My recent post on Wind Turbines attracted an interesting comment from a reader by the name of "nommo". In summary, nommo's view is:

• [T]he way we run the [national power] grid at the moment is wrong
• It is incredably [sic] inefficient to have a centralised power supply.
• [A] nation of electric cars would actually be a great energy storage buffer.
• Then there is the concept of compressed air storage...
• [W]ould you rather have a nuclear power station less than 20 miles from your home (and temporary storage of waste) or some windmills?
• [N]uclear plants are built by foreigners (I'm paraphrasing this one as I didn't quite understand it. I'd recommend you read it yourself)

I hear these sort of sentiments a lot from the green movement, and in general my main response to those who say that we're doing electricity distribution wrong is to point out that we are not the ones doing it.

I used to work for the National Grid Company - boring IT support as opposed to proper engineering - and from my position under the desk fiddling with network cables I was able to gain some appreciation of the enormous complexity of the task of generating and distributing electrical power on a national scale. The people involved, from the mad bastards in the line engineering team who swing about on pylons to the analysts trying to match supply to demand, are not just punching the clock and kicking back for the day. It's a constant physical and intellectual battle to keep the system going and the electrons flowing.

And the system is pretty damn efficient, by which I mean there are no compelling alternatives to current methods of electricity distribution, regardless of how much money you've got to spend, that offer a better energy conversion efficiency. Such alternatives will probably be developed; but they're not here yet. But if you want to take the initiative, and move back to the fields to live next to a windmill today, then be my guest.

The core point I made about Wind Turbines - not my original work - was that the output of said generators is unpredictable, because the wind doesn't always blow, and thus they aren't much cop for national power generation which depends on stability of supply. I'd reiterate what I said to local Green Party councillor, Charlie Bolton , and throw it open to everyone: if you can come up with a better technology then please do!

As a means of stabilising that supply, Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is certainly worth a look. It's not a new technology - the first CAES plant was built in 1978 - and is in use in several countries around the world. Alabama's Power South Energy Cooperative was apparently an early adopter, although there doesn't seem to be anything on the web-site about it.

A 2,700 MW CAES is planned for Ohio, using old limestone mines to store the compressed air. The designers' web-site looks pretty compelling.

Cars as Portable Batteries

One interesting idea raised by "nommo" was that electric vehicles could be used as portable batteries to store energy from unpredictable wind generators and thus smooth out national supply by releasing their energy on demand when plugged in at home in the garage, a load-levelling function performed in the current UK grid by Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity .

According to the DVLA, there are around 28,000,000 cars on the road in the UK, and 33,000,000 vehicles in total. These statistics are a bit old, so let's keep the numbers simple and say there are 35,000,000 vehicles driving around in 2008. Let's say that all of these vehicles were converted overnight into Plug-in hybrids (by some fantastical effort herewith undefined) so that each contained a 4 kWh battery. (For comparison, a standard hybrid car like the Prius contains a 1 kWh battery). And let's say that no one drives these cars, and they just stay in the garage. And that the batteries are constructed using a technology with no constraints on discharge/recharge cycle. And while we're at it, let's also say that they convert power at 100% efficiency. And that they cure cancer.

This would give us a total "garaged" energy storage capability of 140,000 MegaWatt-Hours. Reminding ourselves via a table of Orders of Magnitude for power that a MegaWatt is ten to the power of six watts, and a Terawatt is ten to the power of twelve watts we can compare this garaged value to the UK's daily requirements.

• UK Daily power requirements (TWh): 0.96
• Hypothecated "Garaged" Power Storage (TWh): 0.0144

The latter figure is 1.46% of the former. Now this does actually compare pretty well to the UK's current energy storage systems. The largest hydro pumped storage facility in the UK - Dinorwig - can generate 288MW from each of its six generators for 5 hours - a total of 1,440 MWh. Adding in the older four 90 MW generators at Ffestiniog (we'll assume they can manage five hours as well), that gives us a total UK energy store of 0.002 TWh, or 0.2% of daily national power requirements.

So this idea could be a goer. In about thirty years, when there are sufficient batteries installed in cars, of sufficient capacity, with a technology that supports fast and frequent discharge/recharge cycles. But if you think you can do it now, there are plenty of venture capital firms out there to whom you can speak. Just remember, that UK local authorities flush with cash collected from council tax payers do not count as a legitimate source of VC funding.

Counterpoint

Plenty of people disagree with me about the viability of wind power. Have a look at the British Wind Energy Association for another take on the same data. Their contention is that the UK's small number of large power stations is the problem for which a large number of small power stations is the solution; a concept for which they use the technical term "lumpiness".

They're protestations would be more compelling if they were able to run their industry without massive lobbying efforts and state subsidies - ironically the same critique that is often made of traditional power companies.

The Nuclear Option

I'm hesitant to legitimise a false dichotomy - wind or nuclear - but I will say one thing. I would be totally relaxed about living 20 miles away from a nuclear power plant, because just like all Bristolians I already do. I'm referring of course to Oldbury Nuclear Power Station , which is sadly due to cease operations this year. In my case, this is exactly a 19.2 mile drive from my front door.

View Larger Map

For more information about why Nuclear power isn't the bogeyman that many people think, have a look at this book. (It's even got lots of stuff about carbon footprints and global warming if you're into that sort of thing):

As part of my continuing mission to raise the level of political debate in Bristol, I offer the following useful guide to local issues, based on previous work conducted by the University of Bristol.

For further information on the issues raised, use these links:

1. Council Tax
2. Bus Rapid Transit
3. Museum of Bristol
4. Redland Green School Overspend
5. Tilting at Windmills
6. Bristol Environmental Technology Sector
7. The Gas

Note - I put Type 7 in to keep Jon Eccles at Secular Backlash happy. I don't follow football myself, since it's a girls' game.

(On a related point, why did the entire city smell a bit funny yesterday? It wasn't just me - several people commented on it.)

There is windy talk taking place in that big building by College Green. No, not the Cathedral, I mean the Council House. Under discussion: a proposal to build two wind turbines at Avonmouth for the purpose of generating electricity.

This is a fantastically bad idea. Supremely Bad. Short of building a BRT route along a cycle path I can't think of a worse idea (note: That's me off the fence then. More to follow on my research into BRT economics). Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and try to follow the chain of reasoning that leads to a local council building turbines:

1. The council needs electricity
2. Wind Turbines generate electricity
3. The council should build some Wind Turbines

This can't be the reason behind this decision, since Wind Turbines are a very inefficient and unpredictable way of generating electricity. Over at the Burning Our Money blog, Wat Tyler discussed the Danish example. Although the official statistics for the Danes are that they get 16% of their national power from Wind, it would be more accurate to say that they offload their wind power onto their neighbours, and import a more predictable supply from foreign fossil or nuclear sources.

Good Intentions

A quick skim through the council's websites provides the intentions behind this idea:

Of these seven intentions, six are politically driven, and will be paid for by our Council Tax regardless of their underlying economic viability. "Lower Energy Costs" is at least mentioned, but is not exactly getting top billing. And it's an unlikely outcome given the implicit unreliability of Wind Power. There's not a lot else to be said about the carbon footprint arguments - either you believe the sky is falling or you don't. The goal that really puzzles me is "to control an element of its own power supply stream"Are the council worried that the National Grid will declare war and cut off strategic supplies? Or perhaps they fear an Anschluss if w're overreliant on Scottish Power. I can't see the point in seeking energy Isolationism.

After all, why stop at Energy? Consider that Bristol as a city in inextricably dependent on others for our food and water. Damn the Merchant Venturers - let's plough up the Downs and plant carrots; let's turn Cabot Circus into a water tank. With a planned & sustainable diet of fresh vegetables and a handful of mud, Bristolians could relax safe in the knowledge that they were living the traditional lifestyle of their ancestors, free for the vagaries of international financiers, globalised food markets and fickle foreign producers (i.e. Somerset). Until Winter of course, when we all die of thirst, starvation and malnutrition. Or choke on a piece of Queen Anne's lace.

Clearly we're not going down the self-sufficiency route for food and water, for very good reasons. Therefore it is reasonable to be sceptical about similar arguments about the need for independence in power, particularly if the generation system is intrinsically unreliable (i.e. Wind) and under the management of public sector managers. Local government officers are career bureaucrats - which is no insult; bureaucracy has its place. But their historic performance in market oriented endeavours where there is exposure to risk is not good. Examples? Take your pick, but locally the school building programme - particularly Redland Green School - is a good starting point.

Following the Money

Other than allowing the city to purchase the third millenium's answer to the Papal Indulgence (The Carbon Credit) and giving the Energy Management Unit a new toy to play with - which I suppose would distract them from signing any more declarations on our behalf - would this policy make much of a difference to the council's 'leccy bill, and therefore to Council Tax?

There's no Budget Book from the Council for 2008/09 yet, so for a quick back of a fag packet (only smoked outdoors) calculation we can use some figures from the odious Carbon Reduction Strategy 2007. In that year, the city spent just over £7,000,000 on "building energy". Let's keep the numbers simple and say the Council spends the same ever year and pays 0.10 pence per kWh on the wholesale market, which gives a total energy usage of 70,000 MWh every year, or an average of 190MWh every day.

The proposal is for two turbines rated at up to 3MW. "Up To" is the key bit of the sentence, as wind turbines average out at around 25% of their top capacity, since the wind doesn't always blow. So a more reasonable figure for the wind farm is 1.5 MW of generating capacity, with an output of 36MWh ever day, or about 19% of the Council's energy needs which - using our original assumption - would cost £1.3 million to buy.

The going rate for capital purchase of a Wind Turbines is somewhere around £1,000,000 per MW, so the full price would be around £6,000,000. So early in the fifth year of operation, the turbines break even and the next twenty years are just gravy.

But all the averaging hides the problem that even if the wind does blow, it doesn't necessarily blow at exactly the same time you need power. The purveyors of wind power would rather you didn't know this: you can't run a power grid using wind unless you've got a much larger traditional source of generating capacity to smooth out the supply. And we haven't discussed maintenance, spares and other running costs.

The Personal and the National

There's no way in hell that wind can deliver anything close to the predictable 350 TeraWatt Hours of electricty the United Kingdom needs every year.

Now I don't care about the spurious economics of Carbon Footprints, but I'm always keen to lower my electricity bill. UK households have an average annual domestic consumption of around 5 MWh of power (Bristol's figure is somewhere around 4,200-4,600 kWh annually), but if you want to find out your figure you could sit in front of the meter with a paper and pencil and do some sums. Or, like me, you could buy an Owl Wireless Electricity Meter:

Stick the sensor around your incoming power cable, and you can find out in excruciating detail exactly how much you're spending on electricity.

Alternatives to Alternative Energy?

"Alternative" tends to be used as a negating modifier: "Alternative Medicine" doesn't make you healthier, "Alternative Investment" doesn't make you richer, and of course "Alternative Energy" doesn't generally increase available power.

But there is some cause for interest in the sector: have a look at Bristol's own Marine Current Turbines, who are building a 1.2 MW tidal power generation system off the coast of Northern Ireland, and have plans for a Canadian installation generating nearly 4MW of power. Another local research team in the tidal power sector trade as Tidal Generation Limited.

It's still early days. Another decade of work is needed before this technology is genuinely commercially viable (for example the MCT Northern Irish project required a significant government grant). But tidal power generation is worth watching.

The Party Political Bit

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, is famously an advocate of Wind Power. This is not his fault - he is, after all, a product of the British education system and is thus woefully unprepared for dealing with any matter of public policy involving science or engineering.

Say what you like about the French - and I do - but at least they've got the sense to put the Engineers in charge rather than the Classicists .

The Bristol Enterprise Network is an initiative of the University of Bristol , providing a forum for exchange of knowledge between academia and high-growth enterprise.

I attended a very interesting event run by BEN entitled “The Hydrogen Economy”. The speakers were:

• Professor Keith Ross of the University of Salford
• Dr Tim Mays of the University of Bath
• Paul Isbell , Energy Management, Bristol City Council

Given that it’s been a long time since I studied Physics, and longer still Chemistry, I am objectively unqualified to report on the detailed science; however there were several interesting points for policy makers.

Hydrogen is not a commodity that exists in a form suitable for direct energy generation. (Well, not on this planet anyway). Therefore strictly speaking the term Hydrogen Economy is a little bit ahead of its time. For the current century our particular interest is not the use of hydrogen as a primary energy source, but as an Energy Vector – a mechanism for storing, transporting and releasing energy generated elsewhere.

Professor Ross discussed some of the necessary developments for an economy based on Hydrogen use, and concomitant energy generation paths. There is an element of the Chicken/Egg problem in that widespread commercial use of Hydrogen requires a national infrastructure for moving the substance, but equally development of a national infrastructure depends on a commercialised market. A tricky problem, and not necessarily one that government should be seeking to solve at this early stage of technological development.

A particularly interesting project that Prof Ross mentioned  was the use of fuel cells as a means to smooth the output of wind turbines, currently under investigation in Greece using EU funding.

Dr Tim Mays discussed further aspects of the physical constraints and potential solutions for storage of Hydrogen. I was particularly surprised by some of his department’s research at Bath – certain chemical substances when suitably arranged can act as “compressors” by drawing hydrogen molecules into their structure without actually bonding to them. Thus a storage device consisting of a solid-state block of material can potentially store more hydrogen than an empty box of equal volume. With my limited scientific background, this struck me as quite counter-intuitive.

Paul Isbell gave a brief discussion of some of the initiatives the local council are involved with to promote and even use Hydrogen-based storage. Unfortunately there wasn’t really enough time to develop the ideas but their seemed to be some novel local initiatives in the planning stages. Mr Isbell expressed his view that nuclear energy should not be the foundation for generation of hydrogen, given the potential environmental impacts. I believe that this may be a false deduction, since nuclear technology – particularly high-temperature electrolysis – appear to be one of the best options for kick-starting the use of hydrogen and thus a means to reduce dependence of fossil fuels.

BEN events are always a good opportunity to meet a wide range of people from the local business community. Quick plugs: 

Richard Hellen of Hermes Energy Services (who explained for me the difference between primary energy and energy vectors)

Jas Singh of Auriga Energy Ltd. was one of the stand-outs of the evening. Jas has an unrivalled knowledge of current fuel cell technology and is the “Go-To” man for a requirement that needs fulfilling today. Auriga is currently developing motive power units for Rigid Inflatable Boats and Rickshaws.