Please respond to the UK Government's consultation on renewable energy

[GerryWolff]

It would be very helpful if as many people as possible would respond to the Government's consultation on its renewable energy strategy. The deadline for responses is the 26th of September. Responses can be quite short, as described below.

The consultation document and the executive summary may be downloaded from BERR - Consultations - Consultation Summary .

It is a large document but it is not difficult to see by using the Adobe reader search facility that several important things are missing from it:

* The DESERTEC proposals from the TREC group.
* The Supergrid concept.
* Zero-carbon eco-renovation.
* Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).

More information, including reasons why these things are important, may be found in my draft response to the consultation which can be downloaded from http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/resources/d...ommentary5.pdf .

Even if the Government decides that any or all of these things should not be included in their strategy for renewable energy and the saving of energy, those topics should certainly be discussed and their pros and cons should be assessed.

Your response need not be anything more than a letter, fax or email, as described on this page: BERR - Consultations - How to Respond . This is probably better than trying to answer the DBERR questions because the questions, of course, say nothing about the things that are missing from the document. Your letter or email etc need not be very long. It would be good if it simply pointed out the omissions in the consultation document and why they are important.

Many thanks!

Regards,

Gerry Wolff

gerrywolff65 [AT] gmail [DOT] com, +44 (0)1248 712962, TREC-UK

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by GerryWolff

It is a large document but it is not difficult to see by using the Adobe reader search facility that several important things are missing from it:

* The DESERTEC proposals from the TREC group.

That would require UK to have some dependence external supplies from countries where stability and thus reliability are not assured.
It woulddo little to meet one of the stated aims:
"Ensuring security of energy supply is essential to climate and energy policy"

And, even if practical, it is decades away from being implemnted.
UK shortfall is now.

[GerryWolff]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

That would require UK to have some dependence external supplies from countries where stability and thus reliability are not assured.
It woulddo little to meet one of the stated aims:
"Ensuring security of energy supply is essential to climate and energy policy"

And, even if practical, it is decades away from being implemnted.
UK shortfall is now.

Under the DESRERTEC scenario described in the TRANS-CSP report from the German Aerospace Centre, security of energy supplies for Europe would be increased compared with the energy regime we have had for the past several decades. More information may be found here: TREC-UK (security).

CSP plants are already feeding electricity into the European electricity grid. Some of that electricity will be reaching the UK now. CSP plants are quick to build and could be supplying useful amounts of electricity to the UK within 5 years. Further information may be found here: TREC-UK (kick-start and upgrade).

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by GerryWolff

CSP plants are already feeding electricity into the European electricity grid. Some of that electricity will be reaching the UK now. CSP plants are quick to build and could be supplying useful amounts of electricity to the UK within 5 years.

Electricity is imported to the UK via the cross channel HVDC link. Given that this is already running at full capacity, it wouldn't matter what kind or size of plant was built in Europe. It would make no difference to the current UK shortfall.

Then there is the matter of electrical distribution. Electricity has this peculiar nature that it will be pulled from the lowest impedance sources*.
That isn't a CSP plant in Spain.

*Or in inverse proportion to source impedance.

[LMagic007]

I suspect the UK like many modern energy intensive industrial economies, might always be dependant on foreign energy, no matter what the source. To lower risk, it might be better to diversify energy sources, rather than just rely on a limited supply channel. Same would apply to any nation. If I was the energy minister, I would be buying as much alternate energy futures as I can get my hands on at a fixed price, so I can keep the stockpiles of uranium for when they are really needed. In the ideal world of course.

Seel also;

http://www.trec.net.au/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4508

[GerryWolff]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Electricity is imported to the UK via the cross channel HVDC link. Given that this is already running at full capacity, it wouldn't matter what kind or size of plant was built in Europe. It would make no difference to the current UK shortfall.

Then there is the matter of electrical distribution. Electricity has this peculiar nature that it will be pulled from the lowest impedance sources*.
That isn't a CSP plant in Spain.

*Or in inverse proportion to source impedance.

One of the first steps to be taken is to remove bottlenecks in the transmission network. If the cross-channel link is a bottleneck, more transmission lines should be laid.

In many ways, a transmission network works like a pool or lake of water. It is possible to put a litre of water in at one side and take a litre of water out at the other side so that, in effect, the water has been transmitted from one side to the other. But of course the water that is taken out is not the same water that has been put in. There is more about this here: TREC-UK (the cascading principle).

The main requirement is that there should be a single market for electricity throughout Europe or, better, throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Then any consumer anywhere in the region would be able to buy electricity from any producer, just as we can in the UK. The EC is working to create such a single market for Europe.

The electrons that reach the consumer may be different from the electrons from the producer but the effect is to transfer electricity from the producer to the consumer.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by GerryWolff

One of the first steps to be taken is to remove bottlenecks in the transmission network. If the cross-channel link is a bottleneck, more transmission lines should be laid.

By whom, at what cost, and over what timescale? Not within 5 years to accommodate the rather small contribution from CSP, I suspect.
A better option than depending on imported electricity would be for UK to build more power stations and be independent.

Originally Posted by GerryWolff

In many ways, a transmission network works like a pool or lake of water. It is possible to put a litre of water in at one side and take a litre of water out at the other side so that, in effect, the water has been transmitted from one side to the other. But of course the water that is taken out is not the same water that has been put in. There is more about this here: TREC-UK (the cascading principle).

Well, that analogy doesn't quite work for either water or electricity for fundamentally the same reason - the power required to transmit the product. A kW generated in Seville would provide rather less than a kW to be consumed in Selby. Much of it would be lost in transmission. Much more than for local generation.

Water transmission also has losses. The London ring main, for example, has 10,000 kW of pumping capacity. That's all local and just a tiny part of the TWA installed base.

[GerryWolff]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

By whom, at what cost, and over what timescale? Not within 5 years to accommodate the rather small contribution from CSP, I suspect.
A better option than depending on imported electricity would be for UK to build more power stations and be independent.

You mean like the proposed coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth?

Well, that analogy doesn't quite work for either water or electricity for fundamentally the same reason - the power required to transmit the product. A kW generated in Seville would provide rather less than a kW to be consumed in Selby. Much of it would be lost in transmission. Much more than for local generation.

With the cascading principle, losses are small because the electricity only has to travel a short distance. But the effect is to "transfer" electricity over a long distance.

With HVDC transmission, losses are only about 3% per 1000 km.

[LMagic007]

I wasn't aware that the UK had its own uranium reserves. I thought the UK imported uranium and as I understood, world uranium prices were set to rise over coming decades. Reprocessing of uranium for further power generation has also been said to increase the cost of nuclear power generation. The UK may have coal mines, but application of clean coal technology is also likely to drive up the cost of coal fired power. Imported coal will also cost more. It seems that no matter how ones looks at these sources of power generation and as vital as they are, they are going to become more expensive in future and electricity prices are already rising.

In the mean time the cost of solar thermal CSP is expected to fall over coming decades. Power transmission losses over long distance have been said to be absorbable by cheaper medium to long term cost projections for renewables as opposed to fossils. Its been said that the effect of fossil fuel price rises, is significantly greater than the impact of higher demand for resources that would be used to construct solar thermal CSP power plants to displace fossil fuel power generation. It's fairly evident that countries that currently import energy will have little choice but to import renewable energy in future, if they wish to have any reasonable chance of effectively controlling their electricity prices.

I suspect that absolute energy independence is a rarity and unlikely scenario for most industrialised nations any time soon. As indicated, I believe that energy security might be better served by diversification of energy sources. I think fossil fuels should be kept on ice for as long as possible and we should aggressively move toward renewable energy dependence to as much an extent as practical. I think the new paradigm we should strive toward, is to strongly focus on renewables and use fossil fuels only when we absolutely need to.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I wasn't aware that the UK had its own uranium reserves.

My point was about imported electrical energy.