PowerSwitch

BREAKING NEWS:

The UK risks running out of energy capacity in the winter of 2015-16, according to energy regulator Ofgem

This has just appeared on BBC news website - no story yet.

Might have something to do with this - http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/media/pressrel/ ... elease.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19842401

You posted before I could.

I remember reading this story - energy shortages by 2015 - 8 years ago.

I printed the UK governement funded) report out and tried to highlight it to green groups and even Prof Mckay.

Nothing has been done since.

Nothing.

Indeed - I've been giving lectures saying much the same since 2005. The supply side facts haven't changed (nuclear decommission, coal closure under LCPD, North Sea gas depletion, slow renewables growth), however, the recession has helped the demand side.

Here's a lecture I gave in 2005, slides available:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2005/07/peak-o ... eak-speak/

Britain’s Energy Future
I presented the UK energy mix, concentrating on electricity supply. The UK’s ageing nuclear fleet currently providing 23% of electricity is soon to be decommissioned and the 38% provided by North Sea gas is in jeopardy due to rapid indigenous depletion. The balance currently made up from coal faces CO2, SO2 and NOx emission limits requiring very large capital expense to clean the current infrastructure or a switch to expensive, scarce, foreign very low sulphur coal. One point of note is that the existing nuclear plants are built on the coast, many only just above sea level. Decommission is projected to take 200 years before 100% clean, pessimistic sea level rise could see many of these old reactors under water before fully decommissioned!

Not news to me !
It has been forecast for years, on these forums and elswhere.

Indeed, I would suggest that we would be facing shortages right now if it were not for the economic situation reducing demand.

Wind helps, every MGWH of wind generated electricity is a corrsponding amount of natural gas not burnt and therefore still in storage for calm weather.

Building more baseload natural gas power plants is not such a good idea due to concerns over price and availability of gas.

Time to plant lots trees for wood fuel
Time to abolish planning restrictions on wind and solar equipment.
Time to buy a generator
Time to buy shares in Aggreko*
Time to buy candles, oil lamps and batteries
Waiting for the lights to go out.

* if seriously considering, take independant financial advice

Whether it's new kind-of isn't the point. It's more a matter of how mainstream it becomes, no?

The more people who know it's...

Time to plant lots trees for wood fuel
Time to abolish planning restrictions on wind and solar equipment.
Time to buy a generator
Time to buy shares in Aggreko*
Time to buy candles, oil lamps and batteries...

the more people will do these things, and the better-prepared we will collectively be.

Tree planting is good, as long as it isn't on high quality flat land that could be growing food. Generators need fuel of course.

I'd prefer to see the government giving out substantial grants for the purchase of wind and PV systems.

clv101 wrote:Indeed - I've been giving lectures saying much the same since 2005. The supply side facts haven't changed (nuclear decommission, coal closure under LCPD, North Sea gas depletion, slow renewables growth), however, the recession has helped the demand side.

I suppose this begs the questions,

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.

AnOriginalIdea wrote: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.

Yes, the crunch is indeed due about the middle of this decade.
The exact time can not be forecast as it depends on weather, depletion rates, and the state of the economy.

I consider power cuts a distinct possibility in the next few years, but not inevitable, we might muddle through as we have done so far.
But it would take only a little bad weather, or a minor industrial dispute, or a series of breakdowns, or trouble in already unstable places, to cause serious shortages.

Or of course the economy might crash to such an extent that demand falls to the capacity available, and the lights do not so much go out, as people cant afford to turn them on.

Just about within living memory, electricity was a most useful service that NOT EVERYONE COULD AFFORD, rather being a basic human right as it seems to be regarded at present.

Electric light is a great advance on gas, oil, or candles, but only a very little is needed.
A large house can be well lit with 100 watts, and victorian lighting levels could be achieved with about 10 watts per house.

In my lifetime (just) there was no electricity in the village where I now live.

clv101 wrote:

AnOriginalIdea wrote: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, the crunch was within the lifespan of a young man at the time. In 1919 the crunch was "within 3 years". In 1938, the crunch was by 1950, in 1943 the crunch was that year, in 1977 the crunch was by the end of the 1980's, in 1989 the crunch was right then and there, in 2005 the crunch turned into...2006...and then 2008...and then...

and so on and so forth.

So sure, not always, but this has been going on longer than you and I have been alive. My questions stand...is 7 years the the time required for people to forget the last one (thereby thinking the new one is THE one), and how long can this cycle continue? A generation? Three? Forever?

clv101 wrote: 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 presentation you referenced, you stated that 50% of UK supply was "threatened".

Apparently, that threat didn't work out so well, and now the UK is "threatened" again? Or, in 2005, did you mean "threatened" as "well, maybe a decade or so we will worry about it, but not today" which I didn't spot in the slides?

Interestingly, an article you referenced in that presentation talked about the coming power blackouts similar to those in the US and Canada and whatnot. Did those materialize as expected, what with 50% of your electricity threatened, surely something awe inspiring shook the islands to their core in the past 7 years?

Certainly when it turned out that the shortages caused in the US were designed on purpose to collect revenue for Enron, those who mistook it for a resource issue were left with more than a little to blush about, and by 2005 the implication of the article you referenced certainly said nothing about the non resource related cause of those blackouts.

I would theorize that once someone develops a resource scarcity point of view, the history of such claims (or the fear of being caught recycling them) no longer factors into their perspective, unfortunately, neither does the reasons why those claims never came to fruition. Full steam ahead, kick the can, and hope no one notices that the threat...just...always seems to be just down the road a little.

AnOriginalIdea wrote:

clv101 wrote: 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 presentation you referenced, you stated that 50% of UK supply was "threatened".

Apparently, that threat didn't work out so well, and now the UK is "threatened" again? Or, in 2005, did you mean "threatened" as "well, maybe a decade or so we will worry about it, but not today" which I didn't spot in the slides?

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. I specifically wasn't suggesting there'd be blackouts that year, the next or even the one after that. Those generators would still be online and the majority of the gas still indigenous. It's all about middle of this decade as the coal and nuclear comes offline, and we come to rely on the imports for the majority of our gas.

Electricity use has gone down due to a lot of our industry closing, which has helped.