How much of Ecotricity's customer base does it cover? I assume you know, since you seem to be sure that it isn't enough.
According to previous information you have provided, 4% of your power is from nuclear (presumably 96% then comes from renewable sources.) If Ecotricity works in the way described above then 100% of your power would be from purely renewable sources - they wouldn't need that 4%.
In other words, Ecotricity can't support their current customer base even via this net zero style policy. However please note that energy in = energy out is not the only important factor here. When is the energy made available, vs when is it used, is far more important. If Ecotricity's suppliers primarily contribute during 12-3pm say, for solar, or during the peak months of the year for wind, then they could make up any shortfall on those days, when the energy is "least useful". I wonder how power sources work out on an hour-by-hour basis.
I see, so it's kind of like how win turbines can alter the angle of their blades or engage a brake when more or less energy is required. Or like how hydro plants can release more or less water, or use overflows to modulate their output. Or how renewable waste burning (which is CO2 neutral, and has capture for other particulate matter) can do almost exactly what coal plants do.
They can do this but the majority of wind turbines are simply stopped because the grid cannot take the energy they produce. "Brilliant!" you exclaim. "They contribute so much that National Grid plc has to turn them off!"
Never mind it's a lot more complicated than just the net contribution. If they're contributing tons of wind energy at midnight, they're about as useful as a chocolate teapot, as most night-time energy is supplied by nuclear. This is unlikely to change for the next ~10 years.
The major issue is really how to shift renewable energy - which is really great if we can use it - to the time period in which it's most useful.
I have several friends in the oil and gas industry. They are scientists and engineers and fully understand AGW and its potential consequences. They also believe carbon capture systems to be misguided, and extremely costly to implement. There is no such thing as clean coal. And you can't burn waste matter and capture the CO2 without somewhere to store the CO2. In the current natural gas situation the plan is to pump CO2 back into the wells. This is considered extremely expensive to implement and so is not practiced on a wide scale. Where would the CO2 go from your proposal? Keep in mind, CO2 has more effects than on the environment. Releasing it in high quantities near populated areas should be avoided.
Untrue in the absolute sense, but in this case irrelevant. When there is no enough renewable generation, Ecotricity buys nuclear power instead. About 4% of the time, when I last checked. They never buy coal. Coal is only needed to support other people, Ecotricity customers would do fine without out (well, not in practice because everyone would be buying renewable energy, but in the current market...)
They, as a provider may not buy coal. You indirectly use coal. Your usage, switching on a kettle, will somewhere cause slightly more CO2 emissions.
Regardless of where you buy your energy from.
I hear this claim a lot but it's obvious bullshit. NIMBYs have utterly failed to prevent dirty coal, fracking, mining, wind farms, solar farms, new housing, new industrial development, new roads, HS2 and other bad things happening near them. Yet somehow the poor little nuclear industry is powerless to resist them, and forced to live on government hand-outs because of the crippling costs of lawsuits. It's obvious nonsense. The biggest costs are operational, dealing with waste and decommissioning, and insurance which is literally priceless.
I won't claim to be an expert on nuclear power. However, I know a few things about it:
- The cost of nuclear power is increasing due to regulations yearly after Fukushima, yet no one died due to the plant meltdown. The plant was poorly designed, and unable to cope with a natural disaster, although it's worth noting the earthquake that struck Japan was a one-in-a-thousand years type earthquake; one of that magnitude and in that location was not anticipated.
- Almost everything used within a nuclear power plant must be processed as at least "low level waste" which is excessive, this includes things like stationary and clothing, whether or not it has been exposed.
- Nuclear power has killed, in total, under 1,000 people directly and negligible numbers due to radiation leakage, yet coal power kills over 7,000 people per year in the US alone due to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses; the concern comes from large-scale risk vs repeatedly small-scale risk
- It is in my opinion the only large-scale low carbon energy source we presently have, and can utilise for many years to come. Wind and solar won't work unless we have something on the order of 3-5x oversupply plus grid storage.
- If an area rejects nuclear then coal WILL be built instead and nuclear is, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
