This is part of a series on UK Energy Security: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V. In the previous parts of this series, we documented the physical unraveling of the UK grid: the hollow generation mix, the reliance on weather-dependent interconnectors, and the alarming ‘frequency thrash’ visible in the data.
There’s also a “third rail” that nobody with capital or power will touch: the massive number of passive, nearly passive, or lower energy consuming strategies we could easily integrate into existing and new infrastructure, that would significantly lower total energy usage with low cost and little to be degredation of current lifestyles.
For example, incentivizing the use of metal roofs with insulated attics and solar venting fans on all new construction housing. Black shingle roofs are massive waste heat generators, and I insulated attics with no active heat venting are massive heat traps all summer long. But they provide little extra warming in the winter. Metal roofs with solar fans massively reduce summer heat buildup without affecting indoor winter temperatures. Builders scream such systems are “too expensive”, but the actual problems are that the dollar is depreciating while regulations are increasing, shareholders demand ever more returns, and buyers demand eye candy (granite countertops, flashy fixtures) over substance.
What about platting buildings so they face south in cold climates, and north in hot climates? And using appropriately glazed windows on each side?
How about building every home with passive ground cooling systems to passively pipe cool air into the first floor during the summer, and create a source of thermally stable, significantly above freezing ventilation during winter power outages?
Whatever happened to the solar roads that were being developed to recharge electric cars as they passed over the surface?
Organic regenerative farming would take a massive bite out of the total energy use as compared to conventional agriculture.
Redesigning communities to allow basic services and agriculture to be located within short commutes, or even walking, (ie., going back to something more organic and old-fashioned)would cut down both energy and gasoline usage.
Eating a vegetarian diet would save HUGE amounts of energy. And improve your health along the way, requiring less hospital resource use.
I know, I know! Now I’m just talking crazy. Reducing strain on the grid is one thing. Actually having to change the status quo is quite another.
DC power grids are probably the future; but they are difficult to protect. AC circuit breakers and fuses are simpler devices, the zero current crossing helping to extinguish an arc. Not so with DC, so more complex solutions are needed, and there is more risk of catastrophic failure.
Yep it’s going to be expensive. The benefit of the AC is not just the stability, it’s the the transformer infrastructure making it straightforward to do voltage conversion which is also necessary to match efficiency in long distance transmission (kV-MV range) to efficiency in end use (3.3V-600V range).
21st century transistors, magnetics, and controllers finally make possible efficient DC/DC, but this is still a more extensive version of what I think are essentially PFC devices (with sync features), which are proposed as a band-aid to the issues raised in this series of articles.
You’re going to see this done right in developing countries. The West, outside of the US, is on a path to austerity for international balance-of-power reasons, so a chaotic de-growth should not be viewed with too much alarm.
DC system would solve this - I really wonder what Tesla would think of this new problem as he was the master of creating AC. I agree though the DC to AC back to DC is very stupid and costly - but compatibility trumps all. Meanwhile DC Edison is probably smirking. I think the solution is to install DC systems into house i.e. a 5 volt distribution box
In Michigan (DTE/BANK OWNED) ships “dirty power” everywhere and always. Shutting down large steam turbine generators have created un stable 3 phase AC power. Power Factor, transient voltage-frequency-
. The story is that these banksters are selling absolute crap power. All motors throughout the system blow out their capacitors in year now. Before, 6 years ago, those devices would last 8-12 years. Mini voltage and frequency excursions are constant and damaging to all homeowner devices. Bleh. This article is for real and DTE’s crap electricity is just that. Crap power at a premium price. Crap in Crap out.
SIC could make AC/DC for computer more efficient but they still are expensive. DC/AC is efficient but expensive. It is really strange why we still do not power our data centers with Direct DC from PV and Battery. Or Cook or heat or cool with Direct DC.
Yes, nuclear solves the grid stability problem. I have concerns about siting reactors in the path of sea-level rise, and exactly how well we’ll deal with decommissioning in post-collapse scenario! It’s also expensive and takes a long time to build. But it is the reactors keeping my lights on!
Seen something similar. 1-2bn/GWe is doable with mass production and certainly if we pitch the large LWR paradigm.
I'm not a believer in the “it won't scale fast enough” argument as the whole “fast enough” part isn't well defined.
Certainly, long term, wind and solar can't (physics) have a large enough EROI to ever make sense- unless the plan is to radically de-industrialize with a corresponding population and prosperity decline. That won't sell well. Once the lights go off, burning coal and dealing with 1000ppm CO2 will start looking attractive- swamping the coasts notwithstanding.
As I said, it *does* provide a stable baseload and Inertia. Which *does* address the *main* issue I raised in this series, however it doesn't address the systemic issue of the Resource Entropy Singularity, which is the central flaw of our throughput maximising civilisation. Perhaps nuclear *could* be part of a "degrowth" solution, but that means not scaling up nuclear to replace everything else, but scaling down everything else to a level which could be sustained by nuclear.
I've an important article coming up on this as soon as SSRN review is complete for my paper that it's drawing from. I hoped that would be yesterday, maybe it will be today...
This is pure gold : "... that means not scaling up nuclear to replace everything else, but scaling down everything else to a level which could be sustained by nuclear."
It encapsulates so much of the nuance that is missed in the energy/climate/environment debate. I intentionally cropped "degrowth" as it is such an unpalatable (unsellable) word for now. For now ...
There’s also a “third rail” that nobody with capital or power will touch: the massive number of passive, nearly passive, or lower energy consuming strategies we could easily integrate into existing and new infrastructure, that would significantly lower total energy usage with low cost and little to be degredation of current lifestyles.
For example, incentivizing the use of metal roofs with insulated attics and solar venting fans on all new construction housing. Black shingle roofs are massive waste heat generators, and I insulated attics with no active heat venting are massive heat traps all summer long. But they provide little extra warming in the winter. Metal roofs with solar fans massively reduce summer heat buildup without affecting indoor winter temperatures. Builders scream such systems are “too expensive”, but the actual problems are that the dollar is depreciating while regulations are increasing, shareholders demand ever more returns, and buyers demand eye candy (granite countertops, flashy fixtures) over substance.
What about platting buildings so they face south in cold climates, and north in hot climates? And using appropriately glazed windows on each side?
How about building every home with passive ground cooling systems to passively pipe cool air into the first floor during the summer, and create a source of thermally stable, significantly above freezing ventilation during winter power outages?
Whatever happened to the solar roads that were being developed to recharge electric cars as they passed over the surface?
Organic regenerative farming would take a massive bite out of the total energy use as compared to conventional agriculture.
Redesigning communities to allow basic services and agriculture to be located within short commutes, or even walking, (ie., going back to something more organic and old-fashioned)would cut down both energy and gasoline usage.
Eating a vegetarian diet would save HUGE amounts of energy. And improve your health along the way, requiring less hospital resource use.
I know, I know! Now I’m just talking crazy. Reducing strain on the grid is one thing. Actually having to change the status quo is quite another.
Never mind.
Yes, that’s just crazy talk. Most of those things have very little room for rent-seeking strategies.
Excellent. Very much akin to Tainter’s law of diminishing returns on complexity. Thanks for a great read!
DC power grids are probably the future; but they are difficult to protect. AC circuit breakers and fuses are simpler devices, the zero current crossing helping to extinguish an arc. Not so with DC, so more complex solutions are needed, and there is more risk of catastrophic failure.
Yep it’s going to be expensive. The benefit of the AC is not just the stability, it’s the the transformer infrastructure making it straightforward to do voltage conversion which is also necessary to match efficiency in long distance transmission (kV-MV range) to efficiency in end use (3.3V-600V range).
21st century transistors, magnetics, and controllers finally make possible efficient DC/DC, but this is still a more extensive version of what I think are essentially PFC devices (with sync features), which are proposed as a band-aid to the issues raised in this series of articles.
You’re going to see this done right in developing countries. The West, outside of the US, is on a path to austerity for international balance-of-power reasons, so a chaotic de-growth should not be viewed with too much alarm.
Awesome post!
New thinking to me. I loved this article.
Thank you
Absolutely right. If you think of the grid as one massive machine-a sort of mechanical Jenga tower all stacked together and interdependent.
What we are doing now is pulling out one solid piece at a time and replacing them with marshmallows.
IMO what happened in Spain and Portugal will happen here soon.
And maybe it needs to because the idiots who are running our energy policy don’t have a clue about the risks they are running.
DC system would solve this - I really wonder what Tesla would think of this new problem as he was the master of creating AC. I agree though the DC to AC back to DC is very stupid and costly - but compatibility trumps all. Meanwhile DC Edison is probably smirking. I think the solution is to install DC systems into house i.e. a 5 volt distribution box
In Michigan (DTE/BANK OWNED) ships “dirty power” everywhere and always. Shutting down large steam turbine generators have created un stable 3 phase AC power. Power Factor, transient voltage-frequency-
. The story is that these banksters are selling absolute crap power. All motors throughout the system blow out their capacitors in year now. Before, 6 years ago, those devices would last 8-12 years. Mini voltage and frequency excursions are constant and damaging to all homeowner devices. Bleh. This article is for real and DTE’s crap electricity is just that. Crap power at a premium price. Crap in Crap out.
SIC could make AC/DC for computer more efficient but they still are expensive. DC/AC is efficient but expensive. It is really strange why we still do not power our data centers with Direct DC from PV and Battery. Or Cook or heat or cool with Direct DC.
Or, you can dump wind and solar and convert to fission. Rotating machines that provide grid stability is again part of the package.
Asynchronous, non dispatchable sources is the fundamental problem. Stop using them and the grid stability issue fixes itself.
Yes, nuclear solves the grid stability problem. I have concerns about siting reactors in the path of sea-level rise, and exactly how well we’ll deal with decommissioning in post-collapse scenario! It’s also expensive and takes a long time to build. But it is the reactors keeping my lights on!
Look at the Chinese and Korean costs per kWh. European and American build prices and timelines are artificially inflated by regulation.
In the event of societal collapse, decommissioning will not be the biggest worry. 😉
https://open.substack.com/pub/arthurberman/p/the-nuclear-golden-calf?r=r7kv8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Seen something similar. 1-2bn/GWe is doable with mass production and certainly if we pitch the large LWR paradigm.
I'm not a believer in the “it won't scale fast enough” argument as the whole “fast enough” part isn't well defined.
Certainly, long term, wind and solar can't (physics) have a large enough EROI to ever make sense- unless the plan is to radically de-industrialize with a corresponding population and prosperity decline. That won't sell well. Once the lights go off, burning coal and dealing with 1000ppm CO2 will start looking attractive- swamping the coasts notwithstanding.
As I said, it *does* provide a stable baseload and Inertia. Which *does* address the *main* issue I raised in this series, however it doesn't address the systemic issue of the Resource Entropy Singularity, which is the central flaw of our throughput maximising civilisation. Perhaps nuclear *could* be part of a "degrowth" solution, but that means not scaling up nuclear to replace everything else, but scaling down everything else to a level which could be sustained by nuclear.
I've an important article coming up on this as soon as SSRN review is complete for my paper that it's drawing from. I hoped that would be yesterday, maybe it will be today...
This is pure gold : "... that means not scaling up nuclear to replace everything else, but scaling down everything else to a level which could be sustained by nuclear."
It encapsulates so much of the nuance that is missed in the energy/climate/environment debate. I intentionally cropped "degrowth" as it is such an unpalatable (unsellable) word for now. For now ...
Looking forward to reading it!