-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Some countries are. Those are the ones where the public debate hasn't been completely hijacked and there's sufficient residual competence at high school mathematics.
One only has to look at the economics of renewables when it comes to the NEM. Adherents to the faith like to point out how cheap energy is when you've got the sun shining and wind blowing. The problem is twofold:
- Given enough capacity the wholesale price goes negative during the day, so who the fuck is going to add additional renewable capacity for that sort of return?
- The cost of provisioning dependable power is horrifically prohibitive once you go down this route. One only has to look at all the additional network and storage. Case in point; look at Snowy 2.0 if you want a case study in cost and schedule blowouts.
We'd have been better off accepting the iron law of human development thus far; energy density and looked to engineering amelioration. Because no matter what we do, there's three billion people wanting our quality of life and only one path for them to adopt it; cheap, dependable energy.
-
@antipodean Agree with everything you're saying but those issues are for massive infrastructure again - networks and storage. We really shouldn't really be continuing to discuss it because as you correctly point out (and @NTA re nuclear above) those projects are hugely expensive and tend to have other issues.
The fact that it keeps coming up is the biggest part of the problem, there has to be a quantum (quite literally) shift in how we address it. Generation and storage at source and some personal responsibility for power generation. As you mention developing nations want what we have but they also have the opportunity to do it differently and more efficiently. We have to change the whole way we even think about it.
That probably reflects my political views away from big government and Nanny states but is also a pragmatic approach to the issues that are repeatedly bought up about the problems with renewables. Some things like law and order, health and social welfare are essential services that we provide a safety net for people, but we can approach other needs like power slightly differently. Even water supply could be dealt with without such enormous infrastructure. Three waters debate is a case in point of how providing a basic human need on large scales can be very problematic. The stuff falls out of the sky in ever increasing quantities around NZ and yet we feel to need to transport it around the country in pipes FFS. Yes, we need drought management systems etc, but home storage from rainfall is so simple. I love the fact that I am in charge of providing my own clean, untreated water and I will soon be self-sufficient for energy as well, including our cars. Yes, I can afford it, but funding needs to be redirected so that more people can do it. Even income tax or rates deductions for self supply to increase uptake would be a step forward.
Just because climate change is a macro problem doesn't mean we can't have micro solutions. The sum of the parts, etc.
Rant over. When I'm in charge....
-
@Snowy What's baffling here is that it's the same people who say we're all going to die are the same one's promoting the die slowly approach.
There's been a constant focus on renewables - wind, solar, tide, wave all of who's over adoption have lead to the power grid collapsing. And this hasn't really improved in over 20 years, sure the output of each of those technologies has but it certainly hasn't managed to "fix" the problem.
Germany for example has run down it's nuclear power plants and now has to turn it's coal boilers back on (and build new ones).
There's an enormous drive to change, with no pragmatic or practical solution provided to do so, aside it would appear from raising taxes on everything.
Then you look at the number of coal plants China and India are building and it all comes out like a bit of a cruel joke.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
@Snowy What's baffling here is that it's the same people who say we're all going to die are the same one's promoting the die slowly approach.
I get what you're saying but I think that there has to be an element of caution that we don't make things worse with a quick fix. Building nuclear plants that are massively expensive, and we can't dispose of waste easily, probably isn't a good option. Fast, (relatively), sure, but likely not best. Renewables are not really a die slowly approach either, it's act faster with those solutions that won't (hopefully) cause another issue later on.
The example of Germany that you mention is exactly why there isn't a knee jerk reaction everywhere, it's easy to make things worse.
We're still talking macro here too, which as I have said is unlikely to be the best solution. Unfortunately, governments, power companies and infrastructure all derive income, provide jobs, etc so whilst micro is most efficient, and solves a lot of problems, it's really difficult to do in a hurry (especially when you have self interested parties hindering it and not really acting in the greater good of saving the planet). That always sounds so dramatic, the planet will go on, and have life on it, we just might not be amongst the life forms, depending on how, and when, we change how we live.
Supply isn't the only factor of course, reducing demand could play a major part too. A trival example, but we grow grapes by the tonne in NZ (for wine) but I have been looking for a plain old table grape in the supermarket for over a year. Not One bunch from NZ. Grapes are available all year, sure, but all flown in from Aus or the US. That's a shitload of Jet A1. half of them probably don't even get eaten.
I'm not a great Elon fanboi but I have a reliable quick internet connection thanks to him doing things a bit differently. He moves data around the globe the same way we should be getting our power and water. Effectively from the sky - they are both right there in most places waiting to be stored on site and used.
As I said we have to make changes in the way we live. Not major ones, but as I said previously, just moving shit around with planes, pipes or wires, whether it be grapes, or water, or power, really isn't very smart.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's been a constant focus on renewables - wind, solar, tide, wave all of who's over adoption have lead to the power grid collapsing.
Interesting claim. What's your source?
-
In terms of "fix" the problem, I prefer to think in terms of progress.
Branding something a success or failure in isolation is also fraught with peril.
If you google "Energiewende success or failure" you'll generally get articles full of confirmation bias that fall on one side or the other. There are several factors driving how successful the German experience should be applied to future initiatives around clean energy, mostly timing - in 2002, the tech for grid scale renewables was still wet behind the ears.
The goal in 2002 was to reduce emissions by 40% compared to 1990 - they got to 36% by the stated date.
In 2003 you could install a 2kW solar system on your house for a tick under $20K. Now you can get 10kW for about half that.
Wind turbine output has grown by 5-6 times in terms of rating. Offshore wind turbines are now the size of a small fossil fuel station in terms of output.There are more challenges ahead, no doubt. Consumer changes are one of them. Transmission upgrades another.
The big one in most markets? Privatisation.
All those nuclear power plants in Canada, Germany, and France were built when governments took all the risk. Not sure that is happening again because people love capitalism.
However, I'm not about to make perfect the enemy of good. Perhaps we're not building renewables fast enough, but it beats not building nuclear at all.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
I get what you're saying but I think that there has to be an element of caution that we don't make things worse with a quick fix. Building nuclear plants that are massively expensive, and we can't dispose of waste easily, probably isn't a good option. Fast, (relatively), sure, but likely not best. Renewables are not really a die slowly approach either, it's act faster with those solutions that won't (hopefully) cause another issue later on.
I'm very pro nuclear, but I'm also part of the NIMBY crowd. I personally think a combination of nuclear with renewables is 100% the way forwards. Musk has said a patch of 100 miles by 100 miles is enough solar to power the USA. Given how much desert there is on this planet which has huge sun draw (is that a thing or have I invented a word) this really seems quite straight forwards to me.
I also strongly believe in the power of tidal, less so wind. Wind farms are massive, incredibly ugly and don't work half the time. Doesn't seem like the best way to me.
The example of Germany that you mention is exactly why there isn't a knee jerk reaction everywhere, it's easy to make things worse.
We're still talking macro here too, which as I have said is unlikely to be the best solution. Unfortunately, governments, power companies and infrastructure all derive income, provide jobs, etc so whilst micro is most efficient, and solves a lot of problems, it's really difficult to do in a hurry (especially when you have self interested parties hindering it and not really acting in the greater good of saving the planet). That always sounds so dramatic, the planet will go on, and have life on it, we just might not be amongst the life forms, depending on how, and when, we change how we live.
Completely agree. The solar technology is only getting better, and with thin film technology, it shouldn't require too much effort to plaster the stuff everywhere - over every roof. And for storage, we aren't that far way from a large percentage of houses having a massive batter on their driveway which could be used for energy storage.
Supply isn't the only factor of course, reducing demand could play a major part too. A trival example, but we grow grapes by the tonne in NZ (for wine) but I have been looking for a plain old table grape in the supermarket for over a year. Not One bunch from NZ. Grapes are available all year, sure, but all flown in from Aus or the US. That's a shitload of Jet A1. half of them probably don't even get eaten.
Absolutely agree with this. Half of the energy we seem to use is probably not required. You are always going to need a certain amount of shifting of goods given population density spread, but the supermarkets here are full of the same stuff, year round, shipped in from every single corner of the planet. It's just wasteful.
I'm not a great Elon fanboi but I have a reliable quick internet connection thanks to him doing things a bit differently. He moves data around the globe the same way we should be getting our power and water. Effectively from the sky - they are both right there in most places waiting to be stored on site and used.
As I said we have to make changes in the way we live. Not major ones, but as I said previously, just moving shit around with planes, pipes or wires, whether it be grapes, or water, or power, really isn't very smart.
Agree entirely, but to be a contrarian ... what the fuck is the point unless China & India get on board the train? Fraser Nelson was publishing some incredible emissions stats yesterday with just how much UK has dropped. Taking into account consumption, its' down 32% 2010-2020. Yet, China/India are just increasing. What is the point of the UK over the last 30 years going from 400mm tonnes to 200mm tonnes when China has gone from 2.5bln to around 11bln?
Totally pointless and may as well just go for the cheapest option.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
There's a reason the block function exists.
-
@broughie said in Climate Change:
Except that energy has to be stored, at times?, and you are most likely buying that battery/storage device or energy harvester from China so there will be dependence there.
If only someone had thought of a car that had a large battery capable of storing energy from home solar then feeding it back when needed!
-
Going back a few posts for the benefit of those who might have missed it:
Small scale nuclear's first generation just fell over before the first hurdle.
I take no joy in this. I wish them well, because I would really like it to get legs. Small factor nuclear has massive potential for space exploration, as one example.
-
@MajorRage Sounds like we agree on pretty much all of it. For the record, if we really, really, really have to go down the road of mega generation and grids, then yes, I also agree that nuclear is the best option we have at present (notwithstanding specific suitability of demand, site, etc).
@nta Bummer about the small nuclear. Agree that it would be great if those sorts of things are successful. A lot of developments find uses outside of the intended scope anyway as you say.
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
Agree entirely, but to be a contrarian ... what the fuck is the point unless China & India get on board the train?
We don't disagree there, so I don't think it's contrarian. China and India will just have to join the party. China is particularly difficult to crack with all narratives being controlled by the state. No easy answer to that one. Political pressure unlikely to work, financial might to some extent. Things must be bad for me to mis quote Sting (I really do apologise), but the Chinese love their children too, so something will give. We need a solution for them that makes money and given the lack of infrastructure in some areas they have a better opportunity to do that (hydrogen fuel cells for example).
I sleep a bit better at night knowing that I do what I can, what others do is out of my control. Personally, I struggle to see the point of life at times (it's best not to over think that one) but leaving the planet in a better place than when I joined it seems a worthwhile goal.
-
Seeing as I mentioned fuel cells. Even this article was from 3 years ago, so I'm not sure how much further development has gone, but it is most likely the future of aviation. Electricity doesn't work with current (no pun) tech. Batteries are still too heavy when trying to defy gravity.
Unfortunately when anyone talks about aircraft and hydrogen this image comes into my head:
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Some countries are. Those are the ones where the public debate hasn't been completely hijacked and there's sufficient residual competence at high school mathematics.
One only has to look at the economics of renewables when it comes to the NEM. Adherents to the faith like to point out how cheap energy is when you've got the sun shining and wind blowing. The problem is twofold:
> 1. Given enough capacity the wholesale price goes negative during the day, so who the fuck is going to add additional renewable capacity for that sort of return?
2. The cost of provisioning dependable power is horrifically prohibitive once you go down this route. One only has to look at all the additional network and storage. Case in point; look at Snowy 2.0 if you want a case study in cost and schedule blowouts.We'd have been better off accepting the iron law of human development thus far; energy density and looked to engineering amelioration. Because no matter what we do, there's three billion people wanting our quality of life and only one path for them to adopt it; cheap, dependable energy.
Odd couple of points from you.
Yes, currently the amount of solar in the system can send the wholesale price negative. Not really an insurmountable problem though, as we turn to EV's, batteries, smart grids, load management, proper cooperation between vested interests (haha, OK, scrap that one). See article pasted at the bottom of this message as a good example. It's negative pricing periods are just one factor in any investment case - and it doesn't blow your return on new renewables out of the water currently, as you can see from the mountain of cash still lining up to invest.
On your second point, I think it's a bit rough to hold out Snowy as the poster child for building transmission or storage infrastructure - its been a NBN-like fuck up since forever, and is certainly not reflective of the industry ability to build battery storage or traditional transmission infrastructure (gold plating aside)
Speaking about Australia specifically, we find ourselves in the position now of absolutely having to do something. We have a massively aged coal fleet, we export all our gas, and we can't even talk about nuclear since forever. A bunch of people tried geothermal a while back, wave has a tortured history of destruction, tidal doesn't seem to be the go. If nuclear ever has a cost breakthrough, I'd be all for it, we should absolutely keep it on the radar. But for now, the future really does look like wind and solar and batteries, and ideally, being way way smarter about the grid.
Origin’s pet Octopus makes a splash at COP28
Hans van Leeuwen
Europe correspondent
Dec 4, 2023 – 9.03amDubai | Octopus Energy, the UK-based energy retailer and tech platform, has been a hidden thorn in Brookfield-EIG’s $20 billion bid for Origin Energy. But at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, the company has been right out in the open.
Its distinctive pink cephalopod logo beams out from roadside billboards, from electronic Metro station displays, and even from four bespoke mini wind turbines outside the COP28 venue.
And its founder and CEO, Greg Jackson, has been ebullient about his company’s prospects, as Octopus parlays its presence in Dubai as a COP28 sponsor into a springboard to expand further into the Middle East.
Octopus Energy has installed several branded mini wind turbines outside the COP28 venue in Dubai.
The one subject Mr Jackson wouldn’t talk about in Dubai was the takeover play for Origin, owner of 20 per cent of Octopus, which goes to a shareholder vote on Monday. One reason sometimes put forward for rejecting the bid has been that the already sizeable Octopus stake could rapidly escalate in value.
But Mr Jackson was more than happy to offer a typically rapid-fire download of the latest developments in the business, setting out his case for what he sees as Octopus’ steep growth trajectory.
Octopus sells power to British customers; leases electric vehicles; invests in and builds wind and solar farms; sells heat pumps, solar panels, EV chargers and smart meters; and, most importantly, owns an AI-driven tech platform called Kraken that it licenses to utilities worldwide, including Origin.
In Dubai, Mr Jackson was most excited about Intelligent Octopus, a Kraken-powered retail tariff that helps British customers max out their renewable electricity use when power is abundant and cheaper.
Octopus Energy founder and CEO Greg Jackson. Bloomberg
Speaking on a panel at COP28, he said that the previous day more than half a million Octopus customers were paid to use less electricity at peak times, which was “the equivalent of turning off the entire energy consumption of two cities”.
“It means we can just get rid of all the coal standby. It costs 10 times less than coal to pay consumers. That’s what we did today,” he said.
“It’s probably the biggest virtual power plant in Europe, maybe in the world. And it’s growing 24 per cent month-on-month in the UK,” he later told The Australian Financial Review.
Similarly, Kraken can calculate and time the energy requirements for the EVs it leases, allowing it to redistribute power.
“The scale of this is incredible. A year ago, we did 80 megawatts. It’s now 800 megawatts. It’s getting steeper. A big nuclear power station is 3000 megawatts. So within a year, just electric cars … are going to be shifting more power than a nuclear power station.”
Another recent innovation was to get Octopus in Britain working with property developers, who could offer potential buyers a decade of free electricity.
“We speak to house developers and we tell them how much solar panel, what size battery, what size heat pump, what kind of hot-water heater they need, and then we will license that home to never have an electricity bill, and we’ll underwrite it for 10 years,” he said.
The added bonus, he said, was that the Kraken platform made offerings like Intelligent Octopus scalable and exportable.
“Recently, I opened my management pack on a Monday morning, and it said, ‘We just launched it in Germany, and we just launched in Texas, and we’re just about to launch it in Italy,’” he said.
“Essentially, the magic you have when you’ve got a single global tech platform like Kraken is the ability to take innovation from one country and do it in another, instantly.”
He compared it with Uber, a company that operates in “hyper-localised, regulated markets”.
“Every city has got different regulation for cabs. But the underlying tech is the same. And when they get something that works well in one country, they move it to another,” he said.
Octopus is expecting to team up with Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, known as TAQA, for a pilot project to trial the Kraken platform for power and water customers in the UAE.
The companies are also exploring a joint venture to extend the partnership, which could include a local innovation and development hub in Abu Dhabi.
Octopus has 5.9 million customers of its own worldwide, but Kraken supports 52 million customer accounts via licensing deals with companies such as EDF, E.ON and Origin.
In a supplementary scheme booklet from early November, Origin flagged a potential move to bolster its stake in Octopus, “to accelerate the growth of the business”.
“If undertaken, Origin would expect any investment in the near term to be at a valuation of Octopus Energy broadly consistent with the valuation presented in the Independent Expert’s Report,” Origin said.
Grant Samuel estimated Octopus to be worth £5.7 billion to £6.2 billion, giving Origin’s stake a value of up to £1.24 billion ($2.4 billion).
“Octopus is one of the most exciting and fastest growing energy and tech companies in the world, so there’s always appetite from our existing and new investors to invest in the business,” an Octopus spokeswoman said.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
BTW by clean coal, I don't mean storing CO2.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
Some countries are. Those are the ones where the public debate hasn't been completely hijacked and there's sufficient residual competence at high school mathematics.
One only has to look at the economics of renewables when it comes to the NEM. Adherents to the faith like to point out how cheap energy is when you've got the sun shining and wind blowing. The problem is twofold:
> 1. Given enough capacity the wholesale price goes negative during the day, so who the fuck is going to add additional renewable capacity for that sort of return?
2. The cost of provisioning dependable power is horrifically prohibitive once you go down this route. One only has to look at all the additional network and storage. Case in point; look at Snowy 2.0 if you want a case study in cost and schedule blowouts.We'd have been better off accepting the iron law of human development thus far; energy density and looked to engineering amelioration. Because no matter what we do, there's three billion people wanting our quality of life and only one path for them to adopt it; cheap, dependable energy.
Odd couple of points from you.
Yes, currently the amount of solar in the system can send the wholesale price negative. Not really an insurmountable problem though, as we turn to EV's, batteries, smart grids, load management, proper cooperation between vested interests (haha, OK, scrap that one). See article pasted at the bottom of this message as a good example. It's negative pricing periods are just one factor in any investment case - and it doesn't blow your return on new renewables out of the water currently, as you can see from the mountain of cash still lining up to invest.
They're lining up to invest because it's subsidised. Once the subsidies go, the investment will too. It's been explained ad nauseum that the cost of hardening a renewables based grid is horrifically expensive. So much so that it makes nuclear look wonderfully cheap in comparison.
On your second point, I think it's a bit rough to hold out Snowy as the poster child for building transmission or storage infrastructure - its been a NBN-like fuck up since forever, and is certainly not reflective of the industry ability to build battery storage or traditional transmission infrastructure (gold plating aside)
Great, point to all these glowing examples thanks.
Speaking about Australia specifically, we find ourselves in the position now of absolutely having to do something. We have a massively aged coal fleet, we export all our gas, and we can't even talk about nuclear since forever. A bunch of people tried geothermal a while back, wave has a tortured history of destruction, tidal doesn't seem to be the go. If nuclear ever has a cost breakthrough, I'd be all for it, we should absolutely keep it on the radar. But for now, the future really does look like wind and solar and batteries, and ideally, being way way smarter about the grid.
Nuclear doesn't need a cost breakthrough. It requires legislative change and an understanding by elected officials of the difference between Germany and France (who btw could replace their entire fleet for less than Germany pays for its Energiewende).
And if you want to save the planet, which looks more successful?
Origin’s pet Octopus makes a splash at COP28
Hans van Leeuwen
Europe correspondent
Dec 4, 2023 – 9.03amI read his article in the AFR some months back. Time will tell if Octopus goes tits up like a bunch of other retailers.
Climate Change