Hinkley Point C

They are small, yeah, but the more you spread out the infrastructure the less space you need to build each storage point. There are small substations already on land all over every city, town and village in the land. I don't see any reason you couldn't utilise this land to install battery space.

The more you spread out the infrastructure the more space you need overall because you must repeat infrastructure components more times. Most small substations don't haveany spare space, let alone enough to house a high capacity of batteries plus all the battery management and connectivity required.

It might well become part of the answer when batteries improve. Maybe all of the answer if they improve enough.

Have you seen Tesla's power wall? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. They could be easily installed in attic space on external wall space on most properties. Access is only a problem if they're owned by the electrical companies, I see them becoming part of home infrastructure in the same way that people currently own solar panels and boilers.
Having the grid dependent on millions of privately owned things that the grid itself has no control over has problems of its own. It might be a solution when batteries improve, but it's not going to be as straightforward as companies selling the kit will make it out to be.
 
Most small substations don't haveany spare space, let alone enough to house a high capacity of batteries plus all the battery management and connectivity required.

The kind of thing I'm thinking of are those little huts you see around cities. Is there a reason they can't be expanded up, or down, to provide more space? Yes, you need to do building work, but the land is already owned and I would think that compared to the straight installation and purchase costs of the batteries it would be relatively cheap to expand the building.

Having the grid dependent on millions of privately owned things that the grid itself has no control over has problems of its own. It might be a solution when batteries improve, but it's not going to be as straightforward as companies selling the kit will make it out to be.

I don't think the alternatives are either cheap or easy either. The most sensible place to put solar is on existing roof space. That means that the more solar you have the more distributed your energy infrastructure is anyway. Moreover, when cars shift from fossil fuels to electrical power the demand on the grid is going to dramatically shift and it's going to do it in a relatively short period of time, and again as we phase out fossil fuels in domestic heating. That means that major changes to the power grid are required regardless of whether you go distributed or whether you stay centralised. I think the advantages of distribution are going to end up winning the day.
 

Was doing some rough scratching for the feasibility of using solar to pump water for local generation i.e. household - but its not very encouraging heh - a 200 watt panel assuming fairly good conditions for generation would only pump enough to high enough to generate about 30 minutes worth of running a few light bulbs at night :S
 
The kind of thing I'm thinking of are those little huts you see around cities. Is there a reason they can't be expanded up, or down, to provide more space? Yes, you need to do building work, but the land is already owned and I would think that compared to the straight installation and purchase costs of the batteries it would be relatively cheap to expand the building.

Down would generally be a problem (there's already a lot underground in a modern town or city pretty much wherever it's possible to do so) but up, well, I think you have a point there. If it was possible to make all the required kit small enough, of course.

I don't think the alternatives are either cheap or easy either. The most sensible place to put solar is on existing roof space. That means that the more solar you have the more distributed your energy infrastructure is anyway. Moreover, when cars shift from fossil fuels to electrical power the demand on the grid is going to dramatically shift and it's going to do it in a relatively short period of time, and again as we phase out fossil fuels in domestic heating. That means that major changes to the power grid are required regardless of whether you go distributed or whether you stay centralised. I think the advantages of distribution are going to end up winning the day.

Maybe they will. I'm wary of simple solutions being presented because that almost always means that the problems haven't been considered. Unless some radical new technology is developed, there aren't any cheap or easy solutions.
 
Maybe they will. I'm wary of simple solutions being presented because that almost always means that the problems haven't been considered. Unless some radical new technology is developed, there aren't any cheap or easy solutions.

I'll certainly agree with that.
 
Best battery is natural, pump water up hill when you have excess. Allow it to produce power via turbines when there is large demand, this is fairly instant unlike wind power or any other sustainable source

Best "battery", imo, is hydrogen. Shift 90% of our country's power generation to nuclear and use the troughs (because nuclear doesn't ramp up and down efficiently) to produce hydrogen. Then shift our country's vehicles to HFC technology. Imagine London if all the vehicles emitted water vapour rather than petrol fumes. Would appease the carbon-fanatics, too.
 
The farm near me is at a main substation, I think it the only one in the area that was available with the land already purchased for expansion in mind.
They don't as far as I know have the room to expand it enough to actually provide power over a significantly longer period of time.
From memory it was one of the key reasons they chose the site, it needed expansion to cope with demand (new main incoming lines to cope with peak demand several days a month), and they had the space already purchased.

Spreading them out more requires the purchase of more land near existing infrastructure, for example if you put it at the local substations you're going to run into the issue that most local substations are built to service a very specific area with little room on site for expansion, around me most of the more local substations seem to be built with just enough room for maintenance work to be carried out, obviously with the thought that for expansion they'd just build a new substation where it was needed.

Building the batteries into non electrical company properties becomes very problematic in terms of maintenance access, and simply finding room for them in many instances.

If nothing else getting the various planning permissions and buying up the required land for a vast number of battery farms is going to be extremely expensive (I suspect they couldn't do it in many major cities so would have to build away from the demand), and time consuming.

I actually like the theory of the local battery storage, especially combined with renewable generating capacity, but I don't hold many illusions about the practicality if we were to be relying on such systems instead of a consistent baseline generator, at least with current and near future levels of battery technology.

Regarding land for battery storage.

#1 They do not need to buy the land. Rental agreements are put in place with land owners

#2 Does not need to be placed next to a substation, just on a high KV line.

Wind and solar are unfortunately unpredictable which is not good for baseline capacity, and require either massive over capacity (and some luck) or huge amounts of storage capacity.

Wind power is predictable, quite accurately upto 24 hours in advance. Enough time to bring other forms of generation online to cover it.
 
Best "battery", imo, is hydrogen. Shift 90% of our country's power generation to nuclear and use the troughs (because nuclear doesn't ramp up and down efficiently) to produce hydrogen. Then shift our country's vehicles to HFC technology. Imagine London if all the vehicles emitted water vapour rather than petrol fumes. Would appease the carbon-fanatics, too.
Hydrogen is great, except the cost to produce it, store it, the cost of infrastructure, and its [current] dependency on fossil fuels.

Why stop at London? Imagine our country if vehicle fumes were all water vapour. I don't think you need to be a fanatic to not want to live in and breathe a cloud of pollution every day.
 
I've always like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel but it does have significant technical challenges.

It is a good alternative to petrol insofar as there is already an established infrastructure for delivering it if you assume a programme of petrol station modernisations would be required. It is clean, it could be produced from nuclear power without any need for flexible generation. The problems are there is a big technical challenge to mass storage, it's more than a bit dangerous. And the energy density of compressed hydrogen gas isn't great. But if cars moved to fuel cell electric designs with integrated wheel motors you might gain some real efficiencies through weight reduction.

There is a technique out there for "pelletising" hydrogen as micro beads in a carbon capsule. This actually increases the energy density, allows it to be stored and treated like a liquid and would even burn in a combustion engine. The company developing the technique was after venture capital a few years ago but its at the lab stage nowhere near an industrial process and may never make the transition.

edit: the company was called Cella Energy
 
Last edited:
I've always like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel but it does have significant technical challenges.

It is a good alternative to petrol insofar as there is already an established infrastructure for delivering it if you assume a programme of petrol station modernisations would be required. It is clean, it could be produced from nuclear power without any need for flexible generation. The problems are there is a big technical challenge to mass storage, it's more than a bit dangerous. And the energy density of compressed hydrogen gas isn't great. But if cars moved to fuel cell electric designs with integrated wheel motors you might gain some real efficiencies through weight reduction.

There is a technique out there for "pelletising" hydrogen as micro beads in a carbon capsule. This actually increases the energy density, allows it to be stored and treated like a liquid and would even burn in a combustion engine. The company developing the technique was after venture capital a few years ago but its at the lab stage nowhere near an industrial process and may never make the transition.

edit: the company was called Cella Energy

Might be of interest to you

http://riversimple.com/

Based in a local town to me.
 
[..] It is clean, it could be produced from nuclear power without any need for flexible generation. [..]

I've not yet heard a hydrogen advocate who favours or would even tolerate nuclear power. EDIT: OK, I've now read one. Just one.

But assuming that it was done with nuclear power, I have a couple of questions. You seem to be very well informed on the subject, so hopefully you have answers.

1) How much nuclear power would be required to produce enough hydrogen to power every vehicle currently powered by petrol/diesel/LPG?

2) How much energy is wasted in the whole process, i.e. producing the hydrogen, transporting and storing it and then using it to power a car? As a related question, how does that compare to using batteries as an energy carrier rather than using hydrogen as an energy carrier?

Or am I completely wrong and I've missed new technology that somehow makes hydrogen an energy source rather than an energy carrier? Last time I looked, it was a pretty crap energy carrier even if the transportation and storage problems were ignored.
 
Last edited:
^ Your questions are predicated on the current levels of personal transport staying constant. I'm not sure it's practically possible for the number of car-miles to stay as they are and to stop using fossil fuels. Maybe PlacidCasual knows.
 
Last edited:
Some good questions

OK gross numbers

UK Stats office reckon we use 41 million tonnes oil equivalent per year for road and rail transport.

Wiki thinks a tonne oil equivalent is 42GJ which sounds right, coal is 24GJ/tonne from memory.

That works out at 478TWh per year. Which is 78 GW capacity at 70% load factor. Or 20 Hinckley C's.

What I have no reasonable estimate for is how much energy is lost creating hydrogen. But if anyone does know divide the 78GW by the efficiency % and you have the number. Assuming no improvement in road and rail efficiency.
 
Best thing you can do with hydrogen is to stick it onto Carbon to make synthetic LPG/Petrol.

We have an established infrastructure and culture for handling these materials and tens of millions of vehicles that could use the synthetic fuel immediately or with simple modifications.

To start with, we could simply add the hydrogen to heavy oils to "sweeten" it, we could also use in-situ gassification to exploit the (Vast!) under sea north sea coal fields.

At the same time we could also work on extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere. which, when that problem is solved, could be fed directly into the, by now already established, synthetic fuel infrastructure to suppliment and eventually replace the fossil sources.
 
At the same time we could also work on extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere. which, when that problem is solved, could be fed directly into the, by now already established, synthetic fuel infrastructure to suppliment and eventually replace the fossil sources.

That's not so much an 'also' as an essential part. Where would the carbon come from otherwise? Any other source would just mean more CO2 in the atmosphere and that's the most important thing to stop emitting!
 
In my more fanciful moments I imagine in a future World where fusion energy has made limitless and cheap you could grow tress in the temperate zones and train them to the sub-tropical deserts and just pile them high and let them dry out. Then they can sit there for the rest of forever. Maybe just cover them in sand once they are piled high to lock out the oxygen and prevent fires.

But on topic, Hinckley is the wrong solution but it's the best one we've got. We should put our money and intellect on the line and design and build a generation of nukes based on molten salt or advanced gas designs.
 
That's not so much an 'also' as an essential part. Where would the carbon come from otherwise? Any other source would just mean more CO2 in the atmosphere and that's the most important thing to stop emitting!

I think you misunderstand my "Also"

We currently do not have the technology to economically crack CO2, But we can work on it.

We can however start developing the synthetic fuels infrastructure straight away using fossil feedstocks and introduce atmospheric carbon once the technology is developed. we do not have to wait until it is.

Edit to add.

Have just been doing a bit of reading, there is a process that uses Hydrogen/CO2 to produce methane. so atmospheric carbon can be used as a feedstock provided that atmospheric CO2 can be harvested in sufficient quantities. I am not sure how easy it would be to harvest atmospheric CO2 in megaton quantities though. Despite all the concern over CO2 levels, It really is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, 0.03% or thereabouts IIRC
 
Last edited:
Technologies like pyrolysis exist for turning organic compounds into fuels. I would imagine that if in some future you had eliminated C02 production from all domestic electricity, heating and cooking demands and all land transport you might have a sufficiently small fossil fuel replacement demand that it could be met from pyrolysis of bio-matter into fuel. The amount of effort to condenser CO2 out of the atmosphere out of the atmosphere mechanically or chemically seems like it might be huge.
 
Over 0.04% now (400 ppm). Higher than at any time in the last 3-20 million years.

And yet our temperature today is far lower than the high points in the last 3-20 million years.

What's with the 17million year gap, by the way. Are you saying that's your margin of error or are you saying from -3million to -20million it hasn't been higher but from 0 to -3 million years it has been?
 
Back
Top Bottom