Hydrogen Storage–Call For Comments
By Paul Homewood
I have received this request from Ralf Ellis, so I am throwing it out for comments:
Paul, I am about to send this email-letter off to Westminster, but was wondering if anyone has the expertise to check my work first. It is a critique of the Royal Society hydrogen cavern report.
.
.
House of Commons,
Westminster.
Re: Hydrogen Cavern Storage – Errors in Report.
Sir,
You may have seen a report in the Telegraph that the UK needs 100 twh of hydrogen energy stored in caverns, to keep the lights on when we transition to unreliable Net Zero renewable electricity. This article was derived from a Royal Society (R.S.) briefing paper called Large Scale Electricity Storage.
Telegraph — Build hydrogen caves or risk blackouts.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/08/build-hydrogen-caves-or-risk-blackouts-britain-warned
Royal Society — Large Scale Electricity Storage Report.
See pdf enclosure below.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-storage/Large-scale-electricity-storage-report.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=C5A09BDA174196AA3822CD7B862A5D08
While I applaud the Royal Society for at last looking into energy storage, to compliment unreliable renewable energy systems, the costings in this paper simply don’t add up. They appear to have forgotten about wind turbine capacity factors.
The R.S. paper claims wind farms will cost £ 210 billion.
My estimate is they will cost £1,600 billion.
Plus wind turbines need renewing after just 25 years, so that is another £1,600 billion.
.
.
Total UK energy usage incorrect:
This R.S. paper is assuming average UK energy consumption of only 570 twh per year, which is less than half present energy consumption. Unless they have a good explanation for this reduction, all the other estimates and costings will be incorrect.
R.S. paper’s all-electric consumption 570 twh
Realistic all-electric consumption 1,280 twh
The government’s own UK Energy in Brief 2022 gives present UK total electrical supply as 320 twh per year, and indicates that electrical supply is just 20% of total energy consumption. Thus we will need to multiply present electric generation by four – to allow for transport, heating and industry – giving a total electrical consumption of 1,280 twh per year.
Prof David MacKay, a previous government science advisor, said much the same. He maintained that electrical generation needs to triple, to cover all energy demands, giving 960 twh. But this calculation was contingent upon heat pumps working for space heating in the winter, which I do not believe will happen. See Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air, by MacKay.
So how do they justify halving UK energy consumption?
UK Energy in Brief 2022
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1130451/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf
Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air
http://www.withouthotair.com
Note: See the note at the very end, regards the deficiencies in government energy data.
.
.
Wind energy costs incorrect (1):
This paper gives wind energy costs at £1 billion per gw, but this is a gross underestimate. See page 81.
The true costs can be gleaned from the Hornsea-3 windfarm in the North Sea, which is the largest wind farm in the world. Recent estimates put the cost for Hornsea-3 at £8 billion, and it has a max output (a name-plate capacity) of 3 gw. So that is £2.6 billion per gw of installed capacity, not £1 billion.
However, the true costs are even worse than this. A typical capacity factor for offshore wind power is only 33% – wind turbines are fickle energy producers, only working 33% of the time. So a 3 gw ‘name-plate’ wind farm like Hornsea-3, will only produce 1 gw of real energy on average.
So the true cost of Hornsea-3’s energy will be £8 billion per gw of actual electricity produced. That is 8x the cost estimate given in this Royal Society paper. That represents a massive miscalculation in costs.
Hornsea-3 windfarm costings
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/orsted-says-huge-uk-hornsea-3-wind-project-risk-without-government-action-2023-03-03/
.
.
Wind energy costs incorrect (2):
There are more problems with these costings. This paper says that the UK will require 200 gw of wind energy to go Net Zero, which is yet another underestimate. See page 81.
In reality our average consumption of total energy (not just electricity) is 150 gw. Or about 1,300 twh annually. However, as already mentioned, a standard wind turbine capacity factor is only 33%. Thus we will need 3x the 150 gw consumption, or 450 gw of ’name-plate’ installed capacity, to deliver 150 gw of real electrical energy.
Actually, it is even worse than that. Because hydrogen storage is so inefficient – losing 60% of the power in the storage system – we will need 4x the 150 gw consumption, so that some extra energy is available to charge up the hydrogen ‘battery’. So our wind turbine installed capacity will need to be 600 gw, not the claimed 200 gw, and the true costs of wind power will climb in parallel with this. See page 13.
Since the cost of the 3 gw Hornsea-3 windfarm is £8 billion, the total cost of the wind system is:
200 Hornsea-3 windfarms £1,600 billion
Replacement after 25 years £1,600 billion
Total £3,200 billion (over a 50 year project)
Thus the total cost of all wind UK generation will be £3,200 billion, not £200 billion. And does the UK have sufficient continental shelf to place 200 Hornsea-3s around our coasts? Prof David Mackay thought not.
.
.
Hydrogen storage – energy incorrect:
This paper indicates that 100 twh of hydrogen storage is required, but a little note at the bottom says ‘thermal energy’. To convert this thermal energy into electrical energy we need to divide by about two – so this 100 twh storage system only contains 50 twh of electrical energy. According to this paper’s calculations, this is simply not enough to power the nation during wind and solar outages. See page 5.
50 twh represents 13 days of UK energy demand. But the paper is indicating that some months may have 20 or 30-day wind and solar outages, especially during the winter when energy demand is high. Plus some complete years have a 50 twh shortfall overall. Thus this stored hydrogen backup system is supposed to plug the usual daily and weekly gaps in unreliable renewable energy supply, and then plug the 50 twh annual gap too. In fact, the paper claims that an enormous 192 twh of storage will be required to ensure electrical continuity. That is 192 twh of real useable electrical energy, not thermic energy. See pages 19 and 21.
Reliable 24/7 electrical energy cannot be supplied to the nation, with only 50 twh of backup electrical energy.
.
.
Hydrogen storage – costs incorrect:
This paper claims that the hydrogen storage system will cost £100 billion. This storage system must be able to store 100 twh (or 192 twh) of real electrical energy. And it must be able to generate 150 gw of electrical energy, to power the entire nation when renewables fail. So this storage system requires the rebuilding of our entire present electrical generation system – four times over.
So we must build a completely new electrical generation system, using wind and solar. And then build another completely new electrical generation system, using stored hydrogen as a fuel. Despite the massive construction projects needed, there are still some Green activists who claim that renewables will be cheaper than nuclear or fossil fuels.
If we take Pembroke-B as an example, this methane gas powered generating station cost £1.6 billion in 2023 costs and generates 2 gw. So to power the UK with all its energy needs, we will need to build 80 Pembroke-Bs, at a cost of £130 billion. In addition we will need 85 clusters of 10 hydrogen storage caverns, at a cost of £325 million per cluster, plus all the associate pipes and pumps. Call that £40 billion. See page 40.
850 storage caverns £ 40 billion
40 gw electolyser £ 40 billion
power lines £ 370 billion
80 new power stations £ 130 billion
Subtotal £ 580 billion
Plus:
200 Hornsea-3s wind farms £1,600 billion
Replacement after 25 years £1,600 billion
Grand total £3,780 billion
Note: The R.S. paper costs power-line upgrades at £100 billion. However, the UK’s entire energy system will need relocating to Cheshire and Yorkshire, which is where the backup salt cavern storage systems will be located. This will need a total readjustment of the National Grid transmission line system. And if the Greens clamour for HVDC power lines to save the environment, as they did in Germany, costs will escalate further still. The 800 km German Suedlink HVDC line will cost £10 billion, just for one 4 gw cable. Thus carrying 150 gw for 800 km in the UK would cost £370 billion. The total requirement for new transmission lines in the UK will certainly be more than 800 km.
The German Suedlink cable:
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/suedlink-hvdc-power-transmission-project/#
.
.
Solution mining caverns – costs:
This paper proposes the creation of 850 new salt caverns, in clusters of ten, to store the hydrogen. The size of these caverns is given as 0.3 million m3 per cavern, giving a total of 255 million m3 of hydrogen gas storage. Each cavern would store 122 gwh of hydrogen, giving a total energy storage of 100 twh. See pages 39 and 41.
However, I remain mystified by these claims and calculations.
Plus the report does not mention that much larger caverns already exist in this region.
The Atwick storage holds 315 million m3 of (methane) gas in eight caverns
Average 39 million m3 per cavern
https://www.ssethermal.com/energy-storage/atwick
The Aldborough storage holds 370 million m3 of (methane) gas in nine caverns.
Average 41 million m3 per cavern
https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/aldbrough-underground-gas-storage-facility/
The new R.S. storage holds 255 million m3 of (hydrogen) gas in 850 caverns
Average 0.3 million m3 per cavern (risibly small)
In other words, sufficient cavern storage already exists, and these facilities will be vacant when methane gas usage ceases. This Royal Society paper does not mention these caverns, but for what reason? I think the problem here is a large miscalculation – by two orders of magnitude.
I think the error can be seen in the quoted energy capacity of these new hydrogen storage systems. The older Atwick and Aldborough storage systems held methane gas for 20 days of gas supply each. Since methane gas is about half of total UK energy supply, this would equate to about 38 twh of stored energy in each each system. 10 years ago domestic boilers would have been 80% efficient, so each of these storage plants would hold 30 twh of electrical energy, when full of methane gas.
However, if we convert these caverns to hydrogen, they will contain less energy (presuming they are pressurised to similar levels). Hydrogen has 1/3 the energy content per m3 of methane, and half of that energy will be lost in electrical production. So the R.S. paper’s 850 new gas caverns would only hold a miserable 5 twh of electrical energy. This is only 1/20th or 1/40th of the backup energy required. (Note: hydrogen = 12 mjJ/m3, while methane = 39 mj/m3.)
Summary:
Facility Volume Methane thermic Hydrogen thermic Electrical energy
Atwick 315 mm3 38 twh 12 twh 6 twh
Aldborough 370 mm3 44 twh 15 twh 7 twh
New caverns 255 mm3 30 twh 10 twh 5 twh
Since the R.S. costings for constructing these new caverns appear to be two orders of magnitude too high, I think there has been an error in the calculations somewhere. I think the R.S.’s 0.3 million m3 cavern-chambers, are supposed to be 30 million m3 chambers, which would then be a similar size to the Atwick and Aldborough chambers. This would make the costings and the energy content more realistic.
In summary:
The quoted size of the storage caverns is two orders of magnitude too small. However, the costings seem reasonable.
Fuels – calorific content chart.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
Salt deposit and gas cavern storage in the UK
https://docslib.org/doc/4576513/salt-deposits-and-gas-cavern-storage-in-the-uk-with-a-case-study-of-salt-exploration-from-cheshire
Note: This Salt deposit and gas Cavern Storage paper also contains a decimal error. It says that the “caverns range between 140 and 420 million m3”, when it should say that the “caverns range between 14 and 42 million m3. The total volume of the site is 315 million m3, so each of the eight caverns can only average 39 million m3 (not 390 million m3).
3
.
.
Salt mine hydrogen storage and leakage:
Hydrogen salt mine storage has been used at Teeside sine the 1970s, but on a small scale. The main problem of larger scale hydrogen storage is leakage and safety. Hydrogen is highly permeable and can leak through solid steel containers, when held at pressure. Although the saturated strata above these caverns will act as a hydrogen barrier, hydrogen being insoluble in water, diffusion and leakage through the cap-rock has been estimated as between 2-6% (Carden and Paterson, 1979, Pichler, 2013, Panfilov, 2016).
Needless to say, any seepage of hydrogen into surface buildings, would represent a serious fire and explosion hazard. Seepage of hydrogen gas is much more likely than seepage of denser hydrocarbon gasses like methane, which are far less permeable.
Underground Hydrogen Storage and possible seepage:
https://www.gaffneycline.com/sites/g/files/cozyhq681/files/2022-07/gaffneycline_underground_hydrogen_storage_article.pdf
.
.
Compressed gas storage – CAES:
This paper indicates that CAES is the next preferred storage system, which stores compressed air in salt mines; while the heat produced by compression is held in molten salts or water ponds. This is not an established technology. The McIntosh CAES plant in Alabama used CAES but was found to be rather inefficient, so they now use the stored compressed air to drive a methane burning turbine.
If CAES with heat storage is not feasible, the McIntosh method of ‘hydrogen burning enhancement by compressed air’, could make hydrogen storage and combustion more efficient. This is fully explained in this Siemens brochure. It is a bit like supercharging a car engine, to gain more power.
Siemens Compressed Air Storage Solutions
https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:9cc25ecc-45cc-40fc-92bc-3a80d0b1a5e9/se-caes-whitepaper-03-2021.pdf
.
.
Gas power with carbon dioxide capture:
This paper indicates that carbon-dioxide capture could be used for some backup purposes, with liquid CO2 being pumped into underground reservoirs for storage. However, what is to stop a Lake Nyos CO2 disaster, where 2,000 people died? If there was a CO2 well blowout during an anticyclonic weather pattern, everyone within 50 miles of the well would be suffocated. This could even happen with a North Sea well blowout, with the CO2 drifting up onto the east-coast and killing a few hundred thousand people.
Well blow-outs do happen, as we have seen in the oil industry, so there is no reason to think that CO2 drillers will be immune from such accidents. The only difference being that concentrated CO2 will hug the ground and asphyxiate everyone.
Lake Nyos CO2 disaster, where nearly 2,000 people died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
.
.
That is all for now.
I hope you find the information above useful.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
07948 309699
P.S. Please note: the energy units in UK Energy in Brief 2022 need amending, to reflect electrical energy used. At present this government information document is giving total energy consumption including generation inefficiencies, which is a nonsense figure, especially for nuclear power. We do not use the waste heat as it is literally a waste product, so why include it in ‘total energy used’. I had to subtract the thermal inefficiencies in each table and pie-chart, to produce an ‘electricity equivalent energy consumption’ figure. We will be all-electric in 2050, according to Net Zero, so we need ‘electric equivalent’ energy data.
UK Energy in Brief 2022
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1130451/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf
R.S. Large Scale Electricity Storage – link.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-storage/Large-scale-electricity-storage-report.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=C5A09BDA174196AA3822CD7B862A5D08
R.S. Large Scale Electricity Storage – pdf.
Image: The Lake Nyos CO2 blowout disaster.
Don’t let Green Carbon Capture do the same to York, Newcastle, or Teeside.
.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
THEY SAY THAT WE JUST USE THE TURBINES TO MAKE HYDROGEN WHEN THERE IS NO DEMAND . NONSENSE . JUST DO THE SUMS . TO SEEW HOW MUCH WIND CAPACITY YOU NEED
I HAVE A SPREADSHEET THAT QUANTIFIES ALL OF THIS. AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
Bottom line .
If you want to power the grid at a level of 200 GW with capacity factor 40% using hydrogen as a storage medium with overall efficiency 50% (70% for electrolysis and 70% for combustion in a turbine then you will need 800 GW of installed capacity !!! 800 GW needs 80,000 *10 MW turbines . all to be built in 25years . That is 8 turbines per day -for eternity
Justification
Let P be the power in Gigawatts required to satisfy all our societal needs 24 /7
Let I be the power in Gigawatts of installed wind capacity necessary to achieve this
Let Cap be the Capacity factor – the percentage of the nameplate power that is delivered on average
Let Eff be the efficiency factor of the energy storage say Hydrogen with efficiency about 50%
Imagine in any 100 hour period let Cap be the number of hours the wind turbine is producing
Energy supplied in Gigawatt hours =I *Cap where cap = number of hours say 40 for a 40% capacity factor
This energy must be enough to satisfy our 40 hour need ie P*40, plus in addition to supply that power for the 60 days that the wind is not blowing taking into account the efficiency factor of the storage medium ie P*60/eff
then I *40 =P*40+P* 60/Eff
I used 40 an d 60 hours for illustrative purposes
The general equation uses Cap and 100-Cap
an
And the equation is
I*Cap=Cap*P+P* (100-Cap)/Eff
or I = P* (Cap+(100-Cap)/Eff)/Cap
I thought you were going to spell an expletive, with your notations and functions…
Ralph
Would be nice to see what the spreadsheet says. But I use ‘numbers’ so it probably will not work.
The grid needs 160 gw (I think).
The capacity factor is 33% (they unrealistically claim more)
Thus installed capacity needs to be 450 gw.
…. plus extra for charging the ‘battery’
Efficiency of hydrogen battery is only 40%
Number of hours to cover on battery is a lot. I said 10 days, but they are talking about 30 days of cover. Plus another 50% to cover deficiencies in the next year.
Ralph
Email me and I will send the spreadsheet
Ralf, Using you figures of 16o grid requirement 24/7, 33% capacity factor and 40% hydrogen efficiency you need , according to my spreadsheet 810 Gw of nameplate turbine capacity.. To work out the storage volume required would be quite difficult but If you assume a need for 20 days of storage of 160GW you have a figure of 77TWh but since your storage medium is only 40% efficient you need 115 TWhr. There! I can do sums better than the RS but that frankly does not set the bar too high. These mediocrities really are a disgrace to their illustrious forebears . How much energy from a Farady or a Davy turning in their Graves?
Wow Ralph, there’s a lot to go through there and I am not sure I can cover it all. So, just a few observations.
1. I broadly agree with your assessment of overall energy demand. I guess RS and others like NG ESO justify their assumptions based on EVs being more energy efficient than ICE cars and heat pumps being more efficient than gas boilers. But even so, they come up with assumptions that essentially halve per capita energy use. I don’t think this is justified. My own calcs got to about 1,100TWh demand in 2050, assuming we go all electric, which is quite close to your calculation, but with a different method. I am very concerned that the various quangos are planning for energy scarcity, which is a recipe for economic and social disaster. Plus it means all their calculations are out by a factor of 2 or so before we go any further. My calcs and rationale here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-everywhere-all-at-once
2. Onshore wind operates at about 28 % capacity and offshore wind about 41% (see Energy Trends T6.1: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables). You might want to adjust your figures on load factors a bit.
3. Wind Energy Costs Incorrect (2). I don’t quite follow your logic here, but I do think RS have made a mistake. 200GW of installed capacity at 80:20 wind solar would produce about 519TWh per year. I used 10% load factor for solar, and a 50:50 mix of onshore and offshore wind. That’s less than their total demand straight away. So, yes, we would need at least double that to meet “real demand”. If we were to also produce say 100TWh of hydrogen we would need 100/0.6=167TWh of electrical energy. So, using the same mix and load factors as before about an extra 64GW of installed wind and solar capacity. Which takes installed capacity requirement to (2 * 200) + 64 = 464GW, not the 600GW you postulate. This will have a knock on effect on your other calculations.
3. R.S. come up with a much larger figure for H2 storage than NG ESO estimates (100TWh vs 12-56TWh). But I think NG ESO keep some gas + CCS and BECCS as dispatchable power to generate during Dunkelflaute.
4. Is the discrepancy in gas and hydrogen storage volumes explained by gas being stored under pressure, but the storage capacity being expressed in m3 at atmospheric pressure? Just a thought.
5. Over what time period is the 2-6% hydrogen leakage? Some of this hydrogen might be stored for months or even years, so leakage perhaps ought to be expressed as a percentage per day or week or other time period.
6. Personally, I would miss out the Lake Nyos analogy. That was a large eruption from a lake over a wide area. I don’t think a well blowout would be able to release quite so much CO2 in such a short time.
I hope you find this helpful. I write a lot about energy on my substack that has covered some of these points from different angles and you might be interested:
https://davidturver.substack.com/
Thanks for this.
I will re-post my answers at the bottom of this comment thread, to widen out the page a bit. Please see answers below.
Ralph
Alistair…. How do you get 810 gw nameplate?
If you use a 150 gw grid, and a 33% capacity factor, that is 450 gw nameplate. Then add a bit to charge up the hydrogen battery.
Have I erred?
Ralph
It’s obviously a key question, just what is UK electricity demand when all property heating is via heat pump and all transport is electric ?
It must be considerably less than the current total energy use, because heat pumps are 3X as efficient as gas boilers and EVs are 4X as efficient as ICE vehicles.
But it also must be considerably more than the current ELECTRICITY demand.
How about
(1) find the total UK vehicle distance travelled in billion-km for each vehicle class and calculate how many TWh per year it will take to power it.
(2) find the total gas/oil/solid fuel heating usage per year and calculate how much electricity it would need to replace it when used in heat pumps.
(3) Add 1 and 2 to the existing electricity demand. This should give a reasonable estimate (although there are still high-temperature operations like cooking and industrial processes to replace with electricity sans heat pump).
>> just what is UK electricity demand when
>>all property heating is via heat pump and
>>all transport is electric ?
That is the burning question (sic). EVs are more efficient, but the jury is out on heat pumps working when the temps are below zero (c). Many UK customers have had bad experiences with them.
Electricity is presently 40gw, and just 20% of total energy. So multiply electricity by five for total energy. That is 200 gw.
I said multiply electricity by four, because of electric transport efficiencies. That equals about 150 gw.
Prof MacKay said multiply electricity by three, because he believed in heat pumps. That equals 120 gw.
The R.S. report said multiple by just 1.7. That equals 68 gw.
I think the R.S. are way out, with that guesstimate.
R
Re Heat Pump efficiency. Here is classic piece of spin from the Guardian which admits that heat pump CoP isdismal as soon as it gets cold. Of course they say twice as efficient so that mean the CoP has dropped below2 ! Only twice as expensive then as gas.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/11/heat-pumps-twice-as-efficient-as-fossil-fuel-systems-in-cold-weather-study-finds
Here is a heat pump graph.
The trouble is these graphs are made for well insulated homes. If your home is old and cold, like much of the UK housing stock, that blue line will rise up considerably and the balance temperature point will jump from zero (in centigrade) to say 15 degrees centigrade.
Suddenly your heat pump is in ‘supplementary electric heating mode’ all the time, and it is no better than an electric fan heater. My heat pump in Spain used to do this all the time (a little light came on).
In addition, there are siting issues. If your pump is in a blind alleyway, or if loads of apartments all have their air heat pumps close together, they are all sucking in the same cold air just exhaled by another pump. And they all stop working together (and the alleyway goes to -20 degrees).
And they can be noisy.
Heat pumps may have a future in purpose-made well-insulated apartments, but will not work well in most British housing stock.
I thought that proton membrane electrolysis was the most efficient at 62%.
You have to calculate the complete cycle, including:
electrolyser efficiency
transport pipe leakage
compression energy
tank or cavern leakage
electric generator efficiency
After all that, I am surprised they can even claim 40% efficiency. I thought it would be much less. Hydrogen is notoriously inefficient, with car tanks leaking away completely in a couple of months.
Ralph
Hmmm, ever wondered where all the leaked Hydrogen ends up? Maybe if I get a modified CO2 air scrubber, I could power my Workshop Gas cutting equipment ? Maybe not even need a scrubber, just match it! Will look forward to that day. Could heat our houses too, actually.
To get that sort of efficiency PEM has to operate with a stable electricity supply. If you keep switching it on and off because the wind varies or demand picks up for the rush hour efficiency drops.
Does not add up.
Good point.
R
Ralf It is not just bit extra for hydrogen storage. It is a lot ! assume 40% capacity
On 40 good days the wind turbines must supply the energy we need and also enough reserve energy to supply energy for the 60 days when the wind didn’t blow. It is all in my justification at the top of this thread. But please email me for the spreadsheet, which also tells you how many times you need to roll the Empire State Building down Mount Everest to get 1 weeks backup for the UK using loss free gravity storage Ans = 4130
I can also tell you that if you make a pressure vessel covering the area of Trafalgar Square, and the height of Nelson;s column , fill it to 3000 psi than you will need 15000 of these for a week;s UK backup- again assuming zero losses. Simples this energy game isnt it! Also If you like hydro storage ,Then for 1 weeks UK backup you must pump the entire contents of Loch Ness to the top of Ben Nevis 7 times
Alastair.
Sure how do I find your email?
R
Ralf: I’d guess his email is in his user handle – insert @ before yahoo.com
I suspect most of the critique is correct, but I would not expect much of an answer when directed to a 650 member elected group. Send it to the King and ask him to get answers. 🙂
A small word issue: “Hydrogen is highly permeable …”
Usually, “permeable” is used to denote the substance allows a gas or liquid to pass through. Hydrogen is the passee, not the passer — or something like that.
Perhaps either way is permissible. {ex.: flammable and inflammable}
Complement not compliment
I spotted this too after a quick read. So much to take in, so I will take time to digest all that Ralph has to offer in his critique. Many people on here much more qualified to comment. I hope Ralph lets us know the response from Westminster.
The king is an uber Greeney idiot, who thinks homeopathy works, and that talking to plants makes them grow faster. He also thought that locking people in houses was a great idea – mainly because his own house has a 600 acre garden attached. My garden was 1 x 3 meters…..
Unfortunately, he might be right about the plants business, but not for the reason he thinks. If you talk to plants you are breathing 40,000 ppm CO2 onto them, which is concentrated plant food. So even the royal idiot can be accidentally correct.
Permeable.
I know this sounds wrong, but I looked up some science papers, and that was the term they were using to describe hydrogen percolating its way through solid steel. Any other possible terms?
Ralph
How about “permeative”? It’s not in my dictionary but the meaning is clear.
Otherwise gases which leak easily can be described as “fugitive”.
I like the fugitive idea.
Does it get chased by the Feds, and flee to Nabraska?
R
H2 permeates easily through most materials. Probably even rock salt at high enough pressures, which may be a limitation on operating pressure.
“Any other possible terms?”
“Tiny”
H2 is the smallest molecule. 😉
Leaks?
I agree about our King and it is such a worry.
“Fugitive” leaks has a specific meaning, so I wouldn’t use that here.
“Permeable” refers to the material through which a substance is diffusing, not the diffusing substance itself.
“Diffusivity” however IS a word.
On September 9, 2023 8:27 pm, I posted this on your “100 TWh of Hydrogen Storage Needed To Avoid Blackouts” https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/09/09/100-twh-of-hydrogen-storage-needed-to-avoid-blackouts/
Centrica are using cubic feet? Eh? JW…
That is about 850 million m3, or about twice the size of the cavern storage systems I mentioned.
So 16 twh of methane, and 5 twh of hydrogen. A bit less than the other caverns, but perhaps they are using less pressure here. Nevertheless, in the same ball-park.
Thanks,
Ralph
“Centrica are using cubic feet?”
The global gas industry is dominated by the Americans. However, I agree with you – their audience for that press release is UK, so it should have used cubic metres. It should also have given an indicative GWh or TWh energy capacity.
At least Centrica doesn’t use MMBTU units 😉
USA in place gross rock volumes are often in acre-ft…
I actually write and sell volumetric uncertainty software for oil companies.
Acre-feet…..?? Yikes.
Did you know Imperial units came from the pyramids of Egypt? The circumference of the Great Pyramid is 1,760 cubits, and the Imperial mile is 1,760 yards.
They are both based upon Pi, of course.
Ralph
Well I hadn’t thought about that one BUT it makes more sense than “for x million homes or a month’s worth or so many football pitches. I can easily understand and see an acre or t wo, or FOURTEEN, even ( our small fieldie sizes) – bigger ones at 100 acres go over the hill so can’t see it all. and a Foot? who hasn’t got one ( left – ‘cos its in with the other one where they’ve jumped, or stuck in mouth) At least there won’t be the ERROR of multiple of Zeros to contend with – Politicians and beurocratz are so good at playing that game – hence why they wanted DECIMALISATION ?
It (H2) might hold 5+ TWh of energy, but how much energy did it take to make it?
Hi Harry – Probably around 10TWh 🤣🤣🤣
Hi Joe! Twice that which is stored!!?? FFS!! If it wasn’t for the need to support the irrational dogma which underpins renewable requirements the UK would be giving away electricity from our properly sustainable and predictable generators. I despair.
“but how much energy did it take to make it?”
They are claiming 26% to make it.
I will believe that, when I see it.
Ralph
THEY SAY ……. THAT WE JUST USE THE TURBINES TO MAKE HYDROGEN WHEN THERE IS NO DEMAND
I SAY: where’s the wind? Heron has flown away as well Past 3-4 weeks now very little wind or too much and causing trouble ( German storms recently)
AND, and AND … Hydrogen action on Steel pipe … ( I am NOT a welder, but am aware of some issues hence use LOW Hydrogen welding rods….) so we’d need OIL for Plastic pipe s ???
19th August was the last time wind exceeded 10GW.
This year wind has performed poorly since April
The report does talk about the dangers of ‘low yield years’, where renewable energy is down by up to 10% over the whole year.
These cumulative deficits are a problem, because the hydrogen store has to keep drip-feed topping up electricity for an entire year.
R
It’s very difficult to work out how “well” wind is performing as more is being added all the time. So that 10GW this year is a lower percentage of the total than it was last year.
What you can say is that for 60% of time this year we’ve had more electricity from gas than wind.
Yes, indeed: Don’t people get the Message? The HERON has flown: Nothing in the Pond = NO wind blowing OVER the POND. And if the Heron is a STORK: well watch what the Baby will turn into!
Similar happening in 2021. A wind drought saw SSE report a 32% drop in power from renewable assets whilst the whole of Europe experienced a long period of dry conditions and low wind speeds. At the time it was said that between April and September it was the least windy such period in the last 60 years.
“windfarms need replacing after 25 years”
That sounds like a sales pitch, needs revisiting I would say, just by confirming how many 25 year old windfarms are 100% operative, or 10 year old for that matter. My experience is that the vast majority of windfarms have a few knocked out turbines, some get repaired some stay dead.
25 years is the industry standard for wind turbine life, which makes them hugely expensive in comparison with 60 year-old nuclear power stations.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210216114930.htm
Newer turbines are said to be better quality, but they are now operating out in the North Sea rather than inland. The North Sea is a brutal environment to work in, with corrosive seas, high winds, and the possibility of 25 meter high waves.
See the Draupner Wave.
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/148/meteorology/what-conditions-led-draupner-freak-wave
A Draupner wave passing through a wind farm will just play skittles…
Ralph
Newer turbines are much bigger to try to maximise the return on investment but the manufacturers are now finding design flaws in these giants.
I hear there are problems with the axles and bearings in these larger (heavier) turbines.
R
As an Engineer, there’s nothing that can’t be resolved: It’s gathering the correct Information ( here it’sall called DATA) on loadings and doing the calculations. Certainly there are extreme and moreso PEAK loadings …For now, probably we are approaching a Limit based on Materials: Dimensions & Weight …. but Crivvens, we have huge Swing Bridges, etc …. Propellers with huge Torques, etc …
Saigdear.
Do I hear correctly that some have small motors, to keep them turning, so the axle does not bow and bend?
R
Yes indeed: An electrician told me about some of that many years ago now. As for the exact detail, I don’t know other than on our “Agricultural” level but where one should NOT scoff at the degree of Technical advancement, I do not like to see equipment parked up for too long in the Heat of Summer, soil vibrations ( we have passing Trains where the entire buildings shake. ) and despite the isOLation of rubber tyres, one can still feel a degree of vibration so that any oil film will squeeze out: metal to metal contact, …. so multiplying that up by several orders. Even pumping Lube through the system CAN help – but once you have metal to metal contact, forced lube will no longer help: HENCE slow rotation to keep the revolving elements lubed and free from direct contact.
Hope this cuts through the Mire of waffle.
As gezza says above, the newer, much larger turbines are experiencing rapid detioration. Bearing Brinelling has always been a problem for large/heavy rotational systems.
https://www.rexnord.com/blog/articles/bearings/what-is-brinelling#:~:text=The%20definition%20of%20brinelling%20is,accelerate%20other%20forms%20of%20wear.
Large ships in dock keep their props slowly turning to avoid it. The larger wind turbines have exceeded the ability to stop for any length of time as bearing fusion will rapidly set in under the static load which (unless artificially braked) will naturally occur in just 3 positions. They are consequently consuming power to continuously rotate providing they can and don’t have other issues. It is a matter of debate whether this “own consumption” for this and other reasons is actually being reported. It appears only gross output is measured particularly offshore.*
It is likely max size has already been exceeded and future turbines will revert to smaller units. The current crop of the largest units will definitely not reach their proposed life span.
* The wind industry is currently spinning mega BS regarding Reactive Power here is an example.
https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/offshore-winds-reactive-power/
It is a matter of separate debate, but a large part of the Apparant power produced by windturbines is in fact Reactive Power just to transmit to shore or over extended onshore links when circuits are at low load. Somehow, they are managing to makeout they are the “saviours” in attempting to partially resolve a problem of their own making!
If someone else said, if wind turbines are the answer then you’re asking the wrong question
You are right about the corrosive ocean. As the ocean gets ever more acidic these towers will be eaten away. I am also starting to worry about the metal hulls on cruise ships.
Ray Sanders.
That link will not allow me in. Can you cut-n-paste the pertinent paragraph?
Ralph
Re Brinneling;
“All bearings have a typical service life. However, an OEM’s suggested service life is not always a guarantee. Bearing failure comes in many forms, such as corrosion, smearing and brinelling. The definition of brinelling is the permanent indentation of a hard surface. Bearing brinelling occurs when the internal raceways of a bearing have been permanently damaged. The indentations can quickly lead to improper operation, like chattering or excess vibration, which in turn can accelerate other forms of wear. Two common forms of wear are galling, the adhesion between sliding surfaces, and spalling, the flaking off of materials under rolling pressure. Brinelling causes wear in which, similar marks are pressed into the surface of a moving part, such as bearings or hydraulic pistons. It is usually undesirable as the parts often work with other parts close to each other.
Brinelling is named after the Brinell scale of hardness, in which a small ball is pushed against a hard surface at a preset level of force. The depth and diameter of the mark that is left indicates the brinell hardness of the surface.
Brinelling of bearings comes in two types, true brinelling and false brinelling.
True Brinelling
True brinelling is caused by shock or excessive loads due to improper mounting, dropping of machinery during handling, excessive static or impact loads during the operating cycle. The signs of this type of brinelling are regularly-spaced indentations in the bearing raceway and rolling elements, and an increase in vibration.
False Brinelling
Bearing demonstrating false brinelling
False brinelling is caused by vibrations acting on the bearing while in a non-rotating state and may occur on new equipment which has been carelessly transported. The signs of this type of brinelling, as seen in the image to the right, are depressions and wear marks in the bearing raceway along the axial direction. These depressions cause more noise and eventual fatigue.
How to Prevent Brinelling
{Brinelling is typically caused by a heavy load resting on a stationary bearing for an extended length of time.} Both true brinelling and false brinelling have different preventive methods. The best way to prevent bearing true brinelling is to avoid unnecessary shock or high impact loads, and isolate the bearings from any external vibration. When looking into bearing false brinelling prevention, reduce or eliminate external vibration and ensure the shaft has been properly blocked and packaged during shipment.”
Does that part help? note “heavy load resting on a stationary bearing” A triblade turbine will always naturally come to rest in just three positions with blades at 4 and 8 o’clock.
Paul
September 12, 2023 8:28 am
“As the ocean gets ever more acidic these towers will be eaten away.”
The oceans are not acidic at 8.1 pH, nor are they becoming so.
Salt is corrosive.
Click to access acid_seas.pdf
Ralf, I’m in Spain and don’t see any offshore installations on my travels but I do see a vast quantity of non functioning turbines in the countryside.
Perhaps Don Quixote has returned.
A good article. However, after reading the Draupner wave paper, I doubt such a wave would cause a wind turbine any problems. It also appears they’re a lot more common than previously thought.
David – with a 26m wave, I think some blades will be dipping into the water.
R
Twenty-six meters is about eighty-five feet, which is nothing for modern wind ‘turbines.’ The entire swept area of the fan would be less than 200 feet.
Ok, I see the lower blade-tip is getting higher as the turbine gets larger. Only the old ones might be in trouble.
R
Environment
Blades from Scotland’s first wind farm sent into storage
Wind turbine blades are difficult to recycle and campaigners fear they could end up in landfill
Almost 100 giant turbine blades from Scotland’s first wind farm are being sent into storage while the industry battles to solve major problems over their recycling
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/blades-from-scotlands-first-wind-farm-sent-into-storage-4287220
Maybe they could be stored in old caverns…..
Huh, you’d need more than AJAX to help with that one! Good Idea though, maybe the ministers will go for that!
Under ‘Hydrogen storage’ Ralf states:
“But the paper is indicating that some months may have 20 or 30-day wind and solar outages, especially during the winter when energy demand is high.”
I’m unaware of of any month having a (combined ) 20 or 30-day wind and solar outage. We’ve had week-long January lulls when our entire fleet generated at <10% capacity Factor (& solar generated at 4% CF)
Toby Arnott at Our-Energy-Future has provided some excellent analysis on GB's wind lulls.
Wind lulls in the first half of 2023:
https://our-energy-future.com/News_Articles/News-2023-08-15-01
Wind lulls in the first half of 2022 compared with 2021 and 2020:
https://our-energy-future.com/News_Articles/News-2022-07-12-01
To give them their due, they went through 37 years of weather data, and found immense variability (not connected to CO2 at all, of course). They found daily, weekly and monthly outages, with some of ‘several months’.
By ‘outage’, they mean a prolonged reduction. If wind and solar reduce by 20%, 30% or 40% for a couple of months, that is a large cumulative outage.
There were also some annual outages, with three years in a row giving up to 10% less renewable energy. That is a huge deficit to overcome.
Ralph
That’s the most important point, ignored in all government work to date – and one I have been harping on about ever since I first did my own work with the full run of Stafell & Pfenniger data.
These Royal Society errors remind me of their peer review of my ice age modulation paper. They failed the paper saying:
.
a. “Your explanation for terrestrial insulation is wrong”.
Ummm – the reviewer had mistaken ‘insolation’ for ‘insulation’ throughout the paper, so could not understand it.
.
b. “CO2 is at the same percentage at altitude as it is at the surface, so plants will not become short of CO2 at altitude. So your paper is completely wrong”
Ummm – my reply was ‘why do airliners carry emergency oxygen for passengers, when at altitude? The percentage of oxygen at 30,00 ft is the same as at the surface….’
.
They refused to listen to mitigating replies, so I passed peer review in another journal.
I do wonder about the competency of the Royal Society. All their glory days are well behind them, as the upper echelons scrabble around in the midden-pile of equity and inclusion.
Ralph
Was that dust and albedo paper yours? Made sense to me.
For a wind-up, I have been telling friendly greens that burning H gives you water vapour, a dangerous greenhouse gas ten times more potent than CO2.
Blank stares.
Blank Stares? well of course, they just have NO Idea.
Quentin.
Yes, that was mine. Fairly successful, with over 45,000 downloads. It sure makes CO2 ‘believers’ squirm.
R
Hydrogen Storage.
If our existing underground natural gas storage facilities are re-purposed, at a stroke their energy storage capacity would be reduced by 70%. (H2 has lowest volumetric calorific value of any gas).
OFGEM’s list of Underground natural gas storage facilities as of 20th Jan 2023. It miraculously lists Rough’s storage at 1,500mcm – a figure Centrica didn’t announce until 30th June 2023.
1 million cu metres (mcm) of natural gas at STP (1 mscm) is roughly 11GWh. So 1 mscm of H2 is only approx 3.3GWh
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/gb-gas-storage-facilities-2023
Yes, I see Rough has expanded to about 1,500 mil m3. Centrica speak in standard MSM child language of ‘millions of homes’. So typical of the new dumbed-down generation.
In my estimation 2.4 million homes equals 28 twh. That is 4x the volume, for about the same energy as the ones I quoted. Perhaps they are running at lower pressure. The caverns I quoted were 1,800 m down, so perhaps they can take more pressure.
Note: when wind farms quote ‘millions of homes’ they are giving deliberate misinformation, as usual. They are giving name-plate generating capacity, not actual electricity delivered. Charlatans, the lot of them.
Ralph
“Perhaps (Centrica for Rough) are running at lower pressure.”
Undoubtably. In 2014 it held 41TWh. Then, in March 2015, following technical reports on the integrity of its wells, CSL announced a decision to limit the maximum operating pressure in Rough from 3,500psi to 3,000psi
See “Rough Undertakings Review FINAL report – 22 April 2016”, by Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
See p27 Table 2.1
Rough’s 2016 NATURAL GAS WORKING capacity = 3.1bcm = 34.1TWh; plus similar TWh of RECOVERABLE gas; plus similar TWh of UNRECOVERABLE CUSHION gas (They reflected its then current MAASP issue.)
Click to access Rough_gas_storage_undertakings_review_final_report.pdf
It’s current operating pressure will be well below 3,000psi, but is higher than In Oct last year when its capacity was ~9.35TWh
Let’s SAY 2.4 million homes equals 24 twh ( TwentyFOUR ) so I can now easily convert kwikly when I next hear the MSM’s waffle and so if it’s a little less, there is an element of enforced economy!
That assumes you can use the same pressure. I think at Stublach they plan to use a rather lower pressure for H2, and also probably a smaller well diameter that limits flow rates, as it is easier to seal.
Correct me if I am incorrect but is Rough not storage in depleted sandstone reservoir
Yes it is. I have done a lot of STOIIP calcs (and uncertainty) in the SNS but don’t think I have ever done Rough.
BTW we probably know each other…
Umm ” to compliment unreliable renewable energy systems,”
Definitely no compliment intended, but the correct spelling is “complement”.
Basil Meddings, seriously senile senior of 93 years.
Got it – thanks.
RE
Thanks Paul and Rolf Ellis, I’m going to take sometime to comprehend the above details.
However, a quick scan through leaves it very difficult to understand the magnitude of the differences.
Lots of previous explanations come to mind, mistakes?, malfeasance?, or simple ‘economical with the truth?’
The Royal Society motto – ‘Nullius in Verba’ obviously by definition applies very strongly to their words and statements!
PS – in my experience H2 has an inherent consistent trait, it never seems to want where you want it to stay. Slippery customer, with significant consequences when let free!
I think the most logical explanation, is that the Royal Society has ‘gone down the tubes’.
Ralph
I have an ancient connection to Chris Llewellyn-Smith, the lead author of the RS report, as he, another man and I were joint authors of a theoretical physics paper in (I think – it was a very forgettable paper) 1982.
In a line of academic descent, CLS supervised the D Phil of the Third Man on that paper who in turn supervised the D Phil of Neil Ferguson, nowadays best known for “Report 9”, the IC paper which led to covid lockdowns.
I wonder what it is about Oxford ex-theoretical physicists who, when expelled into the outside world, can’t seem to resist projects based on dubious models which recommend uprooting society while taking on hundreds of billions of pounds of debt and providing very doubtful benefits?
Oxford PPEs are often blamed for the ever-increasing incompetence of the UK’s political classes but perhaps some part of current and recent problems is the advice they receive from Oxford ex-theoretical physicists.
Strewth Simon, no need to hide your light under a bushel here!
“A new proposal for Monte Carlo simulation of fermions on a lattice
October 1982Physics Letters
S.J. Anthony
C.H.Llewellyn Smith
J.F. Wheater”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256575295_A_new_proposal_for_Monte_Carlo_simulation_of_fermions_on_a_lattice
You give serious credibility to this site!
Funny really but the physics of energy systems us reall A level stuff or undergrad at most In my day simple order of magnitude stuff was the starting point for all physics. Feynman agreed. Oxford engineers like Kelly seem sound. McKay of Hot Air wSs on the ball
MacKay was good except for a couple of things.
a. His report kept switching units of energy, so you could not compare like with like.
b. He completely ducked and ignored the question of renewable energy storage. And as an afterthought, he said we may need to triple electrical generation.
Ralph
Oh dear, that’s the same Professor Ferguson who is referred to by the MSM as an epidemiologist, when he’s nothing of the sort. His two physics degrees, allied to some home-brewed schoolboy computer coding, have forecasted deaths as follow:
• 2001: predicted 150,000 deaths from foot-and-mouth disease, resulting in the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle. Reality: fewer than 200 deaths.
• 2002: predicted 50,000 people would die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. Reality: 177 deaths.
• 2005: predicted 150 million deaths from bird flu. Reality: 282 people died worldwide over a period of six years.
• 2009: predicted swine flu would kill 65,000 Britons. Reality: 457 deaths in the U.K.
As a mere biochemist/physiologist I happily admit to no understanding of theoretical physics (I even struggled with Natural Philosophy as it was called in Aberdeen University). But does the ‘theoretical’ bit have no grasp of reality at all?!!
Reminds me of a line from Blazing Saddles, “Reality–we don’t need no stinking reality.”
👍🤣
Oxford ex-physicists’ weak grip on the real world leading to major errors goes back further and includes the work of Frederick Lindemann, Churchill’s chief scientific adviser and head of the Clarendon Lab before the war. In 1942, FL calculated that area bombing of German cities would produce such devastation that German morale would break and the war would be significantly shortened. Others – principally Patrick Blackett – questioned his calculations – suggesting, if I remember correctly, that FL had overestimated the damage the bombing would cause by a factor of 5 and that consequently the effect of the bombing on the course of the war would be almost insignificant.
After the war, estimates apparently put the damage at about a sixth of that predicted by FL . In the meantime, about 80,000 Allied airmen and 500,000 German civilians had been killed. Nowadays I believe that historians think that the bombing campaign may have been effective only in its latter stages and made a relatively small contribution to the eventual defeat of Germany.
It also seems to be generally agreed that Churchill was initially enthusiastic about the campaign and supported FL’s calculations over those of Blackett, essentially because during that period of the war Britain could do little else to oppose Germany. Churchill seems to have thought it was better to be seen to be doing something, even if ineffectual and costly, rather than producing and conserving resources for later, more effective operations. Political leaders seem often to prefer to do something rather than nothing, no matter if it’s reckless or even counterproductive, as long as it gives the impression that they’re in charge of events.
Lindemann also came close to fatally undermining the development of radar, preferring scarce resources to be devoted to his own projects. Churchill’s unwavering support for FL seems to have been based more on close friendship rather than the reliability of FL’s judgement.
Fascinating bit of history of The Big One. Thank you. I would add we should never forget “Bomber” Harris, who invented the fire-storm with his attacks on Hamburg and Dresden. The three run attack: Light munitions to create a lot of open roofs on the buildings below, followed by incendiary bombs to start the fires–that become self-sustaining by the winds generated, followed by AP fragmentation munitions to kill the emergency responders and residents fleeing the fire in their homes. Tokyo was easy, with all the paper/wooden homes, but Harris perfected the fire-storm to deal with the masonry structures in Europe. Ultimately it took even bigger bombs (two) to end the nightmare that was WWII. Very sad.
Don’t , I mean DO NOT keep reminding us about that Plonker. I keep reiterating those Foot & Mouth details as well – because the unnecessary changes in Legislation, fairly Messed up our Livestock Plans – too much Red Tape & therefore NOT Interested.
Thank you for this information. My Natural Philosophy lecturer at Aberdeen was R V Jones who was involved in the development of radar I believe. But it seems that politicians have always been in thrall to scientists.
Ferguson? Ah yes, Professor Pants-down.
The professor who did not believe his own models, and did the opposite of his recommendations.
A slimy toad indeed. Why is he not in jail?
R
But how to you really feel about this man?
Devonblueboy: such coincidence is catching: when I joined the RAF as a wireless mechanic – air-electronics later – our maths tutor – Philpot, if memory serves – turned to have been part of a team who came up with the transistor – then as futuristic as AI is today. Meanwhile, we erks had to wade through years of valve theory until, years later, I ended up specialising on computerised radar with the very first microchips (like big transistors!) Life, eh?
Actually theoretical physicists are not always the wise chaps that we want them to be . The Germans put Werner Heisenberg in charge of their Manhattan project and did not get very far. The Theoretical bods live in too rarefied an atmosphere of quantum reality. Better trust an experimental physicist who will tell you about detailed observations, with associated uncertainties and testing hypotheses to destruction by plugging in values to se what happens . I suppose Dick Feynman was an exception . Surprisingly the big fat Portugoose Guiterres used to be a physicist, and an engineer. Well didn’t he go crashing off the tracks of reality when his brain boiled over
I read Werner’s autobiography and his descriptions of why his team failed. He put forth a notion that he was deliberately sabotaging the work, so as to deny the bomb development because; he was afraid Hitler would be desperate enough to use it, and he was confident the Allies WOULD use it as a revenge weapon because of the Blitz and the V2 rocket terror campaign. As FBI Director, Chris Wray would say, “We may never know.”
It’s clownish.
Ask them if they have ANY electricity generators that can use hydrogen.
Even if they had it, no one is set up to use it.
They can use standard diesel engines, modified for spark ignition. JCB has been making and testing hydrogen earth moving equipment for over a year now. The engine has the same power as with diesel, a larger rev-band, and the cleanest oil ever. Although I have to question the size of the tank they showed, as I think it should be much larger than the one advertised.
https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/news/2020/07/jcb-leads-the-way-with-first-hydrogen-fuelled-excavator
In addition, Lockheed drew up plans for a hydrogen L-1011 — a Tristar turned into a Quadstar. Unfortunately every aspect of the aircraft had to be changed, including an extensive redesign of the fuel system and engines. It ended up as less of a redesign and more of a completely brand new aircraft. Everything had to be changed, including hydrogen tanks located in the fuselage.
Ralph
They are also looking at catalytic convertors, but that is more in the research stage.
Catalytic convertors of the magnitude required, will be quite a challenge. I imaging a 150 gw cat-converter will be quite large, and get very hot.
Ralph
What is the fascination with JCB? received ££$$ and Letters for doing this, by some accounts really only for self preservation in a stupid industry. There are many Engine manufacturers who can run on Hydrogen. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DieselProgress+Hydrogen+engines&t=opera&ia=web Enjoy
JCB are about the only British company doing any research – they rest have curled up and died.
Got to fly the flag a little. We need the jobs and foreign exchange….!
R
Haven’t you heard of this great company? https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=perkins+engines+hydrogen&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Ralf, a couple of points come to mind. Firstly you ain’t gonna use diesel engines for grid scale electricity generation!
Secondly an issue with moving hydrogen around is leak detection. Neither methane nor hydrogen have an odour so Mercaptan is added. This works for methane as the molecules are of similar size but it will not work for hydrogen which can leak through the tiniest gap and leave the much larger odorant behind. If you start messing around with an odorant you have to remove it before combustion in gas turbines (especially even more so for fuel cells)
as it will knacker the unit.
The controlled combustion of hydrogen is vastly more complex than buring methane.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question/
Ray…
I answered slightly further down (diesel engines)
R
Like I said, Ralph, no one is set up to use it.
Your earth mover and a failed airplane is not a plan.
JCB has a plan for its survival because it’s obvious that EVs won’t work in the typical JCB environment. There are conversions for their diesel engines and with that and a hefty hydrogen bowser life on site can go on. It’s not a national or international plan of course because none of those plans work at anything like current energy consumption levels, so you are correct.
The hydrogen JCB will certainly work. And it will certainly sell if diesel is banned.
But I am still concerned about their claimed tank size.
R
Larger hydrogen piston engines…
They will have to get Rolls Royce to convert some of its MTU engines to hydrogen. Almost the right size.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2022/07-09-2022-rr-to-release-mtu-marine-engines-in-2023-for-sustainable-fuels.aspx
Eventually they will need to produce a hydrogen jet engine, to replace the methane engines used in gas power stations.
Rolls Royce hydrogen overview
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/alternative-fuels/hydrogen.aspx
Rolls Royce runs an old AE2100 on hydrogen
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63758937
They are talking here about liquid hydrogen, while other hydrogen research plans are looking as high pressure gaseous.
Ralph
Diesel engines for grid power.
Actually we do use loads of diesel engines for the grid, it is called the Strategic Reserve or STOR. These are small generator farms of all fast-response types, but most ended up as diesel generators. So there are vast sites that look like caravan parks all over the country, with wall to wall diesel generators.
The irony of the dash for renewables, was a parallel dash for diesel generators….! But in the STOR prospectus, they never mention diesel.
Click to access STOR%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20v2%20%281%29.pdf
Image: a STOR site.
Ralph
Ralf Stor is for small scale 3 hours back up in extreme situations not for running a grid full time. Stacking more idiocy on the pile is nobody’s answer.
You miss the point, Ralph. Facilities to generate grid level electricity with hydrogen do not exist.
Your point, that they can be developed, may be true. But while you set aside a trillion pounds for hydrogen storage, you are going to need another trillion for facilities that can actually use the hydrogen.
Storing fuel for an engine you don’t have is clownish.
Indeed, : Ray Sanders said above September 12, 2023 10:24 am
Just dawned on me! This is what Katie Hopkins refers to….
“clownish”
None of this was my idea, go and talk to a politician.
However, given the command from on high to hydrogenise, it is do-able. Large hydrogen piston engines run, and run well, because the fuel is so clean. Hydrogen aircraft jet engines also run, and run cleanly (and are the basis of current methane electrical generation).
The STOR generators are grid-scale, generating over a gw of power. And to make them run 24-7, you only need a bigger fuel tank. Diesel engines run forever, if you do not keep stopping and starting them – especially if you run them on hydrogen.
None of this is perfect, but the government is not looking for perfect – they are looking for a political solution to placate Greta the Gremlin, who keeps embarrassing them. And they are not man enough to give the ignorant child a good metaphorical slapping.
Ralph
“None of this was my idea, go and talk to a politician.”
Your idea. Possibility is not reality.
My point is if you are going to store hydrogen for power, you also need to create systems that can use it. You have some design ideas. You can’t power the grid with ideas.
And another thing, you have be able to generate all that hydrogen you are going to store. I see no movement on that either. Just ideas.
In the U.S. grid back-up is provided via Natural Gas-fired Peaker Plants. These peaker plants were all the rage twenty years ago, and are scattered throughout the Midwest. They are often adjacent to large electrical transmission lines, which are many times located adjacent to intrastate Nat Gas transmission pipelines as the two share the existing easement rights. Who wants to truck diesel out to the middle of farm country? And Nat Gas is far less polluting than diesel in such plants.
You are right, bd7. This has been a good thread, but as someone posted a few days ago – it is displacement. A distraction. Let us just focus on the big lie, about co2 driving temperature. Kill that and the whole silly edifice falls.
That is what is most important.
Well stated. I concur. If only we could kill the climate hoax with reason–and monkeys will fly outa my butt, to borrow a phrase from Wayne’s World.
Having dissected CCC Carbon Budget “supporting” studies and FES scenarios I am familiar with the origins of their data. I have also used the long history data from Stafell & Pfenniger available here
https://www.renewables.ninja/downloads
there are different reinterpretations of the weather into solar and wind output, and I suspect they used the more favourable ones that assume technical advances that may not materialise, which partly explains the low capacity numbers – there is capacity factor optimism built in. I use the version that better reflects real world technology. Recommended for anyone trying to do their own studies because of the long run of data.
AFRY are the go to consultants for producing assumptions to match the desired conclusions, and it’s one of their demand profiles that has been used. The snippets that appear in charts in the paper show remarkably little intra day variation or seasonal variation, so it suggests already extensive assumptions about demand management and letting people be cold in winter.
They also quote BEIS fantasy cost data.
I’ve been trying to get the Royal Society to give me a proper link to the annexes to the paper which will have rather more chapter and verse about precisely which data they have used.
I think it would be better to wait until we have the detail so that criticism can be aimed with accuracy and effect.
I made a number of observations about hydrogen storage costs on the WUWT repost of the 100TWh article based on analysing the storage at Stublach salt caverns (4.4TWh of methane) and what Storengy have revealed about their hydrogen test project.
I think it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even with its imperfections, the study has unearthed the need for an order of magnitude more storage than assumed in the FES, very much in line with my own work. It shows the facile work by AFRY and Regen SW et al. relied on by the CCC and BEIS/DESNZ and National Grid is useless as a modelling basis. They should be applauded for doing the first official long term modelling with “proper” historical rather than simulated weather data that shows the need to save for a windless few years. Indeed, 2021 and now 2023 are both poor years for renewables.
Their choice of sources for some of their inputs is certainly more dubious, but best attacked in detail when we know it. Those choices are evidently kosher for DESNZ et al. It is also possible they have made other unrealistic assumptions in their modelling that can only be unearthed by looking at detail. I’d hold fire until we know more.
.
Oh, I am very glad they are talking about storage at last, I thought I was shouting into the wind. Storage trebles the cost of wind, and pulls the rug from under their ‘cheap renewables’ narrative.
I gave the government data on pumped water storage, which seems like a non-starter because we don’t have enough hills. I was looking at just 20 twh of backup, which is 66 Snowy River 2s or 660 Coire Glas pumped water plants. But the Royal Society report is looking at 100 twh, which is 330 Snowy rivers or 3,300 Coire Glases. Clearly pumped storage needs much more volumous uplands.
Prof David MacKay suggested flooding the Welsh Valleys and Scottish Glens, but I think the Welsh and Scots may have something to say about that.
Ralph
We already looked at Strathdearn (6.8TWh) and Exmoor (130GWh) a few years ago…
https://euanmearns.com/the-seawater-pumped-hydro-potential-of-the-world/
I finally found the 200 pages of annex here:
Click to access Large-Scale-Electrricity-Storage-Report—Supplementary-Information.pdf
Obviously it will take some time to analyse, especially given the need to follow through on at least some references as well.
There is also the “summary for policy makers” here:
Click to access Large-scale-electricity-storage-policy-briefing.pdf
Last week it was offshore wind in dire trouble. This week: solar.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/europe-s-solar-industry-warns-of-bankruptcy-risk-as-prices-drop/
I had a PhD tell me that storing hydrogen wasn’t a problem, as it could just be pumped into the normal natural gas reticulation system as it was never full! Imagine putting hydrogen with its flammability and deflagration ratios into unknown places with unknown leaks.
They sort of did with town gas, which I think was 20% hydrogen. But that was at a time when all the pipes were metal. When the UK changed to natural methane gas, every pipe was dug up and replaced with plastic – a huge national infrastructure program.
But pumping pure hydrogen through the new plastic pipe system methane gas system is probably asking for trouble.
R
This report may help with the Gas distribution angle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319913006800
I enjoy and value reading the posts and comments on this site. I mean no offense when I say, I believe Hydrogen creation at scale, distribution systems, and heating plants for domestic users are chimeras. The technological aspects are, in my view, insurmountable at any reasonable cost. Hydrogen is just another shinny bauble dangling from the Christmas Tree of the Climate Grift. The more unrealistic and idea is, the more the Green Mafia pushes it. As long as a concept is out there they will use it to demonize fossil fuels and call for their ban–We got us some Hydrogen–ban fossil fueled cars and appliances. Discussion over. Honest, this is gonna work–we promise! wink wink, nod nod.
O/T
I am responsible for land as a Trustee so I must make decisions on a financial basis not according to my own views of the issues. We may be offered large rentals for battery storage on our fields.
The batteries and control gear are delivered and stored in standard 20′ and 40′ shipping containers. Does anyone know how long these last and what is the risk of leakage or explosions and can the risk be insured. How long are these battery installation expected to last b efore redundancy or replacement.
Or they may be diesel generators, as they are the most popular standby generators at present. See my comment on the STOR Strategic Reserve backup system (above).
Image: A STOR diesel farm.
Ralph
O/T or not, What about the ETHICS and being responsible. Responsible to whom? Ever considered that by doing that, you may be adding to the risk of later / greater destruction of your Assets at a later stage. “Be careful what you wish for” and then there’s the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Comment was supposed to be a REPLY to Epping Blogger
Can I just check if the product of burning hydrogen is still a greenhouse gas?
Yup – the emissions from hydrogen storage are a very powerful greenhouse gas…! I wonder if they will be forced to put condensers on the exhausts…?
R
So I am told
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2021/03/WPotency.pdf?x45936
My green friend said – no worries, we will electrolyse sea water and it will just come back as rain.
But what if it comes back as snow?
Here is Mr Ellis’ paper, since he was too modest to provide a link
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Snow or Rain – don’t matter : it’s where and when it comes down: Oh the fears of changing the climate – all that floods caused by MELTING SNOW, or falling Hydrogen Dioxide from the burning of Green Fuels.
And does the UK have sufficient continental shelf to place 200 Hornsea-3s around our coasts?
Dosen’t matter, always plenty of space in cloud cuckoo land. But first they have to find someone to build all the turbines, and some way to pay for them as we’re already at 100% debt to GDP.
Ha ha! – a bit obtuse there: a good one! Oh! obtuse, maybe got the wrong word .. then it is really a Bullseye: ACUTE !
This is the government’s “New Green Economy” for the UK. It is really going well.
We pay the Danish to build the turbines.
We pay the Germans for the gearboxes and generators.
We pay the Japanese for all the cables to link it up.
We pay Tesla for the load-balancing batteries.
We pay lndia, just because the PM is helping his mates.
And We go bust.
Great job fellas…
Ralph
Hi Ralph
A very useful and important analysis. I would present your figures side by side with the RS figures in a summary table to make their errors and omissions glaringly obvious, even to MPs. Most will only glance at this. Give a very brief cv with your letter 3-4 lines
Should this be sent to the RS and anyone else who likely received the RS paper plus to the newspapers and even the BBC? Also send to a few in the House of Lords e.g. Peter Lilley and Matt Ridley with a suitable covering note as they do understand the science and costs and they will know how to get the message across that the RS paper is wildly optimistic.
Good idea – a nice summary at the end.
R
Why STORE at all when you can produce more cheaply and EXPORT :https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/product/schaeffler-s-hydrogen-mobility-revolution
“Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Engineer”. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/poll-more-brexit-reversals-on-the-horizon watch what you say on some of these Portals …. unlike here, respectfully.
The Renewable Energy Foundation REF has a lot of data online. They have a search page which can eat up days once you start searching!
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/search.php
I should have remembered that there is an interesting charting tool
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/group/index.php?group=yr
That is showing 2022 was a bad year for all forms of renewables, following up on a not very good 2021. I am assuming all the data is in.
2022 is not quite complete for many generators. I think Gordon Hughes looks after the data: it is a very considerable labour to update it, and there may be added complications from changing systems at various data sources.
From the post:
“This R.S. paper is assuming average UK energy consumption of only 570 twh per year, which is less than half present energy consumption. Unless they have a good explanation for this reduction, all the other estimates and costings will be incorrect.”
Actually its only about a third of UK energy consumption in 2019?
Not sure how much it helps but the following:
On the UK Total Energy Consumption Wiki quotes the government official figure for 2019 was 142.0 million tonnes of oil equivalent which converts to total energy of 1,651 TWh. (The International Energy Agency defines one tonne of oil equivalent (toe) to be equal to: 1 toe = 11.63 megawatt-hours (MWh) which is also the same definition in the UK Gov report).
The UK Total Energy Consumption government figure for 2021 was 1,558 TWh. Being government wonks they don’t actually give useful summary tables in easily accessible form….but the headline number is very clearly stated at 134 million tonnes oil equivalent.
Click to access Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2022_10102022.pdf
Statista gives UK electricity consumption figures for the following years as:
2020 330 TWh
2021 333 TWh
2022 275 TWh
My calculation from GridWatch for two years gives (average demand * 365.25*24):
2020 249 TWh
2021 262 TWh
But GridWatch notes that some solar results in apparent demand reduction, although the difference seems a lot.
Gridwatch does not include embedded wind turbine generation in its instant recording alongside various small unmetered generation. As a result it is always under recording. (There is even some gas generation not included.) Hence yourdiscrepancies.
The solar it started to add a few years back is an estimate only provided by these guys but Leo Smith expresses concern over their accuracy.
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/
Quote: “The UK Total Energy Consumption government figure for 2021 was 1,558 TWh.”
I made this 1.280 twh. The difference is that when we switch to all-electric, electricity can be more efficient in some sectors. For instance, electric vehicles are 3x more efficient in terms of kwh/mile. But gas and electric heating are more or less the same.**
Thus instead of multiplying present electrical generation by five, I only multiplied by four – because electric will be more efficient than oil.
** Note that Prof MacKay said multiply present electricity by three, because he thought that heat-pump heating will be more efficient than gas. But as expected, heat-pumps are not turning out to be the panacea that was claimed.
Ralph
.
Hi Ralph,
You have clearly put a lot of consideration in to this, far more than I have.
I find the EV 3x more efficient argument difficult to believe. EV’s maybe efficient at the charge end but my understanding is that the overall efficiency was similar to ICE.
Regarding heating, domestic gas heating is remarkably efficient (90%+?) because even the waste heat contributes to heating the home. Cannot see how electric heating can get remotely get close, and as you point heat pumps are not good.
Overall your assumption of 4x rather than 5x seems reasonable though and at least has the benefit of erring on the side of “electric is better” which heads off people saying your are exaggerating.
EVs are similar in efficiency to ICE vehicles, but only when they are charging from our gas and coal grid.
Once we go all-electric, an EV will use 70 kwh (Tesla), to do the same milage as 210 kwh petrol equivalent in an ICE car.
Petrol holds a lot of energy, but the engine is only about 30 to 35 % efficient (lots of waste heat). Whereas an electric motor is about 95% efficient. That is the difference.
.
Conversely, domestic gas heaters are already 90% efficient, so going electric makes little difference. Unless they can make heat pumps work, which I don’t think they can (not for UK winters).
Ralph
The big issue with heat pumps is that they only work if you rebuild your house to the required insulation standards. That’s a £2 trillion bill, as Prof Mike Kelly has pointed out: his paper is at GWPF. Whether you would want to live in a net zero hovel is of course not even considered.
Ralph, thank you for a careful analysis of the problem which is comprehensible even to someone with a very out of date phisivs A level, but you undrres the problem.
I stood twice against Matthew Hancock who was at one time Minister for Energy and Climate Change. I spent some time trying to make him understand that his numbers didn’t add up and we were heading for a energy crash. At one meeting he bounced up to me.
“Julian, sllar’s the thing, panels from China, we can build enough solar to power the whole country!”
“Yes, Minister. But you’ll have to store the energy.”
For three second he displayed his no-one home face then the gears engaged.
“Yes, well have to store the energy, yes, store it.” He Tiggered away.
The Minister for Energy and Climate Change didn’t know that electricity once generated has to be used or stored, it doesn’t just hang around. PPE, first class Oxford.
Best of luck.
JF
PPE at first class prices from his mates.
Julian at the risk of going off piste! 10,700 votes (21.7% of votes cast) at a General election is spectacular and enough to have won some of the smaller seats. Respect.
But how realistic do you feel any of the “new” parties i.e. Reform, Reclaim actually have of making a significant breakthrough? My issue is that if 3.9 million votes in 2015 didn’t result in any extra seats at all, what will? I am personally “assisting” with Reclaim as I personally think Reform has a certain stigma attached to it holding it back from more universal appeal. Alternatively Laurence Fox can figurehead a broader age and demograph ( the Reagan Admin was considered one of the US most effective and he was a former actor) and I feel there is more of a cross party vote section of the electorate to attract.
If the small parties don’t hang together we will lose.
Had I charge I’d go for broke on the Net Zero insanity, hammering home the message that current policies are breaking our ability to keep the lights on.
Away walking on Wenlock Edge and it’s cocktail hour. Prod me again on another thread when the prosecco cocktails are not flowing – herself is looking daggers!
JF
Just dawned on me! This is what Katie Hopkins refers to as a diversionary exercise. They have got us discussing the minutiae amongst ourselves and are disguisng the big picture.
NO we do NOT need xyz of “storage”. We need plentiful reliable generation of electricity and we do not need to be electrifying the entire economy just for the sake of some tiny minority’s political ideology. “The science”went out of the window yonks ago.
The RS report is just there to muddy the waters.
It is also there to try and fool politicians into thinking hydrogen storage (and thus wind power) is cheap and simple. And most politicians are so foolish, they will fall for it…
R
As I read more between the lines they are also lending support to demand control. One of the bigger fixes in their assumptions is the use of AFRY’s demand profiles that already make heavy use of this, which lops off the peak demands and fills in the low demand surpluses that otherwise must be stored or curtailed.
Then they call for even more demand control to reduce the need for storage.
None of this electrical climate madness was ever designed or expected to work: It was all prelude to reducing demand for energy and the economic viability of The West. This was and remains a plan to fail. Get used to doing without.
Hydrogen storage in underground caverns–is this the plot for a TV movie? Where is all this Hydrogen coming from? Please do not tell me it will be produced by intermittent, weather dependent “renewables” unless the Magic Unicorns have been accounted for first. Talk about a tempest in a teacup–this is all smoke and mirrors made to sound like the Green Mafia actually has a plan for base-load energy, which they clearly do not. In the U.S. there is a bogie man named Trump at which his detractors shout “Orange Man Bad!” In the EU the Green Mafia shout “Fossil Fuel Bad!” to about the same effect. Hydrogen storage–I laugh at that.
Indeed, they do indeed hope it will come from intermittent wind. But the bugling bureaucrats at the R.S. forgot about intermittency, claiming that 200 gw of wind could power the UK.
But when you add in the 33% capacity factor (intermittency factor), and the inefficiencies of hydrogen storage, we actually need 600 gw of name-plate wind power.
Ralph
But…isn’t (them) claiming that H2 can be generated using intermittent wind the same disingenuous argument that some suppliers use in their ads: that all their electricity is from renewables? Or are they planning on having dedicated wind farms connected to H2 plants?
You can’t put a price on a good time. Hey–we are saving the planet here.
All it will take is one bright spark….
Perhaps they’ve been indulging like Samuel Taylor Coleridge and dreaming of ‘caverns measureless to man’. Let’s hope the ‘person on business from Porlock’ turns up soon to disturb the dream.
Great reply. I dig your allusion to Coleridge. Have you ever read Thomas De Quincy’s “Confessions of an English Opium Eater”–great read. He describes how opium dreams reflect the man, e.g.; a cobbler will dream of shoes. So I guess a Climate fanatic will dream of windmills whilst ‘on the pipe.’
Thanks, not read De Quincy although I recognise the title. The fanatic’s nightmare might be tilting at windmills on ‘Rocinante’.
I am having difficulty with a re-write:
In Xanadu dud Sadiq Khan
A stately O2 dome decree
Where Alf the Garnett (West ham fan)
Ran down to a Sunni sea…
Mr. Sherratt, I read your reply to my comment. “Confessions” is from the early 1800’s, kess that 100 pages, available for $2.00 from Dover, and has been considered one of the most beautiful works of prose in English due to its imagery. There are also numerous copies in used book stores. In short, if time allows find yourself a copy and read it–I promise you will be glad your did. It is a cornerstone in the Western Cannon.
D’you mean Confessions of an English Opium-Eater….. ? kinda sounds right by the tone of some of the Correspondence / actions of our “Leaders” ha ha.
Paul: I think you should do Ralph a favour and remove his mobile number from the post otherwise he could be getting some very odd phone calls/texts.
Hello Harry! Maybe you are right. I called and he did not pick up! But I hope he will respond to my text message and the invitation below!
Yes – thanks.
I forgot that was on the end.
RE
Ralph, I have texted you my email and telephone number. I have been professionally engaged in electricity storage, including hydrogen since roughly 2000.
Here is a comprehensive and by the look of it reliable data base to make a judgement of the UK’s wind power capacity factor! Be careful not to assume a low number because in actual fact this varies enormously.
https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
As regards using hydrogen as a store of electricity, its round-trip efficiency is, at best, roughly 30% and its up-front capital costs enormous. Really large scale electrolysis has never happened. And because it is so costly and inefficient, it is most unlikely to go much further once these costs are understood by the (sadly ignorant) key decision makers.
BTW, hydrogen fuel cells still require platinum to operate. Ummm…not an abundant or low cost resource!
But the bottom line in the whole of Europe is that modern civilisation, much more so than during the UK’s coal strikes during the 1970s, is now critically dependent on reliable electricity and high quality electric power. So the cheap “surplus” power needed for “green” hydrogen will not become available for at least a couple of generations from now, by which time the global population will have risen by another 2 – 3 billion energy hungry citizens. This was the population of the whole world when I was aged 10, in 1951!
So how are we at Notalotas going to be taken as credible against the Royal Society? It means nothing to our politicians that their report is rubbish, as you have already correctly pointed out!
I’d be glad to help!
Best wishes from Denmark!
Hugh Sharman
Thanks Hugh. I have sent an email.
Ralph
Hi Hugh, a couple of points from me if I may enquire of your experience.
Firstly, high capacity factors can be acheived simply by having a down rated generator. For example a 1MW generator behind blades really capable of 2MW will give less power but a higher capacity factor percentage. The Hywind project is known for that but it is a prototype so they have an excuse for “fiddling”. Have you any handle on whether or not this downrating of generators is actually happening as some believe? Yes it may seem counter productive to downrate but image is often everything and league tables count in so many aspects of life.
Secondly, are the capacity factors really nameplate x 8760 divided by actual generation or are they allowed (again as many believe) to exclude servicing downtime? In other words is this an “available time capacity factor”
I ask this latter one as, for over a year, I once worked from an office looking straight out at Kentish Flats. I was comparing their reported figures with my eyeballing and they were not achieving anything like their claims.
Thanks Ray.
A higher capacity generator would end the scam.
The whole idea is that you say “this wind farm will power a million homes”, knowing full well that on average it can only power 300,000 homes.
It is all a scam, and always has been. But the scammers never mention that nuclear power does not emit CO2 either.
Never mind Big Oil, it is now Big Green that has all the politicians in its pocket. And Big Green is far more powerful than Big Oil —
it not only has the money to buy policy, it can also trundle Greta the Gremlin out onto a stage to shame the politicians into changing policy.
R
Under powering of WTGs was particularly common in Northern Ireland for those exploiting FiT deals that paid lavishly for lower capacity units: downrating a 750kW turbine to 450kW paid almost double the FiT rate, while the increased capacity factor meant that the loss of kWh generated was rather less than pro rata.
In commercial wind farms it’s also all about the money. There is a trade off between design cost and suitability for the likely distribution of wind speeds that are expected at the site. Underpowering tends to feature in lower wind areas, giving a lower cut in speed and more efficiency at lower wind speeds, at the expense of hitting maximum power at a relatively low wind speed – which does not matter if higher wind speeds are only encountered relatively rarely. Offshore usually sacrifices low wind speeds where output is in any case limited because of energy in the wind scaling with the cube of velocity and swept area, but tries to capture the stiffer breezes around the sweet spot. This chart is a relatively low wind design, with optimal efficiency over the range 5-9m/sec and maximum output at 10m/sec,
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GqyyC/1/
Stretch the curve and shift the curve to the right for an offshore turbine, with maximum capacity perhaps not being hit until 13-14m/sec. If you want more insight follow the tutorial here:
http://drømstørre.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/econ/index.htm
The principles are still the same, even if modern turbines are rather bigger.
Hugh – How do we get traction is a good question to ask.
I think there are several strands to it.
One is to build up a competently researched position. Any weaknesses in claims made are easily exploited to ridicule them, which is why this is very important. This was always a great strength of the articles and discussions at Euan Mearns’ Energy Matters, with some top quality articles from Roger Andrews and knowledgeable guest writers with industry and technical background, topped off with comments from a knowledgeable group of people who collectively honed all our knowledge. I still go back and re-read that work for refresher courses.
Next is capturing the interest of people with public exposure, and getting them to understand the issues and dimensions well. That means ensuring that journalists are properly educated so their articles are based on solid ground rather than guesswork or emotion. Finding receptive politicians and educating them continuously is obviously key. Likewise, establishing some network of academics who can lend support and even resources: I recall you managed to get UCD students looking at problems of the Irish grid with the effects of constant ramping on hitting fuel efficiency of gas generation leading to no real CO2 savings from wind. Part of the trick here is that sometimes academics have easier access to data, as well as institutional access to journals rather than being stymied by paywalls. I think GWPF have been quite good at this, but we need a bit more reinforcement.
Getting a personal public platform can also work, but it tends to attract the opposition when you get too successful for their liking. The downgrading of this site in say Google is a wonder to behold – and recent reports that Outlook is treating it as dangerous not untypical. I’ve seen some faces make it to TV: Brian Catt, who sometimes comments here has been on GB News very effectively for instance. Kathryn Porter has established quite a media presence with articles and TV and radio appearances in mainstream media (BBC Newsnight and an interview with Farage on the same evening!) in addition to her excellent contacts in industry and politics. However, she is now attracting the attentions of the likes of Desmog who not only vilify her themselves, but encourage others to pile in. It can be a hard road to travel, especially if it threatens your livelihood.
Often less public, I think it is important to keep lobbing well researched grenades at consultations from government, parliament and quangos such as OFGEM. Some of these are discoverable because they get published. Some of them even get read by someone who sits up and starts questioning their prior beliefs.
In terms of public information it can be useful to feed in simpler facts and ideas into comments on MSM articles. I’m actually encouraged when I see evidence that there is a significant fraction of the public who are beginning to recite some of these truths for themselves. We’re beginning to see commenters being better informed than the journalists writing above the line, even in supposedly better publications. This form of Samizdat is important when access to media otherwise remains limited. Unfortunately, the new Online Harms Bill threatens to impose draconian censorship in precisely these areas. There is evidence of trials of precisely this in automated comment moderating software, and calls for it among the virulent greenies. We’re going to have to learn how to circumvent such totalitarian control.
The problem with this R.S. report is it makes hydrogen storage look simple and cheap, when that is far from the truth. So the government may be led down a garden path, into a technology that simply does not work.
They UK have already been stung by the Rolls Royce E-FanX hybrid aircraft. Rolls got £58 million to provide a hybrid aircraft to reduce CO2 emissions by 70%, but the aircraft increased emissions by 400% per passenger (and never got airborne).
If you know anything about aviation, you will know that a hybrid aircraft is impossible – too heavy, too inefficient, too hot, and no regenerative efficiency gains. Despite knowing this, Rolls Royce put their grubby hands out for £58 million of Big Green money, and they are refusing to give it back.
.
The Rolls Royce E-FanX hybrid aircraft.
… with a power system that weighs 4x the original jets,
… with no hybrid fuel savings (not possible with an aircraft),
… that quadrupled CO2 emissions,
… with no way of cooling the power system,
… and with no room for any passengers,
… apart from all that, it was a great idea.
… oh – it had a nice Green livery,
… £58 million, for some paint.
.
.
The Rolls Royce E-FanX hybrid aircraft.
… where do the passengers sit?
… why does it need a parachute escape system?
… and all that equipment only powers 2 of the 4 original engines.
… and you funded this monstrosity.
Ralph
Thank you for your thoughtful post. Cool airplane diagram. I think the passengers huddle inside those orange cabinets in the front compartment.
Passengers.
Ha, yes – all 15 of them. And they have a parachute escape system too. Every mod-con.
The other problem, was they could not cool this monstrosity. There was a huge air-scoop on the port side (which they never show), but still could not cool it. There is a reason for putting engines out on pods (apart from reducing fire risks).
Ralph
So much talk on here about how to use Hydrogen: and I hadn’t thought of R-R / MTU engines being used for AIR craft – more likely in Power stations ( & therefore little requirement for Largescale Storage of Hydrogen. but how about this: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/zevi-funding-for-hydrogen-fuelled-zephr-usv-and-thames-refilling-station …. and theengineer still doesn’t like my comments ( contrary to its Bias )
David Turver questions and points.
.
“My own calcs got to about 1,100TWh demand in 2050, assuming we go all electric, which is quite close to your calculation”
I largely disregarded heat pumps, because they are not turning out to be as efficient as claimed during winter months. Especially the air sourced heat pumps. Thus my energy usage is a bit higher.
.
.
“offshore wind about 41% (see Energy Trends T6.1:
I will take a look. According to AFRY data, wind hit a high in 2000 – 2010, and has been falling lately. Do you have any data on this?
.
.
“Wind Energy Costs Incorrect (2). I don’t quite follow your logic here”
Their 200 gw of capacity is insufficient.
My calculation:
If the UK goes all electric we will need 4x present electrical generation, or about 150 gw (daily) on average. But since wind turbines only work 1/3 of the time (you say 40%) so that 150 gw needs to expand to 450 gw of nameplate capacity. And then add on another factor because hydrogen backup is so inefficient, giving 600 gw of installed capacity.
R.S. calculation:
I think they got their 200 gw by multiplying our present 40 gw by a factor of 1.7, to achieve all-electric energy demand of 68 gw. And then multiplying by 3 for the 33% capacity factor.
But increasing electrical generation by 1.7 (another 28 gw) is FAR too small to cope with all transport, heating, and industry demands. That is why I increased present generation by 4x. Prof Mackay (government science advisor) increased by 3x, because he thought heat pumps would work. I am not so sure about that.
They then appear to have forgotten about storage charging. I see you have added 64 gw for that.
.
If I used MacKay’s 3x incremental, and your capacity factor of 40%, and 64 gw charging, I would achieve:
40 gw x 3.0 (increase) x 2.5 (40% CF) + 64 (battery charge) = 364 gw
Whereas my calculation is:
40 gw x 3.7 (increase) x 3.0 (33% CF) + 150 (battery charge) = 364 gw
Remembering that 150 gw battery charge, is only 50 gw of energy. That is 83 days to recharge a 100 twh hydrogen battery.
.
.
“R.S. come up with a much larger figure for H2 storage”
Give the R.S. their due, they were looking forward to complete months and years when renewable generation falls below normal levels. Apparently some years are 10% below average, which even on their figures is a 50 twh deficit. On my figures it is a 130 twh deficit.
.
.
“discrepancy in gas and hydrogen storage volumes explained by gas being stored under pressure”
I don’t think so.
The methane would have to be at about 150 ºc, as the temperature of the rocks will be 45 ºc, plus you have just compressed it (unless there are intercoolers). But anything above 50 bar, methane is above the critical point and becomes supercritical.
Thus it will behave as a liquid, meaning it will be even more dense. Somebody will have to check this, because I initially thought it will be a gas. But at the pressures they are using, it is more likely to be a supercritical liquid.
.
.
“Over what time period is the 2-6% hydrogen leakage?”
Ah – they do not say, and I have been trying to find out.
I know that in cars the leakage can be something like 1% a day, so your fuel is always shrinking. This is why most hydrogen cars cannot be parked in a garage. But BMW place a little catalytic convertor on theirs, to turn the leakage into water.
.
.
“I don’t think a well blowout would be able to release quite so much CO2 in such a short time.”
But if the blowout occurs during an anticyclonic night, with a low inversion level, that gas will sit an hug the ground for a long time. It was conditions like this that caused the great London Smog, when smoke emissions could not escape.
.
Thanks for your questions, and I will try to answer any follow-up questions.
Ralph
Thanks Ralph. The data for onshore and offshore capacity factors is on link to Energy Trends T6.1 that I linked to.
I think the rise in capacity factor between 2021 and 2022 was due to higher wind speeds that year. But it does mean that 40% is a more realistic figure.
Unless, of course, we put so many wind turbines out there, that they begin interfering with each other. Downwind turbines always generate less.
Ralph
I think with 50,000 turbines in the North Sea, offshore capacity factors will reduce to onshore levels. See load factors and graphs here.
Click to access DUKES_2023_Chapter_6.pdf
Ralph
Surely Climate Change is forecasting reduced wind speeds? With the poles heating up the rate of flow of energy from the tropics will reduce, and that is what drives the winds.
Hello Ralph,
You mention a Capacity factor of 33% for offshore wind. Doe that figure account for the “Negative flow” of energy required to maintain the turbine itself?
Quote below copied from:- http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html
“Wayne Gulden has analyzed the daily production reports of a Vestas V82 1.65-MW wind turbine at the University of Minnesota, Morris, from 2006 to 2008. Those records include negative production, i.e., net consumption, as well as daily average wind speeds. The data suggest that the turbine consumes at a minimum rate of about 50 kW, or 8.3% of its reported production over those years (which declined 2-4% each year).”
Does this reduce the capacity factor to 25% or does is it accounted for from the figure quoted by David Turver?
Yes, those extra consumptions are not metered or mentioned anywhere, although I cannot imagine them being more than 1 or 2% of generation. And they must come from the grid or standby generatirs, as they must work even with no wind. That link you gave was speculative, but I will look for better sources.
Regards capacity factors, I think with 50,000 turbines in the North Sea, offshore capacity factors of 40% will reduce to onshore levels of 28%. See load factors and graphs here.
Click to access DUKES_2023_Chapter_6.pdf
Ralph
Thankyou Ralph, It is perhaps a little less worse than I had thought…. (Slightly).
Would the amount of money to be spent would kit the UK out with nuclear power stations instead?
Easily.
We would need 48 Hinkley Points under my calculations, costing about £960 billion. The beauty being, we don’t have to worry about wind droughts, capacity factors, or hydrogen storage systems — so all of that extra complexity and cost goes out the window.
The only extra is fuel and reprocessing, which comes in at about £350 bn over 50 years. Uranium fuel and reprocessing are fairly cheap at present – just 0.5 cents / kwh
And, of course:
We don’t end up with a forest of turbines over the North Sea.
We don’t end up destroying the fishing industry.
We don’t end up with a nightmare of maintenance.
We don’t end up with a duplicate hydrogen backup system.
We don’t end up with an explosive sub-strata.
We don’t end alter wind patterns, changing the climate.
We don’t end up kill every marine mammal and bird.
We don’t end up with millions of turbine blades in landfill.
Job done.
Ralph
Michael, in addition to Ralf’s points it is worth noting that many new design options of nuclear incorporate new features 1. Passive safety and cannot melt down. 2. Use existing nuclear “waste” as fuel and thus massively reduce its environmental isolation period. 3. Can not only follow load but also produce rapid additional large scale “peaking” power.
This is one of quite a few.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/reduces-waste/
The nuclear option is likely to be …dare I say it (?)….Nine times cheaper!
A key passage from the supplementary annexes:
At high levels of wind and solar, fluctuations in supply will be much bigger than in demand. With, for example, solar plus wind supply (mixed 20/80) scaled to average 700 TWh/ 80 GW/year, it varied from 0.3 GW to 194 GW over the 37 years studied according to the Ninja Renewables model. In contrast, in 2019 (the last pre-lock down year) demand varied from 19.5 to 49.1 GW. According to the AFRY model, which assumes that peak demand is flattened by demand management measures, 2050 demand will vary from 43 to 98 GW. Fluctuations in residual demand will grow as more space heating is electrified, since high heating demand is correlated with low wind speeds during winter anticyclones, but this effect will be partly offset by falling demand for heating as temperatures rise due to global warming and by further improvements in insulation.
The AFRY future demand model, used in this paper, has a basic demand that relates to 2018 and hence its weather. It includes the effects of weather variation for that year, but beyond this does not include any correlations with the weather for other years studies.
We now know which AFRY model, and why it is nonsense. Also this looks a trifle “ambitious” – cutting demand by 20% for 3 months!:
As discussed in section 3.3 of the Report, it is possible to forecast periods of prolonged low wind speeds. This raises the possibility of reducing demand when such periods are forecast, thereby reducing the need for storage. This possibility is explored in section 8.7 using the data for 1980-2016, assuming that demand is reduced whenever a three-month period of low wind is foreseen. Fig 2.6 C shows, for each month, the average value of available wind energy in
the coming three months divided by the average for those three months. The effect of different sizes of reductions were considered in the relatively rare cases that this ratio is less than 0.8, and the more common cases that it is less than 0.85 or 0.9.
Again they are not fully allowing for extra consumption from transport, space heating and industry. If we go all-electric, then demand must triple at the very least. In fact, I said quadruple. (At present, electricity is only 20% of total energy. But when the efficiencies of EVs are factored in, then that becomes 25%. Hence the quadruple assumption.)
If present electric demand peaked at 49 gw, then future all-electric demand for all energy needs, must peak at between 150 gw (3x) and 200 gw (4x). And since wind has a 33% capacity factor, we need between 450 gw and 600 gw of name-plate wind power.
I think their demand and supply numbers are way off.
Ralph
On capacity I already mentioned that I think they used the ambitious future not here yet technology assumptions rather than something more realistic. Their main case seems to be 200GW of wind/solar, split 160GW/40GW giving 741TWh/a of generation, with losses via the hydrogen route and barely mentioned curtailment reducing net supply to the low assumed 570TWh of demand. Solar should be about 4.5GW or say 40TWh, so they are expecting a net 700TWh or 80GW from the wind (itself split 70% offshore, 30% onshore), or 50% capacity factor.
The demand figures, like just about everything else AFRY has done for BEIS/CCC, are of course nonsense. The demand discussion in the appendices is of low quality too. But remember the net zero mantra… You will be poor, you will be cold, you will be hungry, you will lose your car, you will lose your job, you will lose your home… and suddenly it begins to make sense. It’s about imposing a sharp reduction in living standards for those who survive.
From my submission to the BEIS Select Committee on Decarbonisation of Electricity by 2035:
Attempting to bridge intermittent supply with storage is fraught with substantial problems of scale and cost. To put down a simple marker, if UK 2021 electricity demand had been met solely by wind and storage, it would have required 123GW of wind capacity plus almost 40TWh of pumped storage or battery capacity with a 75% round trip efficiency. We do not have space for over 4,000 Dinorwigs nor could we afford the multi £ trillion cost (Dinorwig cost £425m 40 years ago)– much more in batteries, if they could even be made. For the hydrogen route an even higher 154GW of wind capacity plus over 50TWh of hydrogen storage, which would occupy the same volume as over 150TWh of methane storage, or about 5 times Roughi before adding in other hydrogen use. The round trip efficiency of losses of using hydrogen is much lower (36% assumed here is generous), and would extend to over 100TWh – over a third of demand, and the storage would have to start the year over half full to begin with. The electrolysis capacity required to utilise the wind surpluses would be over 100GW, and yet the average utilisation would be very low. In both cases generation capacity ex storage would have to be sufficient to meet peak demand. While adding in other sources of supply including large amounts of solar and an element of baseload from e.g. nuclear or biomass reduces the overall storage requirement, a long term evaluation over 30 years of weather data suggests that at present levels of UK demand the storage requirement would be at least 30TWh in the absence of other dispatchable alternatives. Studies commissioned by BEIS, OFGEM and the CCC never seem to examine storage requirements properly: they either look at very short periods and assume that a combination of short term storage and demand curtailment will work and that storage will be full, or that supply is magically available when limited storage runs out, either via interconnectors that are assumed to have dispatchable availability or because the wind blows again. The reality is that storage or other output has to cover for interseasonal variations and against a year (or even a run of years) with low output from renewable sources.
I do wonder whether someone finally read it!
Yes, as I mentioned somewhere above, this R.S. paper highlighted some very long-term reductions of wind and solar, ranging from months to years.
R
Also:
The longer run optimum would be a French style grid, with extensive low cost nuclear generation. It was achieved once, and can be again. Seasonal flexibility is provided by a programme of rotating summer shutdowns for refuelling and maintenance, and complemented by flexible generation to meet demand peaks and handle intra day variation in demand. There is no need to build flexible capacity to meet 100% of demand – only to cover the flexible element, no need for extensive grid batteries to provide grid stabilisation services, no need to invest in large levels of overcapacity in renewables to reduce storage requirements, no need for extensive transmission investment to handle surging local renewables surpluses and no need for risky interconnector dependence.
Getting there is a slow process because we need to re-learn how to provide nuclear power at low cost, and because we do not want to build it all at once. It would not be a zero carbon grid, but it would be a low carbon grid at an affordable cost. In the mean time, we need to focus on ensuring that we have a functioning grid to get there – providing sufficient fossil fuel capacity to avoid the lights going out (possibly even including coal, to provide fuel flexibility we now lack). Heading down the renewables cul-de-sac would be a wrong move.
Ralph, Paul H, please allow me to say that this post and all its attached comments has been the very best post I have read on NALOPKT in the many years I have been coming here. Very many thanks to you both – and to the wonderful comments (and commenters), of which I found NONE that were confrontational or demeaning. In my (cough) opinion, this one post and its comments needs to be brought to the attention of as many MPs as possible.
Thank you. Well done!!!!
Thanks Harry.
The letter will go to certain MPs later this week.
I hope they will listen.
R
An MP is not obliged to acknowledge a communication except for one from a constituent. My MP is Kwazi kwarteng who was BEISS minister. I wrote to him in similar vein .a couple of years ago.
He replied and we exchanged several emails but he thought that he and Boris had got it all just about right You should finalise the letter and then ask readers of this article to email their MPs individually
Yes, I conversed with Quasi Quarterofaman, and found him as astute and alert as Dianne Abacus. Ministers are somewhat different, as they are obliged to respond to departmental business. But Quasi was as useful as a chocolate teapot.
This was in regards to Rolls Royce scamming the taxpayer for £58 million, for the E-fanX aircraft mentioned above. And Quasi was in full cover-up mode.
R
Sometimes they listen, sometimes not.
They certainly listened when Idiot Hague wanted to invade Syria, and thus 15 of the more astute Mps ‘forgot to vote’. Ooops. For the full reasoning as to why toppling Assad was a bad idea, you need to know the full history of the region, going back 2,000 years.
Put it this way – the Syrian Christians, Kurds, Druse, and Yazidi have always supported the Assads. And the person who wanted Assad to go was Barak Hussein Obarmy. I think that lays bare the very foundations of this political folly.
Ralph
Don’t you mean ‘Barak Hussein O’Biden’ – enjoying his third Presidency and looking forward to his fourth – or his wife’s Vice P.
Cheers!
Ha, ha – yes, the puppet-master.
R
Harry Passfield.
“All energy from renewable sources”.
Ha – you notice that too, eh? It is a scam. I should have a blockbuster expose on this topic later this month.
It is about time this scam was unravelled. Ofgem is squirming like a side-winder.
Ralph
My email address is alastairgray29@yahoo.com same as my WordPress name
Oh boy!!! Alison Pearson at the DT had a great piece about Net Zero and had 300+ comments in a very, very active comments – all agreeing with her – when suddenly, the comments were closed!!! I think Phillip Bratby was among the last to comment!
Ahh…think I can see why AP was closed down. Apart from various mentions of Paul’s blog, there were at least three very, very persistent trolls who constantly stirred the pot with their nonsense comments.
I will put forward my two cents as I have been working on some of this concept for some time. Some very good comments have been made and I particularly thank Ray Saunders for the information on brinneling.
I have read much BS on wind turbines, and the more I dig deeper the more pessimistic I become. Long life is not a given, and I think the newer larger turbines are going to struggle. Wind turbines are aircraft- simple as that. The same limitations on performance apply to both aircraft(rotor craft) and wind turbines, except the latter sees far more load variation.
Wind turbine design is a balance of mass, performance and durability. The stress cycles on a wind turbine have been estimated to be about 100x that of a large passenger jet. The greater the mass the stronger the loads that the combined structure sees. The wings see cyclic loads and are limited by aerodynamic considerations. The higher the rotational speed then the greater the centrifugal loads. This require ever stronger bearings in the generator/ gearbox and pitch control mechanism.
A one commentor mentioned, as the wind speed increases the entrained energy increases to the cube of the velocity. Thus once turbine has reached design output, the pitch control mechanism governs the rotational speed. Higher wind speed does not generate more power and thus efficiency is reduced.
The well documented problems of Siemens Gamesa are probably the tip of the iceberg. My opinion is that 5MW turbines will be about the max sizefeasible. Larger size turbines are in design and evaluation stages and will probably fail commercially. The amount of materials (concrete and steel) increase exponentially with size, and maintenance costs also balloon and larger heavy lifting equipment is required.
In terms of hydrogen much has been posted in the discussion, most of it very valid. Electrolysis of water is still very small scale and very expensive. These units do not respond well to intermittent operation and do not turn down well. They will also require a LOT of de-mineralised water – 10 tonnes per ton of hydrogen.
To supply a back-up electrical supply the only real option would be open cycle gas turbines which can respond quickly to demand, with possibly some CCGT to provide a base. OCGT will have a much lower thermal efficiency. What ever the case it won’t be remotely affordable
Now there is a thought – cost of de-mineralised water.
If 1 tonne of hydrogen takes 10 tonnes of de-min water.
And de-min water costs 40p a tonne.
The caverns hold 300 mil m3 hydrogen.
Which weighs 7 kg/m3, when at supercritical pressures (10 bar and 100 oc)
Giving 2.1 mil tonnes
There are eight caverns, so 17 mil tonnes hydrogen
Thus 180 mil tonnes de-min water
At 40p per tonne
Thus appox £70 mil to charge up the system
Six times a year
Thus £430 million a year
For 50 years is £21 billion
Does that sound right?
Weight of hydrogen.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydrogen-H2-density-specific-weight-temperature-pressure-d_2044.html
Cost of de-min water.
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/1306
Cheers,
Ralph
Whaaaat ? de-min water costs 40p a tonne ? Could I buy some please at that price.. Could someone please confirm that price. -what did I say somewhere about DECIMALS ( & Metrication)
I have no idea if this report is correct. It says:
Quote:
From an economic point of view, with a production of 70m³ per hour of demineralised water, the cost per m³ fell from 0.90 EUR to 0.45 EUR.
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/1306
Some industrial processes can produce cheaply.
R
Yes, I read that too: could someone P L E A S E remind us how much we pay for our domestic water…. and like electricity, don’t just say the rest is a Standing = Service charge…. Huh, look at the price of your cheapest bottled water – delivered to a Supermarket near you. Heh! THat’s it – get the Supermarkets to sell bottles of electricity. … (box of dehydrated sarc in there somewhere .)
I will reply to the 3 comments in the same order. De-mineralised water is effectively depleted of any mineral content. A source of water- potable quality is normally used – and then treated in an ion exchange process that first removes the cations ( Ca, Mg Na by H ion exchange), and then the anions (CO3, Cl, SO4, NO3 by hydroxide exchange) and then is polished in a mixed bed ion exchange. This process consumes sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide. It is not cheap and is not equivalent to the process described, which refers to reverse osmosis. In the case of the proposed scheme very high quality demin water is required, otherwise the salts will concentrate at the electrodes and cause issue. Chloride would produce chlorine gas for instance. Calcium salts would deposit in the cell. The cost of demin water is in two parts- the cost of potable water and the cost of the demin process. I would expect a cost in excess of £1+ per cubic metre, possibly as high as £2
Some water is purged form the electrolyser- say 2% and some water is consumed in the ion exchange plant regeneration. Hence the 10 tonnes of water per tonne hydrogen.
The process described in the link was NOT demineralistion. That was potable water and sodium ion exchange. The RO process takes water from a canal. In this case it worked out cheaper because the water was free. What they do not describe is the quality of the produced water. This was most likely back blended with the canal water to produce a suitable water for the project. RO processes work but are not without issues. Scaling of the membrane can occur and this is generally solved by sodium ion exchange upstream of the RO plant.
The biggest recipr0cating engine I have ever worked on was a ship diesel engine – a 9 cylinder two stroke driving a 30 MW generator running on heavy fuel oil Guernsey power station). This was massive- the pistons were 3 ft across. Technically I guess it could run on hydrogen but it would need to be converted to spark ignition and I am not sure of what compression ratio could be tolerated. There is not much experience of hydrogen spark ignition engines, let alone massive 50, 000 HP units
That is why I came up with OCGT. Not the most efficient- though jet engines are much better with high EPR’s, but these engines can tolerate quick start and stop better than large reciprocating engines which might stand idle for a long time, with all the issues that causes (brinelling).
I just do not think it is feasible to build a large fleet of stationary reciprocating engines for standby use. The cost would be astronomic and the maintenance crippling.
Thank you all for the comments- this makes for a good evaluation
Interesting, thanks for that. If this is so central, I wonder why the Royal Society managed to miss it out completely? Sounds like a major part of the hydrogen battery.
Because I knew not better, I used £0.5 per tonne, but that still came to £30 billion over the 50-year lifecycle. The R.S. calculated inly £100 billion for the entire hydrogen ‘battery’, including electrical generation.
Ralph
Dunni what to say to you there! .. but mixing units was NEVER a good idea. Any idea how many gallons, or gals, or BETTER still, LITRES, Hectolitres, whatever, Inches? as in rainfall, Like Sushi Ruinit, not knowing the price of common daily items, I would have EXPECTED that anyone worth their salt / CREDIBILITY, even, would have spotted that. The Button for the ALARM BELLS .
@Carnot,
Thanks. With due respect, OCGTs are dreadfully fuel inefficient, even at sea level when part loaded. Inefficiency is greatly increased as their elevation over sea level increases.
In contrast, open cycle reciprocating engines operate with a wide range of fuels and with a round-trip efficiency consistently over 40%, some close to 50%.
THought this may apply …. never seems to happen with non-practical people! When measuring the Electrical DEMAND & SUPPLY, you essentially have to do it in three different ways simultaneously – by adding up the DEMAND from businesses, business and household Consumption and spending on investment and public services – and then reconcile the inevitable differences.
Huge volumes of data are required to do this, collected from households, businesses, government and the rest of the public sector. Some of it can be collected quite quickly, but some only with a long time lag – for example information on personal Consumption from self-assessment returns or how the costs facing businesses are changing.
Abridged or Plagiarised to suit from https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2023/09/13/measuring-gdp-revisions-are-fact-of-statistical-life/
So we’ll not be making STEEL any more then ? … All that talk about using Hydrogen to make Steel, thought there would be a HUGE market for that alone.
The chimera that is hydrogen should be relegated to high-school lab class demonstrations of electrolysis of water that ends with a POP. I always enjoyed the POP at the end.
just to keep you “Dismally happy”
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/us-looks-to-h2-cartridges-to-power-drone-flight …
The Engineer seems to like it all: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/new-global-consortium-to-advance-net-zero-hydrogen
There will inevitably be a lot of leakage of Hydrogen if it is used extensively. Apart from the danger of explosions and fire there is also the possibility of damage to the ozone layer.