Tuesday, 6 August 2019

Young Family Members will abhor the ramifications of YOUR activities: On THEIR Lifestyles and THEIR Planet!

Powerful NGOs, well-rewarded lobbyists, industry bosses, influential individuals and Parliamentarians – supporters of renewable technologies, are chivvying for 35 GW of onshore wind:

Onshore wind has by far the lowest capital cost per MWh of generation, of any renewable technology.

Do you have any idea of the capital cost of 35 GW of onshore wind?
What about the capital cost of the equivalent 10.5 GW of nuclear power?

35 GW of onshore wind is 65 Whitelee-sized windfarms. They would have a capital cost £39.00 billion and would generate intermittent electricity, for their 22.5-year lifespan and occupy 3,445 km² of land.

10.5 GW of nuclear power is 3.22 Sizewell C-sized nuclear power plants [npps]. They would have a capital cost of £51.53 billion and would generate 24/7 electricity, for their 60-year design life from sites occupying 2.16 km² [1/1600th of the area].

The capital cost of onshore wind for 60 years of generation increases by a ratio of 60:22.5 and rises to £104.00 billion  
2X the capital cost of nuclear.
The Capital Cost of a Technology Reveals the dark side!

There is no hiding place! There is no room for obfuscation.

If the capital cost of a technology is high, it tells of:

Unnecessary waste of precious material.
Wanton use of costly resources.
Excessive use of energy - fossil-fuelled for the vast majority of the time.
Unproductive involvement of high-cost labour.

35 GW of onshore windfarms use an extra 15,180,000 tonnes of steel more than the nuclear power plants.

That will waste 84 TWh of energy
mainly fossil-fuelled energy [the lifespan generation of 2.9 Whitelees].

For all of that steel, 24,290,000 extra tonnes of iron ore will be used and 11,690,000 more tonnes of coal burned.

For land-wrecking turbine foundations and roads, an extra 28,733,000 tonnes of concrete will be laid.

5.10 TWh of fossil-fuelled energy used ,  
966,000 tonnes of coal burned, 3,278,000 tonnes of COreleased.


For the sake of the Younger Members of your Family, you need to:

Consider what the future holds for them, in economical and environmental terms, long after you’re gone.

Search your conscience if your support of renewables imposes upon them:

2X the capital cost; 18X the unwarranted waste of precious materials and resources.

The attendant GHG emissions and fossil-fuelled energy use every step of the way, from mining/quarrying, through processing, manufacture and installation.

Envision for them, their experience of 1600X the scenic desecration, ecosystem destruction, species wipe-out and waste mountains.

U-Turn your antipathy towards LOW-CARBON/RENEWABLE NUCLEAR POWER.

Make nuclear ‘happen’ by helping to negate the crippling cost of capital, through supporting Government proposals for pragmatic financing of npps.

Use your good offices and prominence to ‘tell it straight’, to the general public, politicians and the media.

Cease hiding behind the obfuscation and duplicity that defines the renewable technology industries.
Note: 35 GW of onshore wind is 3.22X the onshore wind capacity required to generate the same total of MWh as 3,260 MW of nuclear power [e.g: Hinkjley Point C]. All of the figures quoted above are 3.22X greater than the calculated data from this link:

Hinkley Point C Vs Whitelee Windfarm: Steel [All Metals] & Concrete

Monday, 5 August 2019

Hinkley Point C Vs Whitelee Windfarm: Steel [All Metals] & Concrete

It would take >20 windfarms the size of Whitelee to generate the same amount of intermittent electricity every year as the 24/7 electricity generated by Hinkley [See links below]. But since windfarms only have an average lifespan of 22.5 years, compared with Hinkley’s 60 year design life, that’s equivalent to 54 Whitelee-sized windfarms.

Steel/All Metals HPC
All site: 230,000 t Rebar + 2(70,903 t [All Metals]/1600 MW] = 371,806 t
Installed Capacity: 3260 MW. Design Life: 60 years. Capacity Factor: 90%.
Electricity generated: 1542.1 TWh

Steel used per unit of electricity generated: 0.241 kg/MWh

Steel/All Metals, Whitelee
Per Turbine: 40 t Rebar + 320 t [Turbine} + 80 t [Nacelle] = 440 t
Total for 215 Turbines: 94,600 t
Installed Capacity: 539 MW. Lifespan: 22.5 years. Capacity Factor: 27%
Electricity generated: 28.7 TWh

Steel used per unit of electricity generated: 3.296 kg/MWh

Per unit of electricity generated:
Wind Power uses 13.7X more Steel 
[All Metals] than Nuclear Power.


Concrete, HPC
All site: 3,000,000 t
Concrete used per unit of electricity generated: 1.945 kg/MWh

Concrete, Whitelee
All site: Whitelee 120,000 t + Whitelee Extension 100,800 t = 220,800 t

Concrete used per unit of electricity generated: 7.693 kg/MWh

Per unit of electricity generated:
Wind Power uses 4.0X more Concrete
than Nuclear Power.

54 such windfarms would use 5,085,900 tonnes of steel/all metals.
That's an extra 4,714,000 tonnes of steel [all metals]. 
About Steel – Raw Materials:

20 GJ of energy is 5.556 MWh of energy used for every tonne of steel produced. For the extra 4,714,000 tonnes of steel needed, an extra 26 TWh of energy is required [20 years of Whitelee Windfarm 22.5 years lifespan]. Then there’s the mining of an extra 7,542,400 tonnes of iron ore and 3,629,800 tonnes of coal [770 kg coal/600 kg coke]; this is shipped by 80 – 140,000 tonne bulk carriers.

54 such windfarms would use 11,923.200 tonnes of concrete. 
That’s an extra 8,923,200 tonnes of concrete.

The extra 8,923,200 tonnes of concrete uses 1.583 TWh of energy [1¼ years of Whitelee’s generation]. Coal use is 300,000 tonnes and CO2 emissions 1.018 million tonnes [1.77 years of Whitelee’s generation].
“…The CCC has suggested that if the current block was lifted, 35GW of onshore wind could be deployed by 2035 to help to meet the UK’s carbon reduction targets…”
35 GW Onshore wind by 2035
35 GW of Onshore Wind – That’s 65 Whitelee-sized Windfarms. 
How much avoidable Waste of Steel? 
How much avoidable Waste of Concrete?

Time for another Blog Post!

Thursday, 4 July 2019

The CCC says you’re getting H2 piped into your house soon. It’s made by SMR with CCuS and it’s going to cost you £1,270 more each year – FOREVER!

Who are the CCC – “…It provides independent, expert advice about reducing greenhouse gas emissions to UK and devolved governments and parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…”

 In 2017, domestic customers used 309.2 TWh of natural gas.

 UK - Natural Gas Flow Chart 2018 [TWh]

Page 2:  Average annual household energy bills (based on fixed consumption of……….15,000 kWh per annum for gas). Note: From the 309.2 TWh total use, this works out at 21,280,000 households using natural gas.
Page 13: Average annual domestic bill – Gas: £646

The cost of manufacturing hydrogen from Natural Gas, with CCuS in Europe is US$2.3/kgH2.

1 kg of Hydrogen has an Energy Content of 33.33 kWh/kg

15,000 kWh would use 450 kg of hydrogen. At a manufacturing cost of US$2.3/kg and an exchange rate of £0.81/US$, – with no profit margin – 
The cost of hydrogen would be: £838.00

Compare this to the wholesale price of natural gas: 
[Using interactive cursor] 01 June 2018 – 55 p/therm. 

29.3 kWh per therm = 1.877p/kWh. With a profit margin – 
The cost of 15,000 kWh of natural gas would be £282.00
Therms to kWh

£838.00 is a factor of 2.97X greater than £282.00

It would be perfectly reasonable to apply this factor to the average domestic bill for natural gas of £646.00
The domestic bill for hydrogen would rise to £1.916.00
An increase of £1,270.00 per year, FOREVER.

Applying this to 21,280,000 households, for decarbonising heating, cooking and hot water:
£27 billion would be paid out each year by domestic natural gas customers

CCuS is untried and untested at industrial scale and substantial doubts exist that it will ever get off the ground.

3,200 MW Sizewell C will cost £16 billion and supply 7% of the UK’s electricity. £27 billion each year would pay for 5,400 MW of nuclear power plant.

In 8½ years we could pay for 100% of the UK’s electricity from nuclear power.

Never mind the CCC’s ‘Net Zero’, with its hydrogen/CCuS; biomass-burning/CCuS; planting millions of trees!

Nuclear power gets the UK as close as any power generation technology can possibly get us, to:

Monday, 27 May 2019

A very poor month for wind power - July 2018. £472 billion in Batteries to meet the average.

The cost of batteries to raise the electricity shortfall, during one month of low wind, to the annual average.

July 2018 - told in 3 pictures:



Thursday, 14 March 2019

The 100% UK Low-Carbon Electricity Gold Medal Goes to Nuclear - £71 Billion for 60 Years.

But what about 100% low-carbon electricity from wind and solar power with backup?

The UK uses 340 TWh of electricity every year. It is unthinkable that the German-ification of our landscape and near-shore seascape, from wind and solar farms, could be forced upon us here in the UK.

A reasonably 'sensible' choice of wind and solar might be:
Solar PV 10%; Onshore Wind 30%; Offshore wind 60%

Solar PV would cost £86 billion to generate for 60 years:

Onshore Wind would cost £115 billion to generate for 60 years:

Offshore Wind would cost £276 billion to generate for 60 years:

Fossil-fuelled CCGTs are used to backup renewables. At peak times of demand, regular periods of low wind and solar conditions need some 60 GW of CCGT capacity to guarantee supply. CCGTs would cost £50 billion to generate for 60 years:

100% UK Low[ish]-Carbon electricity generated from wind & solar + backup for 60 years, tots up to:
£527 billion

That is 7.4X the cost of 100% Low-Carbon electricity generated from nuclear power for 60 years:

7.4X the cost for renewables! Why? 

18X to 30X the use of precious materials and resources; massive use of fossil-fuelled energy every step of the way, from mining/quarrying, through transport, processing, manufacture and installation.

For those of us who love our countryside and seashores, we risk the horrors of a sorry reality: 1000X the scenic desecration, ecosystem destruction, species wipe-out and landfilled polluting/toxic waste-mountains.

Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, has mandated the Committee for Climate Change [CCC], chaired by Lord Deben, to dictate the technological path to meet a ‘Zero Emissions by 2050’ target. Beyond Hinkley Point C, 'New Nuclear' virtually disappears from the mix.

Proof, if proof were needed, that the CCC is manifestly pro-renewables/anti-nuclear. Its Chair, Lord Deben, tainted by his family links to financial income from bio-fuelled [i.e. renewable technology] Drax Power Station.

Philip Hammond' £1 trillion is well short of the cost of 100% decarbonisation via the CCC route. That £527 billion to decarbonise electricity can be increase threefold to decarbonise heating and hot water to buildings and decarbonise much of the transport sector.

Under £200 billion to do all of that using advanced nuclear - over £1.5 trillion using renewables:£1,500,000,000,000. 
Who pays? Every year, over the 30 years to 2050, that would be £2,000 per household.

Ignoring passively-safe, advanced nuclear power plants to get our nation 100% decarbonised by 2050 will drain family finances, crush our lifestyle choices and shrink business and industry with enormous job losses.

It will degrade the environment out of all recognition.
And it's the young members of all of our families who will pay the price.