UK Gas and Electricity Crisis Looming

Post by **mikepepler** » 19 Apr 2006, 07:43

Has anyone heard any more on the Rough repairs? I've been looking at the past year's data for storage, which you can get as an Excel spreadsheet here: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/Data/misc/

Our current levels are:
Short: 526 GWh
Medium: 3,561 GWh
Long: 18,446 GWh

1st May 2005 they were:
Short: 955 GWh
Medium: 1,904 GWh
Long: 14,237 GWh

So, at the moment, we're ahead on the medium range storage, which they've been filling up in the absence of long range storage - I guess they had to do this to cope with late cold spells like we had a week ago. We're also ahead on long range storage as we had to stop using it due to the accident. However, last May they were busy injecting into Rough, and by 1st June the levels were:

Short: 1,143 GWh
Medium: 2,697 GWh
Long: 19,999 GWh

I used the 1st June date as this is the last estimate I heard of when injection to Rough can start again. Even then it could leave us running to catch up a little bit, especially as North Sea production is sure to be down this summer compared to last year. If it takes longer to fix....

It seems a bit early to worry about next winter, but I think the situation with Rough is going to be worth us watching and drawing people's attention to if it doesn't go well.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Apr 2006, 20:59

Another gas storage facility may be available in a couple of years:
http://www.wingas.de/328.html?L=1
This is a small gasfield near where I live in Lincolnshire. It seems there's now more empty hole than gas hence the idea to use the geology for storage rather than further extraction. Wingas, the company that owns the site, is German but the Russian Gazprom has a 35% stake in the Wingas. I suppose we should take comfort from a move by the Russians to invest in a British storage facility.
Of course the local NIMBYs don't quite get the global picture so today's local paper's front page headline reads:

Louth Leader
OUTCRY AGAINST UNDERGROUND GAS STORE PLAN

The article speaks of disturbance by lorries during construction but nothing about why gas storage is needed.

Post by **mikepepler** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:24

biffvernon wrote:Another gas storage facility may be available in a couple of years:
http://www.wingas.de/328.html?L=1

Helpful, but too late for this winter...

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 23 Apr 2006, 20:58

Planning delays 'put UK energy supplies at risk'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business ... 35,00.html

The future of Britain's energy provision is at risk because the UK's cumbersome planning system is blocking the building of vital new gas storage facilities, says the Confederation of British Industry.

The alarm has been raised by the CBI as part of its submission to the Government Energy Review to be published tomorrow.

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 23 Apr 2006, 21:35

There is about 40 mcm/d of additional import CAPACITY this winter from 1st Dec.

I am having a row with the government as to exactly what the situation is.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Apr 2006, 22:37

Too late for the coming winter but the proposed gas storage facility in Lincolnshire gives me a dilema. I will be able to see three large buildings from my bedroom window where now there are just fields (and, in the distance, some wind turbines). I am happy to argue that the turbines are beautiful structures that enhance the landscape but I am having a problem with the proposed buildings and their chimney stacks. (No, I don't understand why a gas storage facility needs stacks either.) I am forced to conclude they will be an ugly blot on the landscape. Should I object to the planning authorities or put up with it for the greater good? And who is the greater good? The firm concerned is a German company, Wingas, that is 35% owned by Gazprom. And we don't even get mains gas in our village! This storage facility will be about a quarter the capacity of Rough. There must be other empty holes under the North Sea. Why can't they use them for more storage where the only neighbours are seagulls?
Your thoughts please, folks.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 23 Apr 2006, 22:44

johnhemming wrote:There is about 40 mcm/d of additional import CAPACITY this winter from 1st Dec.

I am having a row with the government as to exactly what the situation is.

Excellent. Thats what I like to hear from backbenchers and opposition MP's! ( Going slightly off topic I hope you are also having a go at them re. the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which I think is the most obnoxious piece of legistlation I've ever seen come before Parliament)

Look forward to hearing how your 'discussion' develops.

I get the impression that behind closed doors the Govt policy on nuclear power is in 'flux'. Do you get that impression?

When a ministry suddenly goes shtumm on a subject it seems to me to mean that they're still making their minds up at No 10 and in the absence of any guidance, the relevant ministry just has to shut up on the subject until Tony, Gordon et al. in Downing street have argued it out.

Comment?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Apr 2006, 22:51

Which is why they're sitting on the JESS report?

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 23 Apr 2006, 23:09

biffvernon wrote:Which is why they're sitting on the JESS report?

Hadnt thought about that. Makes sense.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 24 Apr 2006, 11:13

biffvernon wrote:Which is why they're sitting on the JESS report?

Ive just read a major article about the future of nuclear power in the 22 April edition of New Scientist. Reccommended reading for all peaknics and anybody interested in energy supplies generally

I am now absolutely firmly in the 'don't know' or 'can't make my mind up' camp on nuclear power. If the Govt is vascillating as much as I now am on this issue I can understand why they don't want to talk about it. Politicians as we all know, are not allowed to be undecided about anything - at least in public. They are expected, quite ridiculously, to have an opinion about everything.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 24 Apr 2006, 11:35

skeptik wrote: I am now absolutely firmly in the 'don't know' or 'can't make my mind up' camp on nuclear power.

Which direction did you move from? and for what reasons?

Peter.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 24 Apr 2006, 14:00

Blue Peter wrote:
skeptik wrote: I am now absolutely firmly in the 'don't know' or 'can't make my mind up' camp on nuclear power.
Which direction did you move from? and for what reasons?

Peter.

From being pro-nuclear to still being pro-nuclear but thinking that as a country we've possibly missed the boat. There are only 6 nuke shops in the world. They all have lengthening queues. Countries (mainly Asian) are signing up for new plant all the time. We havent yet even decided whether we want to join a queue let alone which queue to join.

Knowing how long it takes to get any decision making done and planning approved in this country it means we still have a medium term electricity supply problem even if TB decides to push for more nukes today. As global demand for nuclear power ramps up there will probably be supply bottlenecks due to shortage of materials ( e.g. special steels and exotics like Zirconium) which will push back delivery dates even further.

The other problems which will have to be addressed are the EU rules governing govt. subsidies and a nuclear engineering skills shortage in the UK.

By contrast it looks to me that China , Japan, and some of the other 'Asian Tigers' rate electricity supply security higher than the European 'flat playing field' and pure economics. I tend to agree with them. Long term security of Electricity supply is a matter of national security which just cannot be abandonned to 'market forces' to the extent that the conservatives and New Labour have. A more active govt. role is required, not just the occasional spankies from OFTWAT, or whatever so-called regulatory body is involved.

China also has none of the problems regarding subsidy and planning permission found in EU countries. If you come over all NIMBY in China the police just come round, crack you over head and haul you off for 're-education' . Try it with a few friends and you will find yourself facing the PLA in tanks, and the more valuable of your internal organs (heart, lungs kidneys corneas etc. ) eventually being sold to rich old Californians..

One of the 6 nuclear electric shops is Chinese. It employs 280,000 people and is expanding. (that sounds like a lot of people until you remember that there are 1600 million people in China compared with only 60 million in the UK) . They are R&Ding their own designs. They've just signed into huge long term Uranium supply deal with the Australians, deliveries to start in 2010.

Most British nuclear engineers, the few that are left, are nearing retirement, already retired or dead.

so, whats it to be?

More Gas
More Coal.
More renewables - especially at the local level.
More energy efficiency technology
more lifestyle change.

More nukes? Despite the several advantages of nuclear energy compared with the other non-renewable sources ( the greatest being that it doesn't require invading and garrisoning the Middle East - a huge cost saving compared to oil and natural gas - and produces least CO2) - there is a big questionmark, despite my strong personal feeling that you should always have as many baskets as possible, never just the one, because 'anything can happen in the next half hour'

reccommend you buy New Scientist and read the 5 page article.

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 24 Apr 2006, 14:51

More Coal.

I'm sure we will go down the 'more coal' route, in fact we've already started.

This is terrible for CO2 output, but G'ment indecision, lack of forward planning, and unwillinness to invest will lead us inveritably down this path.

I especially liked MW's responce to grinu's letter

Ultimately, market mechanisms will ration the remaining global supplies of oil (and gas)

I guess this is the governments position on national policy for all forms of energy. Well, if we just leave it to the market we will get rationing by price (recession/depression), and a switch to the next cheapest thing, coal.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Apr 2006, 19:12

skeptik wrote:reccommend you buy New Scientist and read the 5 page article.

I read this at lunch - some good points, they really focused on the economic angle and that microgeneration (up to and including multi MW installations) can generate more energy and reduce more CO2, for less money and in less time than nuclear.

I've been trying to think of the pro-nuclear argument lately and, well there doesn't seem to be much of one. Can someone remind me of the benefits of a major nuclear build programme (say 10GW)?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 24 Apr 2006, 20:55

clv101 wrote:
skeptik wrote:reccommend you buy New Scientist and read the 5 page article.
I read this at lunch - some good points, they really focused on the economic angle and that microgeneration (up to and including multi MW installations) can generate more energy and reduce more CO2, for less money and in less time than nuclear.

I've been trying to think of the pro-nuclear argument lately and, well there doesn't seem to be much of one. Can someone remind me of the benefits of a major nuclear build programme (say 10GW)?

Excuse me for being ignorant - (Im not being funny this is a genuine question

) but what would a national implemented micro generation programme look like?

What are the pro's and cons?