BREAKING NEWS: The UK risks running out of energy capacity

[adam2]

And some people at least are using more efficient lighting and appliances which helps a bit.
More efficient lighting is unfortunatly sometimes used to greatly increase lighting levels, rather than to reduce energy use. As an example, a single 40 watt or even 25 watt incandescent bulb was often judged suitable for a small room like a toilet, these days I have seen 2 twin wall lights installed, with 4 lamps each of 9 watts CFL, for a toilet!

High efficiency fridges dont help if you have 3 in a home that previously had one !

The increasing use of wood stoves helps a bit as this tends to be in rural areas that lack natural gas. Many woodstoves are therefore replacing electric heating.

[frank_begbie]

As long as we're still in a recession, we'll be ok.

[AnOriginalIdea]

The old slides are lacking the words I actually said - the threat was then (and still is today) all about the nuclear and coal decommission schedule and our growing reliance on imported gas.

So when you wrote "threatened" on your presentation, what you actually meant was "I'm using the word threatened here but don't worry, what I am actually concerned with is something happening a decade or more down the road"?

[clv101]

Indeed, that's the nature of the threat.

[RenewableCandy]

A) is a 7 year cycle about right for recycling the same idea because it is longer than the memory span of those involved and
B) how many more 7 year time periods can take place during which the expected cataclysm is always a few years off in the future?

Conceivably, B) could take place for generations yet to come. Maybe even already has, for those who think that Ehrlich still had any contemporaneous to his claim creditability.

It's not "always a few years off in the future". It's been clear the the last 10 years that crunch is the middle of this decade.

In the 1880's...

Gah!

[Catweazle]

So when you wrote "threatened" on your presentation, what you actually meant was "I'm using the word threatened here but don't worry, what I am actually concerned with is something happening a decade or more down the road"?

Thank goodness for that, for a minute I thought it was important.

[biffvernon]

I'm in a hotel and have been unable to spot a single low energy light bulb. Numpties.

[adam2]

I'm in a hotel and have been unable to spot a single low energy light bulb. Numpties.

Anyone would think that a byelaw prohibited the use of low energy lighting in hotels, public houses, restaurants and the like !

Many such establishments, whether owner operated or run by a paid manager, or run on a very short term basis with monthly or even weekly profit and loss accounts expected.
A low energy lamp can take months to repay the purchase cost, an inovative marketing campaign that gets more customers through the door straight away is often considered a better investment.

This is why I support the ban on energy wasting lamps, eventually even hotels may have to use low energy lamps when they cant get the old ones anymore.

[PS_RalphW]

I was in a recently fitted out restaurant (for a works dinner) and the light level was so low that people had to borrow my cycle torch to read the menu. Above the table was a light cluster with 12 lamps (one blown) but they were so heavily shielded they gave almost no light. I could not see the bulbs, but I am pretty sure they were not CFLs.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm willing to wager that mid decade you will not have major power cuts or supply shortages but rather energy prices that are fifty to one hundred percent higher in real terms then at present. The question becomes who will you be paying these high prices to. KSA? Russia? Some home grown alternative source perhaps?

[Blue Peter]

I'm willing to wager that mid decade you will not have major power cuts or supply shortages but rather energy prices that are fifty to one hundred percent higher in real terms then at present. The question becomes who will you be paying these high prices to. KSA? Russia? Some home grown alternative source perhaps?

I was just going to write, "The problem is that we have expensive, but poor, housing stock, and that sort of solution would mean (more) people dying, which would be hard to manage..." and then I saw this:

The French parliament has agreed in principal to the idea of a basic energy allowance for individuals where the cost of gas or electricity will be reduced. Go beyond this limit and you will be steadily penalised.

The law will be based on your annual council tax return, you will need to declare the number of people living in the house, their age and the type of fuel used. Each individual will be given an allowance which will be totalled for the whole house/flat and the bill then calculated on this basis. Older people will get a bigger allowance and the country will be divided into a number of regions based on the climate.

The idea is to encourage people to insulate their buildings (or landlords as people will shun badly maintained buildings) and that small families living in large houses will pay more. Air conditioning users will be particularly hard hit as they tend to be in warmer areas which will have smaller overall energy allowances.

Some people could see energy bills double, others may get a reduction of 30%.

http://www.linternau...rche-1012.shtml

Link

Which perhaps suggests a way of dealing with this problem. Enough to keep people alive, but want more and you have to pay (a lot),


Peter.

[emordnilap]

It's a small step towards TEQs. In fact, it could nearly be a form of TEQs. Great idea.

[adam2]

I cant see it working, nice idea in theory but far too complex.

Imagine the complexities, "number of people in house" what about students who live away in term time and with parents the rest of the year.

"type of fuel used" So do you get less subsidised electricity or gas if you have a wood stove ?

And so on.
And everyone would moan that the subsidised allowance is totally insufficient, and that due to the complex calculations, that everyone else is better treated than them.
And if those in cold parts get more subsidised fuel for heating, should not those in central London get more subsidised electricity for air conditioning ?

What if you make some of your own electricity from solar or wind sources, does this get deducted from the subsidised allowance, or is it in addition?

What about district heating schemes ?

[emordnilap]

...which, adam2, is a good argument for the principle, but in the form of pure TEQs.

[Blue Peter]

I cant see it working, nice idea in theory but far too complex.

Imagine the complexities, "number of people in house" what about students who live away in term time and with parents the rest of the year.

"type of fuel used" So do you get less subsidised electricity or gas if you have a wood stove ?

And so on.
And everyone would moan that the subsidised allowance is totally insufficient, and that due to the complex calculations, that everyone else is better treated than them.
And if those in cold parts get more subsidised fuel for heating, should not those in central London get more subsidised electricity for air conditioning ?

What if you make some of your own electricity from solar or wind sources, does this get deducted from the subsidised allowance, or is it in addition?

What about district heating schemes ?

Good points. But, could we then make it simpler? Council tax gives the rough size of the home and council tax payer the occupant; child benefit and pension gives the number of children and elderly. The Met Office probably gives heating days for regions.

That would give a rough figure of how much you need. We, un-automated, managed rationing during the war, surely we could manage something like this?


Peter.