Up in smoke: how efficient is electricity produced in the UK?

[kristopher]

Up in smoke: how efficient is electricity produced in the UK?
Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day in our gas, coal and nuclear power stations.

Over half of the energy in gas and around two thirds of the energy in nuclear and coal used to produce electricity is lost as waste heat.

Information is Beautiful has created a graphic for Friends of the Earth that illustrates just how much energy is lost in production and compares it to renewables sources, which lose less than 1%.

It makes particularly interesting reading when considered alongside Good Energy's (one of our partners on the Clean British Energy campaign) recent graphic showing where our energy comes from.

This graphic was produced...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/energy-green-politics#

[NYC_SKP]

1. I appreciate this graph, but just to be sure, are the figures for 100% of the energy...

Are the figures for 100% of the potential chemical energy of the various fuels as delivered to the power plant (and not inclusive of the energy expense in extraction, transport, etc.)?

Noting the "rejected energy" values in this Sankey diagram:



TIA

[kristopher]

2. Not sure of your point

The article is linked; it deals with electricity only, not all energy (as the LLNL diagram does) and it seems evident it relates to the efficiency of methods of electricity production. If you think other data is relevant, why not say what you are trying to say instead of trying to make it into a question.

[NYC_SKP]

4. What are you talking about? Solar and Wind are TOPS in energy produced per unit of fuel...

Nothing except hydro produces more energy per unit of fuel used.

[BT021]

5. two-thirds of wind energy in a turbine's sweep area...

is wasted, because that is how turbines need to work.

in solar PV, typical would be that 90%
of solar energy falling on a solar
cell is wasted as heat.


waste waste waste

[caraher]

6. Partial truths at best

With wind, I assume you refer to the Betz limit - but you have it wrong. You can't extract more than 59% of the energy in wind, meaning what you call waste is just over 40%, not 2/3.

Some solar PV cells are only 10% efficient, but that's a low figure as well. Many cells do better, some by quite a lot! But calling the balance "waste" is a peculiar way of looking at it. To me, "waste" suggests that something gets used up to no positive effect. But a joule of solar energy you don't use today doesn't diminish the number of joules of solar available to be collected tomorrow. This is very different from burning a fuel and having some of that energy serve no purpose - that energy is transformed to heat in forms that are generally not recoverable, and you can't burn the same fuel twice!

In any case, do you look at a field full of plants and bemoan the "waste" because photosynthesis is maybe 11% efficient, at best?

[NYC_SKP]

8. So what? The efficiency of fossil fuel plants is abysmal.

And, again, I challenge you to tell me what electrical production scheme creates more electricity per unit fuel consumed than solar wind or hydro.

Can you tell me?

[BT021]

13. is all you want from coal is electricity...

there will always be a 60% thermodynamic loss,
unless the deal is combined-heat-and-power,
which is a little different.

the whole efficiency arguement
is BS, because greenies will always try
to get hydro into the mix,
and hydro is a special case because
the energy is already mechanical energy.

[NYC_SKP]

14. How long will oil and coal last, compared to solar and wind?

Your efficiency numbers are meaningless until you can address the question about energy output per unit of fuel (how does coal compare to solar on this measure).

How about the number of years remaining of reliable supplies of each source based on current consumption rates?

What is your plan after all the coal is gone?

[TeamPooka]

19. why do you refer derogatorily to "greenies"?

do you have something against the environmentalist movement?
Please explain.

[caraher]

20. They've been PPR'ed

I think the answer to your question was "yes..."

[TeamPooka]

21. awesome

[XemaSab]

7. The sunlight and wind that are "wasted"

would be there anyway even in the absence of windmills and solar panels.

It's not like digging up a mountainside, shipping it halfway across the country, burning it, and having nothing to show for it but CO2.

[NYC_SKP]

9. The member cannot reply to my question about energy output per unit fuel used.

What energy source provides more power per unit fuel used than solar wind or hydro?

Gets them every time. Most of the arguments around efficiencies disregard this little detail.

Indeed, I've begun to categorized energy sources into more than two groups.

If it doesn't involve fuel of any sort, it deserves it's own category (wind, solar, hydro).



OT: AB1771 what a bunch of crap, I hope it never sees the light of day but I worry.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1771_cfa_20120413_151253_asm_comm.html

[XemaSab]

10. Boo on that

[BT021]

15. efficiency is unitless

efficiency is output, divide by input

...............................
energy output, per unit of fuel,
is performance

please get your terminology straight.

[NYC_SKP]

16. ***You're still here. Good. How's that "35 cents is cheap" working for ya?***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=19236

So tell me again, How much better is the *performance* of coal or petrol (in terms of joules or kwh output/unit fuel input) when compared to solar or wind?

Oh, never mind, you'll never address it, so let me 'splain it to you.

Shills can't reply to the question because the comparison reveals that because:

A.) The energy cost of extraction and processing and transportation of the fuels for coal and other fossil fuels is NEVER included in the calculation because it immediately makes them LOSERS.

B.) Solar and Wind and Hydro have NO fuel input; they only have the cost of creating the power generating apparatus and maintenance.

This is why you are wrong wrong wrong and I am right.

***This entire drama is posted not to convince you, but rather to enlighten any readers who might not otherwise see the difference between fuel-based generation versus no-fuel schemes.

Touche'

[BT021]

17. you are ignoring the consequences of non-availability

it would be nice if hydro could supply
enough electricity for the US,
but there are too many people.
people will not tolerate outages.


if wind and solar sre so cheap,
why do wind-electricity-providers demand
a tarriff higher than everything else

[NYC_SKP]

18. Pumped hydro and other storage schemes on the horizon.

Nobody is arguing that hydro/solar/wind can do it all anytime soon.

But solar and wind, especially, are gaining a bigger and bigger share of the market and will continue to.

For obvious reasons.

[NickB79]

11. And then: UK ranked most energy efficient of world's largest economies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/12/uk-ranked-most-energy-efficient

It lacks the glitz or glamour of the Olympics but the UK won a race that really does matter on Thursday, taking the gold in energy efficiency.

A report launched in Washington by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy on Thursday ranked the UK first among the world's 12 largest economies for reducing pollution in industry, transport, and buildings.

Which makes me wonder, if the UK is as inefficient as kristopher's article says, and they're STILL the most efficient among their peers, just how inefficient are all the countries below the UK? Damn.

[kristopher]

12. Actually the UK was only first in the industrial sector.

But your basic point is correct - there is a great deal of low hanging energy fruit to be found in energy efficiency spending.

[kristopher]

22. Kick