars which can do 30-50 miles on an electric charge (most are only just managing to do 30 miles currently - 50 miles has been selected as a target by car manufacturers) might actually be the best compromise for the near future, but the UK government has I believe ruled that out.

[oddoneout]

I can give some insight into EVs. Of course they have very low emissions in the vehicle, but there will almost certainly be emissions in the generation and even the infrastructure used to distribute the electricity. The up front loading of EVs in terms of manufacturing emissions are probably very similar to petrol and diesel cars. Some EVs are capable of doing around 5 miles per kWh - but that requires very careful and slow driving. On the other hand a faster car - with a long range would probably work out at 3 miles/kWh. Range is still a problem for longish distances - 200 miles is typically a good range - and of course it is weather dependent. With lights, heating and windscreen wipers on, the effective consumption increases considerably, and the effective range reduces.

Based on this kind of data, over a 200 mile journey - which can be done non-stop in some EVs, that would require around 67kWh stored in the battery. Some cars can do that
One litre of petrol is roughly equivalent to 8.9 kWh of energy. 200 miles in most petrol cars would require 4 gallons of petrol, or about 18 litres of fuel. That's equivalent to around 160 kWh of energy, so yes - EVs are better than that.

Under real world conditions they may actually use about 45% of the energy of an equivalent fossil fuel vehicle over the same distance.
Diesel fuel is at roughly 10 kWh per litre of fuel, and diesel engines are effectively slightly more efficient that petrol engines, but EVs are still better in terms of consumption for comparable distances travelled.

It is possible that plug-in hybrid cars which can do 30-50 miles on an electric charge (most are only just managing to do 30 miles currently - 50 miles has been selected as a target by car manufacturers) might actually be the best compromise for the near future, but the UK government has I believe ruled that out.

Going further back in the "true story" so to speak, how do the energy sources add up and compare in terms of environmental load - oil extraction,refining and distribution vs electricity generation and distribution? This is what I mean by the problem of the complete audit. For pushing a cause and also for marketing purposes vested interest will choose a starting point that yields a favourable result rather than providing the complete picture. For me the big selling point is the effect on air quality particularly in urban situations, but I am annoyed by the narrative of "zero emissions" that accompanies it since it's not the whole story.
Plug-ins have always struck me as the worst of both worlds - heavier than single mode equivalent with limited ev capacity so doing neither job as efficiently. The claimed consumption figures seem to be the subject of much disagreement and caveat as well.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/03/plug-in-hybrid-cars-use-more-fuel-than-official-figures-claim/

Something I feel would make a difference with whatever power source is used is to recognise that cars are just too big and heavy these days for what they do most of the time. Lumping great SUVs for doing the school run, a short commute, a shopping trip are OTT, but the cult of status symbol and the insidous drip drip of consumerist media output stops any kind of analytical assessment of need versus want - triumph of form over function. Just trying to make EV equivalents of current fossil fuel models seems to me to be counterproductive.