Renewables met 97% of Scotland's electricity demand in 2020
March 26, 2021 2:38 PM Subscribe
It can be done. The technology is simpler, and cheaper than megaproject nuclear or hydroelectric.
Let's do it.
posted by thenormshow at 3:07 PM on March 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Let's do it.
posted by thenormshow at 3:07 PM on March 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Bladeless resonant wind generators, aka vortex-induced vibration-resonant wind generators, aka "skybrators". [This Giant Vibrator Could Somehow Be the Future of Wind Power, Gizmodo, March 22, 2021; Vortex Bladeless company site]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:08 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:08 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
It can be done. The technology is simpler, and cheaper than megaproject nuclear or hydroelectric.
Um, hydroelectric is renewable, and a fair amount of Scotland's energy is indeed from hydroelectric.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:10 PM on March 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
Um, hydroelectric is renewable, and a fair amount of Scotland's energy is indeed from hydroelectric.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:10 PM on March 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
It's quite beautiful ...our largest windfarm (to date)
posted by burr1545 at 3:11 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by burr1545 at 3:11 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is my surprised face... Oh wait...
posted by Windopaene at 3:13 PM on March 26, 2021
posted by Windopaene at 3:13 PM on March 26, 2021
Um, hydroelectric is renewable, and a fair amount of Scotland's energy is indeed from hydroelectric.
And nuclear.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:15 PM on March 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
And nuclear.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:15 PM on March 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
hydro does about 4 times more than offshore wind - though onshore wind is still the biggest , about 60% is onshore wind
source : renewable stats
posted by burr1545 at 3:16 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
source : renewable stats
posted by burr1545 at 3:16 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Bladeless resonant wind generators,
AKA, snake oil. The model in the video generates all of 100W, less than a good spotlight. Wind power is proportional to the swept area of the blades. If you want to power a country, you need GIANT turbines like this one. The vibrating twig isn't going to do SFA.
Good on Scotland though. Living on an island in the North Atlantic has a some benefits I guess - some wind farms there get double the industry average capacity factor.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:17 PM on March 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
AKA, snake oil. The model in the video generates all of 100W, less than a good spotlight. Wind power is proportional to the swept area of the blades. If you want to power a country, you need GIANT turbines like this one. The vibrating twig isn't going to do SFA.
Good on Scotland though. Living on an island in the North Atlantic has a some benefits I guess - some wind farms there get double the industry average capacity factor.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:17 PM on March 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
Wow, nearly 60% capacity factor on sub-MW turbines! Imagine what you could get at that site with the really big stuff.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:21 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:21 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Pardon me if I'm slightly sceptical of this claim, if only because the category of "renewables" has some ringers in it.
For example, if you cut down all of your ancient forests and burn them in a giant furnace, that is technically renewable even if you never actually plant anything to grow it back. There are signs in the lifts at Heathrow bragging about how they heat the place with "locally-sourced renewable wood pellets" which is a greenwashy way to say "we're cutting down all the trees in Hounslow to heat an airport car park."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:45 PM on March 26, 2021 [9 favorites]
For example, if you cut down all of your ancient forests and burn them in a giant furnace, that is technically renewable even if you never actually plant anything to grow it back. There are signs in the lifts at Heathrow bragging about how they heat the place with "locally-sourced renewable wood pellets" which is a greenwashy way to say "we're cutting down all the trees in Hounslow to heat an airport car park."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:45 PM on March 26, 2021 [9 favorites]
According to the article: "Onshore wind delivers about 70% of capacity, followed by hydro and offshore wind as Scotland's main sources of renewable power." Those are 2020 figures AFAICT.
posted by gwint at 3:49 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by gwint at 3:49 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
The article is not particularly long, FYI.
posted by gwint at 3:50 PM on March 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by gwint at 3:50 PM on March 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
I mean, they have charts. The only thing is the 97% figure is for electricity and not for all energy usage, so excludes heating and probably transportation.
5.9 TWh from hydroelectric
19.7 TWh from onshore wind
3.5 TWh from offshore wind
2.7 TWh from other
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
5.9 TWh from hydroelectric
19.7 TWh from onshore wind
3.5 TWh from offshore wind
2.7 TWh from other
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
To clarify my earlier scepticism, it was the "Currently 6.5% of our non-electrical heat demand is generated from renewable sources." quote that had my biomass teeth grinding. That could be burning old rubbish for all we know.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 4:03 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 4:03 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Huffy Puffy, thank you for contributing a great link & emphasising that electricity demand is but a subset of overall energy demand. That charts in turn links to Scottish Energy Statistics Hub (an interactive dashboard).
posted by are-coral-made at 4:14 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by are-coral-made at 4:14 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
What are electricity prices like in Scotland? I presume after the initial setup the ongoing costs are administration and maintenance.
I was thinking about this when that ice storm hit the Caribbean (!!!) and the propaganda news was blaming wind turbines for the power outages. Someone must have sat down with a pen and a pad and done the numbers and found that even in Texas it was cheaper to build wind turbines.
Speaking of the propaganda news, there are people that believe these cause cancer and you can't watch TV when it's not windy. Y'know, because the world's biggest idiot with the world's biggest megaphone told them and his faithful parrots repeat it. I feel like the only way to overcome this brainwashing is to show people cheaper utility bills.
So how many bucks per quarter are we talking?
posted by adept256 at 4:19 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
I was thinking about this when that ice storm hit the Caribbean (!!!) and the propaganda news was blaming wind turbines for the power outages. Someone must have sat down with a pen and a pad and done the numbers and found that even in Texas it was cheaper to build wind turbines.
Speaking of the propaganda news, there are people that believe these cause cancer and you can't watch TV when it's not windy. Y'know, because the world's biggest idiot with the world's biggest megaphone told them and his faithful parrots repeat it. I feel like the only way to overcome this brainwashing is to show people cheaper utility bills.
So how many bucks per quarter are we talking?
posted by adept256 at 4:19 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
→
If you're referring to the recent Texas trouble: a) that was made up; b) it's unlikely that wind turbines in TX have the cold climate package (heated instrument cabinets, mostly: heated blades are pretty rare).
Wind turbines in Scotland, of which I did the preliminary work for more than a few, can handle the not-very-cold that Scotland gets.
posted by scruss at 4:21 PM on March 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
I've been reliably informed that windmills don't work in the cold
If you're referring to the recent Texas trouble: a) that was made up; b) it's unlikely that wind turbines in TX have the cold climate package (heated instrument cabinets, mostly: heated blades are pretty rare).
Wind turbines in Scotland, of which I did the preliminary work for more than a few, can handle the not-very-cold that Scotland gets.
posted by scruss at 4:21 PM on March 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
When trying to understand renewable energy statistics I always try to reframe things using the big picture of total energy consumption set out by David MacKay's book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. It's a great book.
For example: MacKay estimated that around 30% of the average annual energy consumption of a UK resident is from consumption and transport of "stuff" - ranging from small, fleetingly-lived stuffs like newspapers, to larger stuffs like washing machines or houses.
Here's my attempt to understand this "renewables supplied 97% of electricity demand" in terms of the total energy demand:
It seems like Scotland's total energy consumption metric used to define the renewable energy target only includes the categories of transport + heating + electricity consumption -- it appears to exclude non-electrical energy consumption from agriculture, industry, defence. I reckon it does not include energy consumption in goods imported from other countries. This means that the reported total energy consumption metric is perhaps only 60-65% of the true energy consumption.
Scotland has around 3m licensed vehicles, and around 10k licensed "ultra low emissions" vehicles. So at most 0.3% of energy consumption of ground vehicles will be electrified. That suggests 99.7% or more of energy consumed by transport must be non-electric (after we add in things like aircraft).
Regarding heating, 79% of Scotland's domestic housing stock uses mains gas as the primary fuel. Electricity is used as the primary fuel for 12% of domestic housing stock. The remainder is heating oil, LPG, solid fuels, coal, biomass (burning wood would be regarded as renewable), burning waste. So perhaps around 12% of Scotland's energy consumption for heating is electrified.
If I assume 0.3% of non-jet-flight transport energy consumption is electrified, 12% of heating energy consumption is electrified, 100% of lighting is electrified, and 100% of gadgets are electrified, but 0% of the categories such as agriculture, stuff, and defence are electrified, we get an estimate that a total of 7% of Scotland's energy consumption is electrified. If instead I assume that 10% of agriculture, stuff and defence are fueled by electricity, then we get an estimate that about 10.4% of Scotland's total energy consumption is electrified.
So my guestimate is that 90% of Scotland's total energy consumption is not fueled by electricity, so in terms of the "big picture" result, 97% renewable electricity consumption would be equivalent to around 10% of total energy consumption being renewable.
(Note this doesn't attempt to estimate anything in terms of CO_2e emissions. For example, wood is a renewable fuel source for heating of dwellings, so burning wood in a fire is a renewable energy source ...but it may not be fantastic from a reduce-cumulative-CO_2e-stored-in-the-atmosphere perspective).
posted by are-coral-made at 4:43 PM on March 26, 2021 [19 favorites]
For example: MacKay estimated that around 30% of the average annual energy consumption of a UK resident is from consumption and transport of "stuff" - ranging from small, fleetingly-lived stuffs like newspapers, to larger stuffs like washing machines or houses.
Here's my attempt to understand this "renewables supplied 97% of electricity demand" in terms of the total energy demand:
It seems like Scotland's total energy consumption metric used to define the renewable energy target only includes the categories of transport + heating + electricity consumption -- it appears to exclude non-electrical energy consumption from agriculture, industry, defence. I reckon it does not include energy consumption in goods imported from other countries. This means that the reported total energy consumption metric is perhaps only 60-65% of the true energy consumption.
Scotland has around 3m licensed vehicles, and around 10k licensed "ultra low emissions" vehicles. So at most 0.3% of energy consumption of ground vehicles will be electrified. That suggests 99.7% or more of energy consumed by transport must be non-electric (after we add in things like aircraft).
Regarding heating, 79% of Scotland's domestic housing stock uses mains gas as the primary fuel. Electricity is used as the primary fuel for 12% of domestic housing stock. The remainder is heating oil, LPG, solid fuels, coal, biomass (burning wood would be regarded as renewable), burning waste. So perhaps around 12% of Scotland's energy consumption for heating is electrified.
If I assume 0.3% of non-jet-flight transport energy consumption is electrified, 12% of heating energy consumption is electrified, 100% of lighting is electrified, and 100% of gadgets are electrified, but 0% of the categories such as agriculture, stuff, and defence are electrified, we get an estimate that a total of 7% of Scotland's energy consumption is electrified. If instead I assume that 10% of agriculture, stuff and defence are fueled by electricity, then we get an estimate that about 10.4% of Scotland's total energy consumption is electrified.
So my guestimate is that 90% of Scotland's total energy consumption is not fueled by electricity, so in terms of the "big picture" result, 97% renewable electricity consumption would be equivalent to around 10% of total energy consumption being renewable.
(Note this doesn't attempt to estimate anything in terms of CO_2e emissions. For example, wood is a renewable fuel source for heating of dwellings, so burning wood in a fire is a renewable energy source ...but it may not be fantastic from a reduce-cumulative-CO_2e-stored-in-the-atmosphere perspective).
posted by are-coral-made at 4:43 PM on March 26, 2021 [19 favorites]
@adept256 £100 a month for both gas and elec is a decent rough average
posted by burr1545 at 4:54 PM on March 26, 2021
posted by burr1545 at 4:54 PM on March 26, 2021
David MacKay's book is essential reading, it completely sidesteps the "how would we pay for it?" and other political nonsense and focuses only on what would be physically possible (or not).
How many wind turbines, how big an area for solar panels, how much arable land for biofuels, etc would be required to meet what passes as a normal lifestyle in the "first world".
After reading it I became hardline anti-nuke, anti-biofuel, anti-private automobile, and anti-air travel, yet the author himself, when advising the UK governement, was pro-nuke. It all comes down to what kind of world one would rather live in, which is where the politics that the book elides (again, to its benefit) come in.
posted by Bangaioh at 5:00 PM on March 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
How many wind turbines, how big an area for solar panels, how much arable land for biofuels, etc would be required to meet what passes as a normal lifestyle in the "first world".
After reading it I became hardline anti-nuke, anti-biofuel, anti-private automobile, and anti-air travel, yet the author himself, when advising the UK governement, was pro-nuke. It all comes down to what kind of world one would rather live in, which is where the politics that the book elides (again, to its benefit) come in.
posted by Bangaioh at 5:00 PM on March 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Pardon me if I'm slightly sceptical of this claim, if only because the category of "renewables" has some ringers in it.
For example, if you cut down all of your ancient forests and burn them in a giant furnace, that is technically renewable even if you never actually plant anything to grow it back. There are signs in the lifts at Heathrow bragging about how they heat the place with "locally-sourced renewable wood pellets" which is a greenwashy way to say "we're cutting down all the trees in Hounslow to heat an airport car park."
Heathrow isn't in Scotland, so that doesn't come into these stats. If you are going to pick on something in these figures then its that Scotland produces way more electricity than it consumes, its supplies a major fraction of GB consumption. The 97% figure is calculated by looking at how much electricity comes from renewables in Scotland and then comparing it with total Scottish consumption. Its basically saying, we use all the RE, all the other stuff goes south. Its still 97% of all electricity consumption in Scotland though.
Offshore wind figures pretty low in Scotland despite GB being a global leader in the tech. Scottish waters get too deep too fast so most offshore wind is in the Irish Sea, North Sea and Thames Estuary. If they ever get floating offshore wind to take off (and there was a big announcement this week) then Scotland is likely to be move ahead with it rapidly, since its pretty windy off their coast. I'm not sure whether stuff that goes on Dogger Bank and similar counts to Scotland of GB or England figures.
Globally, offshore wind is only about 2% of total installed wind capacity, so its not unusual for most places stats to be dominated by onshore wind.
posted by biffa at 6:10 PM on March 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
For example, if you cut down all of your ancient forests and burn them in a giant furnace, that is technically renewable even if you never actually plant anything to grow it back. There are signs in the lifts at Heathrow bragging about how they heat the place with "locally-sourced renewable wood pellets" which is a greenwashy way to say "we're cutting down all the trees in Hounslow to heat an airport car park."
Heathrow isn't in Scotland, so that doesn't come into these stats. If you are going to pick on something in these figures then its that Scotland produces way more electricity than it consumes, its supplies a major fraction of GB consumption. The 97% figure is calculated by looking at how much electricity comes from renewables in Scotland and then comparing it with total Scottish consumption. Its basically saying, we use all the RE, all the other stuff goes south. Its still 97% of all electricity consumption in Scotland though.
Offshore wind figures pretty low in Scotland despite GB being a global leader in the tech. Scottish waters get too deep too fast so most offshore wind is in the Irish Sea, North Sea and Thames Estuary. If they ever get floating offshore wind to take off (and there was a big announcement this week) then Scotland is likely to be move ahead with it rapidly, since its pretty windy off their coast. I'm not sure whether stuff that goes on Dogger Bank and similar counts to Scotland of GB or England figures.
Globally, offshore wind is only about 2% of total installed wind capacity, so its not unusual for most places stats to be dominated by onshore wind.
posted by biffa at 6:10 PM on March 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
then we get an estimate that about 10.4% of Scotland's total energy consumption is electrified.
UK figures suggest total energy consumption in 2019 was 142mtoe, or 1651 TWh. Electricity supplied was 328TWh, so roughly about 20% of total energy. Maybe a little higher for Scotland since the UK average has more people on the gas network so lower average electrical heating.
If I assume 0.3% of non-jet-flight transport energy consumption is electrified
Trains?
posted by biffa at 6:38 PM on March 26, 2021
UK figures suggest total energy consumption in 2019 was 142mtoe, or 1651 TWh. Electricity supplied was 328TWh, so roughly about 20% of total energy. Maybe a little higher for Scotland since the UK average has more people on the gas network so lower average electrical heating.
If I assume 0.3% of non-jet-flight transport energy consumption is electrified
Trains?
posted by biffa at 6:38 PM on March 26, 2021
"Currently 6.5% of our non-electrical heat demand is generated from renewable sources." quote that had my biomass teeth grinding. That could be burning old rubbish for all we know.
There is a report here which is surprisingly useful on Scotland's renewable heat production in 2019. Getting good data for heat is notoriously difficult. About 400GWh seemed to come from Energy from Waste, from a total of 5205 GWh (so <8% of that 6.5%).
Oddly, hospital waste apparently doesn't count as biomass and thus doesn't count as renewable so doesn't go to the RES-H total.
posted by biffa at 6:48 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
There is a report here which is surprisingly useful on Scotland's renewable heat production in 2019. Getting good data for heat is notoriously difficult. About 400GWh seemed to come from Energy from Waste, from a total of 5205 GWh (so <8% of that 6.5%).
Oddly, hospital waste apparently doesn't count as biomass and thus doesn't count as renewable so doesn't go to the RES-H total.
posted by biffa at 6:48 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
"Currently 6.5% of our non-electrical heat demand is generated from renewable sources." quote that had my biomass teeth grinding. That could be burning old rubbish for all we know.
Could be.
Is it?
…
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:39 PM on March 26, 2021
Could be.
Is it?
…
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:39 PM on March 26, 2021
I just answered that question!
posted by biffa at 7:45 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 7:45 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Defining renewable is pretty tricky since what should count varies quite widely depending on the climate of the location in question, what time horizon you consider, and what precisely you are willing to include.
Burning wood pellets in the US Southeast is pretty clearly renewable because pine forests can be regrown completely in 20 years or less. Not so much in places where forests regrow more slowly. More controversially, in countries that have the necessary fuel reprocessing capability, nuclear is arguably renewable since the fuel cycle can be closed. Again, not so much in other places, like the US, where we'd rather leave the barely used fuel sitting in big pools next to the reactor and mine more uranium instead.
posted by wierdo at 8:14 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Burning wood pellets in the US Southeast is pretty clearly renewable because pine forests can be regrown completely in 20 years or less. Not so much in places where forests regrow more slowly. More controversially, in countries that have the necessary fuel reprocessing capability, nuclear is arguably renewable since the fuel cycle can be closed. Again, not so much in other places, like the US, where we'd rather leave the barely used fuel sitting in big pools next to the reactor and mine more uranium instead.
posted by wierdo at 8:14 PM on March 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
What Really Happened During the Texas Power Grid Outage?
The Physics of Windmill Design.
Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030 | Hacker News.
Just some more energy links that may or may not be interesting.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:27 PM on March 26, 2021
The Physics of Windmill Design.
Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030 | Hacker News.
Just some more energy links that may or may not be interesting.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:27 PM on March 26, 2021
"Currently 6.5% of our non-electrical heat demand is generated from renewable sources." quote that had my biomass teeth grinding. That could be burning old rubbish for all we know."
Addressing your implied aversion to waste incineration, when done properly, waste incineration can be much more climate friendly than other common alternative waste handling techniques. See for example the Amager Bakke plant in Copenhagen, which has extensive emissions controls (in fact, a vast majority of the plant is the emissions controls system). There are of course some issues with even this plant (notably, it is apparently oversized and they have to import waste since there isn't enough locally, which is a problem in itself), but in general waste incineration technologies can be a good way to use waste to generate electricity and especially heat for district heating applications.
In fact, in this thread as in the discourse generally, biomass energy technologies get a very bad rap. Sure, shipping wood pellets across the world (as the US currently does to Europe) to run biomass plants is an awful idea. But, using the massive amount of waste that is already created to extract energy from it is more sensible than e.g., composting, where the emissions are still released to the atmosphere, without extracting much energy from it (except in the form of the resulting fertilizer, which in some areas is not needed due to high nitrate levels in the soil).
Finally, with waste to power technologies, there is the argument that it encourages people to be more careless and generate more waste. I haven't read any studies specifically on this, but my impulse is that people's waste generation is way less flexible than is assumed; most people do not make dramatic changes in their lifestyles regardless of how waste is handled in their region (most don't even know what's going on with their waste anyway). With the continuing increase in global population, and the proven trend of higher waste as countries industrialized, we can expect overall waste quantities to increase for many decades to come, and simply landfilling will not be a suitable solution in the long run.
posted by unid41 at 2:32 AM on March 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Addressing your implied aversion to waste incineration, when done properly, waste incineration can be much more climate friendly than other common alternative waste handling techniques. See for example the Amager Bakke plant in Copenhagen, which has extensive emissions controls (in fact, a vast majority of the plant is the emissions controls system). There are of course some issues with even this plant (notably, it is apparently oversized and they have to import waste since there isn't enough locally, which is a problem in itself), but in general waste incineration technologies can be a good way to use waste to generate electricity and especially heat for district heating applications.
In fact, in this thread as in the discourse generally, biomass energy technologies get a very bad rap. Sure, shipping wood pellets across the world (as the US currently does to Europe) to run biomass plants is an awful idea. But, using the massive amount of waste that is already created to extract energy from it is more sensible than e.g., composting, where the emissions are still released to the atmosphere, without extracting much energy from it (except in the form of the resulting fertilizer, which in some areas is not needed due to high nitrate levels in the soil).
Finally, with waste to power technologies, there is the argument that it encourages people to be more careless and generate more waste. I haven't read any studies specifically on this, but my impulse is that people's waste generation is way less flexible than is assumed; most people do not make dramatic changes in their lifestyles regardless of how waste is handled in their region (most don't even know what's going on with their waste anyway). With the continuing increase in global population, and the proven trend of higher waste as countries industrialized, we can expect overall waste quantities to increase for many decades to come, and simply landfilling will not be a suitable solution in the long run.
posted by unid41 at 2:32 AM on March 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
David MacKay's book is essential reading, it completely sidesteps the "how would we pay for it?" and other political nonsense and focuses only on what would be physically possible (or not).
Strongly thirding this! The way he lays out the math is appealingly simple while being absolutely physically rigorous. His book is required reading for anybody who wants to have a discussion about renewable energy that's based on physics rather than politics.
As a side note, I was lucky enough to take his renewable energy class when studying abroad. In the course of a very short spring term, he became the professor who I remember with the most enthusiasm from my whole (embarrassingly long) academic career. In addition to being a renowned researcher he was also a phenomenal instructor who cared about effective pedagogy (and it also shows in his books!).
posted by Metasyntactic at 3:29 AM on March 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
Strongly thirding this! The way he lays out the math is appealingly simple while being absolutely physically rigorous. His book is required reading for anybody who wants to have a discussion about renewable energy that's based on physics rather than politics.
As a side note, I was lucky enough to take his renewable energy class when studying abroad. In the course of a very short spring term, he became the professor who I remember with the most enthusiasm from my whole (embarrassingly long) academic career. In addition to being a renowned researcher he was also a phenomenal instructor who cared about effective pedagogy (and it also shows in his books!).
posted by Metasyntactic at 3:29 AM on March 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
As the planet warms and snow melts are reduced, what is hydroelectric's future?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:16 AM on March 27, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:16 AM on March 27, 2021
Snow melts aren't required for hydroelectric. A warmer planet, if anything, will have more precipitation, and therefore more water flow. Where the water actually flows may be a problem, but also in theory, green technologies will reduce carbon output and therefore stem global warming.
posted by explosion at 5:47 AM on March 27, 2021
posted by explosion at 5:47 AM on March 27, 2021
I’m going to go ahead and ask my stupid question: do people burn peat for heating/cooking, in significant amounts, or is it mostly whisky marketing? Does it count as renewable?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:49 AM on March 27, 2021
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:49 AM on March 27, 2021
I’m going to go ahead and ask my stupid question: do people burn peat for heating/cooking, in significant amounts, or is it mostly whisky marketing? Does it count as renewable?
Peat has been used in the past for heating, yes. I'm more familiar with the history of its use in Ireland, where it has been almost entirely phased out (in 2020, peat represents 1.3% of primary energy in heating sector, 1.1% in the electricity sector) , but I would assume similar in the UK.
No, it is not renewable. The differentiation between renewable vs. non-renewable is the rate at which the resource is used relative to the rate at which it is produced. Renewable does not merely mean it is regenerated (coal too, is regenerated). Rather, the rates of consumption must be equal to or less than the production rate. This isn't an issue for wind/solar/hydro, obviously, but becomes very important for biomass energies. Peat is a particularly bad source of fuel, as it is extremely rich in carbon. It is also lower in calorific content, so you need to burn more of it (relative to coal, for example) to get the same amount of output energy.
posted by unid41 at 7:17 AM on March 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
Peat has been used in the past for heating, yes. I'm more familiar with the history of its use in Ireland, where it has been almost entirely phased out (in 2020, peat represents 1.3% of primary energy in heating sector, 1.1% in the electricity sector) , but I would assume similar in the UK.
No, it is not renewable. The differentiation between renewable vs. non-renewable is the rate at which the resource is used relative to the rate at which it is produced. Renewable does not merely mean it is regenerated (coal too, is regenerated). Rather, the rates of consumption must be equal to or less than the production rate. This isn't an issue for wind/solar/hydro, obviously, but becomes very important for biomass energies. Peat is a particularly bad source of fuel, as it is extremely rich in carbon. It is also lower in calorific content, so you need to burn more of it (relative to coal, for example) to get the same amount of output energy.
posted by unid41 at 7:17 AM on March 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don't think peat has ever been as widely used in GB as it has historically been in Ireland. I haven't seen stats for its consumption in GB but I suspect it's pretty low. It is a pretty atrocious thing to burn, low energy yield per weight but high emissions, damaging to dig up and you are removing a carbon sink when you do.
posted by biffa at 8:24 AM on March 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 8:24 AM on March 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
Snow melts aren't required for hydroelectric. A warmer planet, if anything, will have more precipitation, and therefore more water flow.
Are you sure about this? Doesn't having snow waiting to melt mean you can have smaller reservoirs as you know they will get topped up in the spring? Having all the snow come down as rain just means spilling lots of potential energy doesn't it?
posted by biffa at 8:27 AM on March 27, 2021
Are you sure about this? Doesn't having snow waiting to melt mean you can have smaller reservoirs as you know they will get topped up in the spring? Having all the snow come down as rain just means spilling lots of potential energy doesn't it?
posted by biffa at 8:27 AM on March 27, 2021
Now they just need to learn to eat midges and the Scotland can be truly independent from everything!
posted by srboisvert at 9:00 AM on March 27, 2021
posted by srboisvert at 9:00 AM on March 27, 2021
Snow melts aren't required for hydroelectric
As an example of what I meant, this is something Switzerland is currently having to figure out with its state-level dam megaprojects. Their Alps have less snow, year over year, and dams downstream of smaller snow melts will generate less power over time, as a result. I'd expect this issue would affect mountainous regions like Scotland, which I'd expect is affected by climate warming in ways similar to how nearby Norway is affected.
Not saying this is universally true for all dams everywhere, of course, but I am just curious how climate change factors into the future renewable power generation, generally. More violent weather that results from climate change will require wind farms to be shut down more often, for instance, as high winds damage blades and turbines, in turn reducing energy output. I think this would counter most people's expectations that more powerful wind gusts would automatically be better for wind power generation.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:39 PM on March 27, 2021
As an example of what I meant, this is something Switzerland is currently having to figure out with its state-level dam megaprojects. Their Alps have less snow, year over year, and dams downstream of smaller snow melts will generate less power over time, as a result. I'd expect this issue would affect mountainous regions like Scotland, which I'd expect is affected by climate warming in ways similar to how nearby Norway is affected.
Not saying this is universally true for all dams everywhere, of course, but I am just curious how climate change factors into the future renewable power generation, generally. More violent weather that results from climate change will require wind farms to be shut down more often, for instance, as high winds damage blades and turbines, in turn reducing energy output. I think this would counter most people's expectations that more powerful wind gusts would automatically be better for wind power generation.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:39 PM on March 27, 2021
A quarter of all the wind energy in Europe can be found in Scotland. A few years ago there was a video that went viral - concerning a Scot who was expressing surprise about the trampoline flying past his window during "Hurricane Bawbag".
posted by rongorongo at 2:39 AM on March 28, 2021
posted by rongorongo at 2:39 AM on March 28, 2021
Scotland also, I believe, generates the most tidal electricity, of any country. Again - about a third of all Europe's tidal stream/wave power is generated in Scotland. The amount of electricity from this source is still minuscule compared with other renewables - but it has been estimated that the Pentland Firth - that lies between the Scottish Mainland and Orkney - has up to 10 GW power. for example - so there is considerable potential from this source too.
posted by rongorongo at 3:34 AM on March 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by rongorongo at 3:34 AM on March 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
Peat is a particularly bad source of fuel, as it is extremely rich in carbon.
From what I understand, Finland has also been grappling with the use of peat as a surprisingly large percentage of its GHG emissions, and a not-insignificant source of energy:
In the 1980s and 1990s, peat production increased due to efforts to encourage domestic energy production. But in recent years the trend has been reversed as a response to the climate impact of peat combustion and water pollution problems related to peat extraction. Over 90% of extracted peat is used as energy.
The Government’s 2013 National Energy and Climate Strategy calls for a reduction in the use of peat for energy by a third from the present annual average of 23 TWh by 2025. With a view to the next 10–20 years, the strategy assumes that on each heating period still at least 11–13 TWh of heat energy will be produced with peat, since peat cannot always be replaced with woodchips or other renewables. According to the strategy, peat should not be replaced with coal, even though peat producers report that this is often what follows.
In 2011, a total of 62,000 hectares of land was used for peat production, i.e. around 0.7% of the total area of mires and peatlands in Finland.
Sitra: Finland must stop burning peat sooner:
... in 2018 the burning of peat fuel was "responsible for nearly 12 percent of Finland’s total greenhouse gas emissions," a figure which is more than the total emissions from passenger vehicles.
In the same year, peat provided just 4.5 percent of Finland’s energy needs. Employment in the industry accounts for 0.1 percent of the Finnish workforce, and the share of added value produced by Finland’s economy is also less than 0.1 percent.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:56 PM on March 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
From what I understand, Finland has also been grappling with the use of peat as a surprisingly large percentage of its GHG emissions, and a not-insignificant source of energy:
In the 1980s and 1990s, peat production increased due to efforts to encourage domestic energy production. But in recent years the trend has been reversed as a response to the climate impact of peat combustion and water pollution problems related to peat extraction. Over 90% of extracted peat is used as energy.
The Government’s 2013 National Energy and Climate Strategy calls for a reduction in the use of peat for energy by a third from the present annual average of 23 TWh by 2025. With a view to the next 10–20 years, the strategy assumes that on each heating period still at least 11–13 TWh of heat energy will be produced with peat, since peat cannot always be replaced with woodchips or other renewables. According to the strategy, peat should not be replaced with coal, even though peat producers report that this is often what follows.
In 2011, a total of 62,000 hectares of land was used for peat production, i.e. around 0.7% of the total area of mires and peatlands in Finland.
Sitra: Finland must stop burning peat sooner:
... in 2018 the burning of peat fuel was "responsible for nearly 12 percent of Finland’s total greenhouse gas emissions," a figure which is more than the total emissions from passenger vehicles.
In the same year, peat provided just 4.5 percent of Finland’s energy needs. Employment in the industry accounts for 0.1 percent of the Finnish workforce, and the share of added value produced by Finland’s economy is also less than 0.1 percent.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:56 PM on March 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
Are you sure about this? Doesn't having snow waiting to melt mean you can have smaller reservoirs as you know they will get topped up in the spring? Having all the snow come down as rain just means spilling lots of potential energy doesn't it?
In general yes but the Scottish highlands don't build up the kind of snowpack that the Alps do so it's rather less of an issue.
GB1 as a whole has some of the best wind resources in the world, at this moment, the energy in the grid is coming from:
Non-dispatchable renewables
--Wind 36.5%
--Solar PV 7.6%
Dispatchable renewables
--Biomass 9.4% (sort of renewable)
--Hydro 2%
--Pumped storage hydro 2%
Baseload renewable
--Nuclear 17.2%
Interconnectors
--France 6.6% (to nuclear)
--NEMO 2.6% (Belgium so probably the same as GB power mix overall)
Fossil fuel
--CCGT 17.2%
--Coal 0%
My expectation is that five years from now that wind figure will be higher, at least on a windy day like today, as more offshore wind is commissioned. The amount of CCGT and other fossil *capacity* may stay quite close to what it is now an continue to provide a high % of electricity on the occassional day or week but the total amount of fossil electricity and emissions will continue to go down as these technologies transition from providing bulk energy to providing flexibility. In countries with access to the Dogger bank (England, Netherlands, Denmark) and more generally in countries with access to shallow-ish North Sea waters which also include Scotland, Germany, and Norway it is entirely possible that there will be enough "excess" low marginal cost wind energy from offshore wind (including floating if that can be made to work) that producing green hydrogen by electrolysis becomes pretty cost competitive with other sources of hydrogen. In some of the more extreme scenarios it even becomes cost competitive with fossil natural gas before the cost emissions is even accounted for (but these are extreme, I don't really believe that production costs that low are very likely).
(1) This is the logical unit at which to look at electricity mix, Ireland has an all-island shared synchronous grid as does the island of Britain.
posted by atrazine at 2:43 AM on March 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
In general yes but the Scottish highlands don't build up the kind of snowpack that the Alps do so it's rather less of an issue.
GB1 as a whole has some of the best wind resources in the world, at this moment, the energy in the grid is coming from:
Non-dispatchable renewables
--Wind 36.5%
--Solar PV 7.6%
Dispatchable renewables
--Biomass 9.4% (sort of renewable)
--Hydro 2%
--Pumped storage hydro 2%
Baseload renewable
--Nuclear 17.2%
Interconnectors
--France 6.6% (to nuclear)
--NEMO 2.6% (Belgium so probably the same as GB power mix overall)
Fossil fuel
--CCGT 17.2%
--Coal 0%
My expectation is that five years from now that wind figure will be higher, at least on a windy day like today, as more offshore wind is commissioned. The amount of CCGT and other fossil *capacity* may stay quite close to what it is now an continue to provide a high % of electricity on the occassional day or week but the total amount of fossil electricity and emissions will continue to go down as these technologies transition from providing bulk energy to providing flexibility. In countries with access to the Dogger bank (England, Netherlands, Denmark) and more generally in countries with access to shallow-ish North Sea waters which also include Scotland, Germany, and Norway it is entirely possible that there will be enough "excess" low marginal cost wind energy from offshore wind (including floating if that can be made to work) that producing green hydrogen by electrolysis becomes pretty cost competitive with other sources of hydrogen. In some of the more extreme scenarios it even becomes cost competitive with fossil natural gas before the cost emissions is even accounted for (but these are extreme, I don't really believe that production costs that low are very likely).
(1) This is the logical unit at which to look at electricity mix, Ireland has an all-island shared synchronous grid as does the island of Britain.
posted by atrazine at 2:43 AM on March 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
Arguably almost nothing is renewable in our current global system although we do have substantial global reserves of uranium. Zero emissions would have been a better description since the term "renewable" dates back to a time when the worry was about exhaustion of non-"renewable" reserves and the problem with fossil fuels is not that we're running out soon but that their combustion produces greenhouse gas.
posted by atrazine at 8:48 AM on March 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by atrazine at 8:48 AM on March 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older Whispers to the Overburdened Heart | We Celebrate All Cultures Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by adept256 at 2:52 PM on March 26, 2021 [13 favorites]