I was idly speculating this morning about how much Hydrogen we would need to produce to replace conventional fuels.
For the non engineers this is going to have some big numbers the TL:DR version is yes we could but we will have to build a bucket load of electricity generation capacity.
I use k = kilo M=Mega G=giga
According to the Dukes report 2020. Pre plague the UK was using 56.7 Mtoe Million tonnes oil equivalent of fuels for transport.
If we were to replace all this with Hydrogen we would need to significantly up our generation capacity.
So:
The energy capacity of H2 is 142.2 MJ/kg (mejajoules per kilo).
This equates to 17,000,000 tonnes H2 per year to meet the fuel demand*
New capacity H2 plants do about 30 tonnes/day so 1525 new hydrogen producing plants will be required to meet this demand.
To produce Hydrogen via electrolysis takes about 48 kWh/kg** (kilowatt hours per kilo)or 172MJ/kg (megajoules per kilo).
Energy required is 7866850 GJ/dy (gigajoules per day) or 91GW (gigawatts).
Total grid generation capacity is 80 GW.
So we would have to more than double our energy generation capacity to complete this switch.
Gas prices. TL/DR. Bloody government. Changing grid entry specs and investing in storage solves a load of our current problems.
There are two factors which are having a huge impact on the UK gas prices at the moment (winter 2022 )that are within the control of the UK government to solve.
Firstly.
National grid entry specifications. Gas going into the grid has got to be of a certain quality. 40 MJ/m3 (megajoules per cubic meter) to be exact. The actual rate you pay for the gas on a day by day basis is based on a ratio of its energy content.
The energy content of different gas fields is different due to variations in the composition of the gas in those fields.
The problem here is that this specification was set many decades ago. There are currently quite a few fields that produce lower spec gas, around 38-40 MJ/m3, but these can only put gas into the grid if there is sufficient blend gas available to make the minimum spec over 40 MJ/m3.
Now, we are short of blend gas. Mainly because the higher quality fields are older, less reliable and are producing lower quantities of gas now. This means that we often cut back our gas flows due to availability of blend gas.
So we are self limiting our gas supplies based on an arbitrary number that has no real basis in reality, creating artificial shortages and contributing to higher gas prices.
BTW We in the upstream energy sector were talking I about this problem 5 years ago. So it is not a hindsight thing at all.
Secondly
The government allowed Centrica to shut down the Rough gas field. The original purpose of this field was to provide winter supplies of gas whilst allowing Centrica to buy gas in the summer for cheap, pump it underground and sell in back in the winter for a profit. This supported the whole gas supply chain to the country by providing a constant demand for the gas producers, enabling the offshore platforms to run more economically.
At some point Centrica decided they weren’t making enough money from the asset and asked the government for permission to shut it down. This was granted and the fact that Amber Rudd is now a director of Centrica is purely coincidental I am sure.
Recently (once it became blinding obvious even to the government how much trouble we were in) Centrica were bunged a huge chunk of cash to reopen the field and by some pretty solid efforts managed to restore 20% of the fields capacity for this winter. (Hats off to them, I didn’t think they could achieve it).
So it turns out that we do need that storage capacity. We do need constant investment in maintenance and upgrades and we need the government to stop treating the country like they are used car salesman trying to meet a quarterly target.
This has been bugging me for days so I thought I should just let it out there. There are a lot of issues that we face as a country, but more than most people appreciate are well within our control to solve and are solvable by very small changes in policy or slight changes in budget allocation.
Have you ever noticed how that whenever a post about renewable power comes up there is always a group of people saying the same old negative things which are either out of date, wrong or both.
Rather than have to write the rebuttals out again and again I thought I should record them in one handy blog post for future copying and pasting. I hope this is also of some use to others.
The UK has invested pretty heavily in the wind industry as I am writing this there are huge multi gigawatt scale projects being constructed in the North Sea. Not too far from where I live you can see at least 20 wind turbine bases in construction in a production line that are getting shipped offshore as fast as they can be built. Now if they didn’t work this represents a pretty big mistake on the part of the government and industry.
Wind Turbines don’t work and have to be backed up by 100% spinning reserve.
The power generated by wind has been increasing year on year. This can be monitored on a minute by minute basis here:
Some key charts showing where our power comes from:
DUKES 2020 Chart 5.6 shares of electricity generation by fuel
But how much power did they really generate? Well in 2019 a record 121TWh.
Strangely the amount of fuel used in electricity generation is coming down in line with the increase in renewable power. So it looks like the renewables don’t have to be backed up with 100% spinning reserve.
2. Wind power is too expensive
Historically yes, 5 years offshore wind was expensive with the CFD price paid at around £140/MWh. However the ones being built now are in fact quite a bit cheaper than gas with a strike price £39.6 to £41.6/MWh. You can see the results of the round 3 CFD awards here:
Consider a typical 6 MW offshore turbine. Its availability factor is 39.6% and it has a 25 year life. Therefore during its life it may generate of 520GWh at a strike price of £41.6 /MWh this turbine will generate £21.6 Million in revenue.
Now if it is like Hywind which recently reported availability of 65% then the revenue is up to £47.4 Million. The total Hywind project cost is reported at £120 million for 5 turbines in total. With an expected lifetime revenue of £237 million.
Hornsea 2 1.4 GW capacity strike price is £57.5/MWh lifetime revenue generation at 39.6% availability = £6.98 billion
For projects commissioning in the next 5 years it looks like the UK government expect that large scale wind and solar is significantly cheaper than the latest design of gas turbine power stations. So if wind turbines don’t pay for themselves then no other form of power generation does either.
4. Wind turbines consume more power to make than they produce in operation.
Consider a typical 6MW offshore turbine. The entire structure weighs around 1000-1500 tonnes. During its life it may generate of 520GWh of power or 1873238.4 GJ The energy cost of steel production is around 19 GJ/tonne. 98591 tonnes of steel can be produced by this one turbine. Or enough to produce 66-99 equivalent turbines.
In fact the turbine pays back its energy debt in 0.4 years.
5. Wind turbines produce more carbon dioxide than they save
Same as above. The wind turbine produces enough energy to replicate itself multiple times without any additional fuel, so this cannot be true.
6. Wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and will fill up our landfills
Wind turbine blades going to landfill is a problem. To solve the problem we need two things.
Reliable feedstock of used turbine blades
Suitable technology to dispose of them.
We won’t have a good feedstock for a few years yet as the amount of blades in landfill are too small however, this will come. As to the technology, there are multiple options in development.
As we know there is no magic bullet to solve the world energy issues, the problems are multifaceted and the solutions many, from making better consumer choices to switching away from coal power stations to more efficient/hybrid and electric cars. However the technologies we need are already well established and slowly being adopted. For a comprehensive list of solutions see www.drawdown.org
What I would like to focus on in this post is the demand side of the equation. If we want to build a more ecologically sound world there is a fundamental truth that we need to accept.
If we keep buying it, they will keep making it.
So if we want them to stop making it, then we have to stop buying it.
That is easy to say, not so easy to do when it comes to oil, which comes to the next part of the equation. If you want to change it you have to do that by putting your hand in your pocket and paying for better alternatives.
Of course we cannot all rush out and buy a brand new Tesla or only live on organic food but just because we can’t all afford it, that doesn’t that you shouldn’t if you can. By purchasing innovative socially responsible products you are actively helping!
The cost is high because innovative things are still niche and the supply chains are still growing, once organic food and electric cars are the norm, the costs will be lower.
For the effect that supply chain development has on cost, see the graph in this article showing the rapid decline in costs of UK offshore wind power. The same principle applies to all products or services.
I am a bit concerned with the direction of the world right now and have decided to take positive action for sustainable development and politics.
I have had enough of politicians spouting nonsense. I want concrete action on solving the local and worldwide problems.
As someone said on twitter Today, “there is no one coming to save us” So it is up to us to make the change.
These are the 5 actions that I have taken to achieve my goals.
1. I use the https://www.ecosia.org/ search engine This is free and plants trees with the profits from your searches now it works on a chrome extension.
These guys are helping with various sub Saharan African projects. The results are pretty incredible. plant a few Acacia trees and suddenly vegetables can grow in the shade desertification is reversed. Fruit and nut trees follow etc etc.
These guys have helped millions of people gain access to clean water. A large % of the deaths of children are down to simple dehydration caused by stomach bugs from dirty water. Almost unthinkable in Europe and easily solvable for very low cost.
4. As soon as I can figure out how, I will be upping my regular donation to the libdems. Like it or not, fighting elections requires money. https://www.libdems.org.uk/
Following on from my last post I have set up my first investment fund. It is only small but I intend to grow it by making regular payments to the fund over the next few years whilst donating the profits to cancer research.
Whilst working through the issues around sustainable investment I discovered “The Great Green Wall” project. This is a huge concept, both in scale and in its goals. 21 countries and a host of organisations are involved in building an 8000 kilometer long green barrier against the Sahara. The project has been going for 10 years now and whilst there have been some learning experiences the results from the successful parts of the project are really impressive.
The testimonys from the affected communities are almost unbelievable, the impact that planting trees has to the environment and the peoples that live there is just incredible (75%-100% income increase). However the thing that really attracted me to the project was the sustainability. Of course I can buy some emergency food rations for people in desperate need, but every pound I invest here will pay itself forward for decades. and hopefully mean that emergency relief will not be required.
So I set up a regular donation. Not as big as I would like but I am spread a bit thinly at the moment and need to budget.
The Statement on this picture I snapped from the welcome book brought a lump to my throat, something so basic and so low cost, should not be a challenge to implement in the 21st century.
Whilst looking around for other ways I could help I found Ecosia, the search engine that uses its profits to plant trees. 1 tree planted every 30 seconds and every 45 searches or so another tree is planted. Or to put it in context, at my normal job every two days, at no cost to me I plant another tree. Fabulous concept, I have been persuading my family to adopt it as their default.
All I needed to do was switch the default search provider in the settings on my internet browser (microsoft edge) and investment in reforestation began!
Thanks for reading, any suggestions for sustainable investment please pass my way.
Like lots of people I regularly donate to charities, I support all sorts, from cancer research and support to social and political movements. I have been particularly inspired over the last few years by personal loss and the casual cruelty of UK government policies.
What has concerned me for a while is that my donations depend on me creating spare wealth that I can use in this manner. If I were to become unemployed or sick then I wouldn’t be able to continue to support the good works of generous folk in the UK and across the world.
So what to do?
A few years ago I had a coffee with a fascinating and very determined lady who was setting up a self sustaining charity in Tanzania. Basically the charities good works were to be funded by advertising revenue. To me this broke the traditional funding model and was really the first “social enterprise” that I had come across. Now there are many such businesses that work on a similar theme such as:
For clarity I have no business interests with these two social enterprises although I am a customer of co-wheels.
The question for me was, as my work and life is pretty full on at the moment how I could set up a self sustaining income stream that wouldn’t require full time management? Could I generate a regular sustainable income which I could donate to charity?
After mulling several options, I decided that my business would divert some of its profits (e.g. my salary) to support this sustainable investment goal. I have opened up a separate share trading account and made my first investment in a dividend paying company.
I believe the best strategy for this project is to invest in structural and stable companies that provide a service and benefit to society, obviously I won’t be buying shares in arms or tobacco companies! To minimise the risk of losing my capital I will only invest in larger companies e.g. FTSE 100 companies or similar European enterprises.
This strategy is expected to generate 5-9% return on my investment regardless of the daily share price which I can then donate to a charity of my choice.
I plan to make regular donations to the fund as business allows to build up the portfolio.
The disadvantage of this approach is that the capital doesn’t go immediately and directly to the charity as it is invested. The advantage is that once the capital is invested it will be there forever. When I retire and pass the business to my children the money will still be there and will over the years pay out way over what the original investment was. The key goal of this little project is sustainability.
I did consider setting up a separate community interest company (CIC) but the admin fees are too high for my modest investments. Maybe if the fund grows or I get other investors on board it would be worthwhile, but that is for the future.
Thanks for reading. If you have any comments or ideas around social investment I would love to hear.
There is a lot of talk about what could happen with Brexit. A lot of it unfounded speculation or hopeless optimism. As it is, I am not a unicorn chaser or doom monger. I prefer to study concrete analysis of this type of thing.
So I created this post to put together all the analyses I could find. Please feel free to message me to add any credible analysis to the list.
This blog post is about incomes, a handy graph is shown below which will allow you to position yourself relative to the rest of UK society. Needless to say the data is time sensitive and applies at year end 2017.
I am one of the lucky ones I am employed and comfortable, I didn’t realise until I started running numbers on the economy how much better off I was.
Recently I have heard a couple of people comment about people in poverty in the UK are “lucky” as poor people in Africa are so much poorer. This was another one of those trite sayings that shows a staggering lack of empathy for people in serious situations. I doubt that if you are cold or hungry in the UK whilst surrounded by huge wealth of our nation your first thought is about how much better off you are than others.
What is poverty?
Currently the UK doesn’t have a defined poverty measure due to the last prime minister not liking the numbers. However, in other places it is defined at 60% of the median income, or in the UKs case, £16380 at 2017 year end. 60% is about the level at which things like housing and transport start to become a disproportionately large part of your income, where you start to struggle financially is of course dependent on your personal situation and where you live.
Median household disposable income for the UK is £27300 at end of 2017 before indirect taxation. (source ONS)
Median income is defined as the middle income. E.g. 50% of people have more than this 50% have less.
If I plot this with some more ONS data (note, this is after tax):
We can see from the graph that not only are 27% or so of our countrymen living in poverty, but the shape of the graph shows that the income of the poorest 10% drops of sharply and the income of the richest 10% is disproportionately high.
There are two ways simple ways to change the proportion of people in poverty, Firstly by raising the incomes of the poor or reducing their taxation burden. The second is to reduce the incomes of the rich by increasing their taxation burden.
The arguments for and against this are numerous and have been done to death. However in the UK we have a significant section of society who are not abble to survive because they miss a paycheck and suddenly are in debt and have no safety net.
Are we as a society prepared to let others starve for an extra few quid in our pockets? The response from the British public suggests not. Huge charities have been set up creating foodbanks supported by solely by donations. Another great example, a project in Teesside has 60 odd different churches organising together to provide coordinated services to support those in need.
To me this is indicative of a breakdown of government. Once the populace start mobilising in a coordinated manner to help their neighbours it shows that the safety nets are no longer working. I wonder when, or if, our government is going to respond and start to carry out its part of the social contract?
Generous by Design 