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)
BBD, please consider this as a friendly request.
I am all for free speech and would consider anyone, even a troll, getting barred from expressing an opinion, as detremental, but it would benefit the discussions as a whole if you would consider holding your tete-a-tete with her in private, as has happened previously in discussions, rather than allowing the same disruption to continue.
I am sure that anyone wanting to join in with the two of you would be made more than welcome and many would even lurk, just to watch the action.
The rest could then continue without having to step over the mess that is usually left behind when she is satisfied and leaves.
Perhaps the discussion thread could even be called the 'fruit bowl' where anyone can throw in their keys for a bit.
Beaverbrook
BD, please consider this as a friendly request.
I am all for free speech and would consider anyone, even a troll, getting barred from expressing an opinion, as detremental, but it would benefit the discussions as a whole if you would consider holding your tete-a-tete with her in private, as has happened previously in discussions, rather than allowing the same disruption to continue.
This is not a friendly request. It is out of order. Zed was on-topic wrt renewables and energy policy, which is all I discussed with her.
Only BH gets to direct the way on-topic conversation takes place on this blog. Please bear that in mind.
Oh dear. I'm having a bad tag day.
Let's try again:
Beaverbrook
This is not a friendly request. It is out of order. Zed was on-topic wrt renewables and energy policy, which is all I discussed with her.
Only BH gets to direct the way on-topic conversation takes place on this blog. Please bear that in mind.
Consumer energy savings can only extend so far. There is a baseload that a consumer can't go below and this probably comes down to heating requirements.
Given the existing (and predicted on-going) drop in global temperatures then consumer heating requirements can only go UP.
If you've done all you can to insulate, are wearing all the additional clothing possible then what?
For a LOT of people the only answer is 'to die'.
"If you thought Zed was wrong about renewables, then why not take her on?"
We try, BBD, but even on his/her own discussion thread about windmills, he/she has gone to earth upon receipt of some awkward questions. What particularly irks me is his/her rudeness to our esteemed host, while professing shock and horror when anyone else loses patience.
I have occasionally ignored my own advice not to get involved, but I do believe that Coventry is the best place for him/her. The rest of us can then get on with some interesting debate.
Chris Mumby - thank you for the reminder about Jevons. I'd bet real money that Huhne has never heard of him.
Phillip
"Criminals will have a whale of a time"
Seeing that they already have, when the lights/alarms/cameras were working, I fear you may be right!
Come on guys don't feed it..it has already taken over this thread.
We don't need it
It need US
actually, my view is that banning incandescent lightbulbs is a disaster because they were a very efficient way oif producing heat as well as light. I now "enjoy" worse quality lighting - those light spectrum aspects that greenies do not understand - and have to run the heating higher. Slam dunk for the greenies - why do they hate homo sapiens so much?
It is quite obvious ZDB as well as being a troll doesn't inhabit the real world - just the latte circle. I gather from other comments it is a she, so she cannot cope with the real information that engineers have to work with. Energy/ electricity consumption is directly related to GDP and there is very little decoupling over the last 20 years.
I actually am a power station engineer (at a renewable energy station) that has to cope with the problems caused by wind penetration at about 5% of our grid. Lack of governors and droop, low voltage ride through and power factor correction are just some of the issues. Find out what happens when the frequency drops below 49Hz or you get a spike go through.
Don't give us platitudes, give actual facts or at least show you can read stuff by organisations like EPRI. Find out the actual environmental cost of the manufacture of rare earths or solar cells, As others have said dispatchability and reliability of supply is absolutely critical for society to function and wind / solar does not offer that.
Diogenes
"those light spectrum aspects that greenies do not understand"
Ironically, the spectrum has green peaks, as anyone who has tried to take photographs under CFL's will know! Their light quality is awful, they use expensive and toxic materials to make, are shipped half-way round the world and are buggers to dispose of. Incandescent bulbs give a smooth, warm spectrum, are cheap and simple to make in local factories and have little impact on landfill. And they help warm the house.
ChrisM
I've tried to explain the problem with large-scale wind integration to Zed before (Discussion forum) but she didn't engage. Perhaps she will be more willing to listen to your informed comments on the problems posed by an increasing proportion of wind in the UK energy portfolio.
It's a small step towards understanding the true scale of the difficulty in the trans-national integration of vast solar/wind capacity proposed by the enthusiasts.
This is not to say that this should not or cannot be done. But I am getting weary of renewables boosterism which never addresses the hard questions but confidently asserts that this is the only energy/climate policy route available.
To be fair to Zed, she doesn't go that far, but she is still adamant that renewables have a large role to play. Perhaps they do, eventually, but not in fast-track emissions reduction. Which is what this is supposed to be all about.
From ZDB
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.
Your comments capture what worrys doubters of the catastrophic implications being associated with climate change in a nut shell. I find anyone who is a proponent of "cajoling" and "forcing" people into a particular behavior, action or lifestyle to be a bit on the scary side. But according to you it is all justified by the (not so nice?) choices supposedly to be faced by future generations. The problem I have is that this doom and gloom prediction for the future has very little basis in fact. No pun intended, but it is an argument literally built on a foundation of hot air. The fact is the world today is a much better place than it was 20, 50 or a 100 years ago. This in spite of all the Malthusian predictions. I'd like someone to provide even one example of where a prediction of world catastrophy has actually come true.
@timg56
// even one example of where a prediction of world catastrophy has actually come true //
I asked a similar question at a Cafe Scientique session with a big contingent of Guardianistas. My question was
Silence. Nobody had a single example of peak oil or peak bronze or peak food or peak anything.
Philip Bratby said:
Wow - and you accuse us warmistas of being alarmist :-)
I usually post DNFTT reminders but on this thread encouraged more from Z as a perfect illustration of that which Vaclav Klaus has warned us against. On this, she has been useful. However, it was abuse of the blog and I apologise.
Damm! Wrong thread!
@simpleseekeraftertruth Oct 5, 2011 at 1:46 AM
<Damm! Wrong thread!>
Perhaps so, but the same principle applies in this thread - although I very much doubt that the abuse of the blog was yours ;-)
Oct 5, 2011 at 1:41 AM | Scots Renewables
There are eight sentences in PB's message.
Each sentence could spawn a power-point presentation lasting many hours.
Judging by your signature I speculate that you are in that section of the population that, when confronted by a problem, resorts to putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la, la, la". I also speculate that you would ignore any attempt to increase your understanding of the fragility of the national electricity grid. Just speculating, maybe you are really an agent provocateur.
This winter, 2011/12, it is likely that on many of the cold days the demand will be equal to the supply.
When that happens, in order to protect the stability of the system, grid operators have a limited number of options, one of which is the disconnection of consumers. When they run out of the group of willing disconnectees (they agree to that in exchange for cash), then the next in line could be you SR.
We live (exist?) in a world beset by unintended consequences, for which MPs are wholly responsible, mainly because they are easily swayed by crap promulgated by people who are mad, and possibly use silly aliases.
Anyone with the meanest intelligence would see that, when the electricity supply to your accommodation is not available, the wheels of modern life rapidly start falling off.
No computer, no telly, no heat, stored food defrosts, no light, no kettle, no oven, just your iPad or mobile phone (until the battery goes flat). Your local ATM may not work either. Holy Mackerel Sapphire, what to do you do then? Go out and mug someone?
Sixty years ago, food was stored in tins or jars, fresh food was bought daily from the corner shoppe and could be stored for a few days in a larder, warmth (of a sort) came from an open coal fire and the coal was stored outside in a special bunker which was refilled regularly by a stocky bloke with a horse and cart.
Modern life is totally unsuited to cope with the scenarios which are unfolding before your covered-up eyes.
Those pre-WW2 houses which still had those useful features and might have provided refuge for the lucky few, have been demolished by Two Jags in his aptly named project "Pathfinder"; he was too thick to recognise that his formally educated officials were taking the p1ss.
May I suggest, SR, that you put the master switch on your consumer unit to the "off" position and give it a try for, lets make it easy, 48 hours. Do it right now, to simulate an unexpected disconnection - what you have in the house is what will have to last for 48 hours. Some would suggest that this would be a good training exercise.
Please, report back here on 7 October and let us know how you got on.
I shall not be holding my breath.
Oct 5, 2011 at 1:41 AM | Scots Renewables
Sorry, I forgot to mention that domestic lighting in many dwellings back then was provided by incandescent gas mantles with the fuel, town gas, coming to your house by gravity from the gasometer a couple of miles away.
Only a match was needed to secure this reliable form of lighting.
Well said Browned off and ChrisM. I live in a remote location and am prepared to live for a few weeks without electricity every winter (because I get cut-off by this white stuff brought on by global warming). I would lose my oil-fired boiler, thus no central heating or hot water. I have a wood-burning stove, so could survive extreme cold like we had last winter. I have various gas-powered camping stoves, so wouldn't starve, and always keep a large stock of tinned food, flour, potatoes etc in the larder. I would be extremely p!ssed-off to lose all my frozen food (a lot grown myself). At a pinch, if the water-supply failed, I could boil water from the river or a spring. My neighbour could always kill a lamb or two to keep us going and I can get fresh milk, even if the farmer has to milk by hand. I don't yet have a generator to provide electricity to keep the freezers and boiler going, but the time will come.
But what I do fear is for friends and family who aren't capable of lasting more than a short period without electricity and who would be vulnerable to the criminal element.
I'm not an alarmist, just a realist.
Brownedoff
And as I have pointed out before (and often), your suggestion to scotsrenewables is a decision which many poor people are being forced to make every winter.
"Do I heat my house or do I buy food?"
This most seriously affects the old who need to use more electricity than younger people for all sorts of reasons (they are more vulnerable; they tend to be at home all day). The winter fuel payment is a laugh and the cold weather payments (which appear to be based on the temperature at some central weather station — probably subject to UHI effect) is a joke, Rarely do parts of the UK go a whole seven days with temperatures averaging 0C or below and those that do are unlikely to be near one of the government-approved weather stations.
Government, whose primary function is the protection of its citizens, is presently presiding over a potential catastrophe which it has (at least until Osborne's speech on Monday) no intention of doing anything about.
The old and poor will be the ones to die first. As the gap between supply and demand continues others will follow and as industry is affected so the situation worsens as the nation itself becomes poorer.
All this in the name of averting a future catastrophe which remains hypothetical. The replacement of coal-fired power stations with nuclear may be a desirable end in itself but the effects of closing down one before the other comes on-line is not desirable and nor is it necessary.
If the EU wishes to kill its citizens that is no reason why the UK should be expected to join in the suicide pact.
I note the "Scots Renewables" is is sticking to the apparently dead Zed's tactic of fact free rudeness without actually trying to say anything. It appears few alarmists gave any other tactic.
Come on SR - if you have a factual criticism make it and give the alleged facts.
Seems there may be just a glimmer of hope after all in the corridors of Westminster, judging from George Osborne's latest comments (vis-a-vis the Climate Change Act only being binding if all EU countries do the same...)...
Not putting up the bunting just yet, though - we still have to dispense with the services of Chris Huhne....
Brownedoff "in order to protect the stability of the system, grid operators have a limited number of options, one of which is the disconnection of consumers. When they run out of the group of willing disconnectees (they agree to that in exchange for cash), then..."
I note the NHS is one of the biggest "willing disconnectees".
Might be a good idea to have a medical exam, and get any niggles sorted in the near future, same goes for dental work. I can't imagine anything worst than sitting there freezing, hungry, with toothache or other medical needs.
Phillip Bratby have you considered your own bore hole? This kit is relatively easy to make from scratch...
http://www.hydromissions.com/products.htm
Hospitals have their own emergency power supplies which is presumably why they found tit worthwhile to sign up.
Oct 5, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Mike Jackson
The replacement of coal-fired power stations with nuclear may be a desirable end in itself but the effects of closing down one before the other comes on-line is not desirable and nor is it necessary.
I am afraid that the insane rulers in the UK have left everything far too late, (and they still do not get it), for uneasy citizens to use phrases such as "not desirable" and "nor is it necessary". I am sorry, but the implied options are not available now.
If, by a some miracle, the frogs would start the construction of Hinkley Point C (2 x 1.6 GW) nuclear power station on 1 January 2012, then the earliest that the whole 3.2 GW would be on-line is mid 2019.
By then 11.5 GW of coal-fired and oil-fired power stations will have gone for ever (by 31 December 2015 or earlier) and 4 GW of nuclear will vanish by the end of 2018.
Do the calculations.
The remaining coal-fired power stations in service after 31 December 2015 are getting longer in the tooth by the day, the first phase of Drax is 36 years old this year - 40ish by 31 December 2015 and no, for coal-fired power stations life does not begin at 40, they are in old folks homes on drips.
In the meantime, old CCGT plants will become uneconomical and go out of service/mothballed (like 1.8 GW Teeside CCGT earlier this year), and new coal taxes soon, followed by, I think, new "allowable operating hours" restrictions for the remaining coal-fired power stations which will start engaging on 1 January 2016.
Oct 5, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Frosty - that is amazing.
Oct 5, 2011 at 5:46 PM | Neil Craig - the key word is "emergency" - not "money making scam" and in any case the emergency capacity is calculated to facilitate a controlled shutdown of critical circuits not to keep the hospital running normally at full tilt. I think. I will put my hands up if that is incorrect.
I consider myself to be in fortunate circumstances in that we have private water, private sewage, a wood burning stove (and nearly limitless wood) and a remote location. During a recent 'blow' the mains electricity was off for 'only' 5 days and I can assure anyone that, even being well prepared (we have a small genny to keep the freezers going) you seriously MISS the mains supply. For those who don't have alternative heating/cooking/lighting facilities I could easily imagine the outrage and protest that such a loss would incur. Riots even. We have become so used to the availability of electricity that cutting anyone off for even a couple of days will incite rear protest.
typo 'real protest' (not 'rear'
>'real protest' (not 'rear')
That's where it will come from, though!
Thanks Frosty. My neighbour has a borehole, so I could use his water, but I would probably prefer to sterilise my own spring water.
D Gill. I am in nearly the same situation as you and I will definitely get a small generator.
Brownedoff. I believe modern gas stations can be constructed in a couple of years if planning permission is granted and they don't have the lunacy of being "CCS ready".
Incidentally, Prof Jim Khalili starts a series tonight on BBC4 about the history of electricity and the grid, which might touch on what life (or death) would be like without electricity. Of course, being the beeb, there will be no mention of why we will be short of electricity in the near future, and who will be to blame. It has been pointed out to the relevant ministers for years. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vkjmy
Phillip have a look at the "Berkefeld Gravity Water Filter" they're much cheaper than the US made Berkey which is a bit of a benchmark filter, equally well made IMO. The ceramic filter inserts purify rather than filter, even removes fluoride, but are a little more expensive. The whole thing with spare filters is usually around the £100 mark. I'm not sure about linking commercial suppliers so I'll just say Kernowrat were very helpful when I was researching my purchase.
Thanks Frosty, I'll follow it up.
Brownedoff
My point about the suicide pact was that if we need to extend the life of existing plant until new-build comes on-stream then we should do it. The EU's demand that we should shut stations down ahead of their "use-by" date makes no economic sense and I doubt that it makes much sense even in the context of global warming.
I also doubt if the UK is the only country that feels this way. What exactly is the EU going to do if every country (I'm thinking Germany after its craven decision to give into the eco-nut tendency) decides to continue with coal generation as an interim measure?
It need not be for long. Phillip Bratby is right that gas-fired stations can be built and brought on-stream pretty quickly.
Oct 6, 2011 at 7:15 AM | Phillip Bratby
Brownedoff. I believe modern gas stations can be constructed in a couple of years if planning permission is granted and they don't have the lunacy of being "CCS ready".
I agree, this is correct, but between the time one decides to kick-off a new gas-fired power station (on one's own site, say, a brown field which once was home to a coal-fired power station - demolished long ago), and the start of construction can take about 6 years, then and only then can the 2 year construction period commence.
A well known constructor of CCGT stuff put in an application to the DECC on 8 December 2008. This means they must have kicked-off the project at least 18 months before, lets say 1 June 2007. They got approval for the power station itself (but must be CCS ready) on 4 March 2011. Unfortunately, the essential 25/30 km (15/20 miles for oldies) gas pipe has to have, under the terms of Sod's Law, a new application to be presented to the grandly named "The Infrastructure Planning Commission" and its panjandrums.
This Gilbert and Sullivan throwback is expecting the application for the pipeline in June 2012, and they then have 1 year in which to involve Uncle Tom Cobley and All in order to review the effect of a buried pipe on frogs and migratory bird life etc. Decision to go ahead, if all goes well, is expected to be June 2013. Fingers crossed. So, 1 June 2007 to 1 June 2013 is 6 years.
So, the earliest date for putting this 2 GW CCGT power station into commercial service is June 2015, having taken 33% longer to come to fruition than it did to go from the start to the finish of WW2. See how I carefully avoided falling foul of Godwin's Law?
Incidentally, DECC have said that it is OK to go ahead with the distillate oil-fired 400 MW OCGT, which "would be used only for periods to meet peak demand or in response to intermittency in renewable generation". How likely is it that the OCGT part of construction will start before they get the gas pipe approval?
Some CCGT power stations projects have been put on the back-burner by promoters, because, I think, on the grounds that coal is cheaper than gas in the UK during the winter months and so they cannot compete at the prime time of year, or at least until the LCPD gang starts falling off the cliff, then happier days will resume. The business case is apparently weak in their eyes at the moment.
The only way that the UK will have a surge in CCGT/OCGT construction, to directly compensate for the up-coming loss of proper power stations and intermittency is for the government to:
(a) waive the IPC involvement,
(b) waive the insane requirements of CCA 2008,
(c) offer interest free loans to fund the procurement/construction phases of CCGT and OCGT projects,
(d) guarantee a fair price for 1 MWh of juice at the point of sale to the grid,
(d) bugger off out of the way for at least 15 years!
------------------
Oct 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM | Mike Jackson
if we need to extend the life of existing plant until new-build comes on-stream then we should do it
I have explained several times why this is not possible, and I was recently supported in my view by Green Sand in Unthreaded on Sep 30, 2011 at 8:18 PM.
How do you think that the EU arrived at 20,000 hours. It was because they took advice from proper power station engineers who opined that, for the majority of the clapped out coal-fired stations in Europe, the average life expectancy in late 2007, was about 20,000 hours.
They may be be an burr under the saddle but they are not stupid. Who wants to be blamed for consigning countries to the stone age without proper notice, that is, so that wise (!) governments could take timely remedial action to avoid that calamity. Of course, no wise government exists in Europe, hence the bleak outlook.
Oh, and by the way, please do not bring up "the frogs will ride to the rescue". This is total oblate spheroids because the maximum flow for the forseeable future from Eutopia is a piddling, pathetic, useless 3 GW, and sometimes the UK sends 3 GW the other way. These interconnectors are not a sustitute for proper power stations, they are intended to assist grid operators on both sides of the English Channel to fine tune their respective grids. It was a good idea at the time but I think that, in their heart of hearts, NG wishes that the bloody things had never been invented.
Brownedoff
Fine comment! I especially enjoyed the supple avoidance of a collision with Godwin ;-)
Seriously though, keep saying it. And not just here, if you know what I mean. It's all that can be done.
Oct 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM | BBD
All the stuff I put here is known, indeed well known, to thousands of workers at all grades in the UK power generation industry.
All these thousands of workers have unavoidable life expenses which are covered, albeit with increasing difficulty, by a monthly injection of loot into their bank account from their employer.
Until recently, from top to bottom they had become inured to saving the planet to the extent that, to stay in the job, they had not only to keep quiet about their concerns, but they had to repeat the absurd mantras over and over again to show their allegiance to the cause. This was the manifestation of their fear.
With the passage of time, fear is now replaced by resignation, in that today they no longer have to get indigestion or an ulcer by suppressing their concerns, no, the stress has been lifted now by the knowledge that, even if they spoke out, it is too late to avoid Armageddon, so they might as well continue keeping quiet, but now without the worry. Fortunately, they also know that it is the MPs who will ultimately pay the price for this folly, not them.
Of course, this state of affairs is widespread in all enterprises which depend to a greater or lesser extent upon government largesse to keep them in business.
We live in interesting times.
I think this reality is what has Zed so confused. She can't get her head around the fact that energy policy has been hijacked by the multitude of lobbying ideologues (aka 'energy fantasists') who don't know what they are doing.
As you say, interesting times.
Browned Off. I agree with everything you say. If (sorry, when) we become 2GW short one winter, you can bet your bottom Euro that suddenly the frog ends of the two interconnectors would be down or the frog power would be going elsewhere in fantasyland, such as to Germany.
Oct 6, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Phillip Bratby
Or more likely, in the true UK "last Rolo", stiff upper lip tradition, we will actually p1ss away our last 2 GW down the line, just to feel all EUtopian.
After all, as Dave says, we are all in this together.
I wonder how long it will be before the guys and gals in the ISS observe that there are more pinpricks of light showing in North Korea than in the whole of EUtopia from Galway Bay to Lake Van?