RegGuheert wrote: Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place?
I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.
Of course it won't. Just like the huge coal power plants in my region do not function as a supplement to the PV generation on my house. Rather, the PV generation on my house reduces the amount of coal which needs to be burned.
SageBrush wrote:In a sense they are pursuing on a big scale what plug-in hybrids offer: immediate back-up with a liquid fossil fuel. I'll be more inclined to have an opinion when I can state with confidence the fractional carbon reduction from the scheme and the cost/carbon_reduction.
What the UK has been "pursuing" is insanity. The sudden 180-degree about-face is a clear indication of such.
SageBrush wrote:This is a very YMMV, but I look outside at my Prius Prime with its yucky petrol ICE and think:
I wish I could use my LEAF for all my transport, but work is too far away
The Prime gets me to work at 105 mpg, and was inexpensive to purchase.
Overall, these two cars are run about 16,000 miles a year in my family and we consume about 100 gallons of petrol annually for out typical use.
I expect to swap the Prime for a Model 3 next year because I want to and I have the money, but LEAF+Prime is a damned good solution compared to my neighbors who currently consume ~ 1000 gallons a year for similar use profiles.
We have a similar situation: We drive about 17,000 miles/year in our 2011 Nissan LEAF and 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid using about 170 miles of fuel.
All of the electricity for the LEAF is produced by our PV arrays. But I cannot imagine any scenario in which I think purchasing a diesel car or a diesel generator to offset coal production would be a good idea for the environment. I doubt you are, either.
RegGuheert wrote:While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.
I'm not well read about UK fossil fuel supplies and suppliers, but I could certainly understand a country deciding to avoid a strategy that depended on supplies from Russia.
The UK already gets about 13% of their natural gas supply from Russia
. The UK has fairly abundant shale gas resources
, and has recently moved to start to develop them
. The EU, OTOH, does not have such an option readily available to them
SageBrush wrote:If the NG supply was North Sea it sounds a lot more attractive.
It seems the debate continues about whether or not the North Sea is in terminal decline
, but it already is insufficient to meet the UK's natural gas needs.
SageBrush wrote:I was actually under the impression that the UK was going to build a huge electric connection to Norway for regional clean energy power sharing, but I am not clear about details.
Perhaps, but that's not a panacea for UK's energy needs. There are no easy answers.