Leaderboard

I don't recall anyone on these forums suggesting the extraction of energy from renewables is free.. maybe out in the big wide world they have.. .Clearly that is a fallacy. We have already dealt with the costs per mw/h of renewable sources v fossil fuels for electricity generation. And renewables generally win - although there are cases where it doesn't. But it is not just the cost of extraction - there is the cost of distribution and then there is the efficiency cost. And of course, the cleaning up costs and decommissioning costs.. Still for electricity generation, the costs generally favour renewables.. There is a cost that fossil fuels don't pick up (and to be honest, neither does the renewables pick up) and that is the inherent damage to the environment. There is no cost applied and effort performed to remove things like the additional CO2, which seems to be a major contributor to what is looking more like a looming climate emergency.. you know the thing the pesky scientists predicted using real facts and models.. and it seems to be coming a darn sight quicker than they had hoped. The cost of toxins such as nitrogen oxides and other respiratory and cancer linked toxins is early termination of people and in countries such as Australia, the taxpayer picks up the tab through the health service. Yes, this is also the case for the manufacture and operation of plant/technology for renewable energy extraction, but I would guess (but am happy to be corrected) it is a lot lower than that for fossil fuels - after all, accessing the renewable sources is a lot easier than accessing fossil fuels - I don't have to dig under the sea for it.. do I... And even sea born renewable energy - waves - are pretty accessible. But renewables don't pay for their emissions either (well, there is a carbon trading market, still, somewhere). But again, and I haven't done the research and am happy to be corrected - this cost from renewables technology is probably a lot less because they do a lot less of it. Yes, Li-Ion batteries - especially for cars - have a heavy CO2 footprint at manufacture - much more than an ICE engine. In early technology, the average technology meant it was about 5 years before the electric car broke even with the average emissions of ICE cars, after which the drop in CO2 emissions for the lifetime of a BEV over an ICE car increased dramatically. Here are the current numbers: The time even on a wholly coal grid is still 4 - 5 years, but batteries are lasting at least 8 (on average) and going a lot more.. So, even with the dirtiest grid, they are still doing well. But, we move to grids such as in Europe, Australia, Canada, and China, and the payback is down to 2 years, well within most ownership cycles of cars and well within the life of the vehicle. In Australia, the depreciation cycle is 5 years, so you are effectively getting, say 3 years almost emissions free driving in comparison. Obviously, the coal and gas and maintenance are emitting, as are replacement of service items - which are much less in a BEV than and ICE engined car.

I don't thing I disputed the energy density claim. And of course, there are fuels which are better suited for use cases. If I want to get to Australia, with current technology, avtur or Jet A1 id the best. I don't know anyone with any sanity that would suggest otherwise. But that doesn't mean fossil based fuel is good for all cases. Given the thermal inefficiency, there are applications where it is better. To take the logic a little further, coal has a much higher energy density than, I dunno, solar (in the case of the Solar Impulse 2 which flew around the world wholly on solar power (Rutans used 100LL Avgas); but I wouldn't try a steam engine in an airliner either because, although it is a fossil fuel, no one in their right mind would suggest it, right? Similarly, for cars, as the wheels support the weight rather than the wings and the force to overcome (in addition to drag) is friction - much lower than weight - battery technology is allowing denser storage of fuel (electricity) which is giving comparable mileage to ICE cars - not because of the density itself but because of both the thermal and mechanical inefficiency of the latter. So, for that use case electricity (which can be generated by renewables) is becoming a more efficient fuel for propulsion and drive train than fossil and mechanical means (yes, there are still mechanics in EVs.. but you should get what I mean). On wind generation in the UK, I agree - I should have used the word theoretically, because the generation capacity of the wind turbines installed is higher than demand. There are three main constraints to it being reality Wind does not blow all the time. However, for the UK, wind is a viable option as it does blow a lot of the time. The highest concentration of windmill installations are in and offshore Scotland. So, there is a concentration of the source of the power. Note, wind power generation in Scotland often exceeds demand. The planning in this country is poor, which is why a massive amount of renewable generation was installed before the grid was upgraded to be able handle it. That is not a failure of renewable technology; that is a failure of politics and planning. But if I am wrong on any of these, please feel free to explain why rather than just say it is BS. Saying it is BS does not mean it is. Proper credible explanation as to why, and I will happily change my position and concede I am wrong. Again, it depends on your use case. I think people are suggesting there are two camps - renewables or fossil fuels. I hope with what I wrote above addressed that.. but to repeat, we wouldn't put coal in an airliner and it has far more energy density than solar technology likely ever will (well, I have to check the convex cells.. They seemed pretty fearsome). But other use cases, such as cars (well, not all electricity is renewable - granted) and power generation - where other factors don't make density the major factor - then they can be better. And yes, in some regions, fossils will be better. Again, it is about the mix. Not justy blindly sticking with one. That is an economic thing - more supply than demand drops the price. That is not due to nuclear - that is due to more supply. Nuclear did bring a lot on at once. But in Australia, Solar is doing the same which is why you are able to get your electricity for FREE when supply exceeds demand. Re the Scottish Curtailment - we had already addressed that some time ago in this thread so I am not digging all the info out again,. but the above points cover most of it anyway.

If you have solar, smart meters are essential as standard meters are unable to deal with feed in tariffs. I am a VPP (virtual power plant) & buy sell electricity on the wholesale market. My monthly average buy price at the moment is 18.3 cents/kWh & my average FIT is 20.3c/kWh. I have a 18.64kWh battery & sell power to the grid usually from 5pm to 7pm when the price is high. This is all managed by my system provider as the spot price is checked every 5 minutes and my system is told what to do. It even curtails my solar production when the battery is full and the spot FIT goes negative so I do not pay for exporting to the grid.