PowerSwitch

At work a situation involving a potential local energy opportunity has thrown the issue of energy descent into sharp relief.

A new gas power station is being built, the waste heat from which has the potential to heat a large chunk of Manchester for decades to come. The gas is piped directly to the power station from a gas field in the Irish Sea - energy security for a relatively long period of time.

The problem is that nobody will invest in the infrastructure to take the waste heat and supply it to homes and businesses because the financial risks are far too great. There is no guarantee that individual, privately owned households will connect up to a district heat network, and the infrastructure costs would be vast.

In a centrally controlled command economy such as China, this project would likely be state-financed and would just happen. Here in the democratic, free-market West the risks are seen as just too great for even the biggest private sector infrastructure company to take on.

I really wonder whether our current political system is at all suited to energy descent. A shift towards more private sector based decision making and less state control could quite easily result in a triage system, where infrastructure in a contracting economy is focused solely on those parts of society who are able to pay, and the poorer sections will be increasingly left out to fend for themselves.

Coupled with the increased privatisation of the police, fire, ambulance and other public services, this means an ultimately more divided and gated society.

Could places like China ironically end up being more equitable societies during the energy descent?

Andy Hunt wrote:
I really wonder whether our current political system is at all suited to energy descent.

Our current political system is fatally flawed, even in times of plenty. But what could we possibly replace it with that wouldn't be worse?

The direction we seem to be heading in is a system where more and more is privatised and the state has an ever smaller role, I’m not sure any left of centre party would have the funds to renationalise anything significant.

Where the state has a very limited role, individuals must simply pay the private providers for their needs - elections become rather less significant (or am I wrong?). I note that the Conservatives have nothing against nuclear energy, but say they don’t want any subsidies used.

China has 30 year (and longer) plans. In the UK I’m not sure where long term planning comes in; perhaps it doesn’t.

Tawney wrote:The direction we seem to be heading in is a system where more and more is privatised and the state has an ever smaller role, I’m not sure any left of centre party would have the funds to renationalise anything significant.

If things get really bad, maybe they don't need any funds. They just take the thing.

Where the state has a very limited role, individuals must simply pay the private providers for their needs - elections become rather less significant (or am I wrong?).

I'd say elections would be as important as ever. What would be less relevant is the traditional left/right distinction...which is already blurred beyond recognition in the UK.

I think that the stronger role of the state had a massive role in the Cuban experience. We appear to be careering in the opposite direction, however.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Tawney wrote:The direction we seem to be heading in is a system where more and more is privatised and the state has an ever smaller role, I’m not sure any left of centre party would have the funds to renationalise anything significant.

If things get really bad, maybe they don't need any funds. They just take the thing.

Yes, perhaps. Though if they did I suppose we could say goodbye to any more foreign investment. It also would require leaders with nationalistic feelings and I'm not sure whether that is the case anymore.

UndercoverElephant wrote: I'd say elections would be as important as ever. What would be less relevant is the traditional left/right distinction...which is already blurred beyond recognition in the UK.

Tesco, BUPA and DODGY TAX AVOIDERS are probably just the same whether the Tories, Labour, Greens or Monster Raving Loonies are in power.

You don't need to go as far as China. Sweden seems to regard chp as pretty normal.

Tawney wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Tawney wrote:The direction we seem to be heading in is a system where more and more is privatised and the state has an ever smaller role, I’m not sure any left of centre party would have the funds to renationalise anything significant.

If things get really bad, maybe they don't need any funds. They just take the thing.

Yes, perhaps. Though if they did I suppose we could say goodbye to any more foreign investment. It also would require leaders with nationalistic feelings and I'm not sure whether that is the case anymore.

Oh...if the British people think they aren't being properly defended (in a nationalist sense) then they will vote for the BNP en-masse.

Going back to the OP, wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the gas to heat the houses?

Or how about CHP for public buildings (a la Sheffield, but without the incinerator)? They can plan longer-term, no? Or do you as a council get done by HMG Central if you set this all up, agree to pay for the heat and then Tesco Nuke Heat comes along and offers a cheaper deal?

The power station is being built, there is no question of not building it and saving the gas for heating.

The amount of waste heat is vast, of course public buildings are first on the list but they will soak up only a small proportion of the waste heat.

Crikey.

Where is it?

www.carringtonpower.co.uk

That's only Phase 1 too - Phase 2 will be another 1500MW in two modules, giving about 2.5GW of electricity generating capacity, and I understand about 1.2GW of waste heat.

My task is to try to put together a consortium to somehow make the infrastructure happen. It's er, quite a challenge though.

Is there council/H.A. housing nearby? Or commercial premises with a big landlord?

I suppose if the worst comes to the worst you could always direct the heat under the railways or roads to stop them from icing over and keep the cyclists warm!

There is a general distrust of and dislike of district heating schemes in the UK.
In many cases this is well found from bitter experience. Such schemes are often run by local authorities as part of council housing projects.

A friend of mine purchased an ex council flat on an estate in south east London. They pay a substantial service charge for use of the district heating which is far from reliable.
In addition they have recently had to pay several thousand pounds for improvements, and state that total costs far exceed that of running a standalone gas boiler.

The heating is liable to interuption whenever the local authority workers strike, which appears likely.

Heat is not so readily metered as gas or electricity, therefore it is often supplied unmetered which encourages waste.
If it is metered then everyone disputes the bill, and considers that they are paying too much.
Many feel that it should be provided on "ability to pay" basis rather than on "amount used basis"
Is it any wonder that investors are reluctant to consider such schemes ?

Would YOU invest money in a scheme that provided expensive and unreliable heating, that the end users of which expect to receive for free because they are on benefits.

Would YOU buy a flat in which the heating costs several hundred pounds a year, fails regularly, goes on strike, and over which you have little control re repair costs and timescales, and with unknown future liabilities.

Surely the heat is free, apart from maintenance costs, if it's unused waste from a power station. So there is the capital cost of installation, plus ongoing maintenance costs, but no need for a charge for usage. Installation could be a one off charge per household, or spread over a number of years as part of an annual charge. Presumably the heat main is a big proportion of the cost, so there is a cost per house, and a cost that could be apportioned based on the ability to pay.