Bishop Hill Monbiot on wicked energy companies
Dec 28, 2010 Energy George Monbiot is bemoaning the wicked energy companies who are keeping energy prices high:
In 2002 the regulator, Ofgem, decided it would stop regulating consumer prices. The energy companies immediately increased their profit margins: tenfold in one case. When world energy prices rise, the companies raise their tariffs, often far more steeply than the wholesale price justifies. When they fall, domestic prices often stay where they are.
As several commenters note, this is an odd argument for someone who has been campaigning to increase energy prices in the name of saving the planet.
It's interesting to note from the Household Energy Price Index, however, that energy prices in the UK appear rather low compared to prices elsewhere.
Natural gas household customers in Stockholm pay by far the highest prices within the capital cities of the EU15. Prices in Stockholm are almost 70% higher than in the second most expensive city Copenhagen, and over 4 times more than Londoners who enjoy the cheapest prices.
I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that the wicked capitalists in the UK are stinging poor consumers far less than their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?).
Reader Comments (69)
"If not nuclear then what"
Thorium doesn't look set yet either, IIRC issues regarding cooling the reactor, I think they still have to solve the "consumable reactor jacket" issue (cost of replacing jacket negates the technology so far), let alone guaranteeing energy for managing the waste stream . That's where I got to about 8 yrs back, that's when I started concentrating on economics, because clearly, the current "growth paradigm" fuelled by cheap energy is coming to an end.
I don't subscribe to the idea of "total collapse of industrial civilisation" I'd like to think we are a much more resourceful species, tho I have read Dmitry Orlov, John M Greer, Kunstler (the long emergency), The Automatic Earth, Mike Ruppert et al and recognise the potential. I still follow Mike Rupperts blog, his geo-political research has been very good laying out what is happening (his book Crossing the Rubicon is a good foundation, as is "collapse"), TAE has about the best economic research available IMO.
I think we're looking at a massive deflationary collapse globally, compounded by entropy. It has the potential to get ugly for a while, but realistically the collapse will take a century, I'm only worried about the next 30yrs or so I have left, and since we'll probably have at least 50% of the energy we have now by then, it can;t get THAT bad, can it? It seems that depends on how one positions their assets before the energy gap really makes it's self felt. In the sort term the issue is deflation, in the longer (circa 10yrs) hyperinflation seems inevitable. I found it useful to study the S. American credit crisis, it was not pretty for the average citizen.
YMMV.
You seem to have drunk them already.
Monobot said "gas household customers". Production of AGA stoves stopped in 1957.
(Although produced on license elsewhere)
I drank one, and gave away the other. Anyway, you were saying something interesting.
Obama shuts down oil drilling -- Oil prices rise.
Bushes fault.
DR said: "While no-one should be complacent about the excess winter deaths, it's worth putting the numbers in context - this report http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/deaths1110.pdf (Figure 2) shows that the rates have been falling steadily since the 1950s. During the 1950s and 60s excess winter mortality was around 60,000 - over double what it is today."
As at least one comment on the Monbiot article points out that data refutes Monbiot's claim that energy companies are getting away with murder. Things were worse before privatisation and privatisation does not appear to have altered the trend. It appears to be levelling off - due to what though? Energy prices perhaps through Government mandated price rises. Or just that there is only so much that can be done?
Just as telling is Figure 3 of the pdf. How many years of declining average winter temps do you need before weather becomes climate?
Frosty
No. Thorium is a working reactor technology. If you were to read the link I posted yesterday, you would find:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_166.shtml
The truth is, you have a virulent anti-nuclear bias.
You provide no reason why we should not, urgently, be developing nuclear baseload capacity and electrifying transport. Nor do you provide an alternative.
Instead of answering the question, you yet again expound your peak oil hell scenario. You are living in a bubble.
We need to develop nuclear.
I see some questions asked about Sequestration.
It's a dog. The below comments are broad brush but are based on a 35 year career as a chemical engineer in the oil industry, the last 10 years of which were in directing new technology development for my company.
The process to separate, dry and compress the CO2 from the flue gas prior to sequestration uses between 30 - 40% of the energy output from the power station, depending on the technology used.
Separation is necessary since CO2 is only a small percentage of the flue gas, the large majority is nitrogen, some excess oxygen, some CO, some H2O and other trace gases. (An SO2 scrubber prior to the extraction of the CO2 is also required). Drying of the CO2 is essential to prevent formation of carbonic acid and also to prevent the formation of CO2 hydrates.
The net effect, were this technology to be applied, would be to burn through fossil fuels at a 30-40% higher rate to achieve the same electrical power output. Not exactly a responsible thing to do tor future generations. I will not get even get into the capial and O&M costs, they are substantial.
brent
I’m afraid the Norwegians don’t have the generation capacity to make up the massive shortfall the UK is soon going to experience. We desperately need to build new generation plant.
Our coming problem is generation shortfall, not an absence of pumped storage. Storage is no use if you haven’t got anything to put in it.
And, like Frosty, you simply do not answer the nuclear question.
I note that Mr Monbiot failed to put in an appearance below the line on that article in order to be "held to account" (as he likes to describe it) on his totally inconsistent view on energy pricing.
Could it be that he is unwilling/unable to explain his confused thinking?
Blimey BBD give us a chance :^)
@BBD Dec 29, 2010 at 4:19 PM
The link you provided was tedious with sweeping generalisations, I read the first couple of pages but gave up, the author does not recognise peak oil, or exponential growth in demand from the current planned nuclear increase globally, so his analysis was deeply flawed.
My comments on Thorium were regarding Breeder reactors (and was only one small issue amongst many) if you (or the author you cite) understood how Thorium is used, you would know this is the only real option, as it requires Uranium to make Thorium fissile.
“Thorium, as well as uranium, can be used as a nuclear fuel. Although not fissile itself, Th-232 will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is fissile (and long-lived). The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle. Alternatively, U-233 can be bred from thorium in a blanket, the U-233 separated, and then fed into the core.” i.e. they don't just dig it up and stick it in a reactor ;) link
The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
“The current situation concerning the future of nuclear energy appears in many respects similar to the one described in a famous fairy tale [44], but with a slightly modified ending:
"In the coming 'autumn and winter' of our industrial civilization brought on by the decline of fossil fuels, it seems clear that the clothes of the Nuclear Fission Energy emperor are far too thin to keep him and others warm, and that the Nuclear Fusion Emperor has no clothes at all!"”
“The truth is, you have a virulent anti-nuclear bias.”
The truth is I don't care either way, it looks like a white elephant to me is all, if we start building reactors now, by the time they come online there won't be sufficient fuel available to last the lifetime of the project. Besides, we need cheap energy now, not expensive energy in 15 years.
“You provide no reason why we should not, urgently, be developing nuclear baseload capacity and electrifying transport. Nor do you provide an alternative.”
I have said previously that I don't think there are alternatives, period, this is the end of the growth paradigm IMO. It's not my fault I can't provide an alternative :^)
“Instead of answering the question, you yet again expound your peak oil hell scenario. You are living in a bubble.....We need to develop nuclear.”
I did say I have not looked at nuclear for some time, so I wasn't doing too bad from memory, I hope the above link gives some insight into the real issues for you. Bubble? Two hours a day for 8 years researching the global perspective and I'M in a bubble :^>
first duff link
The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
David MacKay, who you dismiss as a know-nothing, is a professor of physics at Cambridge and chief scientific advisor to the UK Government's Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC).
You do yourself no favours.
blimey BBD you must have read that link super fast to dismiss it with such a paltry arm wave...
"UK Government's Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC)."
Oh yeah, that bastion of transparency, truth, and knowledge :^)
@BBD while we're playing appeal to authority, the first link was from the "World Nuclear Association - representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession"
the second quote was by "This is the fourth part of a four-part guest post by Dr. Michael Dittmar. Dr. Dittmar is a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, and he also works at CERN in Geneva."
but then I wasn't trying to do myself any favours :^)
Didn't the first commercial magnox nuke take two years to build in the 50s, when we knew nothing, and that is two years from start to production with pioneering technology? Why fifteen years now?
Well trust the Guardian to be 100% inconsistent, more twisted logic but the opposite of Moonbats.
China's green gift to the worldEnvironmentalists who want to ban China's coal imports are 100% wrong: driving up the price of coal cuts carbon emissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/30/coal-energy-industry
@Martin B Dec 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Martin, thanks for your excellent comments..
I absolutely agree that one should look at all technological possibilities before making decisions about future, so thanks for bringing up other possibilities like underground coal gasification. CBM etc.
My sense (from afar, because I live in Ontario Canada )is that the UK is in the midst of a softening up process by the Pols. My guess is that when the crisis gets to a fever point, the Gov, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, will give financial guarantees/subsidies to get nuclear built, disguised as best they can to fool the public.
Although I’m not up on all the precise details in the UK, the shenanigans that go on have close parallels in other locations, and I could go on at great length about same in my locale.
The UK could certainly look to various additional NG(or like) ,feeds whether from shale gas or additional pipeline imports of conventional NG, or additional LNG imports.,CBM etc.
There will be “some” availability at “some” price over “some” period”. Or indeed investigate underground coal gasification as you noted.
In short term LNG pricing is soft, however how long that prevails is a matter of conjecture. Already people are considering exporting LNG from North America
Dust up over U.S. LNG market
http://tinyurl.com/2wuemud
Energy Investing: The Global LNG Market
http://tinyurl.com/2ddxc25
Also considering GTL in North America to take advantage of the Oil/NG spread.
Sasol, Talisman Energy Form Partnership in Montney's Farrell Creek
http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/globalhome/industry/news.asp?articleid=363819
It’s my view that we are at a bit of a critical decision point/turning point. We are looking to investment decisions that have long term ramifications. For example, most new nuclear plant designs I believe ( other than Candu) are aiming for 60 year life. That’s a long term commitment and we should take a broad look at potential energy source availability over a long term in making our decisions.
Same applies for fossil fuelled generation of course.
We have the opportunity to potentially make some good decisions that end up standing the test of time. We also have the opportunity to lock in some BIG MISTAKEs with long term consequences, and I’m sure all of us can easily with minor historical review appreciate this (eg Huhne comments below about legacy costs )
One of the things I like to do in scenario/ horizon scanning etc, is to see if there are any tactical options that are a good fit across most scenarios/horizon one can envisage. I.E. I’m looking for some tactics that are “robust”
So when I was doing some personal brainstorming about long term energy future, what stood out like a sore thumb, is that IMO it makes sense to get an intense focus on conservation and efficiency out front as a priority. Pretty well all long term outcomes are improved by doing so IMO and I think this is a very low risk tactic.
I suspect we in the West could have most of the same functionality with 60-70% of present energy use, so I would look to squeeze most the fat out of the system as a first and high priority.
BBD mentioned preparing to electrify transportation, and I agree this is a likely future. I think Richard Branson probably sees the same thing in looking to sell his airline (FF fuelled) and keen to invest in US high speed rail (electrical ) ;)
Despite believing it is likely we may shift other loads to electrical in future, I would still squeeze any efficiency improvements out of current electrical usage. In addition certain current electrical usages (i.e electrical resistance heating) might be improved upon (eg ground source heat pumps).
The reason I suggested to BBD that UK might want to as a high priority investigate cable supply from Norway is that access to storage is in my view a quite valuable commodity now and likely moreso in future. Seems to me that it is here that UK system is weak.
If one managed to secure some base load supply that could a plug a gap in supply temporarily so much the better, but my rationale for suggesting investigating interconnection to Norway does not rest on that option.
The Achilles heal of the new renewables (solar wind) is intermittency, and so far new tech storage has not been developed. The exception, is “old” renewables I.E. reservoir hydro.
BBD should turn the question around and see if securing access to Peaking capability (eg via Norway) makes decision on new generation in the UK easier (and it does give more flexibility)
As far as I know, The French are probably the only nuclear operators that use their nukes in load following mode, at least to some extent. They have some hydro and I believe now use some coal peaking, and probably try to run flat out via trading arrangements.
There is a potential advantage even if UK wanted to go primarily nuclear if they could secure peaking supply ex Norway and thus run the Nukes flat out. I.E. UK supplies Norway and Norway reduces Hydro generation, storing water, when UK Nuke output in excess of demand. Norway draws down water to supply UK peak demand in excess of Nuke output
The long term value of access to storage capacity is amply confirmed in my view, by considering what those long term EU- Africa integration links I posted earlier envisaged
Although we will be using FF for a long time to come, it’s appropriate in my view to do some forward thinking about how one might operate without them eventually.
With this in mind , it’s easy to see why there is interest in generating solar power as per Desertec project. It’s especially easy to see if one normalizes say solar power and FF derived power to a common basis. I.E. overall efficiency of conversion from insolation to power useful to humans.
BURNING BURIED SUNSHINE: HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF
ANCIENT SOLAR ENERGY
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf
A critical part of that long term vision for solar from the Sahara was to link it up via HVDC with reservoir hydro in Alps and Scandinavia.
In my view, securing access to “storage capacity” is another “robust” strategy.
Why not investigate getting some? : ) before access is fully committed sans the UK
cheers
brent
Huhne comments on legacy nuclear cleanup costs
Chris Huhne: It is getting on for half, yes. So it is an enormous slice of the
overall budget and that is legacy. It is dead money. It is money, frankly, that
all of us would prefer not to have to spend at all because it is dealing with
past problems rather than the future, and what we obviously want to see, both
officials and Ministers, is the Department driving what is a very exciting
process-the third industrial revolution, moving to electrification of the
decarbonisation of the economy and to have to deal with that deadweight of old
costs is a problem. But it is, as you say, a very important part of the budget
and we have to deal with it.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/125312
New Nuclear Power Stations
12. Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): What recent representations he has received on his plans to ensure that new nuclear power stations receive no public subsidy. [4946]
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The coalition agreement is clear that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear power stations-a view that I have communicated to a variety of stakeholders with a diverse range of views. In particular, I have received strong representations from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Snip
Mike Crockart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that while the costs of generating nuclear power may well be competitive, there is still considerable work to be done to ensure that the costs-as yet unknown-of decommissioning and waste disposal are included in any calculations and do not end up posing a significant risk to future taxpayers?
Chris Huhne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that matter. The effect of failing to take account of these costs can be seen very dramatically in my own Department's budget for dealing with the nuclear legacy of the very many years when we failed to make adequate provision for waste and decommissioning. It is precisely because of those warnings that we in the ministerial team are absolutely determined that that will not happen again.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): The Secretary of State implied that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the shadow Secretary of State were in some way misleading-in fact, I think he referred to fantasy-in their suggestions about his prejudice against nuclear power. Does he recall his own representation of 5 November 2007, in which he said,
"Ministers must stop the side-show of new nuclear power stations now"?
Can he reflect on that representation and see whether he is going to take it on board?
Chris Huhne: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that my line on new nuclear has always been based on scepticism about the economics. As he knows, no nuclear power station has been built on commercial terms anywhere in the world since Three Mile Island. That may be about to change because of the framework of prospective oil and gas prices and carbon prices. It is up to investors to take those decisions.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100701/debtext/100701-0003.htm
More incentives needed for nuclear', says Energy Minister Charles Hendry
The electricity market will need at least three major changes to pave
the way for new nuclear power in the biggest industry shake-up since
privatisation, according to the Energy Minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8111274/More-incentives-needed-for-nuclear-says-Energy-Minister-Charles-Hendry.html
Chris Huhne: Excuse my reluctance to be repetitive, Mr Speaker.
We are determined to increase the UK's security of supply, for precisely the reasons that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) earlier. Our energy import dependence will increase dramatically over the next 10 years as oil and gas production from the North sea gradually diminishes. We have to work on our renewables and on energy saving to try to ensure that we are energy-secure. One element of that is not just physical security but resilience against price shock.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100916/debtext/100916-0001.htm#10091616001090
brent
I do see where you are coming from but reiterate:
1.The coming generational shortfall in the UK cannot be addressed simply by imports from Norway (which doesn't anyway have the level of over-capacity required for such an arrangement).
2. The UK cannot become any more reliant on import via interconnectors. Cable failures are rare but when they happen can take weeks to repair even in good weather. And in winter conditions? Energy catastrophe would be just one fault away.
3. Existing UK plant is falling to bits. We have to do something about this and do it soon. Since imported gas is deeply risky, and coal too polluting, then nuclear is literally the only choice.
brent
Ground source heat pumps are a green fantasy.
1 Hugely expensive
2 Require significant land excavation per property so unsuitable for most housing
3 Already starting to show a worryingly high failure rate which involves digging the whole thing up
4 Avoid like the plague
Frosty
Sorry, I can't really keep up at the moment as I have flu and only function in little bursts.
I linked to the full online text of David MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air as a useful source of numbers for uranium reserves etc. You responded:
The following is the opening paragraph of the book itself:
It is an excellent and useful text and I commend it to you. Since it’s all free online, do have a more careful look, when you have some spare time.
I freely admit to having been exhausted enough to confuse brent’s ‘virulent’ anti-nuclear position with your fuel source scepticism as I seemed to be engaging with both of you more or less at once.
I’m adding this in purely in defence of MacKay since I referenced him and I think he deserves it.
And I sincerely wish you a happier New Year’s Eve than I am going to have. Too ill even to drink, for God’s sake.