UK govt preps World War 2 energy rationing to keep the lights on The UK government will today set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts as a "last resort". The price to Britons will be high. Factories will be asked to "voluntarily" shut down to save energy at peak times for homes, while others will be paid to provide their own backup power should …
The problem here is that the people in charge have a lot of friends who are very important. So back when these renewables were being built, Joe Public wasn't saying it was a marvellous idea, it was the politicians. Why were the politicians so keen on these? Well it's the exact same story as the "Help To Buy" scheme right now: their friends run companies who would benefit hugely from these projects, and would look after the politician who agreed to make it happen.
The politicians who you see on the TV, the "popular" ones, don't need or want to do Jack Shit for the benefit of the people in this country. The local politicians, the ones you see demanding answers as to why their local NHS hospital is being shutdown on a late night BBC Parliament, are the honest ones. But these chaps and lasses never make it to the front bench, and it's there that this country has a problem.
Labour, Lib Dems, Tories. 3 cheeks of the same arse. And no, this is NOT an endorsement for UKIP.
Which is roughly half (per MWh) what the government recently promised to EDF (IIRC) for a new nuke plant. Add to that up to 20% grid losses (overall about 7%) and the advantages of a fault tolerant distributed local generation begin to stack up. The only hurdle is the fact that it empowers ordinary people rather than the hydrocarbon dealing swine, which runs counter to the deliberate policy of poverty infliction and enforcement, also known as "austerity", "big society", "benefits reform", etc.
The problem with Auntie is the frankly embarrassing political news blackouts it engages in all too often at the behest of those who hold the purse strings. A recent example being the Green Party all but ignored in favour of the establishment's fringe nutters UKIP and trampagne crusaders britain first. Thanks to an episode of Derek I heard the C word more than the G word from the beeb that week.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes, because all 4 of those would make a huge difference.
I can't find the exact figures for the MW output on the reactors used on the Vanguard class subs, but I believe it is around 20-25MW (perhaps another commentard can find an accurate figure for this?).
Even being optimistic and saying it's 30MW, you're looking 120MW for the whole fleet.
Barely with bothering with, even before you account for the security concerns of keeping all of them docked in known locations at the same time.
Run them backwards. That's what all the "smart grid" people tell us.
Let these things earn their tax breaks!
Pity though that this magic fairy dust that promises so much when scooping up the tax payer gravy doesn't really work that way in real life.
This is the unfortunate result of democracy.
Dimwits who think that Liking something on Facebook is enough to make it happen outnumber those with an appreciation for engineering & physics. However the dimwits get the same vote that a knowledgeable person does. Therefore dimwits drive policy selection.
Result: Tax the power stations which generate real power and use the tax to prop up beautiful green toys that do nothing. Blame global warming when the power runs out.
Just down the road from here is an example of the problem - Hinkley Point is overdue for new reactor capacity and after years of dithering it still isn't happening. The government has gone for renewables rather than invest in nuclear because the [redacted] [redacteds] who pontificate think that ooh, scary radiation.
Germany having announced "Kerntechnik nein danke!" is now in a stew over Russian gas - they are using the EU to try to block the South Stream so Russia will have to continue to supply Ukraine and thus Germany, instead of finding new markets in the Balkans and Italy.
The cause of the problem is not money spent on renewables; it's pure and simple ignorance among the public and politicians - and journalists.
"The cause of the problem is not money spent on renewables; it's pure and simple ignorance among the public and politicians - and journalists."
The politicians are acting according to their interests, which is not to say they are evil or stupid, just putting off the unpopular thing to the future. Make no mistake, any strategic move to more gas, coal or nuclear would be unpopular with the greenies.
"Make no mistake, any strategic move to more gas, coal or nuclear would be unpopular with the greenies."
I guess the question is what percentage of the population count themselves amongst the "greenies". I know the environmentalist types are good at chaining themselves to trees and generally kicking up a lot of fuss, but if, as I suspect is the case, the large majority of the population would rather make sure the lights stay on first and foremost, then maybe the politicians could maybe grow a pair and do what needs to be done?
"but if, as I suspect is the case, the large majority of the population would rather make sure the lights stay on first and foremost, then maybe the politicians could maybe grow a pair and do what needs to be done...?"
This youtube video (nine seconds, straight to the point, safe for work providing you can get away with audio) describes my feelings on politicians actually doing the right thing perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M&feature=kp
For the devoid of Youtube:
Bender: Aaaaahahahahahahaaha
*Sees leela looking on disapprovingly*
Bender: Oh, wait - you were serious. Let me laugh even harder. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"I guess the question is what percentage of the population count themselves amongst the "greenies"."
I count myself as green-biased and I'm wildly in favour of MSRs. The problem is that noo-clear has a bad rep which is undeserved for the most part, coupled with a number of poor designs being used for commercial use (basically: all of them.)
If radiation was as bad as many campaigners make out, aircrews would be dying like flies. It's not cumulative and below threshold levels has little effect. That's not to say I want caesium or iodine compounds floating around but approaching it sensibly, the world's coal plants release enough radioactive material each year to make chernobyl look like a firecracker by comparson - and that's on top of the heavy metals and slag heaps (which are responsible for the largest environmental disasters in the USA in the last 25 years - the last one was bigger than deepwater horizon, killed more people and got almost no coverage)
I think a lot of the more knowledgeable "greenies" (among whom I arrogantly class myself) would be very happy to have more nuclear capacity. Unfortunately there are two sort of "greenies"; STEM educated people who are worried about climate change, food water and energy security and sustainability; and the ones who believe that we just need a reversion to Native American living standards and enough Hopi ear candles to replace the NHS, and all will be well for the world.
Politicians who act according to their short term interests and don't think about their grandchildren are, in my view, stupid. If in addition they have links to the oil and coal industries, they are evil as well as stupid. It's about being intelligent enough to understand where your real interests lie; hanging out with your SPADs plotting a briefing against another Minister, or trying to ensure that your grandchildren have a decent future.
The system (democracy) demands that politicians think and act in the short term. I've no reason to believe that, as individuals, politicians are any less concerned about future generations than the average member of the voting populace. Which is to say, not very concerned as against the need for access to water, food, power, health care, etc. today. Politicians who say "you need to put up with some extra pain today in order to benefit generations yet unborn" don't tend to get elected.
Autocracies are actually much better at thinking long term (in the same way that family businesses are better at it than public companies, which inevitably focus on next quarter's results). But, while there are examples of benevolent autocracies, no-one has yet cracked the problem of how to ensure that they remain benevolent.
I'm not clear what distinction you're aiming to draw. Parliamentary democracy as specifically practised in the UK is restricted to the UK and some Commonwealth countries plus some European constitutional monarchies. The US model, though still based on elected representatives, insists on a much stricter segregation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.
If you mean to distinguish between representative democracies and direct democracies (as practised, for example, in classical Athens - albeit with a highly restrictive definition of eligibility) I'm not sure there are many working examples - the big problem being how to stop everyone voting in higher benefits and lower taxes, look at California if you want to see what happens next.
"Make no mistake, any strategic move to more gas, coal or nuclear would be unpopular with the greenies."
And is it worth investing in fossil fuels anyway, given that we have a finite supply and burning it rather than using it for keeping prices down in the rest of the petrochemical industry is nonsensical. Nuclear, there's no argument about it being the best of the stop-gap solutions. It's an established and proven technology, the dangers are understood, just a bit expensive and unpopular.
Well they might not be sane in your opinion, but they are the people who feed and care for others and generally get stuff done.
Because that's the exclusive preserve of hardcore nutters who'd rather we all be living by candle light and see that dangerous elastic trickery stuff as an affront against Mother Nature.
"Germany having announced "Kerntechnik nein danke!" is now in a stew over Russian gas - they are using the EU to try to block the South Stream so Russia will have to continue to supply Ukraine and thus Germany"
The germans (read politicians and industrials), dont give a shait about Ukraine, they have the Nord Stream already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream .
And its interesting to know who is onboard...http://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/our-shareholders/
http://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/our-management/
"Even now I'm looking out my kipper tie and flares, and growing my sideburns in, since everything seems to have turned so very f***ing 1970s."
What you really need is a smock, some nice wool trews and a horse and cart. Our 21st Century government is taking us right back to the 1770s. You're a farmer who rocks up to the miller with a cart load of grain. The miller points at the non-moving sails and tells you to come back next wednesday. Or the miller may have a 1-2hp backup generator if you're lucky. Fast forward 250yrs and businesses will be studying weather forecasts to try to match production with the weather, customer demand and cash flow. And %deity help them if they're from the Met Office, but at least they may soon rhyme.
Workers can listen to the work forecasts to see if it's worth heading into work, or just going to buy more candles. Assuming you can buy them given they're often paraffin wax. Although that may be why environmentalists want wetlands re-introduced so the peasents can buy rush or reed candles.
21st Century Energy policy is like the industrial revolution never happened.
The CO2 emissions from the conrete in the base of a windmill alone is unlikely to be outweighed by any reductions from its electrical output over the economic life of the device.
Solar cells are similarly uneconomic. the payback period has gone down to around a decade but that's also the lifespan of the units and whilst it covers install costs thetre's no provision for maintenance in that equation.
"Pity that the most crumpled places in the UK, i.e. those best suited to hydro-storage, are those bits most likely to devolve and claim independence."
Matters from one point of view, but not this one given suitable market incentives. Eire has been considering using their western mountain ranges for pumped storage. Not so much for their own needs, but to sell more reliable renewable electricity to the UK. Same applies to increasing interconnector capacity across the North Sea (as well as the Irish Sea), enabling access to Norweigan hydro and pumped storage on a commercial basis.
It is always shocking how far away from the problem this discussion runs. The problem is that there is excessive peak load, that can't be met. Nuclear can't meet peak load. Ever try cranking up and down a nuclear plant on a moments notice? Great for base loads, but wait, that is not the problem here.
Gas is great for peak loads, since you can spin up a turbine in a few minutes, and get an idling one to full power in seconds. But you would have to pay for the turbine sitting around, or idling. Seems fair to me, peak power is hard, making it available should be rewarded. My problem with gas is that it comes from Russia. Prices have been a bit in free fall lately so it is easy to argue that gas is cheaper than renewables, but I would not claim that it really is more reliable, considering that if Russia shuts down all deliveries prices will be so sky high that burning candles will be a great alternative to light bulbs.
In my mind the real questions are: Why does the Grid need to quadruple STOR power? more finicky renewable plants or more and spikier usage? Why are gas plants not more attractive to run, prices for gas have fallen, peak energy prices are up, yet we hear that gas plants are mothballed. Why is it the politicians that shut down plants? The energy companies made those decisions, based on (good or bad) economic stimulus by the EU and UK politics. If they shut down too many plants without building new ones the energy companies screwed up, not the politicians. If the grid operators did not enter into enough long term contracts and allowed the energy companies to shut down plants and drive prices up (ever learned from California? Enron wrote the book on this.) then this is the grid operators fault. In the end the consumer pays, or puts PV solar on his roof...
Modern designs of nuclear reactors like the ones licenced to be built in the UK can all reduce output ("swing") quite readily if they, for some weird reason, produce "too much" power. Would that we were facing the problem of "too much" power...
As it is the existing British reactors are pumping out maximum base load power as much of the time as possible since the fuel cost is mind-bogglingly low and the grid is topped up with gas and coal with wind adding a small amount on top when the conditions are favourable.
"Would that we were facing the problem of "too much" power..."
The UK is, just not at the right time(s).
http://www.imeche.org/news/institution/wind-farm-operators-set-to-receive-millions-more-to-turn-off-their-turbines-with-consumers-footing-the-bill (April 24 2014)
"Energy customers will keep paying millions of pounds a year to wind farm operators to turn their machines off unless the UK urgently invests in developing energy storage, according to a new report released today."
...
"the Institution highlights energy storage technologies such as those based on Cryogenics – also known as ‘liquid air’ – flywheels, pumped heat and graphene super-capacitors as potential ways the UK can start making the best use of its renewable energy."
(continues)
Worth a look.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
