Goldman Sachs advert

[woody]

GIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf

Thanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.

But even this much potential is not enough. On the back of a beermat: Eurostat tells me that the total EU28 energy use for 2015  is approximately 1.600.000 Ktoe (Kiloton oil equivalent). 1Ktoe = 11,63 GWh. Total energy use per year is then 18608 TWh. Or 51 TWh / day. From your linked report I learn that, if we install all realizable potential in the EU in the T2 scenario (and that is a lot of lakes) we're able to store 33Twh energy. That won't get us through one day.

I know that it will not be calm and grey all over Europe and that we will always be able to make energy, be it from waves, tides, geothermic, whatever, but what stands out like a pimple on a nose is that this energy transition is going nowhere if we not also manage to use way less energy that we do now. Fossil fuel spoiled us big time but that party is over.

[tggzzz]

Please don't remove the context when trying to change the point; this forum isn't stackexchange.
(The context was https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/goldman-sachs-advert/msg1338430/#msg1338430 )

Really? Please provide pointers to such installed live plant.

Shall we judge nuclear energy by unsubsidised new builds then? Whether something is practical is different from it being an interesting investment.

That is an entirely different point.

In response to
"The person that develops practical large scale storage of electricity in the UK will become as rich as Croesus."
you stated
"As long as lousy round trip efficiency doesn't impact practicality it's not that difficult".

Again, I ask you to provide pointers to installed plant demonstrating that assertion.

N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.

Hydro has great efficiency too. Thermal storage and using hydrogen from electrolysis stored in mines not so much. The INGRID project has a tiny little hydrogen storage demonstrator in Italy though.

Sure it is efficient. But that's insufficient: you also have to have enough storage, and that is not trivial in the UK.

[tggzzz]

GIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf

Thanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.

But even this much potential is not enough.

Precisely. It still surprises me that some people don't want to face that.

I know that it will not be calm and grey all over Europe and that we will always be able to make energy, be it from waves, tides, geothermic, whatever,

Blocking high pressures do cover very large areas, much larger than the UK. Geothermal is very limited. Tidal and solar have guaranteed unavailability; either large scale storage is required or conventional plant needs to be on standby and thermally cycled (which reduces lifespan).

[tggzzz]

N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.

Hydro has great efficiency too. Thermal storage and using hydrogen from electrolysis stored in mines not so much. The INGRID project has a tiny little hydrogen storage demonstrator in Italy though.

Compressed gas is coming along quickly, as are batteries, so there are other options but there are private companies investing in hydro even through the uncertainties:
http://www.quarrybatterycompany.com/what-we-do.html
with some interesting insight here:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/march-2015-digi-issue/pumped-storage-a-new-project-for-wales/

They are interesting and show promise - but that's all. Many many technologies show promise in the lab and pilot plants, but fail to progress beyond that.

When large scale energy storage is available in the UK, I will welcome it. In this context "large scale" means suitable to store 5 days energy from wind power, since that's a plausible maximum time that a blocking high pressure sits over the UK.

But it seems this has all been done before and tggzzz will happily post nonsense that is easily proven wrong:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tidal-lagoon-energy-from-the-ocean-uk-gov-is-putting-money-in-it/?all
and then repeat it all here after being throughly disproven already.

Your contention is false; mere wishful thinking.

There are many ways forward and few of them should be ignored, a diverse mix of distributed generation and storage is the way to a secure and reliable source of energy.

There we are in complete agreement. But the critical storage technology is currently unproven so we would be foolish to rely on it.

Until then, the calculated cost of wind power should include the cost of keeping conventional plant on standby.

[tggzzz]

N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.

Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.

Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:

• it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
• any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone

This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.

Sigh.

With tidal power either you can store the energy or you can use it to generate electricity. Too often I've seen addle-brained proponents try to do both, often in successive sentences!

The tidal lagoons that would be used to store energy are automatically fully "topped up" twice a day without wind power. Please explain in simple terms how they could also store extra energy from wind power that could be used the next day when there is effectively zero wind power.

Don't forget that in the UK the only such large scale storage would be in the river Severn. I see the Severn estuary every day, so I know any proposal to increase the maximum height of the water is a non-starter.

As an example, while living here I've seen picture 1 twice http://www.heart.co.uk/bristolsomerset/news/local/west-country-flooding/. It shows water flowing from the sea over the top of the lock gates into the centre of Bristol. Increased maximum height would be a disaster here and elsewhere on the estuary. (And picture 10 shows it flowing around the lock gates!)

[Someone]

GIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf

Thanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.

But even this much potential is not enough.

Precisely. It still surprises me that some people don't want to face that.

Not enough for all of Europe, but they found more than 4000GWh in the UK, several days of electricity supply could be held in storage from the realisable resources that have been identified. We've heard from you that these sites don't exist and its not possible, but many much more informed people than yourself disagree. Large scale energy storage in the UK is possible from technical and economic aspects.

[tggzzz]

GIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf

Thanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.

But even this much potential is not enough.

Precisely. It still surprises me that some people don't want to face that.

Not enough for all of Europe, but they found more than 4000GWh in the UK, several days of electricity supply could be held in storage from the realisable resources that have been identified. We've heard from you that these sites don't exist and its not possible, but many much more informed people than yourself disagree. Large scale energy storage in the UK is possible from technical and economic aspects.

The engineers that would have to implement any such plan have very significant and well-founded reservations; I know because I've discussed it with them over the years.

I suspect your "informed people", whoever they are, have some political or financial stance they are advancing.

[Someone]

N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.

Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.

Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:

• it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
• any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone

This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.

Sigh.

With tidal power either you can store the energy or you can use it to generate electricity. Too often I've seen addle-brained proponents try to do both, often in successive sentences!

The tidal lagoons that would be used to store energy are automatically fully "topped up" twice a day without wind power. Please explain in simple terms how they could also store extra energy from wind power that could be used the next day when there is effectively zero wind power.

Don't forget that in the UK the only such large scale storage would be in the river Severn. I see the Severn estuary every day, so I know any proposal to increase the maximum height of the water is a non-starter.

As an example, while living here I've seen picture 1 twice http://www.heart.co.uk/bristolsomerset/news/local/west-country-flooding/ It shows water flowing from the sea over the top of the lock gates into the centre of Bristol. Increased maximum height would be a disaster here and elsewhere on the estuary.

I refer you back to the previous discussion where you made a fool of yourself with obviously ludicrous tangents and other nonsense almost identical to what you present here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tidal-lagoon-energy-from-the-ocean-uk-gov-is-putting-money-in-it/?all

But to take you down memory lane,
A hypothetical tidal dam/dike/barrage is the best thing since slice bread for those worried about flooding, it can hold back the tides and prevent flooding. Perhaps ask the dutch how they like all their dikes. Authorities then have the control over tide heights which is a huge economic benefit before considering power generation or storage capabilities.

You can store and/or generate electricity with a tidal system, yes as you store more the generation capacity drops to zero but there is a working range between solely generating and solely storing which you seem unable to acknowledge. Equally long term storage is pointless as you can get free generation on each cycle of the tide, scheduling when to curtail generation or absorb electricity and hold the water to dispatch the power later is a gamble but one that all the market players do already with their bidding for contracts. A tidal power system is a unique generator and storage capacity that is inextricably linked to the tides 745 minute cycle but it can deliver reliably scheduled power at any time during that cycle as the operator determines is appropriate. Tides have been able to be predicted for hundreds of years, electricity demand can be predicted with surprising accuracy, combine the two and you can predict when is the best time to deliver power and when it should be absorbed for pumping.

Its a small storage and generation capacity compared to the resources available in the entire rest of the UK, but so are most single projects when looked at in isolation.

Your "arguments" hold about as much water as a colander, how about I suggest the UK disbands it airforce because it could theoretically be used to destroy London? You could use a large power plant or storage system to wreak havoc on the country or bankrupt its operator but that would not be a great idea, just because you can come up with ways to use it for detriment doesn't mean anyone is suggesting that is how it should or would be used.

[tggzzz]

N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.

Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.

Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:

• it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
• any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone

This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.

Sigh.

With tidal power either you can store the energy or you can use it to generate electricity. Too often I've seen addle-brained proponents try to do both, often in successive sentences!

The tidal lagoons that would be used to store energy are automatically fully "topped up" twice a day without wind power. Please explain in simple terms how they could also store extra energy from wind power that could be used the next day when there is effectively zero wind power.

Don't forget that in the UK the only such large scale storage would be in the river Severn. I see the Severn estuary every day, so I know any proposal to increase the maximum height of the water is a non-starter.

As an example, while living here I've seen picture 1 twice http://www.heart.co.uk/bristolsomerset/news/local/west-country-flooding/ It shows water flowing from the sea over the top of the lock gates into the centre of Bristol. Increased maximum height would be a disaster here and elsewhere on the estuary.

But to take you down memory lane,
A hypothetical tidal dam/dike/barrage is the best thing since slice bread for those worried about flooding, it can hold back the tides and prevent flooding. Perhaps ask the dutch how they like all their dikes. Authorities then have the control over tide heights which is a huge economic benefit before considering power generation or storage capabilities.

Sigh. That's true in isolation, but in conjunction with your other ideas, it just doesn't add up.

You have acknowledged that wind power needs energy storage. If not you should account for the cost of idle conventional plant in the cost of the wind energy.

You have proposed that tidal barrages can be used to store energy. They can - but only for a short period, not the periods necessary for blocking high zones.

If you try to store energy for more than a few hours with a hypothetical Severn barrage (the best candidate in the UK), then you would have to raise water levels and create floods.

Below you finally acknowledge the points I have been making!

You can store and/or generate electricity with a tidal system, yes as you store more the generation capacity drops to zero but there is a working range between solely generating and solely storing which you seem unable to acknowledge. Equally long term storage is pointless as you can get free generation on each cycle of the tide, scheduling when to curtail generation or absorb electricity and hold the water to dispatch the power later is a gamble but one that all the market players do already with their bidding for contracts.

And when, not if, there is insufficient generating capacity, what happens? Who cares what the spot market price is if you can't get the product!

I presume you do realise that commercial operators will be perfectly happy and willing to have outages, if it means they make more profit. They would, of course, factor the cost of a fine into such a calculation, but fines are usually trivial. You have heard the saga of the Ford Pinto, I presume; that's merely one particularly egregious example of corporate behaviour where profits/risks are concerned.

A tidal power system is a unique generator and storage capacity that is inextricably linked to the tides 745 minute cycle but it can deliver reliably scheduled power at any time during that cycle as the operator determines is appropriate. Tides have been able to be predicted for hundreds of years, electricity demand can be predicted with surprising accuracy, combine the two and you can predict when is the best time to deliver power and when it should be absorbed for pumping.

I refer you to your comments above, which show you know that is an overly rose-tinted viewpoint! You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

[tggzzz]

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,

Interesting. What was your contribution?

[Someone]

You have acknowledged that wind power needs energy storage. If not you should account for the cost of idle conventional plant in the cost of the wind energy.

Except I made extensive care to not say that but you'll insist I did anyway to further your points. Wind power is economically viable without storage, if you want it reliable you need wild over provisioning across a wide geographic area which may be impossible for the UK. But without any of that simply as a unreliable generator its a profitable enterprise without the need for storage.

lookie here, its an entirely separate clause....

In a fluctuating electricity market such as the UK or Australia has, storage systems are already able to profit and/or improve the security of supply.

entirely distinct and separate operations that do not require each other in the current market today or the predicted market into the future.

You have proposed that tidal barrages can be used to store energy. They can - but only for a short period, not the periods necessary for blocking high zones.

If you try to store energy for more than a few hours with a hypothetical Severn barrage (the best candidate in the UK), then you would have to raise water levels and create floods.

Except you jump straight to straw man arguments which we have previously addressed to try and make outlandish claims, while I never said tidal energy storage would carry over long periods. Its a storage system which happens to have a few hours of practical storage time, which could be part of a mix of storage systems. But you continue to make plainly ridiculous statements that it can't do this or that, or it will be a huge disaster when the opposite is true.

A tidal power system is a unique generator and storage capacity that is inextricably linked to the tides 745 minute cycle but it can deliver reliably scheduled power at any time during that cycle as the operator determines is appropriate. Tides have been able to be predicted for hundreds of years, electricity demand can be predicted with surprising accuracy, combine the two and you can predict when is the best time to deliver power and when it should be absorbed for pumping.

I refer you to your comments above, which show you know that is an overly rose-tinted viewpoint! You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'm willing to point out and discuss the real drawbacks such systems have but you seem unable to move from your entrenched position of straw man arguments and rubbishing any suggestion from others that renewable energy might be the only way the UK can achieve energy security and independence. You're welcome to point out other energy resources which the UK could use to power themselves into the future but relying on imports and world markets is what caused the blackouts you brought up as the horrible situation that must be avoided.

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,

Interesting. What was your contribution?

The contribution today is pie, meeting your face, and the world is a slightly better place for it. Some of us actually contribute, learn, and share ideas, rather than trying to squash discussion and I'll make no assumptions about your lack of understanding on the topic so you should be polite and make no assumptions about others knowledge and experience.

[Marco]

Sure it is efficient. But that's insufficient: you also have to have enough storage, and that is not trivial in the UK.

Your mines could store a whole lotta hydrogen.

[tggzzz]

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,

Interesting. What was your contribution?

The contribution today is pie, meeting your face, and the world is a slightly better place for it. Some of us actually contribute, learn, and share ideas, rather than trying to squash discussion and I'll make no assumptions about your lack of understanding on the topic so you should be polite and make no assumptions about others knowledge and experience.

So, what was your contribution?

[tggzzz]

Sure it is efficient. But that's insufficient: you also have to have enough storage, and that is not trivial in the UK.

Your mines could store a whole lotta hydrogen.

Are you sure? I haven't spotted any such plans, serious or speculative, for that. The nearest I've seen is hydrocarbon lobby claims for CCS of CO2, but they are as yet unproven in practice.

Coal mines are very leaky (especially for hydrogen) and our salt mine caverns are limited.

[Marco]

Are you sure? I haven't spotted any such plans, serious or speculative, for that.

I mentioned INGRID before and underground hydrogen storage is a common enough speculative topic to have its own wikipedia page.

With the ~25% round trip efficiency renewable energy needs to be really really cheap for it to make sense. Throwing some concrete and coating on mine shafts is unlikely to add too much to the cost. If renewable energy ever gets cheap enough for it, I suspect high temperature thermal storage will be a big competitor. Which is also seeing small amounts of research and demonstrators. It's just too far from commercial viability to see any really big efforts though. What's the point? By the time it becomes relevant the patents would have run out and the R&D is straightforward enough, everyone is just waiting till it's wanted/needed for the most part.

[tggzzz]

Are you sure? I haven't spotted any such plans, serious or speculative, for that.

I mentioned INGRID before and underground hydrogen storage is a common enough speculative topic to have its own wikipedia page.

With the ~25% round trip efficiency renewable energy needs to be really really cheap for it to make sense. Throwing some concrete and coating on mine shafts is unlikely to add too much to the cost. If renewable energy ever gets cheap enough for it, I suspect high temperature thermal storage will be a big competitor. Which is also seeing small amounts of research and demonstrators. It's just too far from commercial viability to see any really big efforts though. What's the point? By the time it becomes relevant the patents would have run out and the R&D is straightforward enough, everyone is just waiting till it's wanted/needed for the most part.

Clearly you are following the subject more closely than I am!

We desperately need effective storage mechanisms other than hydro. That requires we try many possibilities to see which, if any, will work out well.

But until one or more is proven, then we shouldn't oversell existing technology. You have avoided that trap, of course.

[paulca]

The Goldman / JPMC model goes like this:

Invest 2 billion into a company to build a wind/solar farm.
While it's being built sell energy futures covering the next 10-20 years, netting several millions in future transactions.
When the farm is complete, sell it to an energy company for 2.5 billion, transferring the future obligations.

Rinse, repeat.

The investment bank nets the profit on the sale of the farm, but also nets future price for the 10-20 years worth of energy it might produce.

The buying energy company is now forced to honor the future price if it remains viable.  So if the current wholesale costs of energy is $0.002 per kw/h and the future price is $0.003, the future is worthless at maturity.  If it's the other way round the future owner will call it.

If the price rises significantly, people start trading the futures about.  Futures are very appealing to energy wholesalers and grid operators as they provide a way to pay a small amount upfront to guarantee a fixed future price.  Should prices rise, they have an amount of guaranteed lower cost energy.

It works out really badly for the new farm owner if it doesn't generate as much as it should, they will need to purchase the energy elsewhere to honor the futures at maturity.  It also works out badly if the wholesale price rises above the future value.

One key thing you might notice here is that the investment bank does not need to worry or care that wind or solar is a good idea or if it will even work, let alone have the slightest care in the environment.  They are in and out of the deal in a year and the only thing they depend on is the demand for energy futures and that the farms can be sold for at least what they paid for them, before they are even switched on.

[coppice]

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.

Its like you've read a different book from the rest of us. MacKay paints a picture of a UK that could generate its current energy needs from renewable means, but only by being re-engineered into a very different country. He casts doubt at several points as to whether enough materials might be available for some ideas to be scaled. He casts considerable doubt whether the massive scale of engineering required could be undertaken before fossil fuel resources run out. He is quite dispassionate in his assessments of what is possible, but I don't think many read them as a picture of a highly achievable renewable future.

[tggzzz]

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.

Its like you've read a different book from the rest of us. MacKay paints a picture of a UK that could generate its current energy needs from renewable means, but only by being re-engineered into a very different country. He casts doubt at several points as to whether enough materials might be available for some ideas to be scaled. He casts considerable doubt whether the massive scale of engineering required could be undertaken before fossil fuel resources run out. He is quite dispassionate in his assessments of what is possible, but I don't think many read them as a picture of a highly achievable renewable future.

Precisely.

I've given up responding to "Someone" since he (presumably) makes strange claims that don't seem to be supportable. When repeatedly asked for elucidation, he doesn't respond.

[Someone]

You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first place

Other than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.

Its like you've read a different book from the rest of us. MacKay paints a picture of a UK that could generate its current energy needs from renewable means, but only by being re-engineered into a very different country. He casts doubt at several points as to whether enough materials might be available for some ideas to be scaled. He casts considerable doubt whether the massive scale of engineering required could be undertaken before fossil fuel resources run out. He is quite dispassionate in his assessments of what is possible, but I don't think many read them as a picture of a highly achievable renewable future.

All the presented scenarios in Sustainable Energy - without the hot air have open questions as to their ability to be achieved, not just the 100% renewable option. I'm not sure what you're adding to the conversation here?

Renewable generation is already a viable investment.

entirely separate clause...

Energy storage is already a viable investment.

So its not surprising that people are investing in these sorts of projects. The UK has plenty of resources of both to exploit, could they be energy independent? Possibly, but as you say it would be a very different landscape and would likely require change to how and when people consume energy as much as how its produced. The book notes almost all transport would need to be electrified if the UK wishes to be energy independent, which its self would be great transformation.

[paulca]

Renewable generation is already a viable investment.

Really?  Other than hydro dams can you provide a single example of energy storage beyond research prototypes that work on an industrial scale?

[tggzzz]

Renewable generation is already a viable investment.

Really?  Other than hydro dams can you provide a single example of energy storage beyond research prototypes that work on an industrial scale?

Prediction: when challenged to provide proof of his assertion that X esists, he will either (a) assert that X isn't necessary, or (b) not respond presumably hoping everyone won't notice.

Let's hope I'm being too pessimistic in this case. Storage is going to be the key enabling technology, and whoever cracks it will become extremely rich.

[woody]

Let's hope I'm being too pessimistic in this case. Storage is going to be the key enabling technology, and whoever cracks it will become extremely rich.

You are right. Yesterday I stumbled on

http://www.h2-fuel.nl/en/

Looks too good to be true, but if it's not it may well be a solution.

[paulca]

Well as I mentioned in another thread, if we want something which:

* Absorbs sunlight
* Stores the energy in a safe, environmentally friendly and economically viable means
* Stable over many decades
* Can release said energy on demand to produce heat or electricity..

They are called trees.

[tggzzz]

Well as I mentioned in another thread, if we want something which:

* Absorbs sunlight
* Stores the energy in a safe, environmentally friendly and economically viable means
* Stable over many decades
* Can release said energy on demand to produce heat or electricity..

They are called trees.

Trees used like that are merely carbon neutral.

But, as someone pointed out decades ago, they also offer a very good way of dealing with the excess carbon - by sequestering the carbon underground.