Will the gas crisis herald a new era of green fuel.or not?

[malificent7]

Just been thinking that if fosdil fuels are going up in price will it incentivise governments to turn to green fuel. There used to be a solar panel initiative....what happened to that? Perhaps the silver lining to all this is that green fuel is the only viable option.
However obviously i'm worried about gas price rises and the effect on normal families.

@CandyLeBonBon

I will read the links in good faith.

However, installed capacity isn’t a good way to measure the effectiveness of solar.

The “effectiveness” isn’t a measure though. Are you asking how much a panel generates? That is dependent on all sorts of factors such as light levels, positioning etc.

Mine is a large array on a south facing roof and my battery is also quite large. This means our need to take electricity from the grid will be minimal, particularly in the summer months since the battery will store enough for our evening/nighttime needs. If we generate more than we either need or can store then this gets bought back by the electricity company for others to use.

If you can afford the panels and battery in the first place then it’s a no brainer (ours are on interest free credit which helps). I suspect there will be subsidies again going forwards since the country needs to reduce its reliance on gas (which is used to make much of our electricity).

[quote Todayissunny]@GlobalForce apparently there is also a shortage of uranium (can't remember why), so this is another reason why nuclear is also not a long term solution.[/quote]
My understanding is there’s no danger of us running out of Uranium in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children/grandchildren, there have however been problems in the the extraction/production chain.

That has led to a the perception that there’s a risk of short term shortages has made some headlines mainly in financial/energy industry press.

The U.K. government doesn't really need to be incentivised. They have set pretty ambitious net zero targets compared to other countries.

As mentioned, part of the current issue is that the wind turbines we have were generating less energy than expected due to low wind levels.

We can certainly do more but I don't really think this about needing to incentivise the government. We are hosting COP26 in November and are currently in the process of pressuring other countries to improve their own offerings in advance of that gathering.

@HasaDigaEebowai

The “effectiveness” isn’t a measure though. Are you asking how much a panel generates? That is dependent on all sorts of factors such as light levels, positioning etc.

Mine is a large array on a south facing roof and my battery is also quite large. This means our need to take electricity from the grid will be minimal, particularly in the summer months since the battery will store enough for our evening/nighttime needs. If we generate more than we either need or can store then this gets bought back by the electricity company for others to use.

If you can afford the panels and battery in the first place then it’s a no brainer (ours are on interest free credit which helps). I suspect there will be subsidies again going forwards since the country needs to reduce its reliance on gas (which is used to make much of our electricity).

That's my thinking too!

Relying on the weather for energy is ridiculous. Nuclear is the only way to go but the government have spent too long fannying about and shutting down coal mines instead of getting on with building new nuclear stations.
Solar panels mean people who rent are subsidising the middle classes who own their homes, completely wrong.

The “effectiveness” isn’t a measure though. Are you asking how much a panel generates? That is dependent on all sorts of factors such as light levels, positioning

Yes output versus installed capacity

Mine is a large array on a south facing roof and my battery is also quite large. This means our need to take electricity from the grid will be minimal, particularly in the summer months since the battery will store enough for our evening/nighttime needs. If we generate more than we either need or can store then this gets bought back by the electricity company for others to use

Good for you in the summer. I really mean that, though it sounds sarcastic!

However, I’d be concerned about winter, you would need instant access to backup fuel. I suppose that will come via the grid but my worry would be that if your solar panels aren’t generating, then the grid is going to be overworked particularly if there’s already a significant percentage of renewables powering the grid.

Your power interruption would happen at the time you needed it most. It’s probably why I would fight to maintain fossil fuel heavy grid (or nuclear, which is actually my preference)

I suspect there will be subsidies again going forwards since the country needs to reduce its reliance on gas (which is used to make much of our electricity)

See, I have a fundamental disagreement with you as I don’t see any reason to reduce our reliance on gas. Imported gas, maybe. So we could do more fracking in the UK if the powers that be allowed us to, which is preferable to me than relying on foreign sources.

About 30 years ago, my dh was working on what was to going to be a whole family of Nuclear power planets - Sizewell B. Then the government pulled the plug on the programme. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There are 2 articles on this in this weekend's FT, with differing viewpoints. I'll try and share, but I'm not sure if it'll work. Anyway, they are both worth reading.
on.ft.com/3o7ko4S
and
on.ft.com/3kIWLhe

correction - Sizewell B was to be the 1st of a family of plants, runout over the whole country

The problem is that renewables are fine and dandy, until the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Then we all go scooting back to other sources, which have to be kept running and available.

We are lucky enough to be receiving an inheritance soon, I'm seriously considering photovoltaic solar panels and an air source heat pump.

For most people that huge outlay is inconceivable.

[quote MaMaLa321]About 30 years ago, my dh was working on what was to going to be a whole family of Nuclear power planets - Sizewell B. Then the government pulled the plug on the programme. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There are 2 articles on this in this weekend's FT, with differing viewpoints. I'll try and share, but I'm not sure if it'll work. Anyway, they are both worth reading.
on.ft.com/3o7ko4S
and
on.ft.com/3kIWLhe[/quote]
Such a missed opportunity

Yeah, fission is a greenish option in that it doesn't produce greenhouse gases once the plant is built. It's politically a really difficult thing to do because of the problems of potential leaks and waste storage. And the waste is dangerous for 1000s of years. It may be an essential short term solution imo, but I'm not sure whether it will play out like that.
The other nuclear hope is fusion, that would be politically a very easy sell. It's likely to be up and running on a small scale by around 2035, but that's not soon enough I don't think, as it will then need to be massively scaled up. Waste from fusion is less and only lasts about 100 years plus the fuel is available everywhere.
In terms of the OP question, I think shortages would have to go on for quite a while for us to reach a tipping point. Although there has already been a real change in the discourse on the subject since around 2018.

It's likely to be up and running on a small scale by around 2035, but that's not soon enough I don't think

I’d like to think that, I hope that is true but we can’t rely on it..

As I and at least one other person with a long memory on this forum has pointed out fusion power for domestic use has been promised /“just around the corner” since the ‘70s…serious attempts at containment date back to the 50s (cf.Tokamak).

It’s certainly very much something to be desired, IMHO, but we can’t plan on it.

And the waste is dangerous for 1000s of years. It may be an essential short term solution imo, but I'm not sure whether it will play out like that

We produce so many chemicals that are incredibly harmful to human health, some of which are forever toxic (think things like cadmium and arsenic), why is it this one industrial byproduct makes people so irrationally afraid? Why can’t we think it like any other hazardous waste material?

[quote Todayissunny]@GlobalForce apparently there is also a shortage of uranium (can't remember why), so this is another reason why nuclear is also not a long term solution.[/quote]
WE should Thorium instead. No radioactive waste and there's plenty of it. Sadly you can't make bombs from it though.

Yes output versus installed capacity

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. If I can generate 100 units of energy then the fact that my panels could have generated 200 units if I lived in Arizona is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that I have generated 100 units and that is 100 fewer units I need to buy from the grid. If the cost of me installing the panels is lower than the cost of me buying those units from the grid then I’m quids in (which I am - but for me that wasn’t the point of buying them. I bought for environmental reasons). The fact that they will save me money is just a bonus.