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.
Moderator: Peak Moderation
BREAKING NEWS:
The UK risks running out of energy capacity in the winter of 2015-16, according to energy regulator Ofgem
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!
the more people will do these things, and the better-prepared we will collectively be.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...
I suppose this begs the questions,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.
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.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.
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...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.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.
In the presentation you referenced, you stated that 50% of UK supply was "threatened".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.
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.AnOriginalIdea wrote:In the presentation you referenced, you stated that 50% of UK supply was "threatened".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.
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?