Renewables, Drax and Myth Busting No 1

It appears Drax wish to bust some myths about renewable energy (see HERE) They are tweeting about them one by one. So I thought I'd have a go too and dig under the headlines at least for the first so-called "myth" they wish to bust: Here it is.

The First "Myth" they want to bust is...

"Myth 1 — Renewables are unpredictable"

[quote]
There’s more to renewables than solar panels and wind turbines. Tidal power is much more predictable than either, and geothermal power — using heat from the Earth’s core to generate electricity — is almost completely reliable.
As for predictability, sustainable biomass uses compressed wood pellets to generate electricity whenever it is needed. It’s completely predictable. You can use it to produce electricity on demand, to control frequency in a split-second or for baseload power. It’s as reliable as coal or gas, but with a fraction of the carbon emissions.
[unquote]

Yes it is true! There is more to renewables than wind and solar (both of which are hopelessly intermittent)

It is also true tidal power is more predictable and geothermal is reliable too! And that Biomass can provide baseload.  But we still have some problems here. So let us look at these predictable and reliable examples of RE goodness.

Tidal

Sadly in the UK we have barely any tidal power at all. That is because in most places tidal power is simply unfeasible. Consequently little is planned and even this is horrendously expensive and arguably technically dubious.

To cap it all the maximum that could be generated by tidal is 12% of demand. But anyone who believes we could get anywhere near 12% is really living in the world of Tooth Fairies and Easter Bunnies. (h/t to  Dr Jim Hansen HERE)

But lets look at what Tidal there is and what is planned/proposed

MayGen

In Scotland there is a tidal stream scheme (MayGen - HERE). Currently it has a maximum capacity of 6MW ( similar output to that from a single locomotive engine) But the dream is to expand this to is a maximum capacity of 398MW. Either way its capacity factor will be around 20%. (So averaged output power will be about 1.2MW/80MW)

There is a big incentive to build the dream. Tidal Stream generation is the only type of generation that makes offshore wind look cheap.

MayGen will be paid no less than 5 ROCs subsidy (or £225) per MWh. This means that typically they will be paid £260 per MWh whereas normal generators (gas/nuclear) get paid about £43 per MWh.

To be fair MayGen is verging on experimental. It is the very tip of the state of the art.

We know Tidal Stream power may be predictable. But is it viable? Or affordable? I'll leave you to decide.

But one thing is certain: It ain't going to be the golden bullet to save intermittent RE anytime soon.

Swansea bay Tidal Lagoon

Then there is the proposed Swansea Tidal lagoon. This will have a (very, very) brief maximum output of 320MW. But its capacity factor will be less than 20%. Averaged over a year its output power will equate to approximately 60MW. The estimated cost of building this thing is £1.3 Billion (Ouch!).

That is about the same cost as building a 1.2GW (i.e. 20x the output) CCGT gas plant.

Compared to the Scottish tidal stream scheme though, the Swansea lagoon will be cheap with only 1.8 ROCs subsidy per MWh. It will be only 3 times the cost of normal generators.

Again. Predictable it may be. Affordable? Viable? Or even environmentally benign? You decide.

(Euan Mearns did a wonderfully complete analysis of the Swansea Tidal Lagoon  HERE.)

Geothermal

Just like Tidal power, in the UK we have little to no geothermal power generation.

In fact the UK is geologically a bad place for geothermal energy. True - we can tap shallow underground heat for heat pumps and space heating but electricity generation? Really?

As far as I can tell the prospect for any significant geothermal power generation in the UK is Nil.

End of.

Biomass

Then we come to the meat and potatoes of the Drax myth busting. Their glorious Biomass.

Happily I have to say that just about everything they say is true. I (sort of) believe them in their sustainablity claims as well. But there are problems.

But first - a pedantic point:
---------------------------------
[quote]
.....It’s as reliable as coal or gas, but with a fraction of the carbon emissions.
[unquote]

DON'T BE SILLY! Of course burning biomass emits Carbon Dioxide and MWh for MWh virtually the same as coal!! The fact that you offset that by replanting does not mean that magically no Carbon Dioxide or pollutants get emitted when you burn wood pellets! You could equally offset coal by planting trees - you just can't use the same space.
----------------------------------------

But back to what I see as a major problem with biomass.

Bear in mind to simply maintain the current Drax 2GW generation in a sustainable manner will require an immense 12000 sq Km of forest. (Wikipedia HERE)

How much more biomass can we (morally or practically) import from abroad?

I don't know.

But I would suspect that we are already at the limits of sustainably maintaining a supply of wood to the existing Drax wood burning plant.

So there you go. If you want non-intermittent RE in the UK, in reality you've got Biomass.

But how much more Biomass can we build before we start seriously damaging the environment?

Anyone who knows the answer to that one please tell me.

I'd love to know.

Fukushima – the Hidden Epidemic

I hope to show in this post how the events at Fukushima and the subsequent actions of the Japanese government effectively signed the death warrant for thousands of Japanese people and consigned many more to ill health and premature death. I will also show that sadly, this is a continuing and on-going problem with no end in sight.

A great deal of lurid speculation has surrounded the melt downs at Fukushima. But surprisingly, (it is now two years since the Tsunami) there has been no indication of any actual loss of life from radiation from any reputable body.

But significant loss of life there has been. Without a doubt.

The press and media have distracted people from this silent epidemic by their lurid (often fictional, usually ignorant)  sensationalist news reports. The result is that most people are now focussing on the wrong issue.

To get a handle on this epidemic we  need to consider events that took place all across Japan immediately after the Tsunami. Particularly we need to see what happened to Japanese power generation.

After the melt downs,  the Japanese government ordered the shutdown of all nuclear plant in Japan. Today, two years on, only two reactors are in operation. As Japan relied on nuclear power for close on to 30% of its electricity, these shut downs left a very large hole in Japan's generation capability. A hole that had to be filled by other generating capacity.

Here is a a set of tables up to end 2011 of  Japanese fossil energy usage for electrical generation

From this you can see Natural Gas generation rose by 58 TWh, coal by 57 TWh, and Oil by 9 TWh through 2011.  It would seem reasonable to assume the split remained much the same through 2012, if not somewhat higher in total

Now we come to some highly regarded published and peer reviewed papers

The first paper (published in Environmental Science and Technology paper available HERE) is by Hansen and Kheracha (if you don't know who Dr Jim Hansen is then you must have been asleep for the last ten years)

They reference a second paper (published in The Lancet medical journal - paper available HERE) by Markandya and Wilkinson. Both papers revolve around this table showing the number of deaths caused by electrical generation. While this table refers to Europe, I would argue is equally valid for Japan.

The extra Coal based electrical generation, (displacing Nuclear) kills through air pollution, 24 people per TWh of generation. Over the two year period that comes to (24 x 57 x 2) = 2736 deaths, 25,000 serious illnesses and untold minor ailments.

Extra Natural Gas based electrical generation has caused (3 x 58 x 2) = 348 extra deaths, 3400 serious illnesses and  again thousands of minor illnesses

Oil based electrical generation statistically kills 19.2 people per TWh. So the additional oil based generation has caused the deaths of ( 19 x 9 x 2) = 342 extra deaths, 2900 serious illnesses and another legion of minor illnesses.

Assuming Nuclear would have originally handled all this (i.e. 57 + 58 + 9 = 124 TWh),  then the statistical deaths from nuclear would have amounted to (0.052 x 124 x 2) = 12 deaths and 54 serious illnesses.

So there we have our hidden plague. Death brought about NOT BY nuclear power, but brought about by NOT HAVING nuclear power. An epidemic killing almost 3500 people in two years ( that is nearly 33 a week) and leaving many times that number ill and incapacitated.

Of course, this slaughter can be stopped within a few days. But that requires political courage and an honesty beyond that seen so far in Japanese politics.

Basically somebody has to stand up, explain the statistical risks to the Japanese people from nuclear power. Then detail the continuing carnage from the fossil fuel replacement.

Then they need to turn the nuclear plant back on.

(my figures are highly conservative. The most likely death toll from this silent plague is considerably higher)

Wind and the Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

One of the latest little scams our wind turbines aficionado's are trying to pull is to justify their obscenely expensive and ineffective Wind Turbine generators (WTG's) by inventing fictional subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear. The latest and greatest of these has the carpet baggers claiming that that the massive ROC subsidy received by wind is on par with or even less than that received by gas, oil and coal.

Of course, this is a load of tosh. Just as it is a load tosh that wind is cheaper than nuclear (See this Post).

Here is a fine example of this bufoonery at The Guardian - Here  (where does the Guardian get their reporters from?). You have to ask: Do Guardian journalists ever read the documents they supposedly quote from? Or do they just do as they are told? 

According to our Guardian scribbler, poor hard done-by wind (which at best produces 1% total energy supply) "only" got £700M subsidy in 2010. Whereas (shock horror probe) the demon spawn of Satan (aka fossil fuels) received a whopping £3.63 Billion. 

He supposedly derives this from an OECD document available Here. Pity the journalist didn't read it first. I have to ask if Guardian journalist are just naturally lazy or so dedicated to spewing out propaganda they willingly subvert the truth to aid their carpet bagging friends in the wind industry.

At the end of this document from the OECD are three tables that summarize the subsidies received by coal oil and gas (produced at the end of this post)

Each of these tables itemise the folowing:
A "Producer subsidy" i.e. the subsidy received by the energy producer.
A "Consumer" subsidy which relates to the reduced VAT rate charged on all electricity and heating (however generated) 
Finally, a subsidy for inherited liabilities. (£8.5M - coal only)

These are the producer subsidies:
Coal: Nil (Coal provides approx 14% total energy)
Gas: £233M (Gas provides approx 40% total energy)
Oil: £301M (Oil provides approx 38% total energy)

These subsidies though are acknowledged by the OECD as for specific purposes, not like the ROC which simply lines the pockets of the shysters running the WTG scam.

What this ridiculous article includes in to order to get to £3.63 Billion is the Consumer subsidy. This of course, applies to all energy providers including wind and relates to consumers NOT providers. Wind (whose energy is also subject  to the same consumer VAT reduction from 20% to 5%) still gets an another £700M. All for their measly 1% annual contribution to the UK energy mix.

I can only see this as a fundamentally dishonest and decietful misuse of data in order to promote a mistruth. The fact that this appears in a supposedly  upstanding newpaper is absolutely unforgivable.

 You can guarantee ther wind industry and their pals will try and pull this trick again.

Just remember, even if you consider the consumer VAT tax reduction a subsidy, then it is a subsidy to consumers. It is a subsidy to people who use the energy NOT the producers. The reduced VAT tax on energy makes no difference to the wholesale sell-out price for that energy whatever it is derived from. It relates to fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro,  and any other energy generation technique.

This non existent fossil fuel subsidy just comes down to another self promotional myth from the wind industry and their sycophants.

One day they may start telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

(tables follow)

King Coal Aberdare and Devil: Corrections

Thanks to JAA I've found the tomb of the Penitent Coal Baron. (See Post Here)

Here it is:

(above image copyright Ray Jones licensed under Creative Commons Licence)

Actually though,  Robert Thompson Crawshay (1817 - 1879) was an Iron Baron, Victorian rather than Edwardian, and not as bad as some of his peer group.

Further more he is buried in Merthyr Tydfil rather than Aberdare.

Except for that (and a few other minor embellishments) the story was at least 372% accurate. Wikipedia page on R.T. Crawshay here

My only defence for the errors in my story are excessive quantities of alchohol, a 40 year gap and the fact that it was told to me by a retired and poetically drunk Welsh miner.

But personally I don't consider my error (or the miner's) that bad.

Under the circumstances, I think we both did quite well.

The Case against Coal

Both Coal and Nuclear provide excellent base load electrical generation. Both are in a league of their own for cost and reliability.

So why should we replace the coal plant with nuclear? Why not keep things diversified? Can we not use the coal as spinning reserve for wind?

Besides the CO2 emissions, there is another very good reason why we should build more nuclear and use it the retire coal fired plant. (which of course means we can then forget about the nightmare of wind and its intermittency)

It is in a table at DECC Here screenshot below.

Need I say more?