Please, please, do not lose all credibility by writing: "Unfortunately coal plays such a large part in Great Britain". Note, present tense. Coal accounted for 0.6% of electricity generation in the UK in 2024.
Thanks. Wondering if Liquid Air Energy Storage is a viable option (claimed achievable RT efficiencies of 60+%) instead of SCGT/CCGT. Capital costs of LAES are claimed to be ~$2B/GW so more expensive than gas turbines but presumably with much less emissions?
You need to change “in my opinion” to “this is an established fact.” Alternative (Renewable??) energy never reduces greenhouse gas or consumer prices. I t also increases grid instability. I don’t know how many worldwide examples of this need to be shown to disavow people that RE is a solution. Sadly, because the concept of renewables is a thing of beauty.
Good post. I look at some Irish data on page 204 of "Shorting the Grid." Wind on the grid does not necessarily decrease CO2, but it does sometimes. It takes a windy year for the DECREASE due to wind to overcome the INCREASE in CO2 from stop-and-start driving of the gas turbines.
This is data from 2015, and I am sure you have newer data. I just thought I would throw this note into the mix.
You are correct. Peaking NG plants have a much larger carbon footprint than CCGT plants. CCGT plants by themselves reduce specific CO2 emissions by about 2/3 as compared to coal plants, along with much lower SOx/NOx and solid waste (fly and bottom ash). Water cooling requirements are a lot lower because of the ~50% efficiency gain.
Please, please, do not lose all credibility by writing: "Unfortunately coal plays such a large part in Great Britain". Note, present tense. Coal accounted for 0.6% of electricity generation in the UK in 2024.
Ref: https://www.neso.energy/news/britains-electricity-explained-2024-review#:~:text=Monumental%20moment%20for%20Great%20Britain's,providing%20electricity%20to%20Great%20Britain.
thank you - fixed. (I try very hard to be careful of present tense vs past tense use - blew it here.)
Thanks. Wondering if Liquid Air Energy Storage is a viable option (claimed achievable RT efficiencies of 60+%) instead of SCGT/CCGT. Capital costs of LAES are claimed to be ~$2B/GW so more expensive than gas turbines but presumably with much less emissions?
You need to change “in my opinion” to “this is an established fact.” Alternative (Renewable??) energy never reduces greenhouse gas or consumer prices. I t also increases grid instability. I don’t know how many worldwide examples of this need to be shown to disavow people that RE is a solution. Sadly, because the concept of renewables is a thing of beauty.
Hi David.
Good post. I look at some Irish data on page 204 of "Shorting the Grid." Wind on the grid does not necessarily decrease CO2, but it does sometimes. It takes a windy year for the DECREASE due to wind to overcome the INCREASE in CO2 from stop-and-start driving of the gas turbines.
This is data from 2015, and I am sure you have newer data. I just thought I would throw this note into the mix.
You are correct. Peaking NG plants have a much larger carbon footprint than CCGT plants. CCGT plants by themselves reduce specific CO2 emissions by about 2/3 as compared to coal plants, along with much lower SOx/NOx and solid waste (fly and bottom ash). Water cooling requirements are a lot lower because of the ~50% efficiency gain.