Thanks! I brought it into my standard format for these plans, and the links to them on Plans of Action. If you find time to write more, that would be great. Most people would consider the plan wildly optimistic from the bit you've written so far, so it would be very interesting to see how realistic and well-thought out it is.
Comment Source:Thanks! I brought it into my standard format for these plans, and the links to them on [[Plans of Action]]. If you find time to write more, that would be great. Most people would consider the plan wildly optimistic from the bit you've written so far, so it would be very interesting to see how realistic and well-thought out it is.
I've added more detail. It seems reasonably realistic apart from the fact that people won't like it. It relies heavily on deep offshore wind: apart from that I don't (yet) see a major clash with the numbers in Without the hot air.
Comment Source:I've added more detail. It seems reasonably realistic apart from the fact that people won't like it. It relies heavily on deep offshore wind: apart from that I don't (yet) see a major clash with the numbers in [[Without the hot air]].
You've made me interested in reading the plan, because I'm wondering how these two go together:
In total, 1.67 million hectares of land would be devoted to producing biofuel feedstock.
After appropriate management changes, the land would remove carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it in soil or vegetation. This would accumulate carbon for 20-30 years.
I thought that by burning biofuel the carbon is released again? Or do they mean that it takes 20 yrs to grow the biofuel?
Comment Source:You've made me interested in reading the plan, because I'm wondering how these two go together:
> In total, 1.67 million hectares of land would be devoted to producing biofuel feedstock.
> After appropriate management changes, the land would remove carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it in soil or vegetation. This would accumulate carbon for 20-30 years.
I thought that by burning biofuel the carbon is released again? Or do they mean that it takes 20 yrs to grow the biofuel?
The 20-30 years is the amount of time it takes for the soil+vegetation to saturate with carbon under 'appropriate management changes'. They only claim this as a 'window' after which other technologies will be needed. I haven't read the whole thing, but they say for example on p189
The
agricultural product mix gradually shifts away
from high-emitting sectors, mostly grazing
livestock, towards nutritionally-equivalent
crop products that emit far less. This alone
can reduce emissions by 60–70%.
Comment Source:Burning biofuel releases the CO2 again, yes.
The 20-30 years is the amount of time it takes for the soil+vegetation to saturate with carbon under 'appropriate management changes'. They only claim this as a 'window' after which other technologies will be needed. I haven't read the whole thing, but they say for example on p189
> The
agricultural product mix gradually shifts away
from high-emitting sectors, mostly grazing
livestock, towards nutritionally-equivalent
crop products that emit far less. This alone
can reduce emissions by 60–70%.
Thanks! I started to look into the report to find more about this.
Britain would also import and export electricity under this plan to help deal with fluctuations
Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"?
In any case, there's 690 TWh/yr wind power, and only 24 TWh/yr biogas, so I'm surprized by:
The biogas is used to back up the electricity grid during calm periods.
Maybe one should have to know how this “Future Energy Scenario Assessment” (FESA) software works...
But the report is very interesting anyway. In the meantime, looking for information about grid stability, I got quite shocked by when I noticed figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh! That's more than 50 % of the electricity that was generated that year! The losses almost equal the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels!
Comment Source:Thanks! I started to look into the report to find more about this.
> Britain would also import and export electricity under this plan to help deal with fluctuations
Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"?
In any case, there's 690 TWh/yr wind power, and only 24 TWh/yr biogas, so I'm surprized by:
> The biogas is used to back up the electricity grid during calm periods.
Maybe one should have to know how this “Future Energy Scenario Assessment” (FESA) software works...
But the report is very interesting anyway. In the meantime, looking for information about grid stability, I got quite shocked by when I noticed figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh! That's more than 50 % of the electricity that was generated that year! The losses almost equal the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels!
It would be good if you can add some of the realistic discussion from David MacKay pp73-75. His numbers are considering that uk has 40 kwh /m on the atlantic 1000 km coast only. and if u divide that over uk population u end up 1/60 m per person and 32 kWh/day or 11.6 MW/year (hope i got this conversion right) for deep offshore wind. the east cost is less suitable . Shallow offshore wind he estimataes t an additional 16 kW/day. "Energy Beyond Oil", Armstrong Blundell OUP 2007 pp71-82 u can also see more about prices
Comment Source:It would be good if you can add some of the realistic discussion from [[David MacKay]] pp73-75. His numbers are considering that uk has 40 kwh /m on the atlantic 1000 km coast only. and if u divide that over uk population u end up 1/60 m per person and 32 kWh/day or 11.6 MW/year (hope i got this conversion right) for deep offshore wind. the east cost is less suitable . Shallow offshore wind he estimataes t an additional 16 kW/day. "Energy Beyond Oil", Armstrong Blundell OUP 2007 pp71-82 u can also see more about prices
figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh
does anybody know if this also includes "generation" losses (because in the figure, power stations are actually in the middle)? Perhaps it is implied in the word "conversion". It would make the size of the losses more understandable.
Comment Source:> figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh
does anybody know if this also includes "generation" losses (because in the figure, power stations are actually in the middle)? Perhaps it is implied in the word "conversion". It would make the size of the losses more understandable.
Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"?
If so, I hope those planning on doing this are aware of France's own nuclear "fluctuations" during summer due to needing to shut down some plants because riverlevels are too low to supply enough cooling water.
Comment Source:> Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"?
If so, I hope those planning on doing this are aware of France's own nuclear "fluctuations" during summer due to needing to shut down some plants because riverlevels are too low to supply enough cooling water.
Their Hourly Energy Model Methodology looks like an interesting programming project. It uses ten years of weather records to predict wind and solar energy production, along with demand figures, to test their plan.
Comment Source:The [Centre for Alternative Technology](http://www.cat.org.uk/) produced a new report in 2013, and I have updated the [[Zero carbon Britain 2030]] page.
Their [Hourly Energy Model Methodology](http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/index.php/zcb-latest-report/zcb-methodology/item/116) looks like an interesting programming project. It uses ten years of weather records to predict wind and solar energy production, along with demand figures, to test their plan.
Comments
Thanks! I brought it into my standard format for these plans, and the links to them on Plans of Action. If you find time to write more, that would be great. Most people would consider the plan wildly optimistic from the bit you've written so far, so it would be very interesting to see how realistic and well-thought out it is.
Thanks! I brought it into my standard format for these plans, and the links to them on [[Plans of Action]]. If you find time to write more, that would be great. Most people would consider the plan wildly optimistic from the bit you've written so far, so it would be very interesting to see how realistic and well-thought out it is.I've added more detail. It seems reasonably realistic apart from the fact that people won't like it. It relies heavily on deep offshore wind: apart from that I don't (yet) see a major clash with the numbers in Without the hot air.
I've added more detail. It seems reasonably realistic apart from the fact that people won't like it. It relies heavily on deep offshore wind: apart from that I don't (yet) see a major clash with the numbers in [[Without the hot air]].You've made me interested in reading the plan, because I'm wondering how these two go together:
I thought that by burning biofuel the carbon is released again? Or do they mean that it takes 20 yrs to grow the biofuel?
You've made me interested in reading the plan, because I'm wondering how these two go together: > In total, 1.67 million hectares of land would be devoted to producing biofuel feedstock. > After appropriate management changes, the land would remove carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it in soil or vegetation. This would accumulate carbon for 20-30 years. I thought that by burning biofuel the carbon is released again? Or do they mean that it takes 20 yrs to grow the biofuel?Burning biofuel releases the CO2 again, yes.
The 20-30 years is the amount of time it takes for the soil+vegetation to saturate with carbon under 'appropriate management changes'. They only claim this as a 'window' after which other technologies will be needed. I haven't read the whole thing, but they say for example on p189
Burning biofuel releases the CO2 again, yes. The 20-30 years is the amount of time it takes for the soil+vegetation to saturate with carbon under 'appropriate management changes'. They only claim this as a 'window' after which other technologies will be needed. I haven't read the whole thing, but they say for example on p189 > The agricultural product mix gradually shifts away from high-emitting sectors, mostly grazing livestock, towards nutritionally-equivalent crop products that emit far less. This alone can reduce emissions by 60–70%.Added a bit more about the issue of dealing with fluctuations.
Added a bit more about the issue of dealing with fluctuations.Thanks! I started to look into the report to find more about this.
Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"?
In any case, there's 690 TWh/yr wind power, and only 24 TWh/yr biogas, so I'm surprized by:
Maybe one should have to know how this “Future Energy Scenario Assessment” (FESA) software works...
But the report is very interesting anyway. In the meantime, looking for information about grid stability, I got quite shocked by when I noticed figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh! That's more than 50 % of the electricity that was generated that year! The losses almost equal the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels!
Thanks! I started to look into the report to find more about this. > Britain would also import and export electricity under this plan to help deal with fluctuations Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"? In any case, there's 690 TWh/yr wind power, and only 24 TWh/yr biogas, so I'm surprized by: > The biogas is used to back up the electricity grid during calm periods. Maybe one should have to know how this “Future Energy Scenario Assessment” (FESA) software works... But the report is very interesting anyway. In the meantime, looking for information about grid stability, I got quite shocked by when I noticed figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh! That's more than 50 % of the electricity that was generated that year! The losses almost equal the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels!It would be good if you can add some of the realistic discussion from David MacKay pp73-75. His numbers are considering that uk has 40 kwh /m on the atlantic 1000 km coast only. and if u divide that over uk population u end up 1/60 m per person and 32 kWh/day or 11.6 MW/year (hope i got this conversion right) for deep offshore wind. the east cost is less suitable . Shallow offshore wind he estimataes t an additional 16 kW/day. "Energy Beyond Oil", Armstrong Blundell OUP 2007 pp71-82 u can also see more about prices
It would be good if you can add some of the realistic discussion from [[David MacKay]] pp73-75. His numbers are considering that uk has 40 kwh /m on the atlantic 1000 km coast only. and if u divide that over uk population u end up 1/60 m per person and 32 kWh/day or 11.6 MW/year (hope i got this conversion right) for deep offshore wind. the east cost is less suitable . Shallow offshore wind he estimataes t an additional 16 kW/day. "Energy Beyond Oil", Armstrong Blundell OUP 2007 pp71-82 u can also see more about pricesdoes anybody know if this also includes "generation" losses (because in the figure, power stations are actually in the middle)? Perhaps it is implied in the word "conversion". It would make the size of the losses more understandable.
> figure 8.1 (electricity flow chart, pg 237). In 2008, conversion, transmission and distribution losses added up to 591,6 TWh does anybody know if this also includes "generation" losses (because in the figure, power stations are actually in the middle)? Perhaps it is implied in the word "conversion". It would make the size of the losses more understandable.If so, I hope those planning on doing this are aware of France's own nuclear "fluctuations" during summer due to needing to shut down some plants because riverlevels are too low to supply enough cooling water.
> Does this mean: "France's nuclear plants will solve our problems with fluctuations"? If so, I hope those planning on doing this are aware of France's own nuclear "fluctuations" during summer due to needing to shut down some plants because riverlevels are too low to supply enough cooling water.Staffan: I added a question and calculation to Zero carbon Britain 2030. Everybody: please check it!
Staffan: I added a question and calculation to [[Zero carbon Britain 2030]]. Everybody: please check it!Looks interesting; I didn't check the math.
Looks interesting; I didn't check the math.It looks correct concerning the mathThe Centre for Alternative Technology produced a new report in 2013, and I have updated the Zero carbon Britain 2030 page.
Their Hourly Energy Model Methodology looks like an interesting programming project. It uses ten years of weather records to predict wind and solar energy production, along with demand figures, to test their plan.
The [Centre for Alternative Technology](http://www.cat.org.uk/) produced a new report in 2013, and I have updated the [[Zero carbon Britain 2030]] page. Their [Hourly Energy Model Methodology](http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/index.php/zcb-latest-report/zcb-methodology/item/116) looks like an interesting programming project. It uses ten years of weather records to predict wind and solar energy production, along with demand figures, to test their plan.