Well, it is nice to be free again, though as I said on release, I shall never really feel free while Julian is still imprisoned and while Scotland is still part of an imperialist United Kingdom. I expect most of you have seen my release, but for those who have not:
The support of readers of this blog was particularly important to maintaining my mental health while in jail. Well over 2,000 people wrote to me in prison by post or by the peculiar prisoner email service (emails were printed out and given to me – I then hand-wrote replies which were scanned and sent by the jail). I read every word sent to me, and was very grateful for the books, magazines, poetry and the stories of people’s lives. It was companionship.
It also gave me much more of a feel for the community who read this blog, which truly is worldwide. I particularly treasured all those who wrote to say that they sometimes – or even generally – disagree with what I write, but enjoy the intellectual exercise and supply of under-reported facts and independent opinion. Because as regular readers know, it has always been my intention to activate thought and to inform; never to cultivate unthinking support. That seems to have succeeded splendidly well, as people sent me reams of argument on what they feel I am wrong about; which I much enjoyed.
I shall write about prison and the justice system in the coming days and weeks. I learnt a very great deal. But today as I get my own writing muscles working again, I thought I would give you my overview on COP26.
If Glasgow 2021 is remembered at all, it will be as the moment when big finance came to the party. Politicians and those who control them now largely accept that the public demand mitigation of climate change, and that this will perforce alter some of the ways that big money makes money. Glasgow 21 was rather more sinister than blah blah blah – it was the formal endorsement of the view that public endeavour is not the solution to climate change, rather the answer lies in “trillions of dollars” of private investment from banks and private equity which, Johnson announced, is all ready to go.
Johnson told us that governments can mobilise billions, while the private sector can mobilise trillions, as though that money was not created by government in the first instance. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero provides an answer to the question “What does a representative sample of evil people responsible for despoiling the planet look like?” We receive assurances like this:
Already, a fundamental shift in capital is accelerating as the world’s largest asset owners and managers, controlling over USD$30 trillion, join the UN-backed Race to Zero campaign.
No “respectable” media or body is going to question the taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and above all taxpayer guaranteed returns the big financial sharks are going to get – because it is all to combat climate change. This is an even bigger spree in the offing for the fatcats than the banker bailouts that led to the decade of austerity. In order to ensure the private sector money rolls in, you and I will be meeting R & D costs and then picking up any losses: the wealthy will be hoovering up the profits.
They also need to keep consumers consuming. There is no government interest in distributed power generation solutions.
Consider this. If you insulated every home in the country, and put solar panels on every roof, non-local energy usage would be greatly reduced and people’s energy bills would fall. But insulating homes, especially older ones, is much more labour intensive than it is capital intensive. It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But material costs are comparatively small, and then after insulation consumers will not be paying big energy bills. This is not in the least a fatcat friendly policy.
But what if you leave homes pumping heat into the atmosphere, forget local generation and instead build a new network of nuclear power stations? There is nothing more conducive to the concentration of economic and social power than the nuclear industry, with its inextricable links to the security state. Electricity can still be sold to the helots, whose self-sufficiency and freedom will in no way be enhanced.
Nobody should be surprised the government is showing much more interest in nuclear power than in home insulation or domestic solar panels.
Similarly expect to see much government support given to “blue hydrogen”, which liberates more CO2 from natural gas than does burning the gas in a power station. It employs fossil fuel and the promises to continue the economic centralisation of the current energy market, so is very attractive to the ruling classes. Green hydrogen, however, requires wind turbines (or potentially solar power in Africa) and water, and is therefore potentially susceptible to production by large communities rather than by oil giants.
Nuclear power, blue hydrogen – expect to have these and other high centralisation, high energy schemes foisted on us now as “solutions.” They are in fact solutions, in this sense. In Glasgow the people were shut out while the global super-wealthy asked themselves this vital question:
“The planet is heading for environmental destruction: how do we make money out of that?”
They believe they have found some of the answers.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
VERY good to see you back Craig.
Keep it coming Craig
Wonderful to have you back.
Have to tell you, very impressed with the beard.
Apologies for frivolity.
Welcome back to the man who didn’t let the bastards grind him down.
How goes preparation for an appeal to the ECHR?
Will Leonna Dorian’s outrageous “othering” of independent journalism be part of an appeal?
This must not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Cheque book at the ready.
Craig wrote: “In Glasgow the people were shut out…”
Having attended in protest for over a week, I can confirm this. Despite the COP26 security compound being massive, straddling the Clyde, incorporating multiple hotels and the television complexes of both the BBC and STV, barely any space was left for the public. Even the road the public could use was divided in half along its length by the compound’s perimeter, leaving an unpleasantly crowded space with no shelter, nowhere to sit, and no open space to congregate.
And the whole of Glasgow was a corporate greenwash festival. Glasgow has a few all-electric buses; every single one had been reallocated to COP26 services, leaving the old fume-belching ones to cover all other destinations. Every advertising billboard in the city was dedicated to greenwash from the massive corporations.
Yes Clark, a few COP26 bigwigs were taken to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, and barriers were put up on the pavements along surrounding streets, and locals could neither enter or exit there homes, as police officers (from the four corners of the UK) had in some some cases little sympathy with their plight. One local according to the press, a young woman, had a forty-five minute detour in the dark to get to her front door, which normally would’ve taken her just a couple of minutes. As for local businesses, within the cordon, their trade would surely have suffered as a result of the barriers and police officers doing their jobs, if a little jobsworthy on some occasions.
Yes COP26 wasn’t for your average Glaswegian, our voices mostly went unheard.
welcome back craig
Good to see you back penning articles, hope you are well.
Anyway, on Blue Hydrogen, I’m sure I read that this is the preferred route of the Scottish government, and I’ve read unlike Green Hydrogen, Blue Hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels. There’s certainly a fair bit of Greenwashing, when it comes to not only big businesses investments in the green economy but by world governments, Biden the US president has issued many licences for fossil fuel exploration, just as Johnson did with Cambo, though Shell has pulled out of the field for now at least.
As for keeping us consuming, in the UK at least, its been tipped that the BoE are close to putting interests rates up, on the nuclear power front, I wonder how the giant white elephant Hinckley Point power station is getting on, and how much over budget it will go, as the Tories push their micro-nuclear energy plants for the UK in the near future.
– “…Cambo, though Shell has pulled out of the field for now at least.”
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/uk-north-seas-oil-gas-future-darkens-after-shells-cambo-exit-2021-12-03/
– “At the moment it’s toxic,” said one North Sea oil and gas source, speaking about how Shell’s decision has impacted the investment climate in the British North Sea. Oil and gas fields require regular investment in drilling new wells and fields in order to offset the natural depletion in other fields. The more mature the fields, the more investment is needed.
This effect has been called “energy cannibalism”; as the low-hanging fruit is used up, more and more energy is required to extract remaining deposits. Cambo is more distant than existing fields, in deeper water, and further north in more challenging conditions. Yes, this costs more money, but more importantly it also costs more energy – you can’t print energy or raise it on credit. Just by depleting reserves, fossil fuels become less efficient and therefore more polluting:
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/10/20/oil-system-collapsing-so-fast-it-may-derail-renewables-warn-french-government-scientists/
Same goes for gas:
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/22/gas-crisis-reveals-the-imminent-end-of-europes-fossil-fuel-age/
Clark when you linked to the Byline Times, it reminded me of this, with Craig in mind.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-man-who-ruined-scotland/
Not quite true: the stuff that is directly extracted from fossil fuels (by steam reformation of methane) is brown hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is made using electrolysis, but crucially the (considerable) power used is provided from non-renewable sources. Green hydrogen is via electrolysis powered by renewables.
And about 95% of the commercially produced hydrogen at present is brown – bad news for the environment, and all to produce a fuel which is so low in energy density that it would produce fewer harmful emissions to just use the energy involved in the process directly. So much about the rush to hydrogen is a massive con in environmental terms.
Regarding electrolysis; I’m sure that I read somewhere that, if it was urine that was used instead of water, then the energy requirement was lower as the chemical bonds (in ammonia, presumably?) were weaker – and that also contributes to its treatment.
Sort of right, but more generally blue hydrogen refers to methane steam reforming with carbon capture and storage. It’s still a con as no-one has demonstrated any such process at scale, and not all CO2 emissions can be captured. https://theconversation.com/blue-hydrogen-what-is-it-and-should-it-replace-natural-gas-166053 and https://energy-cities.eu/50-shades-of-grey-and-blue-and-green-hydrogen/
Black – from coal or lignite – high emissions
Grey – from methane without carbon capture – high emissions
Blue – from methane with carbon capture – (I haven’t seen any description of blue hydrogen from electrolysis of water from fossil fuels including gas) – potentially lower emissions but see reference above
Green – from water by electrolysis from renewable energy – wind/solar/tide nil emissions (geothermal is “renewable” but not carbon neutral as quite a lot of CO
Why not produce Hydrogen from electrolysis of water using excess windfactory energy? There’s no other way to store it outside of massive pump storage. Makes perfect sense which will be why the murrell mafia don’t want to do it.
See other comments throughout these pages, from me and others. You’re right, it is a possible solution already starting to be addressed in a small way in Orkney. https://www.orkney.com/life/energy/hydrogen Presumably the hydrogen used to power a gin still will have to be called “Pink Gin Hydrogen” The process is not as efficient in using non polluting sources of energy, unfortunately. But it’s the overall efficiency and environmental and social acceptability of the operation that counts.
Welcome back into the wider world – you look and sound stronger than before your unjust incarceration.
Keep the beard – it makes you look sagacious.
Enjoy a dram or two and soon your work begins again – we need you and those like you more than ever.
Blue Hydrogen. The greatest fossil fuel scam in history? YouTube, 16 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EA4tDYwNYo
The small modular nuclear reactors are likely to prove a governmental nightmare. Rightly or wrongly, each site will provoke massive public opposition, most likely including direct obstruction of the construction process, if things ever gets that far. Emissions have to be cut rapidly, roughly halved in the coming decade, but there isn’t even a factory to produce such reactors so far, and the reactors haven’t even been prototyped.
Yes Clark, expensive to build, environment polluting, and with a deadly radio-active waste as a by product, and if there’s an accident, say a fire, the impact on the environment could be catastrophic, why would Scotland need them. Would opinion differ South of the border on them, I think it would, the Tories will push ahead with them no matter I think.
– “Would opinion differ South of the border on them”[?]
Political ignorance and naivety in England constantly frustrate me. I expect there to be strong English NIMBY opposition to small nuclear reactors, and widespread English indifference to blue hydrogen production in Scotland.
you do not need a granny to freeze in winter when you got storms flattening an outdated infrastructure NOW!
8 days without power and no repair team in sight?, looks like the people incompetent Government is already playing into the RR nuclear hike by letting people die/freeze.
After being good boys and girls wearing masks, it should be easier for them to condition us to getting used to nuclear power locally.
I agree with Clarks frustration over political ignorance and naivity, its like you try swimming in molasses. With the increasing criminalisation of environmental protests and free speech I feel that protests will morph into more diverse tactics.
Some might realise that well planned sabotage is also non violent and could disrupt their plans for blue Hydrogen and more.
Nevermind.
There was a discussion on the James Obrien show today on LBC, in which the conclusion that was come to by the host and many callers to the show, was that had the storm caused similar damage to the South East of England that the repairs would’ve been completed by now, there was a logical point made that the repairs in Northern England, many folk are still without power even today, is that because of the possible remoteness of the powerlines in fields etc that, that’s why its taken so long for the repairs to be completed.
I think the repairs we’re completed in Scotland today.
– “8 days without power and no repair team in sight?”
It’s under-investment caused by privatisation; inadequate infrastructure eg. underground cables and multiple routes, and inadequate maintenance eg. lax removal of overhanging branches, not enough personnel.
– “…is that because of the possible remoteness of the powerlines in fields etc?”
They fix areas with highest population density first, because they have to pay compensation for downtime, and (trivially) electricity can’t be sold across broken parts of the grid.
Getting the most vulnerable reconnected quickly is an engineering and social problem that has been abandoned to the Holy Market.
Could always use Stanley Meyers invention.
https://youtu.be/staL1wr07Sg
No, an investment scam is not a source of energy.
– “Meyer’s patents have expired. His inventions are now in the public domain, available for all to use without restriction or royalty payment. No engine or vehicle manufacturer has incorporated Meyer’s work so far.”
“There is no government interest in distributed power generation solutions.”
Australia has a pretty shocking record on climate action, but home solar uptake is so high (particularly in Western Australia) it is starting to cause some issues with the grid. Trials are planned to put batteries in houses and to add to community/town batteries to make use of this locally produced solar power. If given the chance this might lead to a distributed power generation solution or “virtual power plant”, not by government design but as a necessity due to individual action.
I believe this is exactly what Tesla are planning using the car network that they are rapidly growing. Each of which have grid tie inverters installed, theortically allowing energy from the car to be fed back to the grid…
South Australia is doing very well, too. Some days 100% of energy is from renewals, with capacity for this to get even better.
https://www.21stcentech.com/south-australia-sets-renewable-mark-reaching-demand/
Welcome back. I am very relieved that everything went reasonably well.
About the fatcats – a not so fat one is lying on my lap – it is clear that the system is trying to react to the situation in a system-compatible way. Capitalism always prefers the solutions that generate the greatest effort, turnover and thus profit. However, the cost disadvantages of both nuclear energy and hydrogen approaches are so high that they will not prevail even with massive subsidies. This is a waste of time and will also cause many a disappointment for the fatcats.
More to worry about at the moment is the ever louder war drums. Taiwan, Ukraine and Iran are three hotspots where events could soon come to a head. Each of the three has the potential for catastrophic escalation. One gets the impression that the extremely aggressive West is not really aware of where this could lead. In comparison, the two world wars could look like kindergarten. And there is no peace movement in sight….
– “And there is no peace movement in sight….”
You’ll find the peace movement among the environmental protest, which is very broad-based. Look for the “War Is Not Green” placards.
The two are the same struggle; most wars are for hydrocarbons or control over them – two of your hotspots being Iran and Ukraine. And military emissions are exempted from being published, though from the fuel consumed it’s easy to work out that the biggest single emitter in the world is the Pentagon:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/72279/
War makes climate change and climate change makes war.
Everything must be marketised. It’s a tenet of faith.
There are only four hydro pump storage projects in the UK (Wales & Scotland in reality). Only one of these falls into the >100MW category. The UK pioneered pump storage, Ffestiniog was the global 2nd plant and Cruachan was the first to use the same pipework for storage and generation.
The high initial Capital cost of these plants renders them uneconomical for our privatised utility sector which demands quick returns or massively subsidised tariffs before construction begins (see Hinckley Point C).
Meanwhile, China is constructing pump storage projects at a massive rate.
Yes Vivian, as the percentage of renewable electricity generation (in particular wind and solar whose outputs are not available on-demand) is increased, the system requires supporting (if to avoid fossil fuel based back-up) by increased storage facilities. The only feasible grid scale storage is pumped hydro. And yes I believe it is high capital cost, feasibility tends to be in environmentally protected areas and remote parts of grid network.
Not true there is only one over 100MW – Festiniog and Dinorwic in N Wales are 360 and 1800MW respectively and Cruachan (Scot) I think around 1200MW, don’t know about the other Scottish one. For scale of the storage facilities (and without looking the outputs vs duration of output up) I would estimate maybe a maximum of 3.5GW for 10 hours so say (in energy terms not power output capability) half a days grid energy usage (based on 30GW grid average) – its not much.
A few jumbled thoughts on alternative energy storage (for electricity grid) –
Batteries – I have not seen any feasibility study but would suggest environmental issues alone would exclude them. OK for niche uses – rapid (short term) grid stability, remote parts of an electricity grid network eg in Australia, utilisation of car batteries (but random availability would greatly limit the benefit)
Hydrogen (whatever colour) – limited feasibility of both production and utilisation – low energy efficiency (final energy yielded vs initial energy input), storage difficulties (dangerous, low calorific value), cost and environmental issues of plant for storage and electricity generation
There’s never a silver bullet…. fusion?
What am I on about – I should have said storage of about 1 hours worth of grid energy not half a day (its just a bit more on the figures I guessed)
Hydrogen is the “Silver Bullet”. This is why the fossil fuel industry is so actively trying to discredit it.
Hydrogen can be easily made from distributed, renewable sources like wind and solar, and can be stored locally or distributed using the existing natural gas networks. In fact up to around 10% of the current natural gas, commercially distributed for heating and cooking, can be supplemented with non polluting hydrogen with no changes required to existing burners. California already has over a thousand miles of Hydrogen pipelines.
There are excellent cars and other vehicles in full production ( mostly in Asia ) that use hydrogen fuel cells, providing a range similar to that of battery run cars, but with the obvious advantage of super fast Hydrogen tank refilling compared to battery recharge times.
Tests consistently show that Hydrogen storage in these cars is arguably safer than conventional petroleum fuel tanks because it doesn’t pool.
Discussions about Brown vs Green vs Blue are a distraction. Hydrogen producers have traditionally made industrial hydrogen using fossil fuels, but with a price put on carbon, they can quickly switch to a variety of alternate production methods. New technologies for producing hydrogen, at costs that are a fraction of today’s, are on the horizon, but unused capacity in current nuclear power plants is an obvious way to kick start a fast oil to hydrogen conversion at minimal cost.
Funny thing is that we already are basically using hydrogen. Trouble is that we are using Carbon as it’s carrier ( hydrocarbons ).
There are a wide range of different ways to capture, store, distribute and use hydrogen that are cleaner, and cheaper than what we use today. We need to get moving.
Hello Ascot2
Hydrogen production from renewable resources is currently electrolysis and (from wikipedia) with an industrial scale best practice efficiency of around 70-80% – at least a quarter of the originally generated energy has already disappeared and we have gaseous hydrogen that needs storing (fraught with problems) or preparing for transport (once again energy intensive). It is only likely to be appropriate on a large scale.
Re domestic hydrogen utilisation I had heard that the current gas network could support up to 20% hydrogen but don’t know the reasoning – eg does it combine with the methane and prevent its escape / is the lower calorific value of hydrogen the limitation due to volume flow limitations etc. Nevertheless I would suggest the 20% limit is not unreasonable for the current network. Completely new infrastructure would be required for a hydrogen network. The end use (boilers etc) is just a bit part of the issues.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not flexible in terms of energy output like batteries and require battery supplementation in cars, the fuel cells acting effectively as battery chargers. But the main issue is the whole cycle efficiency from initial electricity generation to motive power is extremely low – I have seen a figure in wikipedia in single figure percentage – it referred to it as wheel to wheel efficiency (I take as wind turbine shaft to vehicle motive power) – can’t readily find it now but just for the fuel cell to motive power wikipedia is quoting 17 or 22% dependant upon hydrogen status (liquid or compressed gas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell . The efficiency is less by multiples than normal battery cars. Yes the range of fuel cell vehicles can be better but even then the fuel cell / battery combination is fairly bulky and thus space limiting. Not even a steel bullet.
Hydrogen storage is problematic because of its explosive potential coupled with the difficulty containing it. This has ramifications for all aspects of hydrogen usage.
Yes those who advocate hydrogen talk about resolving (mitigating perhaps) the efficiency issues of production and preparation for transport/storage based on developing new technologies – well yes maybe, or pie in the sky, I don’t know.
Hydrogen production from nuclear power would not be a cost effective option. Nuclear output is most appropriate for directly feeding into the grid – the cost of nuclear together with the jumbled thoughts on feasibility of hydrogen in my first post apply. The excess from large scale wind generation would be more appropriate but the hydrogen feasibility issues remain.
No silver bullet – even for pumped storage, taking station turnaround efficiency and transmission to/from the station you are tossing a third of the originally generated electrical energy to the 4 winds.
– “thoughts on alternative energy storage…”
How about phase-change heat storage? Looks pretty simple, high energy density and close to 100% efficiency for heat supply applications at the consumer end.
Hello Clark,
Not sure what that is
Re heat conversion perhaps best use of hydrogen would be direct combustion in hydrogen turbines / combined cycle plant to regenerate electricity. Turaround efficiencies (inital generation to regeneration) could be what? – maybe up to 40% / over 30%? But wow, the cost and environmental issues with all the gubbins needed just to store originally electrical generated energy gets huge. All these things are easy to say but to do ….
Hello IMcK,
In answer to your response to me almost all the issues you raise have long been left behind in places where they have already fully adopted hydrogen as a primary energy source. In Japan a whole community is being built totally powered by hydrogen.
Cars are already running totally on hydrogen fuel cells, the Toyota Mirai is already coming out with new yearly models and yes, its primary power is hydrogen…buffered undoubtedly by batteries. If you want to see how it’s done watch a production video, of their first model, 6 years ago, viewed by 10million, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOUjqxec4bA&t=97s
There are a number of technologies, some close to commercial implementation that make hydrogen, at a cost less than $5 Kg, with no CO2 pollution. Look up methane Cracking as one example. Some other techniques are expected to bring the cost under $1/kg.
Complete network strategies have already been developed for multi user distribution and storage of hydrogen. Have a look at what Siemens is doing in this area. They are focusing on ammonia ( Hydrogen and Nitrogen) for transportation and storage then easily converted back to its component parts depending on the user.
Making hydrogen from standby power from existing nuclear plants is a no-brainer.
Currently some nuclear installations have to pay industrial users to use their energy during off peak hours. That could all be used to make CO2-free hydrogen. Similarly the use of hydrogen in existing natural gas pipes is just to start the flow. A recent pilot was done by a local natural gas provider and local company with hydrogen technology, and I was advised that they believe that 10% hydrogen component was what they found recommendable. Apparently hydrogen in greater quantities can have an effect on valves and metal joints….for reasons I don’t understand.
Hydrogen can be thought of as the lowest common denominator in the energy supply hierarchy, it’s where we will end up, in an all-electric powered world, regardless of what the entrenched corporate suppliers try to do to stop it.
BTW I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia too much.
Ascot2, sorry to be critical but hydrogen is not a “primary energy source” in the normal sense that “primary energy source” is used, meaning a source of energy direct from nature. There is almost no hydrogen available in the atmosphere, oceans or underground. Hydrogen has to be made using some other supply of energy.
Making hydrogen can indeed be used to store energy, and ammonia is indeed a promising way to store and transport hydrogen.
– “Apparently hydrogen in greater quantities can have an effect on valves and metal joints”
Hydrogen is the smallest molecule, consisting of the smallest atoms. As such it can diffuse into metals, which both permits it to seep out, and embrittles the metal.
IMcK, phase-change heat storage is using energy to melt a solid – or even turn a liquid into gas, though gas is less convenient as an energy store. For instance, in the video ET linked further down the thread, solar concentration during daylight is used to melt salt to serve as a heat source overnight. Different materials work at different temperatures but the principle remains the same, for instance electric refrigeration can make water into ice while solar electricity is plentiful, and the ice can be used for cooling at other times. There are many methods of heat storage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
Storing heat is much easier than storing electricity, and 100% efficient when the final energy needed is heat.
Heat storage,
Yes Clark but we have veered of the main subjects of dicussion which were electrical grid storage and hydrogen utilisation
Ascot2 (I hope this appears in the right place)
‘Cars are already running totally on hydrogen fuel cells, the Toyota Mirai is already coming out with new yearly models and yes, its primary power is hydrogen…buffered undoubtedly by batteries.’
Then its not ‘totally hydrogen’. Yes it can be done but you seem to miss my point. The problem is the energy efficiency from primary power source to motive power and that is extremely low for hydrogen cell vehicles – accumulation of power losses from hydrogen production, conversion for transport (currently compression or liquification), transport, hydrogen fuel cell efficiency, battery efficiency. The result is energy usage efficiencies in single figure percentages and thereby a fraction of that achievable by straight battery vehicles.
‘There are a number of technologies, some close to commercial implementation that make hydrogen, at a cost less than $5 Kg, with no CO2 pollution. Look up methane Cracking as one example. Some other techniques are expected to bring the cost under $1/kg.
Complete network strategies have already been developed for multi user distribution and storage of hydrogen. Have a look at what Siemens is doing in this area. They are focusing on ammonia ( Hydrogen and Nitrogen) for transportation and storage then easily converted back to its component parts depending on the user.’
Again you need to quote energy efficiencies and consider the whole cycle from primary power source to final use. And of course those looking for funding make all sorts of claims.
‘Making hydrogen from standby power from existing nuclear plants is a no-brainer.
Currently some nuclear installations have to pay industrial users to use their energy during off peak hours. That could all be used to make CO2 free hydrogen. ‘
Nuclear installations work on long term fixed price contracts. The user pays them, I have never heard of them paying industrial users to take their power. See the Hinkley C contracts – 95 pounds per MWh
‘Similarly the use of hydrogen in existing natural gas pipes is just to start the flow. A recent pilot was done by a local natural gas provider and local company with hydrogen technology, and I was advised that they believe that 10% hydrogen component was what they found recommendable. Apparently hydrogen in greater quantities can have an effect on valves and metal joints….for reasons I don’t understand.’
10% use is even worse than I quoted – I credited them with 20% albeit without any substantiation
‘Hydrogen can be thought of as the lowest common denominator in the energy supply hierarchy, it’s where we will end up, in an all-electric powered world, regardless of what the entrenched corporate suppliers try to do to stop it.’
Unlikely – low energy efficiency of hydrogen usage is its main problem and coupled with limitations of its practical feasibility of usage – some of which I have outlined in my posts. I suspect it will recieve some lucrative funding in the meantime – nice work if you can get it!.
‘BTW I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia too much.’
I find it useful for technical matters but I agree when it comes to matters political
Ian and Vivian,
You might find this of interest
Australian National University – Global pumped hydro atlas
Long post – sorry. It’s incredibly important in discussing energy matters to not confuse energy output with energy capacity. A lot of otherwise expert commentators get this wrong in their writing. The UK has four pumped storage schemes, with combined maximum output of 2.8 GW – the total output of UK electricity is around 75 GW i.e so PSH is a mere 3.7% at maximum. But pumped storage output is only for a few hours at a time, they are designed for purely peak power needs. You need then to consider the actual energy storage of these schemes. A table on page 15 of this document https://www.british-hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pumped-Storage-report.pdf lists the capacity of the four existing schemes in the UK, their total 26.7 GWh. So at 2.8 GW output, that’s a maximum of 10 hours from totally full to completely empty. That is nowhere near enough to meet the much longer storage requirements to meet the needs of wind and solar power. where you’re looking at days of power for much of the country’s total needs. You’re looking at least one order of magnitude bigger schemes. So you’re looking at massive expenditure and massive environmental issues. OK for global warming, certainly, but flooding much of the high places in Scotland might prove to be a very big issue indeed. It is however true that PSH is an excellent, efficient and long lasting partial solution to storing some power, but how much and at what cost, financially and social acceptability?
It might be salutary to point you all to a proposed scheme in the South Island of New Zealand (in Māori Te Wai Pounamu o Aotearoa) in the Manorburn depression, which is actually in hills, elevated about 700 metres a.s.l.. This scheme I am an enthusiastic proponent of. The depression is unpopulated and nearly barren (though obviously there will be some environmental concerns) , and could store up to 10,200 GWh of power, nearly trebling the total power storage of every hydro lake in the country (and they provide about 65% of all our power) It would be the world’s largest, and by some margin. This scheme not only would act to store wind and solar power, but because our hydro lakes are very vulnerable to rainfall changes on an annual basis, would act as seasonal storage for NZ’s electrical energy needs. This massively exceeds the power storage of all present and proposed PHS schemes in the UK which might ultimately achieve a bit over 150 GWh total, ie about one seventieth of the proposed Manoburn scheme(though it mightn’t be developed to its maximal potential) . Here’s one of them https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/scotland-s-largest-hydro-project-approved-by-ministers Now this particular elevated depression in NZ with a large river dam at its base already is a particular geological accident that probably doesn’t have many parallels in most countries, and certainly not Scotland. It presently contains two small reservoirs, but it’s working head of water will be over 600 metres and its area when full around 45 km2 https://medium.com/land-buildings-identity-and-values/pumped-hydro-update-ec4538cbdb87
Now for Scotland, things are a bit different. Whilst there may be room for a wee bit more hydro, there are huge local environmental concerns related to flooding pristine Scottish glens. Whilst land based wind is also a problem, it’s a much less permanently destructive environmental force, though visually intrusive. Offshore wind solves most of these dilemmas .Scotland will almost certainly become highly dependent on wind for the majority of its fossil-fuel free generation capacity. But wind is, on annual basis, both in NZ and Scotland, much less variable than hydro. So you need a storage capacity which will cope with shorter intermittency of wind, say up to a week of relatively wind free weather. But as the majority of your power needs are in winter, this is usually a windier season. As you presently require an average daily electricity demand of around 70 GWh, you’d need storage capacity of perhaps seven times this, or 500 GWh. So even all the new proposed PSH schemes fall a quite a way short of this figure. However, you are also directly connect to the UK grid, and by extension to other parts of Europe, including Norway and France, which give you considerable flexibility compared with NZ’s isolation. Now Scotland may not have the geology to have a very large PSH scheme, but perhaps Norway might have some spare mountains and valleys?
The other touted technology is “green hydrogen” – which may prove itself in large schemes, I don’t know. The problem is that it isn’t that efficient, electricity -> hydrogen via electrolysis -> electricity is only about 50% efficient. Electricity -> hydrogen -> direct industrial use would be more efficient. A PHS scheme efficiency is around 80% or higher. OTOH, hydrogen facilities don’t flood pristine valleys and can be sited pretty well anywhere. Then we have battery electric vehicle to grid. Again, not good enough for long term storage, but for peak power.
What I do know though, that for Scotland, even with its relatively cool climate, any idea of needing to power itself with further nuclear power is something to be resolutely avoided, if possible. For England though, with its high population and high density, I think they will be forced to increase its nuclear output – it’s not an enviable situation. for that country. Although I have previously thought that George Monbiot and James Hansen have been misguided in their enthusiasm for nuclear power, I am beginning to waver or change my mind; between the nuclear devil and the heated planet hell, then the former may be the least worst option.
Finally, one serious and almost never calculated proviso. Population growth. A consistently growing population puts any calculations in renewable energy out the window. That’s been a huge issue in New Zealand whose population has grown at 1.4% p.a for 20 years, and 1.9% p.a. in the five years up to 2020. It is likely high levels of immigration will continue after Covid, because politicians and business love it and no-one in office has ever mounted any opposition or professed concern. It has been calculated in New Zealand to achieve a fully renewable energy strategy, not just for present electricity use, but in transport, industrial and agricultural use, we’d need to double our present renewable electricity generation. At present rates, our population will double in less than fifty years and means our renewable energy output will need to QUADRUPLE over this time !! Simple arithmetic and the power of the exponential function. We ignore population issues at our peril. Yet what country on the planet has a population policy? If you haven’t already, watch this youtube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4 and read this review https://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-15/albert-bartlett-on-message-about-exponential-growth-to-the-end/
Some blessed relief from MSM comment. Welcome back Craig. Never stop.
Craig, it was heartening to see you looking so well on Tuesday, with your rebellious spirit undiminished. Everybody was very happy to see you, not least your family.
Your statement outside the prison was very well pitched. When I got home, I transcribed it from the video and posted the transcription in the discussion forum: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/craigs-speech-outside-saughton-prison-after-his-release/
In your MOATS interview with George Galloway you seemed very stoical and level-headed, which is admirable after such unjust treatment. I look forward to that book. But I miss the Santa beard!
Great to have you back Craig.
Kind regards,
Scott
So good to have you back Craig. Injustice can be a very wearing thing. Hats off to you for dealing with it so well.
Craig,
Good to see you out and your health and high spirit seems to have survived.
You raise good points about nuclear energy & blue hydrogen, and I need to think about that stuff a bit more.
But I would like t raise an alarm about ‘distributed energy generation’. I got a question from Flanders, Belgium, where the government is subsidizing solar energy & purchase of storage batteries. The pricing is such that you are incentived to consume your own production (so during daytime), and store any excess in batteries for use in ‘dark’ hours. That in turn generates two “useful” side-effects: on the one hand, it reinforces the neoliberal idea of “I’ve got mine, and to hell with the rest’. On the other hand energy consumption becomes more extreme, with even less demand at night, and ever more demand during the day. So the system will break down more & more often, and the happy few will invest even more to protect themselves from these outages.
I have always looked at energy distribution (or water, or Internet or TV, or postal services) as a ‘natural monopoly’ where only the State should be allowed to operate, in order to provide simila services to all citizens. “Uberizing” a distributed service would be no good, but as you write, the new nuclear or blue hydrogen are no way out either.
Great to see you back, and free of sorts. Wishing your family and yourself a great holiday season and a prosperous, safe New Year.
Welcome back, man
Welcome back Mr. Murray. I don’t agree with everything you say and sometimes have thought “you can take the man out of the Foreign Office, but you can’t take the Foreign Office out of the man”.
One political prisoner released. Now for the rest.
As for the COP26 political theatre – Buy an EV, let a granny freeze in winter.
Great to have you back!
As far as I can tell, carbon capture is in the same category as those other initiatives. A massively expensive and centralised method of trying to minimise the effect of burning fossil fuel. To my simple mind, better to find a solution that means it is not burned in the first place.
It’s great to see you back again Mr.Murray and admirable you jump straight into writing again. All power to your elbow.
In your absence some of us discussed climate issues in a thread on your discussion forums. It was mostly agreed that blue hydrogen is a scam. On the other hand I advocate for a role for nuclear power. If you look at the safety of power production nuclear is by far one of the safest in terms of lives lost, accidents at work etc. Even considering the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima it is also far less polluting and environmentally damaging. There are possible, as yet unproven, innovations in nuclear plant design that may help solve some of the issues with nuclear power generation. However, as was pointed out in that thread and by Clark in this the time factor and costs involved are problematic.
Isn’t that a problem for any of the solutions we currently have? Renewables also have their limitations, intermittency of power generation, land use etc. They also require large battery storage facilities which would mostly be based on lithium reserves currently. Solar power in desert regions seems like a great idea but there are issues there too. There are currently just two 750 MW electricity interconnectors between North Africa and Europe (with, I think a third currently being laid). To supply Europe’s current electricity usage would require another 600 of these to transmit such amounts of power. Also, I didn’t realise just how much water is used to keep solar generators going. Water that is taken from agricultural use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o
I can’t attest as to how accurate the facts presented in that video are but some of it is definately thought provoking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCAmGtvmeU
“Just have a think’s” latest video is also worth a watch.
I am sure you are correct in your appraisal of how the financing of nuclear will go but I also think it will be the same for any of the renewable solutions. I still believe that we can’t deliver the power required with just solar/wind alone in the timeframe required and other solutions, of which nuclear is one, will need to be developed in tandem to meet the required timeframe.
Time for renationalisation of our energy networks all over the world.
Great to see you back, Craig, thank you for writing so soon.
In response to ET, I’ve found Chris Martensen and his site Peak Prosperity to be useful here. The site used to host (may still host) a thought-provoking video series called “The Crash Course” about the issues you raise. Martensen distinguishes between a ‘problem’ we might have some collective chance of solving and an unavoidable ‘predicament’ we simply have to adapt to. Future energy scarcity in his view is a predicament.
For example, my local shopping mall recently had three Tesla charging bays installed, in a car park designed for say, three hundred vehicles. Leaving aside the wisdom of pursuing that trend, Chris Martensen (I think) would argue that the energy and resource cost of building out the electric vehicle infrastructure for an additional 297 spaces, to say nothing of scaling it up for thousands of similar facilities, will simply be beyond our society’s means to provide, in the time frame required.
Like Pnyx I’m more immediately concerned that the latest ramping up of aggressive rhetoric and moves against Russia and China could generate a far more immediate ‘predicament’ than our trashing this precious planet.
– “I can’t attest as to how accurate the facts presented in that video are…”
Sixteen references at the bottom of the description section under the video; click “Show more”.
Stop showing me up Clark 😀
That was a kind of disclaimer from me as I haven’t actually gone through the references. I like his channel a lot but I have seen some reasonable constructive criticism of some of his engineering facts in some of his other videos. I first watched that video last night. I was astonished by the amount of water used in those solar concentrating arrays.
Welcome back! Enjoy your freedom again and being back with your family!!
On this issue of going ‘green’ it reminds me that every single time new rights or laws to protect people or indeed the planet come into force the big companies always turn it so that it benefits them more and those who were SUPPOSED to benefit actually lose out. You have given examples as above in re the use of nuclear and I am also reminded of the Equal Pay Act. Women’s pay was supposed to some UP to the level of men’s. But over the course of years men’s has gone down the way instead. It IS equal (well, sometimes) but it’s equally BAD and not equally GOOD. Back then mothers may have had the choice to stay home as men’s pay was high enough to keep a family. Now it’s not and new mothers have to go back to work regardless of how they feel about it. It takes a couple to earn what one earned before. Big business now gets two for one on employees.
A few years ago I’d have had faith that if Labour had gotten in that it would genuinely have addressed all of these issues. It was for the first time in decades a truly progressive party. But Starmer is worsening by the day and there is no pretence that he is progressive, he is simply a Tory in Labour clothing. In Scotland there is only so much our government can do to offset the excesses of Westminster – we are going to have a very rough future..
Welcome back Craig,
Aye !
Welcome back Craig.
When I watched your statement on your release, I thought goody, I do hope Craig starts a discussion on (Nuclear) energy. As you say, we don’t all agree with everything you say but do support your right to speak and your intelligent discussions.
Regarding Nuclear.
As an Engineer, I am a great fan of Nuclear Energy as, IMO, the only true ‘green’ power source that can deliver a safe and reliable baseline generating capability.
However, to be clear, I am not a fan of the huge, mega projects such as Hinkley. These large projects (like HS2 as well) tend to be badly managed, always late, always over budget, underperforming and a case of ‘all our eggs in one basket’.
The sensible way to go is SMRs (Small Modular Reactors). These enable small reactors to be distributed instead of centralised, they are potentially cheaper costing in the region of around several hundred million pounds to two-ish billion pounds (depending who’s lies you believe !) and if the right technology is selected they can also be used to generate Green Hydrogen and developed to minimise waste.
Nuclear waste is an issue but is a solvable issue. In comparison, even though a very small proportion of nuclear waste ‘may’ have to be stored for say 1,000 years; the output of Zero-Carbon Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) has to be stored FOR EVER, as does Plastic waste.
The link between Nuclear Power and the Military is purely politically generated and goes back to generating plutonium for bombs. That link does NOT have to exist. SMRs could be purely commercial enterprises – although for energy security I would maintain government control over power generation facilities.
Are SMRs a ‘pie in the sky’ technology ? No. Japan has a working SMR, China has working prototypes, Russia has its fully operational floating SMR in the artic. The UK has an SMR design under development by Rolls Royce based on the generator in Nuclear Subs – but that is more than a decade away – apart from that we have hot air generated by Johnson and his government.
The Lib Dems seem to be promoting home insulation, and Labour “decarbonisation” as well as bringing energy infrastucture into public ownership. The Tories appear to be promoting cheap nuclear energy, which no doubt involves also enriching the companies who build the new plants and systems for storing and disposing of nuclear waste (can it be done safely?). Then there’s Alba and the SNP in Scotland. I suspect that their policy will be like the Lib Dems. Take your pick.
PS. It’s good that you’re back. But why not have a pleasant holiday with your family before getting back to CENSORED saying things that need to be said?
Welcome back! The world has been darker during the period of your flagrantly unjust incarceration.
I don’t always agree with what you say. It would be a very strange and sad world if I did.
I must confess I’m still puzzled as to what’s been going on in Scotland, with Alex and That Woman. I will say, however, that, whatever the true story is, it’s a pale shade of gray compared with the black sewage pit currently swallowing Westminster. Scottish independence is the only solution. I would have one request before that happens: please move the border southwards beforehand and take northern England with you.
FREE ASSANGE!
Net Zero is bullshit! Smoke and Mirrors!
Other than Scottish independence, I disagree violently with just about every word you say and write. And it’s great to see you back speaking and writing.
Sweet. Welcome home.
Good to see you again too, technicolour.
Tremendous to have you back in the ‘free world’ once more. I’ve missed you dreadfully. I’ve literally thought about you everyday and, of course, the dreadful fate of poor Julian Assange, whose gone through this years and years with the prospect of being ‘buried alive’ at the end of it. Cheers!