Bishop Hill Averting catastrophe
Oct 4, 2011 Climate: other I am grateful to a reader for alerting me to an article in The Chemical Engineer by Stephen Bush and David MacDonald on the subject of the UK's looming energy catastrophe. It's not online, but here are some excerpts:
In the UK, the Climate Change Act 2008 has set the country the challenging target of reducing emissions of CO2 and CO2 equivalents by 34% from 1990 levels by 2020, 50% by 2027, and 80% by 2050, though the 2027 target is subject to review in 2014. Coupled with rising demand and the already painful impact of higher energy prices, meeting this target will be challenging indeed, leaving some engineers to wonder what it will take to square this cirde.
The number of installations required to generate the electricity to replace fossil fuels depends on their capacity and availability. A 1,600 MW Areva-type nuclear reactor working at 80% availability generates 11 TWh/yr, so around 13 would need to be built to meet the 2020 target; an impossible task. A 3 MW wind turbine with 75 m blades on an 80 m mast onshore has achieved average availability of around 24%, while for offshore 30% future availability is claimed yielding 6.3 GWh/yr and 7.9 GWh/yr respectively. To meet the 2020 target would require 20,000 and 16,000 turbines respectively, an equally impossible task over nine years (six to be built every day). The 2027 target is even further out of reach.
Averting catastrophe
Readers will draw their own conclusions from the inexorable figures above. but for these authors only a system with its baseload provided by nuclear power supplemented by gas for peak demand, and retaining the existing wind investment can possibley supply the UK long term with the huge amounts of secure and reliable, predominantly electrical energy it needs. To actually achieve a changeover to a largely non-fossil fuel economy without wreaking catastrophe on our industries the targets set by The Climate Change Act 2008 will have to be pushed back no matter whatever combination of electricity generating technologies is built.
Reader Comments (140)
Just consider this for a moment.
Suppose we were to build (for the sake of argument) a new coal-fired power station. The management then runs it like this:
'No coal today.
Coal for the next four days - but only being delivered at night.
Three days no coal - then so much for four days that we can't store it - and have to turn it away.
Some coal for the next fortnight - but deliveries erratic so we shan't know when we have enough to run the station.'
THIS is government policy - except for coal read wind...!
You couldn't make it up, could you..?
OT: I notice The Hockey Stick Illusion has just got a glowing book review in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A.
Here's an extract:
"The book provides a fascinating and engaging level of detail, which brings scientific, statistical and even political procedures vividly to life, a feature which elevates this book into an important source of historical insight."
The relevant government departments knew, the politicians did not listen:
From the transcript/video: Baroness Bryony Worthington, on the Climate Change Act 2008:
"..... but certainly the Treasury thought this was a TERRIBLE IDEA and the Department of Business thought it was a TERRIBLE IDEA and largely because they felt the UK acting alone would be really detrimental to our competitiveness. And here we were proposing a self-imposed target that was going to last until 2050. And it would introduce costs and force businesses to move overseas...and the world was going to end, according to the Treasury. "
Some interesting discussion.
Leaving aside for a moment whether or not AGW is real (if that is possible on here) . . .
Saying we cannot reach our emissions targets is surely not a reason for abandoning them. Revising them possibly, but they should be kept as ambitious as possible then revised upwards if/when new technologies come onstream.
Scotsrenewables,
I'm in the middle of reading Mao's Great Famine", by Frank Dikötter, about the "Great Leap Forward". It is an object lesson in the damage that can result when politicians stick to targets that cannot be achieved.
I think that the Chemical Engineer geezers have forgotten about "spinning Huhne reserve".
With more than 50 GW of wind in the pipeline to be connected to the grid by 2020, Huhne's "balancing mechanism" (or spinning reserve) for when the wind does not blow, will need to be of the order of 40/45 GW of OCGT plant, although I suspect that National Grid would prefer to have 60 GW of OCGT just to be sure!.
At say, 1,600 MW (4 x 400 MW units) per power station, that will amount to about 28 power stations across the UK on spinning reserve. These beauties cost about £1,000,000,000 each, and most of their life is spent twiddling their thumbs on the sideline, to fill-in as required.
This is unlikely to be achieved because even the "New CEGB Lite" proposed by Huhne to procure ONLY 26 GW of OCGT (to support 32 GW of reneweable intermittent by 2020) has not even got off the ground.
I cannot find the article, only references to Bishop Hill.
Anybody got a link for a free read; I would like to be proved wrong.
ScotsRenewables
The CCA requires that these targets be met. They cannot be, so it has to be re-drafted or repealed. This is not an argument for abandonment of targets; but to be meaningful they must be set in accordance with engineering-level reality.
Otherwise people might suppose that the CCA was essentially drafted by Green lobbyists and reflects their aspirations rather than achievable pathways to decarbonisation.
"There are reams to read, but you can start with the EIA International Energy Outlook 2011.
Oct 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM | BBD
Hi BBD - thanks for the link, and I have waded through it, but it explicitly states that it doesn't take account of any attempts to reduce consumption, so won't really reflect attempts to do so.
ScottsRenewables
I like the sound of that idea, lets start at 1% reduction target by 2050 and if we achieve that then we can try doubling it!
I really cannot understand why people feed the troll. It is ruining this thread, which is presumably what the troll wants. I'm off to another blog.
"It is obvious that the only solution to this problem is to restrict people to using one light bulb, one meal a day, one electric bar, one bath a week and to force them to wear thermals - just as the aged are currently doing"
Presumably this commentator is being flippant, but I'm sure its a manifesto our 'political elite' hahahaha would rapidly unite around - in the interests of 'fairness', fighting climate change (and/or capitalism)' etc though of course the one bar, one bath stuff being reserved for the little people, not their good elite selves who curiously never take the medicine they so freely prescribe. And righteously bridle when the suggestion of hypocrisy is made.
Dr Bratby that is a chilling but clearly correct position. The only thing I would disagree with is that all our leaders are bufoons. That would be statistically impossible. The only alternative is that, having been told what you said, repeatedly, they know it perfectly well and don't care. They believe, for reasons that Orwell explianed in 1984, that it is necessary to impoverish us and kill thousnads to keep us tractible.
That would make them, one and all, obscene monsters but it is statistically possible.
------------------------------
Zeddead I note that it is nearly 2 hours since you claimed to have evidence to back up your criticism of Dr B which you were able to post instantly. Without in any way disputing that you represent some of the highest standards of honesty to be found in the "environmentalist" movement I suggest that if you are, in the remotest degree honest, you will be able to post it within the next 5 minutes.
Alternately you, or indeed some other supporter of this scare, might name some supporters of warming, if any, who are more honest than yourself.
Zed
Nobody really believes in the hand-waving about demand reduction, which is why serious analyses do not attempt to model it.
Although the previous and present governments have been lobbied into nonsensical posturing on energy and emissions, this will not last. Deliberate energy price inflation to support renewables and energy rationing via smart meters will not be tolerated by the electorate, so future governments are going to have to be a bit less willing to listen to the lobbyists. Apart from the ones from the nuclear industry, of course.
"I really cannot understand why people feed the troll. It is ruining this thread, which is presumably what the troll wants. I'm off to another blog."
Oct 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM | PFM
The Troll, as you call me, is merely pointing out how ridiculous most of the stuff posted on this blog is. If you lot didn't post rubbish, I couldn't hold it up to the light and point out how silly it is. For example, Andrew has lifted a puff piece from some trade rag to try and ridicule energy targets. It's makes no concession at all to attempts to reduce consumption, which is a big part of the plan. It's clearly ridiculous, yet nobody except me has pointed this out. If you lot showed true scepticism, I wouldn't have to.
Bear in mind that this is the blog where Peter Walsh can make reference to the Oregon Petition to give support for scientific consensus, and nobody at all calls him on how utterly flawed it is. That says a great deal about this website.
Oct 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM | Neil Craig
Still got it here, still waiting for your response to the comment I posted about it so that I can then put it up here. - I've C and P'd it again below so that you can answer it.
"Gladly, I've just put together a couple on a word document ready to c and p over here. But I'd like you to answer something first that I'm genuinely hugely interested in.
Do you really think there's no empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect? If not, have you actually looked into it at all? I'm constantly fascinated by people like you and am very interested in what makes you tick."
Oct 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM | ZedsDeadBed
ZDB
Are you actually Baroness Worthington? I note a similarity in your rhetoric. Also, I am curious as to why you disappear from the blog for days and even weeks at a time and then there is a frenetic burst of disjointed writing.
Oct 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM | BBD
What you're coming down to there though is opinion, not evidence or decent predictions taking into account likely outcomes of consumption reduction methods.
I don't know if you've noticed, but as a tiny example, max tungsten light bulb wattage has been reduced, twice, quite recently, to reduce consumption. The only complaints were over at the Hate Mail, and they're not real people anyway. Apart from that, the electorate by and large seemed to embrace it.
Yes, it is a trivial change, but as a real world yardstick for our appetite for reduction, your attitude seems a touch out of step.
Zed
Phasing out incandescents is trivial. So is unplugging phone chargers and not leaving things on standby. Getting UK emissions down will require decarbonising electricity supply. That will require a significant increase in nuclear baseload.
If you want less CO2, you are going to have to accept this. All this about demand reduction is marginal greenwash. Leave it behind and face the facts.
"ZDB
Are you actually Baroness Worthington? I note a similarity in your rhetoric. Also, I am curious as to why you disappear from the blog for days and even weeks at a time and then there is a frenetic burst of disjointed writing."
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:05 PM | Don Pablo de la Sierra
I rarely give out any form of personal information, because I believe that some of the people who populate messageboards railing against climate science, are not the full ticket, and am nervous about accidentally outing myself, in case one of them proves bothersome.
Nonetheless, consider yourself very lucky, as I am about to reveal not one but two pieces of information about myself.
1) I am not Baroness Worthington.
2) Sometimes I have free time, sometimes I don't. Now is actually the latter, so I shouldn't really be spending the day on here, but I worry so much you'd all miss me.
Let me be clearer: UK electricity demand is forecast to rise in every scenario I am aware of. We can argue about who's closest to the truth, but not about the overall trend.
You seem to believe that efficiency (including demand-side management) will have a significant effect on emissions. I suggest that at best, it will reduce the rate of increase in demand for electricity and have no noticeable effect on emissions.
We are still going to need nuclear baseload to displace coal if we want to do things like electrify transport and switch from gas to electricity for heating and cooking (thus significantly increasing demand).
"Phasing out incandescents is trivial."
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM | BBD
I stated this twice in my comment, so why you feel the need to say it a 3rd time is beyond me. You did however state that the electorate have little appetite for reduced consumption, and this example suggests otherwise, which was the whole point of my mentioning it.
Conceding good points shows strength of character, not weakness.
Zed
You are not engaging.
Zeddead I note that you7 refuse to produce the evidence you claim to be able to. The assumption must ne that you are wholly and completely dishonest.
I note also that you are unable to name a single member of the "environmentalist" cou8mmunity qwh is in the slightest degree more honest than you.
We will see if any other alarmist whe ever turns up here will be willing to condemn the total dishonesty normal in the "environmentalist" community.
PS
I never said there was no empirical evidence for a theoretical and minor greenhouse effect. You are lying about that too - perhaps you wil either produce evidence I did say it or apologise for not having 1/10,000,000th as much honesty as everybody else here.
Bishop I am reluctant to agree with anybody calling for deletion of anybody. That every single "environmentalist" site, to the best of my knowledge, censors does not justify it. However I also know, from "scienceblogs" that when "enviromentalists" get free run they, almost without exception, do not engage in argument but in assertion and when challenged do not make even a perfunctory attempt to produce facts - they merely engage in personal attacks (and in "sciencblogs" ultimately obscenity).
If Zed contiuously refuses to bring any facts to the debate and merely engages in unfounded personal attacks I regretfully do not think he can add anything to rational discussion.
"We are still going to need nuclear baseload to displace coal"
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM | BBD
We've always agreed on that. I don't like nuclear, but it is a least worst option for finite fuels. However, where we differ, is on your pessimistic assesment of renewables, my understanding is that they can play a much bigger percentage than you give credit for.
And part of that solution is considerable consumption reduction. We've all seen examples of people who claim to live notionally carbon neutral or even carbon negative lives. Most of it seems a bit 'pinch of salt' to my mind, but it does show the huge reductions that can be made with a willingness to change lifestyle.
Most people wouldn't want to live like that, but there is a meaningful compromise point.
And this is rubbish:
The public had no choice in the matter. You are presenting this as if people are queuing up to buy low-energy lightbulbs. They aren't. They are being forced to buy them.
Re: ZDB
"I don't know if you've noticed, but as a tiny example, max tungsten light bulb wattage has been reduced, twice, quite recently, to reduce consumption. The only complaints were over at the Hate Mail, and they're not real people anyway. Apart from that, the electorate by and large seemed to embrace it."
I for one have complained about the dangers of this change.
My elderly father (89 years old) has extremely poor eyesight so I fitted 100W bulbs top and bottom of the stairway so he could see when going up and down the stairs. These would be switched on only when ascending or descending the stairs so about 5 minutes per day. I have now had to replace these with 4x20W "energy saver" bulbs (2 at the top, 2 at the bottom) and because of the lag when switching them on (sometimes as much as 45 seconds) for maximum brightness they are left switched on permanently and now use 100 x more energy than the 100W bulbs.
It's true that Pop, Dad or the old bugger, as I like to call him, could wait for the bulbs to reach maximum brightness but trying to convince a curmudgeonly old bugger to wait is like herding cats, you might succeed, but not without shedding blood.
"I never said there was no empirical evidence for a theoretical and minor greenhouse effect."
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM | Neil Craig
Oh dear Neil - a double negative.
p.s. - as it happens, I've already answered the question regarding UK CO2 contributions on this very thread. As for Empirical evidence, look at the next thread down sequentially from this one on the home page - I've answered it there. Ages ago today.
You seem a little vexed, perhaps take up a sport to relax, or if not physically able to do so, a fun hobby such as basket-weaving.
Zed
Almost nobody wants to live an energy-restricted lifestyle. Any government that tries to impose one will not be re-elected.
Your understanding of the potential of renewables incorporates unrealistic assumptions about cost and suitability for national-scale grid integration. That is why we differ over it.
It is also implicit in your statement that energy restrictions are necessary if renewables play a larger part in the energy mix.
It's not going to happen. Learn to love the atom.
"The public had no choice in the matter. You are presenting this as if people are queuing up to buy low-energy lightbulbs. They aren't. They are being forced to buy them."
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:34 PM | BBD
And did so relatively happily, as all could see the reasons for it. As for being forced, what do you think environmental taxes are a softer way of doing?
Some changes people will make voluntarily, others will have to be cajoled, others will have to be forced.
We'll all have to make sacrifices, but they're a lot nicer than the choices facing future generations if we don't.
Oct 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM | TerryS
Wow. A highly specific and totally anedotal piece of evidence. Highly convincing.
I'm sorry your father struggles with stairs, but this is an exception rather than a rule, and hinges upon his own unwillingness to wait 45 seconds to have any validity at all.
Incidentally, do you read the Daily Mail?
ZDB
You do use very similar phrasing to Baroness Worthington and your logic is equally rambling. For example:
Very similar to her rambling in the blog a few days ago.
As for your periodic disappearances, I have my own theory.
In any case, glad to have you back -- I have loads of material to work through now. Thanks.
Zed
My point is that any politically realistic 'forcing' towards lower energy consumption in the UK will fall far short of significant emissions reductions. That will only be achieved by displacing coal from baseload with nuclear. This applies globally (or in Western democracies, at least).
The problem with the renewables lobby is that it ignores this reality and instead promotes a groundless notion that renewables and hair-shirt lifestyles will stave off climate change.
This is wrong, and it doesn't take into account the coal-fired industrialisation of the BRIC nations either.
Global warming mania already kills;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=uganda&st=cse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/03/eu-carbon-credits-murders-honduras
How many more people will have to die because of this fixation with CO2?
[No]
Apparently I am going to have to go and get my 4y old from school this afternoon as his mother will not be able to do so.
If you want to talk seriously about energy policy, we need to get on with it.
TerryS
There is still the opportunity to purchase 100W light bulbs from the internet, generally in packs of 10.
My 84 year old relative suffers in the same manner so there are now two packs in readiness. Obviously the cost of the bulbs have virtually doubled and we expect the cost of the electricity to do the same but needs must. As her eyes have so deteriated and she still prefers to make her own desicions, independency is a trait in this generation, there is a 100W bulb in every room.
It really appalls me that a generation who have gone through real periods of want and still look on benefits and state help as charity and something to be ashamed of accepting, are required by the younger generation to expend their savings not on the niceties of life but on the essentials. What was the film, Logans Run, where once you reach a certain age you are then banished from society so the young don't have to think about you.
"Almost nobody wants to live an energy-restricted lifestyle. Any government that tries to impose one will not be re-elected."
- I wish that were true BBD but the current and previous British governments did so (indeed to some extent have for 40 years), otherwise we would not be now facing electricity costs 14 times what they could be.
It is just that they have tended to lie about it and about the reasons for doing so and there is always something more newsworthy to report. When the thousands Mr Bratby mentions die it will be news and either power workers, journalists and politicians or journalistsw and politicians alone will be hanging from the streetlights. It is very much in the country's interest that it merely be the latter,
(Zed thank you for proving my point)
All this talk of energy efficiency reducing demand just goes to show no one learns from history.
The Jevons Paradox has been around for about 150 years and still seems to be correct. "the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource (from Wiki)"
[No]
Neil Craig
Neil Craig
(Eh? Something wrong with the tags, sorry)
This is as nothing compared to what the renewables lobby seems to think should happen.
Gentlemen and ladies, you are engaging with someone who has only a wafer thin understanding of the issues surrounding climate change and energy policy as though their views have any weight. I have been around long enough at senior management levels to detect the BS and the use of language in such a way that it betrays their ignorance. That's why your questions are never answered, the words are used without an understanding of what they mean, they just clippings from George Monbiot's memoirs. Give her a rest.
The issue here isn't incandescent light bulbs, although paying five times the price because of green lobbying isn't what the public want, it's about the fact that our government, aided and abetted by the previous lot have embarked on a course of action which, if left unaddressed will lead to widespread energy poverty, not of our grandchildren, but for our children.
Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the armaggedon we are trying to avert is on its way, or will likely be on its wa,y other than a report produced by scientisits working for the WWF, who by a strange coincidence hope to make £60bn by selling carbon credits if the public swallows this hogwash.
It should be noted that when we get the first blackout due to excess demand, insufficient supply and grid operators not on the ball, we will be in new territory in the UK. There has never been a black start of power stations and the grid. It could take days or weks to restore. Millions, not thousands could die. There will be blood on the streets. Criminals will have a whale of a time. People with no Coronation Street or Strictly will not be a happy bunch and neither will no access to pubs, cinemas, restaurants and all other types of entertainment go down well. Anybody with the foresight to install their own generator had better buy a gun to defend themselves. There will be civil unrest on a scale not seen before.
I urge everybody to re-read the first para of Geronimo's 5:22pm, several times if need be.
Every time anyone treats the troll as someone worth engaging with, whether from old-fashioned courtesy or the misguided impression anything can actually be change by responding to what she posts, she wins and the blog loses. DNFTT.
As for the CCA... as fine an example of magical thinking as ever made the statute book. The result of that is only ever going to be Reality 1, Parliament 0.
"Every time anyone treats the troll as someone worth engaging with, whether from old-fashioned courtesy or the misguided impression anything can actually be change by responding to what she posts, she wins and the blog loses. DNFTT."
Can't we just ban it? I know the sceptical blogs pride themselves on not resorting to banning different opinions - but the sheer volume of gibberish that it posts is becoming irritating. It posts a bunch of stuff, people ask it for references and it just starts waffling about something else. And every post is laden with remarks about how utterly stupid we all are. It's pretty offensive, and I personally could do without it. Could it be given its own discussion thread? That way, it could hurl abuse as much as it wanted, and those people who like engaging with that can go and do so.
Oct 4, 2011 at 5:54 PM | James Evans
This has been suggested on several occasions, but nobody seems to do anything about it. The real answer is DNFTT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2011-0-29-deg-c/
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for September, 2011 retreated a little again, to +0.29 deg. C
PFM
You do a lot of sniping from the sidelines for someone who makes few if any substantive comments. If you thought Zed was wrong about renewables, then why not take her on?
Same goes for me, for the record.
Re: Phillip Bratby
You are worrying far to much about this. The government has it all in hand and has had the foresight to take care of this problem before it arises. They have banned hand guns.
"If you thought Zed was wrong about renewables, then why not take her on?"
Seems to me that is precisely what people here have been trying to do all this time - "take her on." But how? She doesn't actually discuss anything. She pastes a bunch of stuff, calls you a moron for not agreeing with it, and then moves on. Ad infinitum.
This lot is from her posts on just this thread:
"all your posturing is from a position of total ignorance."
"Another rather daft comment."
"it shows how bonkers you lot actually are."
" you're clearly not as daft as most that post on this website"
"how ridiculous most of the stuff posted on this blog is."
" I believe that some of the people who populate messageboards railing against climate science, are not the full ticket"
Why would anyone want to hang out with someone who pours so much condescension into every communication? I come home from a hard day at work, and want to check out the latest interesting news on the Global Warming issue, and I'm met with post after post from someone of no scientific background telling me that I'm ignorant, daft or bonkers for having an opinion that differs from hers.
I've managed to find a life for myself where I only meet pleasant people. It takes a bit of effort, but it can be done. Find the right job, the right place to live, the right friends - you don't have to deal with unpleasant people anymore, because you just don't meet them. It's really good - I totally recommend it.
Give the troll her own little island to live in, or insist that she discusses things, instead of the usual cutting, pasting and demeaning. Or ban her.