Controlled energy die-off

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Jan 2007, 14:14

How about this for a UK energy policy.

We have a third of our electricity generating capacity closing by 2015. Electricity generation is a major contributor to CO2 emissions. We are supposed to reduce our carbon emissions by 60% by 2050.

There are significant carbon emissions associated with construction of new power stations.

The policy is simply to allow the UK electricity generating base to contract in line with scheduled closure of power stations.

The incremental shortfall will be addressed solely through energy efficiency (including efficient appliances) and renewables (both micro- and macro-). If not enough renewables are built, rolling power cuts will be introduced.

We would have an electricity consumption reduction schedule which would be entirely predictable and natural. We would have no carbon emissions or financial or energy expenditure associated with building new power plants. We would have a market situation providing confidence and incentives for development of renewables and energy efficiency. We would find it much easier to meet our national carbon reduction targets through the closure of coal power plants. And we would be able to use our remaining coal reserves for conversion into liquid transport fuels, and our remaining uranium reserves to power the remaining nuclear fleet for longer.

And the best bit - this is what will naturally happen in any case, given a thoroughly paralysed and impotent government directing energy policy.

What do you reckon?

The only flaw I can see is if we lose our gas generating capacity due to lack of gas. In that eventuality, the case for building new nuclear might become valid. Or we could build some 'clean coal' plants.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Jan 2007, 15:43

I agree Andy. Also, if there were a large building insulation program, for both old and new building, the savings in gas for heating could be diverted into electricity production, for a while anyway.

The only fly in the ointment, however, is our new PM, Grasping Gordon, He could not let this happen as it does not allow any room for the dinosaur of GROWTH. It would allow for significant growth in the insulation industry, but it would only be temporary.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Jan 2007, 15:53

kenneal wrote:I agree Andy. Also, if there were a large building insulation program, for both old and new building, the savings in gas for heating could be diverted into electricity production, for a while anyway.

The only fly in the ointment, however, is our new PM, Grasping Gordon, He could not let this happen as it does not allow any room for the dinosaur of GROWTH. It would allow for significant growth in the insulation industry, but it would only be temporary.

Sounds good. And if our winters continue to be as mild as this one, that too will reduce the need for gas heating. The increased need for summer cooling will just have to be met with low- or no-energy technology such as wind cowls or evaporative cooling.

Regarding Mr BrAUn - the only way he is going to get the private sector to build more nuclear is through Government subsidies, something which he has promised not to do. Despite the Government's big decision to back new nuclear, it isn't the Government who actually build power stations, and I think they may have over-estimated the private sector's enthusiasm for nuclear.

Even with replacement nuclear stations, Mr Business-As-Usual's eternal growth just ain't going to happen. An energy winter beckons . . . brrrrr!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Jan 2007, 19:44

Science minister, formally awash with gas, Malcolm Wicks, has said it is time to invest in space missions as 'the great adventure of the millennium'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs ... id=6230729

aliwood · Post by **aliwood** » 04 Jan 2007, 19:55

I vote he goes first, he launch himself on his own hot air.

Post by **clv101** » 04 Jan 2007, 22:43

What lies ahead over the next lifespan?

You guys are incredibly fortunate, you are going to see an absolute explosion of space exploration during your lifetimes. You?re going to see the complete exploration and understanding of our solar system. You?re going to see landings on all the moons of the great planets, Saturn, Jupiter. You?re going to see people on Mars. You?re going to see a lunar base. Humans pretty much taking inventory of their back yard, you know the solar system. It?s going to be a very very exciting time.

The guy's a fool - straight up.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 05 Jan 2007, 03:03

There certainly won't be room on earth for us all, if things go his way!!

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 05 Jan 2007, 10:31

Maybe he thinks that if we are watching the skies, we might just not notice what's going on here on the ground.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 07 Jan 2007, 19:28

What else could he have replied with to that last question? "You people will be pretty unfortunate, we've used up the oil now and you'll be lucky to make it to Carlisle in a day let alone the moon"

Post by **clv101** » 07 Jan 2007, 19:51

He should have said something like this:

Over the next lifespan the space industry will be very different from the past. Further space science is likely to be unmanned due to the expense and little marginal benefit manned missions bring over automated ones. Space science budgets are likely to be cut in the short term at least as we focus R&D spending on earth based energy projects (I used to be the energy minister don't you know). We aren't currently in a position to realise the dream of manned missions to Mars or a return to the Moon.