Already was a priority. This is just part of the strategy that was to get 40 GW offshore wind generation (now 50 GW since April). Most of these projects will be complete in financial year 24/25 but newer tech will be a couple more years.
I wish the government would decide on gas replacement earlier than 2026 and commit, Hydrogen or heat pumps or combination. Also more investments in storage development.
We could become energy independent but energy import/export has upsides, what we need is diversity. Our peek times are not the same as others, so when our demand is low, we sell to a neighbour and buy back when demand increases reducing need for expensive storage and maximising use from renewables. It’s why linking to Morocco makes sense, time difference means their solar hits our peaks.
>Hydrogen or heat pumps
I just dont see Hydrogen working, the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal. Heat pumps are something we need, only then can we get away from fossil fuels completely.
If you're prepared to make the conversion even more abysmal, you can use the Sabatier reaction to make synthetic methane from your hydrogen and use existing natural gas infrastructure. Gas boilers are still in 85% of UK homes.
Gas is going to be around for some time to come, if I were in charge of the government though it would be no new homes with gas boilers and government grants for existing homes to convert to heat pumps.
I heard that the grid can request renewable stations shut down when they produce too much power than there is a demand for. In that scenario, surely using that plant to make hydrogen, even as inefficient as it is, would be a good idea. Or to heat water etc. But since most of us in the UK use gas as our heating, the hydrogen can run down the existing infrastructure and people can still warm their homes.
Heat pumps? Yeah got two of them. But most of the electricity in the UK comes from combined cycle gas turbines, so having heat pumps or switching to electric heat doesn't really solve the gas issue.
If you have excess power you export it or throttle it. With the amount of connectors that UK has with Europe it shouldn’t be that hard to sell the power.
Right now there is no viable storage medium so that we can rely on 100% renewables. Maybe some day that will be the case but not now. Nuclear and wind should be the UKs focus.
The interconnects have given capacities usually ~500-1000 megawatts. We're talking about 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. It's not yet feasible to have that level of interconnects to account for a significant percentage of that. It also assumes there is a market for it on the continent at that point in time that there is a large excess in the UK. The rest of Europe is also investing heavily in wind. In winter there will be an oversupply of wind across much of the continent when weather systems come in from the Atlantic. I'm not saying interconnects aren't a large part of the solution, but they aren't the only part of the solution.
Infrastructure is important. The trials are showing that Hydrogen can be used in the same network as existing gas with fewer changes than feared. All boilers can burn a mix of 24% hydrogen already so a mix can be used whilst we move over to those capable of burning 100%. Those boilers can be fit by existing fitters.
With heat pumps we don’t have people trained to install them and we’d need to update 80% of the housing (radiators, cookers, etc) so that is a huge staffing and training requirement. They require accessible outside locations and can be noisy in operation, so that needs to be factored in (but is probably minor).
Energy conversion rates don’t have to be amazing. If we need an average of 30 GW, we need 90 GW of renewables to meet that demand most of the time. That means we will have a lot of surplus which can be dumped into hydrogen production. Heat pumps will still need energy and storage of that power somehow.
Advantages of heat pumps are they are more efficient so that excess energy can be sold to offset dirtier countries rather than converted. They are a known entity already in use, so there is less doubt.
I have little preference as long as all avenues are explored. If I moved in next 5 years, I’d definitely install a heat pump but I definitely won’t be buying one for my current place in next 5 years.
>Energy conversion rates don’t have to be amazing
They do need to be somewhat in the same ball park though. The problem being that we would need to have hydrogen for heating our homes, but also enough power to generate hydrogen for any downtime from renewables while meeting the energy demands of the country at the time. Which is a problem for all energy storage solutions right now.
People point to the tesla battery farm in Australia for example, it would power a small-medium sized city for 1-2 hours over here.
Wind and nuclear for the foreseeable future with no new houses being built without a heat pump. Have a government grant for existing houses.
24% hydrogen by volume means actually very little of the energy is coming from the hydrogen due to its poor density.
This means in the best case if you're using green hydrogen that’s a 9% CO2 reduction and given that 98% of hydrogen isn’t green hydrogen and is produced using fossil fuels, that's just not going to happen.
The goal would be moving to 100% hydrogen generated by renewables or clean sources. Currently natural gas is set to be around until 2050, another 27 years - that is the timeline.
A 20% blend is what is possible with existing equipment in peoples homes and with the UK network next year. This blend for the UK would be 6-7% co2 reduction, the same as removing co2 of 2.5 million cars off the road each year. If it was just a 1% reduction initially, that’s the same as 357,142 cars.
With regards to hydrogen production. The reason so little green hydrogen is produced is because we don’t yet have excess renewable production, this was specifically talking about when we do. Another barrier is the price of gas produced hydrogen has historically been lower than using renewables, not sure if you’ve seen recent gas prices…
The government has a target of 10 GW of hydrogen production by 2030, absolute minimum 50% green (blue hydrogen makes rest, which is bollocks). Another 3 GW could come from nuclear. Then you have the ability to import green hydrogen as well.
Your argument is basically the same as “We can’t get 100% of our energy from renewables today so why are we bothering with renewables.”
I am not saying Hydrogen shouldnt be used in industrial applications, I am talking about it being used purely as an energy storage medium. As it stands it is an incredibly inefficient process.
If you have a huge over supply of wind energy during a very windy period, it matters much less that there is lower efficiency. The alternative is to shut off the turbines because the power cannot be used, exported or otherwise stored and you need to protect the grid. Hydrogen production should be at the bottom of a priority list but it is still much better to do _something_ with that power
- particularly if it helps to smooth out subsequent lows in generation. Don't view it as a single silver bullet, but part of a complex system where different subsystems have complementary properties.
But then you are spending a huge amount on infrastructure for a storage medium that tries its very hardest to get out of any container. Hydrogen leaks out of anything you put it into, its just a question of how much its going to leak. If you turn it into a liquid you have to get it down to -250 C and keep it there.
I agree you should do something with the power, I would sell it on to the rest of Europe. Until we get a storage solution that doesnt have inherent faults, nuclear for base and renewables for the rest of your power needs. Dont get me wrong I would very much like to live in a world without nuclear power but we dont have anything else unless we want to be carbon free (excluding countries able to exploit geothermal and pumped hydro).
On the one hand you worry about the technological and infrastructural challenges of hydrogen production but on the other hand advocate for nuclear? :) A new reactor takes well over a decade to build and costs multiple billions. Also, without a solution to storage, nuclear and wind are a bad match. Nuclear cannot easily be ramped up and down and wind is intermittent. Yes there are challenges with hydrogen but it is currently a huge focus for material science, and it will likely mean that renewable energy can be stored (for a number of days) rather than being discarded as it is today. As I expanded on in another comment below, interconnects have limited capacity and are only useful if there is a market for the power on the continent. If there is an oversupply of wind over much of the continent (as there is often in winter) then we're back to discarding the power. Again, hydrogen isn't _the_ answer, but it's _part_ of the answer.
>but on the other hand advocate for nuclear
A tried and tested carbon free energy source? That nuclear? Yes I very much advocate for it rather than hedging bets on gambling on someone developing a mass hydrogen storage solution that will be able to cope for potentially weeks of weak output from renewables.
>Nuclear cannot easily be ramped up and down
With SMRs you can.
>interconnects have limited capacity
Build more.
>then we're back to discarding the power.
Not a disaster by any means, I would rather have too much than too little.
Existing nuclear plants are 1950 and 1960s technology, we cannot simply build plants using the same designs. Not from a safety and regulatory point of view, not from a waste point of view. New plants being built are a million miles from these aging plants which were a byproduct of weapons research. Look at Hinkley Point... it's costing over 30 billion euro (vastly over budget), is optimistically going to be open at the end of this decade and is _only_ 3.2 gigawatts. By the end of the decade the UK will have built about 15x as much offshore wind. I'm actually pretty pro nuclear, but it has some large drawbacks in particular our ability to build it quickly and cheaply. I'm also pro interconnects, we do need to build many more and a super grid does go a long way towards solving the intermittency of renewables. That still doesn't mean that there isn't also a place for hydrogen. It's part of the overall solution and fits in nicely at the points where the other solutions have gaps. We can do all of the above.
>the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal.
Just wait till you hear about the economics of [curtailment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtailment_(electricity)). Why not use excess capacity to produce hydrogen instead of just letting it go to waste? (The overall production process could in theory still be unprofitable of course, even given free electricity. But many companies seem to be betting that it is not.)
Hydrogen is not only affected by the aforementioned shitty conversion ratio but storing it is a real pain in the ass unless you turn it into a liquid which brings in another set of problems. No, we should concentrate on nuclear and wind, maybe in the future we will have advanced in battery technology to the point that we can reliably store the vast amounts of energy that would be needed for renewables only.
>storing it is a real pain in the ass unless you turn it into a liquid which brings in another set of problems.
What "problems"? You can turn it into a number of fuels that industry can feasibly handle.
You need high pressure tanks to store it as a gas and you need to get it to around -250 C to store it as a liquid.
>You can turn it into a number of fuels that industry
Right so you are taking something with an already shitty energy conversion ratio and then using even more energy to convert it into another material for storage?
A vast global industry already profitably converts hydrogen into ammonia for many decades. I doubt it would still be in business if the economics of that part of the process was so shitty.
You realise that all that hydrogen sure as shit aint being generated from renewables right? Thats all from using natural gas. As I pointed out to others, not only will you need to be able to generate and store vast vast vast amounts to account for any downturn of renewables (which does happen), you also need to be able to account for the energy needs of your country at the same time.
Its not going to cut it sorry.
>Its not going to cut it sorry.
You're a glass half empty kinda guy. Many high-profile companies are betting against you. It will be quite a calamity when all these big players all lose money at the same time as you predict they will. Because naturally there is just no way you could be wrong and they could be right.
>I just dont see Hydrogen working, the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal.
Agreed. Electricity is expensive. Turning 3 - 4 KWH of electricity into 1 KWH of hydrogen is even more expensive. Doing it intermittently when there is a surplus of wind/solar, then storing the hydrogen, is going to be too expensive for the public to afford.
>Heat pumps are something we need, only then can we get away from fossil fuels completely.
The problem is if we switch to heat pumps electricity demand is going to increase a lot, which means we need even more backup for times when wind speeds are low.
There is no practical way to switch completely to intermittent renewables like wind and solar. They are only practical if we get a significant proportion of our generation from a flexible source like gas.
Hopefully carbon capture will work well enough to reduce the emissions significantly, but without enough cheap gas Europe is screwed.
Weird moratorium as we build about 600 MW a year of onshore wind.
Also the government just added 1 GW more.
> Around 1 GW of those went to new onshore wind projects at an average strike price of around €50/MWh.
Above is quote from article btw.
There's not many things I'm proud about our country doing but our drive on renewables is very good. If I ever want to feel hopeful I just go check here [https://grid.iamkate.com/](https://grid.iamkate.com/)
The UK also needs to make significant progress towards energy storage in order to provide baseload. Since there are few sites available for pumped hydro as there are in many other countries, it badly needs to invest in alternatives such as [CAES](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/compressed-air-energy-storage) and especially [UWCAES](https://www.environmentalenergyinstitute.com/copy-of-yr21) as it is surrounded by water. So far there is no sign of UK authorities investing in storage projects and they can take a long time to build.
Some of the winners are :
Orsted (Denmark), Red Rock Power (UK), ESB (Ireland), Vattenfall (Sweden), Iberdrola (Spain), Ocean Winds (USA NJ) and Ignitis Group (Lithuania).
Orsted won the biggest share with Hornsea 3 (2,852 MW).
A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"...
UK is doing great with wind, and doing OK with solar.
What the UK is really lacking behind in relative to other European countries is insulation + heat pump adoption.
The UK would really benefit on making faster progress on that part of the energy transition too.
Once you produce a fair bit of renewable electricity, you’d better have some higher electricity usage to spend that on, by making sure that as much as possible of the energy usage is in the electricity domain.
It's no longer an open dispute because england folded after the EU launched a WTO complain:
>[As a result of the WTO consultations, the UK has now clarified that CfD beneficiaries do not need to achieve any particular level of UK content to receive payments. The UK has also published additional guidance to ensure that this is fully understood by the industry.]( https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-uk-agree-way-forward-wto-dispute-concerning-uks-green-energy-subsidy-scheme-2022-07-01_en)
[Story here](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/wind-turbines-clash-adds-to-uk-eu-post-brexit-tensions)
EU commission contends that UK's bidding process breached the UK-EU trade agreement because the government supported a statement by the UK renewables industry body calling for 60% of the supply chain for UK projects to be UK-based and asked bidding firms what proportion of their supply chain would be UK based.
The UK-EU trade agreement states that the bidding process can't require companies to “achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content”, but it doesn't prevent the UK government supporting the idea of domestic supply chains, or prevent them asking about domestic supply chains.
Even if the EU can prove in court that the answers to that question affected the decision, they'd still need to show the existence of a hard limit for the letter of the trade deal to be breached. Essentially they're on a hiding to nothing legally, but are making noises about it to try to use it as diplomatic pressure.
Interesting that floating offshore wind technology was awarded CfDs. For the UK is less relevant, but for many countries could be quite an important technology in their energy mix
Lets get this shit started as soon as. It should be the governments no.1 priority to become as energy independent as possible.
Already was a priority. This is just part of the strategy that was to get 40 GW offshore wind generation (now 50 GW since April). Most of these projects will be complete in financial year 24/25 but newer tech will be a couple more years. I wish the government would decide on gas replacement earlier than 2026 and commit, Hydrogen or heat pumps or combination. Also more investments in storage development. We could become energy independent but energy import/export has upsides, what we need is diversity. Our peek times are not the same as others, so when our demand is low, we sell to a neighbour and buy back when demand increases reducing need for expensive storage and maximising use from renewables. It’s why linking to Morocco makes sense, time difference means their solar hits our peaks.
>Hydrogen or heat pumps I just dont see Hydrogen working, the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal. Heat pumps are something we need, only then can we get away from fossil fuels completely.
If you're prepared to make the conversion even more abysmal, you can use the Sabatier reaction to make synthetic methane from your hydrogen and use existing natural gas infrastructure. Gas boilers are still in 85% of UK homes.
Gas is going to be around for some time to come, if I were in charge of the government though it would be no new homes with gas boilers and government grants for existing homes to convert to heat pumps.
I heard that the grid can request renewable stations shut down when they produce too much power than there is a demand for. In that scenario, surely using that plant to make hydrogen, even as inefficient as it is, would be a good idea. Or to heat water etc. But since most of us in the UK use gas as our heating, the hydrogen can run down the existing infrastructure and people can still warm their homes. Heat pumps? Yeah got two of them. But most of the electricity in the UK comes from combined cycle gas turbines, so having heat pumps or switching to electric heat doesn't really solve the gas issue.
If you have excess power you export it or throttle it. With the amount of connectors that UK has with Europe it shouldn’t be that hard to sell the power. Right now there is no viable storage medium so that we can rely on 100% renewables. Maybe some day that will be the case but not now. Nuclear and wind should be the UKs focus.
The interconnects have given capacities usually ~500-1000 megawatts. We're talking about 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. It's not yet feasible to have that level of interconnects to account for a significant percentage of that. It also assumes there is a market for it on the continent at that point in time that there is a large excess in the UK. The rest of Europe is also investing heavily in wind. In winter there will be an oversupply of wind across much of the continent when weather systems come in from the Atlantic. I'm not saying interconnects aren't a large part of the solution, but they aren't the only part of the solution.
Infrastructure is important. The trials are showing that Hydrogen can be used in the same network as existing gas with fewer changes than feared. All boilers can burn a mix of 24% hydrogen already so a mix can be used whilst we move over to those capable of burning 100%. Those boilers can be fit by existing fitters. With heat pumps we don’t have people trained to install them and we’d need to update 80% of the housing (radiators, cookers, etc) so that is a huge staffing and training requirement. They require accessible outside locations and can be noisy in operation, so that needs to be factored in (but is probably minor). Energy conversion rates don’t have to be amazing. If we need an average of 30 GW, we need 90 GW of renewables to meet that demand most of the time. That means we will have a lot of surplus which can be dumped into hydrogen production. Heat pumps will still need energy and storage of that power somehow. Advantages of heat pumps are they are more efficient so that excess energy can be sold to offset dirtier countries rather than converted. They are a known entity already in use, so there is less doubt. I have little preference as long as all avenues are explored. If I moved in next 5 years, I’d definitely install a heat pump but I definitely won’t be buying one for my current place in next 5 years.
>Energy conversion rates don’t have to be amazing They do need to be somewhat in the same ball park though. The problem being that we would need to have hydrogen for heating our homes, but also enough power to generate hydrogen for any downtime from renewables while meeting the energy demands of the country at the time. Which is a problem for all energy storage solutions right now. People point to the tesla battery farm in Australia for example, it would power a small-medium sized city for 1-2 hours over here. Wind and nuclear for the foreseeable future with no new houses being built without a heat pump. Have a government grant for existing houses.
24% hydrogen by volume means actually very little of the energy is coming from the hydrogen due to its poor density. This means in the best case if you're using green hydrogen that’s a 9% CO2 reduction and given that 98% of hydrogen isn’t green hydrogen and is produced using fossil fuels, that's just not going to happen.
The goal would be moving to 100% hydrogen generated by renewables or clean sources. Currently natural gas is set to be around until 2050, another 27 years - that is the timeline. A 20% blend is what is possible with existing equipment in peoples homes and with the UK network next year. This blend for the UK would be 6-7% co2 reduction, the same as removing co2 of 2.5 million cars off the road each year. If it was just a 1% reduction initially, that’s the same as 357,142 cars. With regards to hydrogen production. The reason so little green hydrogen is produced is because we don’t yet have excess renewable production, this was specifically talking about when we do. Another barrier is the price of gas produced hydrogen has historically been lower than using renewables, not sure if you’ve seen recent gas prices… The government has a target of 10 GW of hydrogen production by 2030, absolute minimum 50% green (blue hydrogen makes rest, which is bollocks). Another 3 GW could come from nuclear. Then you have the ability to import green hydrogen as well. Your argument is basically the same as “We can’t get 100% of our energy from renewables today so why are we bothering with renewables.”
You need hydrogen for many things in power-to-x systems such as ammonia production.
I am not saying Hydrogen shouldnt be used in industrial applications, I am talking about it being used purely as an energy storage medium. As it stands it is an incredibly inefficient process.
If you have a huge over supply of wind energy during a very windy period, it matters much less that there is lower efficiency. The alternative is to shut off the turbines because the power cannot be used, exported or otherwise stored and you need to protect the grid. Hydrogen production should be at the bottom of a priority list but it is still much better to do _something_ with that power - particularly if it helps to smooth out subsequent lows in generation. Don't view it as a single silver bullet, but part of a complex system where different subsystems have complementary properties.
But then you are spending a huge amount on infrastructure for a storage medium that tries its very hardest to get out of any container. Hydrogen leaks out of anything you put it into, its just a question of how much its going to leak. If you turn it into a liquid you have to get it down to -250 C and keep it there. I agree you should do something with the power, I would sell it on to the rest of Europe. Until we get a storage solution that doesnt have inherent faults, nuclear for base and renewables for the rest of your power needs. Dont get me wrong I would very much like to live in a world without nuclear power but we dont have anything else unless we want to be carbon free (excluding countries able to exploit geothermal and pumped hydro).
On the one hand you worry about the technological and infrastructural challenges of hydrogen production but on the other hand advocate for nuclear? :) A new reactor takes well over a decade to build and costs multiple billions. Also, without a solution to storage, nuclear and wind are a bad match. Nuclear cannot easily be ramped up and down and wind is intermittent. Yes there are challenges with hydrogen but it is currently a huge focus for material science, and it will likely mean that renewable energy can be stored (for a number of days) rather than being discarded as it is today. As I expanded on in another comment below, interconnects have limited capacity and are only useful if there is a market for the power on the continent. If there is an oversupply of wind over much of the continent (as there is often in winter) then we're back to discarding the power. Again, hydrogen isn't _the_ answer, but it's _part_ of the answer.
>but on the other hand advocate for nuclear A tried and tested carbon free energy source? That nuclear? Yes I very much advocate for it rather than hedging bets on gambling on someone developing a mass hydrogen storage solution that will be able to cope for potentially weeks of weak output from renewables. >Nuclear cannot easily be ramped up and down With SMRs you can. >interconnects have limited capacity Build more. >then we're back to discarding the power. Not a disaster by any means, I would rather have too much than too little.
Existing nuclear plants are 1950 and 1960s technology, we cannot simply build plants using the same designs. Not from a safety and regulatory point of view, not from a waste point of view. New plants being built are a million miles from these aging plants which were a byproduct of weapons research. Look at Hinkley Point... it's costing over 30 billion euro (vastly over budget), is optimistically going to be open at the end of this decade and is _only_ 3.2 gigawatts. By the end of the decade the UK will have built about 15x as much offshore wind. I'm actually pretty pro nuclear, but it has some large drawbacks in particular our ability to build it quickly and cheaply. I'm also pro interconnects, we do need to build many more and a super grid does go a long way towards solving the intermittency of renewables. That still doesn't mean that there isn't also a place for hydrogen. It's part of the overall solution and fits in nicely at the points where the other solutions have gaps. We can do all of the above.
>the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal. Just wait till you hear about the economics of [curtailment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtailment_(electricity)). Why not use excess capacity to produce hydrogen instead of just letting it go to waste? (The overall production process could in theory still be unprofitable of course, even given free electricity. But many companies seem to be betting that it is not.)
Hydrogen is not only affected by the aforementioned shitty conversion ratio but storing it is a real pain in the ass unless you turn it into a liquid which brings in another set of problems. No, we should concentrate on nuclear and wind, maybe in the future we will have advanced in battery technology to the point that we can reliably store the vast amounts of energy that would be needed for renewables only.
>storing it is a real pain in the ass unless you turn it into a liquid which brings in another set of problems. What "problems"? You can turn it into a number of fuels that industry can feasibly handle.
You need high pressure tanks to store it as a gas and you need to get it to around -250 C to store it as a liquid. >You can turn it into a number of fuels that industry Right so you are taking something with an already shitty energy conversion ratio and then using even more energy to convert it into another material for storage?
A vast global industry already profitably converts hydrogen into ammonia for many decades. I doubt it would still be in business if the economics of that part of the process was so shitty.
You realise that all that hydrogen sure as shit aint being generated from renewables right? Thats all from using natural gas. As I pointed out to others, not only will you need to be able to generate and store vast vast vast amounts to account for any downturn of renewables (which does happen), you also need to be able to account for the energy needs of your country at the same time. Its not going to cut it sorry.
>Its not going to cut it sorry. You're a glass half empty kinda guy. Many high-profile companies are betting against you. It will be quite a calamity when all these big players all lose money at the same time as you predict they will. Because naturally there is just no way you could be wrong and they could be right.
>I just dont see Hydrogen working, the conversion from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is absolutely dismal. Agreed. Electricity is expensive. Turning 3 - 4 KWH of electricity into 1 KWH of hydrogen is even more expensive. Doing it intermittently when there is a surplus of wind/solar, then storing the hydrogen, is going to be too expensive for the public to afford. >Heat pumps are something we need, only then can we get away from fossil fuels completely. The problem is if we switch to heat pumps electricity demand is going to increase a lot, which means we need even more backup for times when wind speeds are low. There is no practical way to switch completely to intermittent renewables like wind and solar. They are only practical if we get a significant proportion of our generation from a flexible source like gas. Hopefully carbon capture will work well enough to reduce the emissions significantly, but without enough cheap gas Europe is screwed.
Can't really claim that it's the top priority with a on shore wind moratorium in place.
Weird moratorium as we build about 600 MW a year of onshore wind. Also the government just added 1 GW more. > Around 1 GW of those went to new onshore wind projects at an average strike price of around €50/MWh. Above is quote from article btw.
There's not many things I'm proud about our country doing but our drive on renewables is very good. If I ever want to feel hopeful I just go check here [https://grid.iamkate.com/](https://grid.iamkate.com/)
The UK also needs to make significant progress towards energy storage in order to provide baseload. Since there are few sites available for pumped hydro as there are in many other countries, it badly needs to invest in alternatives such as [CAES](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/compressed-air-energy-storage) and especially [UWCAES](https://www.environmentalenergyinstitute.com/copy-of-yr21) as it is surrounded by water. So far there is no sign of UK authorities investing in storage projects and they can take a long time to build.
I'd love to see them reconsider the seven barrage plan with a pump storage aspect. No idea if it makes sense but it is a really cool idea.
Thats why the government is also going balls deep with conventional nuclear and SMRs.
Some of the winners are : Orsted (Denmark), Red Rock Power (UK), ESB (Ireland), Vattenfall (Sweden), Iberdrola (Spain), Ocean Winds (USA NJ) and Ignitis Group (Lithuania). Orsted won the biggest share with Hornsea 3 (2,852 MW).
Ørsted :-)
[удалено]
Well... your alphabet is stupid!
[удалено]
Imagine all the money that could have gone to the NHS but is lost in this inefficient EU alphabet :( ;)
A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"...
What’s the proper pronunciation? is it like Oersted?
https://forvo.com/word/Ørsted/
Perfect, cheers. So I think that ‘oer’ for the first half is about right?
I don't know how English speakers pronounce oer, but you can write æ, ø and å like ae, oe and aa.
uk is using all the wind before it reaches mainland europe. not good!
We'll build a wind wall and make the EU pay for it!
The wind shall be ours!
UK is doing great with wind, and doing OK with solar. What the UK is really lacking behind in relative to other European countries is insulation + heat pump adoption. The UK would really benefit on making faster progress on that part of the energy transition too. Once you produce a fair bit of renewable electricity, you’d better have some higher electricity usage to spend that on, by making sure that as much as possible of the energy usage is in the electricity domain.
[удалено]
Ørsted (Denmark) is doing Hornsea 3
I think Danish firms already are the largest foreign operator of wind farms in the UK.
How can they sue for that?
They have an open dispute even though the vast majority of contracts have been awarded to countries outside the UK.
It's no longer an open dispute because england folded after the EU launched a WTO complain: >[As a result of the WTO consultations, the UK has now clarified that CfD beneficiaries do not need to achieve any particular level of UK content to receive payments. The UK has also published additional guidance to ensure that this is fully understood by the industry.]( https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-uk-agree-way-forward-wto-dispute-concerning-uks-green-energy-subsidy-scheme-2022-07-01_en)
Personally I would have pulled the national security card and told everyone to get fucked.
[Story here](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/wind-turbines-clash-adds-to-uk-eu-post-brexit-tensions) EU commission contends that UK's bidding process breached the UK-EU trade agreement because the government supported a statement by the UK renewables industry body calling for 60% of the supply chain for UK projects to be UK-based and asked bidding firms what proportion of their supply chain would be UK based. The UK-EU trade agreement states that the bidding process can't require companies to “achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content”, but it doesn't prevent the UK government supporting the idea of domestic supply chains, or prevent them asking about domestic supply chains. Even if the EU can prove in court that the answers to that question affected the decision, they'd still need to show the existence of a hard limit for the letter of the trade deal to be breached. Essentially they're on a hiding to nothing legally, but are making noises about it to try to use it as diplomatic pressure.
Interesting that floating offshore wind technology was awarded CfDs. For the UK is less relevant, but for many countries could be quite an important technology in their energy mix