Does it make sense to import shale gas from the USA?

[Dave2002]

This appears to be a new proposal - see Grangemouth news.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It's interesting that Ineos sees importing shale gas from the US as commercially viable, despite having to construct the import facility from scratch (including building suitable ships). Perhaps we will now see US gas exports driving down the global price of gas?

[Dave2002]

Also INEOS are seemingly not going to wait for locally produced shale gas?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Since there's no gas pipeline over Carter Bar, they can't access shale gas imports via Tilbury or Milford Haven. And the Picts have made planning consent difficult for shale (but not for windmills - lovely isn't it)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24594356

[Dave2002]

From that site

"In the interests of tackling climate change and delivering climate justice we urgently need to be leaving fossil fuels, including shale gas, in the ground."

There is some sense in this, though it depends what the alternatives are. If "we" are going to do shale gas at all importing it from the USA seems crazy to me.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

There's no sense in that quote in the short term, until possible alternatives such as fusion become available. Switching to shale gas generation is a demonstrable winner:

http://grist.org/climate-policy/u-s-leads-the-world-in-cutting-co2-emissions-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-it/

(there's also the Bentek Windpower Paradox report on US generation and emissions, but that's subscription only. However it says exactly the same thing, and details the why and where of how those cuts have been made).

Meanwhile, German and UK emissions are rising

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2271203/uk-and-germany-see-co2-emissions-from-energy-rise-over-2012

this in spite of a huge programme of renewable energy installation. (The reason Germany has failed to cut emissions is partly because all non-combustion renewables are intermittent and usually use coal as the only economical back-up).

Logically, shale gas imports should fall if and when we start a programme of UK fracking.

[Dave2002]

I agree about the short term. Using coal as an alternative to shale gas is probably the worst option.

I'm not so negative about renewables as you are, but I agree that there are significant problems. There ought to be mileage in better overall management - my earlier posts suggested that up to 20% improvement could be made by better energy conservation - at least re electricity supply, and based on experience in Japan - the details of which I have at present scant knowledge.

I'd be interested in the Bentek Windpower Paradox report - I'll see if I can find out more.

Re emissions rising - I've not looked at your link yet (I will ...) , but this has happened before when notional economic "growth" increases - just as the emissions went down with low economic growth.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I can't help with the Bentek report, and it's not cheap.

One thing worth replying to in your post is your observation about energy conservation. Like you, I'm all for it; who wouldn't be? But it shouldn't really be labelled as a green option. You could apply energy conservation to energy policy you like (even all coal burn) and it would still be beneficial.

I'll also back some renewables simply because they work and make economical sense: hydro power and tidal barrage. The rest are a waste of money in the UK.

[Dave2002]

AIC

A view put forward by quite a number of conventional engineers is that renewables such as PV and wind power are a pain, because they are unreliable, and thus there is a need for backup generators which may actually be less efficient, and cause more environmental damage than if the PV, wind etc. had not been deployed. The big problem with renewables such as these is the lack of suitable storage devices for electricity generated.

One mistake is to try to use such renewable generation to satisfy what are essentially baseline levels, but it may be possible to use renewables as a fuel alternative - for example to charge up batteries for vehicles, or to use other forms of chemical storage.

If one views nuclear fission power stations as "green", and treats nuclear power as renewable, then it is a no brainer that that is the way to go, but many people still feel that generation using nuclear fission poses considerable long term risks. For this reason I think it is worth exploring the utilisation of other sources of energy which do not result in fossil fuel burning. Developments in vehicle technology might make it feasible to run many cars on battery packs, with many journeys within the feasible range of electric vehicles. There would be no particular need for the generation to charge up the batteries to be continuous, or on demand, though there would be a need for a very large pool of car batteries. Whether this really makes sense I don't know as yet - it would have to be done on a very large scale, but it could perhaps save the equivalent of one or two gallons of petrol per vehicle per day, which over the whole country could be considerable. Petrol or other fuels would still be needed for longer journeys.

Another option would be to use hydrogen, though it does seem that this may not be a particularly good way to go. There are some fuel cell buses in London, but the operating experiences are perhaps not as good as could have been hoped.

Direct production of methane by use of electricity has been reported, though only in minutely small quantities. If it were possible to produce methane on a large scale (using basic ingredients - water for example) that could be good - but it seems infeasible for the foreseeable future.

PV cells used for generation might be considered disappointing economically (they are ...) but it is nevertheless possible to generate perhaps 30% of a typical household electricity using PV. If the generation can be managed more effectively, together with more efficient use of the generated electricity, then it may be possible to approach a better system than we have at present.

Of course for some purposes electricity generation is not necessary. Water heating can be achieved rather well for perhaps 8-9 months of the year using liquid filled solar panels. This would reduce the need for burning gas or other fuels, and hopefully avoid the need to use electricity for this purpose, which is probably the most wasteful way to achieve a hot water supply.

I am sure you know much of this already, but you are not optimistic about it, whereas I currently have some optimism that there is a role for some of these technologies. However, if there really is an urgent problem regarding the lights going out, say by 2020, then the immediate solutions are (1) to construct a few more nuclear generating plants, and (2) to look very much more carefully at how the distribution and use of electricity is managed. We also need to look at what the real needs are. For a long while I thought that reducing car journeys would be a way to go, as it is clear that vehicles use a considerable amount of fuel daily. This is indeed the case during the summer. The situation in the winter is different though, as it is easier to keep people warm inside cars than inside houses, and possibly if they are at work, they are in an environment where temperatures are easier to control. I write "possibly" as sometimes work environments are really poor, both in the winter and in the summer - but in a rather more ideal world, it might be easier to provide better environments for people in a work situation than at home.

Work also gives people a distraction - something to do, and reduces the boredom from watching Coronation Street, Homes under the Hammer, Floggit and Countdown! This has social benefits.

Despite many people moaning about going to work, it seems that many actually do like this, at least judged by their behaviour. People do not want to stay at home, and work in a domestic environment. If they were to do so, the energy demands in the UK would be low during the months of the year when the weather is pleasant enough, due to the reduced use of fuel for vehicles, but in the winter there would very likely be a significantly raised usage of fuel for heating which would offset any energy saved by remote working or other home based activity. Another problem with working from home, which some espouse, is that many houses are really not optimal for work and for domestic living. It would very likely require larger houses in order to construct buildings which could satisfactorily accommodate domestic living and also work, which itself can put more strain on the environment.

Despite this, though, it is possible to have buildings constructed to much higher standards so that much less energy is required to provide a comfortable environment. The UK has been very poor at dealing with this for well over 50 years, and progress towards better buildings has been slow, and rather poor. Some problems can be, and hopefully will be, solved or at least ameliorated by technological developments in many different ways.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well, of course, I agree with the majority of what you've said.

One mistake is to try to use such renewable generation to satisfy what are essentially baseline levels, but it may be possible to use renewables as a fuel alternative - for example to charge up batteries for vehicles, or to use other forms of chemical storage.

Yes, if for example we could divert wind generation into an energy source for district heating systems we'd solve all the variability and intermittency problems. These systems could be similar to that used for Reyjkavik, apart from the heat source being wind rather than geothermal. But then the problem would be that heating energy is a much less sophisticated product than electricity and commands a lower price.

Of course for some purposes electricity generation is not necessary. Water heating can be achieved rather well for perhaps 8-9 months of the year using liquid filled solar panels. This would reduce the need for burning gas or other fuels, and hopefully avoid the need to use electricity for this purpose, which is probably the most wasteful way to achieve a hot water supply.

Yes, all correct but the scale of this is rather small. The average DHW energy consumption is 3.5 MWh/a of which about 50 % can be saved by solar thermal heating, reduced further by the circulation pump losses. So the gains, and thus the economical benefits are low, and the systems are rather expensive to install.

I am sure you know much of this already, but you are not optimistic about it, whereas I currently have some optimism that there is a role for some of these technologies.

I'd be more optimistic if I saw our huge subsidies of renewables being ploughed back into research, but that's not happening. For example, we're still building windmills that require gearboxes (one exception that I know of, the Enercon 40, but even these fail). The aviation business knew/knows all about gearbox drives to propellers, and they're a nightmare. Aviation overcomes this by imposing vigorous maintenance programmes and typical a gearbox might be lifed at half that of the engine. A typical windmill will need a gearbox service or swap after about 8 years. And we're sticking such devices out at sea!! As a result we see the production capacity of windmills fall steadily:

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf

(and note, Gordon Hughes is studying data, not a model)
From that report take away the fact that at start the average capacity factor (CF) of a windmill is 24 %, falling to 15 % after 10 years of operation, and then 11 % after 15. CF declines by 1 % per annum, effectively halving the economic life (claimed to be a mere 25 years in the first place). This in a technology that's pushed as a pillar of the UK's renewable drive, and after 20-25 years of deployment. Can you see my reasons for pessimism?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Not entirely relevant to the thread, but certainly topical:


Parliament TV today 2.30pm
HoC Energy and Climate Change Committee - Thatcher Room

Energy prices

Witnesses
I
Tony Cocker, Chief Executive Officer, E.ON,
William Morris, Managing Director, SSE,
Guy Johnson, External Affairs Director, RWEnpower, and
Stephen Fitzpatrick, Managing Director, Ovo Energy
ii.
Neil Clitheroe, Chief Executive Officer, Retail and Generation, Scottish Power,
Ian Peters, Managing Director of Energy, British Gas,
Martin Lawrence, Managing Director, Energy Sourcing and Customer Supply, EDF Energy, and
Ramsay Dunning, Group General Manager, Co-operative Energy
iii.
Andrew Wright, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Ofgem

[Dave2002]

Yes, all correct but the scale of this is rather small. The average DHW energy consumption is 3.5 MWh/a of which about 50 % can be saved by solar thermal heating, reduced further by the circulation pump losses. So the gains, and thus the economical benefits are low, and the systems are rather expensive to install.

Partly this is because some suppliers want the systems to be expensive, so that they can make money out of fitting them. I have a friend who installed a solar system himself. Admittedly it was in Greece, and possibly it wasn't the same type of design as would be used in the UK. He also has a house in the UK, and he had a "visit" from a thermal solar panel salesman. I think the conversation went something like -

Salesman: "We can fit a system on your roof for say £5-6k."
"Why so expensive?"
Salesman:"It takes skill to fit these things."
"I did one myself on my house in Greece for around 1000 Euros"
Salesman:"OK - we can do you a deal - how about £3k?"
"No - still no good."
Salesman:"Our systems will probably be better than yours, as we use the best components."
"I used good components"
Salesman:"Ah, but ours are really high quality, and are made in Germany. I think the ones in Greece are less good."
"On the contrary, we used to use units made in Greece, but we discovered that we could get better ones from Germany too. That's what I fitted!"
...
Salesman does not make a sale.

So much for "green" jobs.