A further suggestion to replace short haul flights by trains

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

I doubt that anyone is seriously proposing to to meet a significant proportion of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electricity demand from batteries for days at a time.
What is entirely possible is battery storage of say 4 GWh. about 75% of this capacity could supply say 3 GW^▸ (Great Western) for an hour in the high peak of early evening.
Keep the rest of the battery capacity in reserve for emergencies. The national grid are required to plan for "the single worst reasonably foreseeable loss of generating/or import capacity".

The most likely loss is 1 GW when the french interconnector breaks. Having available say 2 GW for half an hour would be very helpful in avoiding blackouts whilst awaiting the starting of alternative capacity.

I would like to see both wind and solar capacity roughly doubled, this would significantly reduce UK carbon emissions from electricity generation.
Some fossil fuel would still be required for calm weather such as at present.

If we are serious about actually physically reducing carbon emissions by 78% then most of the remaining 22% will be needed for higher priority uses than flying.

[stuving]

Trains in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) run on "red diesel", which is taxed at a lower rate than the diesel used in cars and lorries. Aviation fuel has no taxes whatsoever. In fact the 1944 Chicago Convention makes it a criminal offence (in those countries which have signed up, which is most of the world) to tax aviation fuel.

If you propose to remove the tax on red diesel altogether, I am sure the move would be welcomed by rail operators. It won't save any emissions though - we need an electrified railway to do that, and I haven't seen the Prime Minister's proposals for how that will be achieved.

Fuel duty is indeed a relevant tax break. The convention only covers international flights, but domestic flights don't pay tax either, so strictly that is an advantage provided by the UK government. The reasons for avoiding taxing only some operations are obvious - even if it didn't involve two sorts of fuel (one of them some suitable colour), the complications and scope for fraud would put you off.

Of course it is domestic flights that are the main issue here, with a cross-channel trains vs flights adding a complicating factor. But I'm sure that the main routes where air competes with rail or could be replaced by it don't involve diesel trains, even in this benighted land. So in that sense the effect is going to be marginal, with feeder trains being comparable with wither trains or buses as feeders to airports.

[TonyK]

I doubt that anyone is seriously proposing to to meet a significant proportion of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) electricity demand from batteries for days at a time.

There are many who seem to think it can be done, having fallen for the hype and the "excess renewable" myth. The companies lobbying to add stacks of batteries to the stuff littering local beauty spots obviously aren't saying that they will provide relief to the whole country. They are just saying that they will provide 500 MWh or whatever, in exchange to such subsidy as is available. The more gullible reader sees this as being part of some new form of magic that will help us power the entire country by wind and solar.

What is entirely possible is battery storage of say 4 GWh. about 75% of this capacity could supply say 3 GW^▸ (Great Western) for an hour in the high peak of early evening.
Keep the rest of the battery capacity in reserve for emergencies.

On our current electricity demand, on a warm morning, 3 GWh would keep us going for about 6 minutes.

I would like to see both wind and solar capacity roughly doubled, this would significantly reduce UK carbon emissions from electricity generation.
Some fossil fuel would still be required for calm weather such as at present.

It is sunny and windy out there today. If we doubled the present contribution from wind and solar, we could reduce the amount generated by gas to about 4 GW. Still burning lots of gas, though.

If we are serious about actually physically reducing carbon emissions by 78% then most of the remaining 22% will be needed for higher priority uses than flying.

Good luck in the elections with that in the manifesto.

[broadgage]

The suggested 3 GWh is not to "keep the whole country going for six minutes" it is to provide about 3 GW^▸ (Great Western) for about an hour in the evening peak. Quicker acting than gas turbine plant and very useful for short term peaks. Similar in purpose to the existing pumped storage capacity, and more efficient than OCGT^▸ (Open Cycle Gas Turbine) that would otherwise be used for peak demands.

The batteries would be charged at off peak hours, or when there is a surplus of renewable energy.

I am well aware that there is NO SURPLUS of renewable energy AT PRESENT. As renewable generating capacity continues to grow, a surplus is possible in the future, during windy weather or bright sun.

[TonyK]

The batteries would be charged at off peak hours, or when there is a surplus of renewable energy.

You're doing it again...

I am well aware that there is NO SURPLUS of renewable energy AT PRESENT. As renewable generating capacity continues to grow, a surplus is possible in the future, during windy weather or bright sun.

OK, you're not doing it again. So we agree that there is no surplus of renewable energy at present. Hopefully, by the time of the first Go-op train, there might just have been.

[broadgage]

Simple observation of the gridwatch site shows that there is no surplus of renewable electricity at present, nor is any such surplus expected in the near future.


A FUTURE surplus is a reasonable expectation as renewable generating capacity continues to grow.

BTW^▸ (by the way), there WAS once a regional surplus in Scotland, for two or three nights, but that was under freak conditions that are most unlikely ever to be repeated.

[TonyK]

A FUTURE surplus is a reasonable expectation as renewable generating capacity continues to grow.

BTW^▸ (by the way), there WAS once a regional surplus in Scotland, for two or three nights, but that was under freak conditions that are most unlikely ever to be repeated.

Scotland has a population of around 5.5 million, and around 8.5 GW^▸ (Great Western), of installed onshore wind power. Per capita, that is a heck of a lot more than England, with some 750 MW for 56 million people. It isn't a universally popular policy north of the border, with allegations that the suits in Edinburgh are riding roughshod over the rights of ordinary people in the rest of the country for their own purpose. The strategy seems to be to have a surplus to export to England, but the infrastructure isn't particularly robust. The UK^▸ (United Kingdom) government doesn't seem too keen to upgrade it, as the money could be better spent on other carbon reduction schemes.

Scotland does seem to have put most of its eggs in the wind basket, though. It does have a lot more of it than England, of course, but the record lows of the past two weeks have included Scotland. It has more hydro power than England at around 1.6 GW capacity (including pumped) but the options for expansion are limited. Much of the hydro was driven by aluminium smelting, an industry largely departed from these shores. The turbines are generally powered by puttin a waterfall into steel pipes, so have their critics. Quite what will happen in the event of a successful independence vote is anyone's guess, but it looks like Scotland should be OK for electricity most days until the turbines need replacing.

[stuving]

Scotland has a population of around 5.5 million, and around 8.5 GW^▸ (Great Western), of installed onshore wind power. Per capita, that is a heck of a lot more than England, with some 750 MW for 56 million people.

Eh? The installed onshore capacity in England is a lot lower than for Scotland, but over 3 GW even so. You can put that down to the powers that be (and plan power) reckoning that most of the suitable bits of England (windy and without Tory voters) are at sea. But while those offshore turbines have a better utilisation, size matters. Even allowing for that extra honorary land, the area : people ratio of England is much lower.

[TonyK]

Eh? The installed onshore capacity in England is a lot lower than for Scotland, but over 3 GW^▸ (Great Western) even so. You can put that down to the powers that be (and plan power) reckoning that most of the suitable bits of England (windy and without Tory voters) are at sea. But while those offshore turbines have a better utilisation, size matters. Even allowing for that extra honorary land, the area : people ratio of England is much lower.

I'm not sure what plan power is, but I see the absence of onshore power as a plus, not a minus. This comes from living in the sort of place where electricity companies want to dump wind turbines, rather than in somewhere with a high energy consumption. I've seen the whole seven year process at first hand. Foreign company applies to build wind farm, starts consultation. Local residents overwhelmingly say no. Parish councils say no. District council planning committee says no unanimously. Full council says no with one dissenting voice. Company appeals, planning inspector says yes. Crew of foreign workers turn up one day, fill holes each the size of an Olympic swimming pool with concrete, stick 300-feet tall machine where you wouldn't get permission to build a small chalet, then move on to the next one. Company sends subsidy forms off, and sends the money home. It isn't particularly democratic. The local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) at the time this all started was a Lib Dem. He said he was against it. His party thought it was a good idea, so he got booted out at the first opportunity in favour of the one who was against onshore wind. I'm not saying that you can blame wind power for the current Tory government, but it was the most popular topic of discussion in the constituency.