Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s

From WUWT, regarding the 2008/2009 winter...

The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter in several decades, and hopefully policymakers have learned a few basic lessons from this. Here is my wish list, which seem painfully obvious.

1. Britain can’t rely on global warming to stay warm in the winter.
2. Britain can’t rely on solar power to stay warm in the winter. There just isn’t enough sun (which is why it is cold in the winter.)
3. Britain can’t rely on wind power to stay warm in the winter. During the coldest weather the winds were calm (which is one reason why the air temperatures were so low.)
4. Britain can’t rely on Russian natural gas to stay warm. The gas supply was cut off for weeks due to politics.

The only large scale energy supplies the UK can rely on in the near future are coal, oil and a small amount of nuclear.

Based on info earlier in this thread... evidently the UK hasn't learned much.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Elsewhere on his site... regarding Glasgow's hoopla about "Europe’s largest onshore wind farm at Whitelee."

The average temperature was -2C (29F) during the week, and there was almost no wind on most of those days. No wind means no electricity. On the coldest days, there is no wind – so wind power fails just when you need it the most. On the morning of February 4, the temperature was -7C (19F) and the wind speed was zero.
In order to keep society from lapsing into the dark ages, there has to be enough conventional (coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear) capacity to provide 100% of the power requirements on any given day. Thus it becomes apparent that Britain’s push for “renewable” energy is leading the UK towards major problems in the future.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Looks like the future is close at hand.

The other option... is to purchase the needed energy off of somebody else's grid... at whatever price they want to charge.




[edit on 1-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

reply to post by RoofMonkey


Ah, see. You think you can get by alone, but you can't. What would help?

Maybe membership in a "One World" government in which all shared all resources equally?

Now, tell China you're ready for your "share" of the goods.
Tell Russia. Brazil? India?

OK, maybe the EU, no?

Oh well. Turn off the lights, would you?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Uniceft17
I kinda look at this as a good thing.

I know this won't be a popular opinion. But it does make sense.

Great!

Start now. Turn off your computer, disable your car and cut the power to your TV and radio.

The stuff in the 'fridge will stay good for about a week. After that, you can smoke or salt your groceries. Stock up on wood.

In about a month, go to a public library and let us know how you're doing. If they let you in.

jw

You did quote me, did you not click the quote button when you replyed to my original post? I think you did, and then you went onto delete the main point of my post and responded in a way that made it look like I said something else.

I said this:

It gives a mandate/incentive to invest in alternative energies, alot can happen 8 years in terms of technological advancement, everyone needs a cleaner planet, if we kept these places open then everyone would be satisfied and there wouldn't really be a reason to convert to alternative energies, eventually it would happen but it would take alot longer than need be, global warming may not exist, but that doesn't mean we need to keep poluting our already heavy poluted planet.

That was the main point of my post, and you responded by telling me to cut the lights off, go without power for a month etc, when I wasn't even talking about that, I was talking about this could be a good incentive untill the fact that people are going without power.

In your opening post:

America, with the 'climate bill' due out of the Senate before the end of September, are you ready for the stone age?

So going without power for 1 hour a year is equivalent to a stone age, I guess i've been in a super stoneage, because my power goes off randomly for no reason that equals more than an hour a year.

You exagerated, and yes you did quote me. And I don't think I ever said anything about you not being an enviromentalist, or putting money in the pockets of scoundrels, Unless you can QUOTE me saying otherwise.

[edit on 9/1/2009 by Uniceft17]

reply to post by Uniceft17


You have no "alternative energy" strategies in the works, so your proposals are dreams and nothing more.

"1 hour a year?" You really believe that? Even if it's 1 minute a day, is that a sign of progression or reversion? How is that an improvement?

Your words speak for themselves. Did you want to take some of them back?
jw

reply to post by stumason


'To sustain' should be their first priority whether it's 'green' or not, wind power would great regardless of the environment.

I think it boils down to money like it always does, one single turbine built for the cost of £1million can generate enough power for 1200 homes, that's roughly £48.000 a month, at an average of £40 per household.

So it would take less than 2 years to pay for itself. Only a fraction of that would be needed for maintenance.

The thing is this; will the public want to pay top $ for so called "free" energy?.. I doubt it, so energy prices would have to come down a lot, and they know it.

Why change the way it is now? We have 300 years worth of coal left.

Edit: had to break it down a little, I couldn't even understand it myself

[edit on 1-9-2009 by ChemicalSubstance]

reply to post by Mikey84


That's not true. Energy flows back and forth between the interconnectors, depending on generating capacity that is available at the time. At the moment, there is sufficient generating capacity to cover all the UK's needs and then some. This article is about the future when those generators go offline.

reply to post by ChemicalSubstance


In order for wind to supply the UK, the whole damned island would have to be covered in windmills and we would have to have wind every day. Wind isn't reliable enough to base an entire countries supply on.

What they should do is have conventional supplies, like clean coal and nuclear to back up local/domestic power production. The conventional capacity should be at least 110% of what is required, but there is no need to use it all in one go.

They should then allow domestic generators to sell power they aren't using back into the Grid, say if you have solar panels or a turbine of your own on your roof.

It really isn't rocket science, but our Government spends millions on reports, inquiries and studies, only to flip-flop and delay a decision for fear of upsetting someone, all the while taking the country close to the abyss with their piss poor decision making.

Couple this with an almost pathological desire to destroy the UK and sell us out to Europe and you have an almighty balls-up on your hands.

Even if the Tories got into power today, let alone next year, there is not enough time to prevent this shortage from happening.

EDIT: Industries like Power generation and other critical infrastructure should be nationalised. But the EU says "Non", except in France of course...

[edit on 1/9/09 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mikey84

 

... This article is about the future when those generators go offline.

Like say... in winter?

Better hope they don't overload those feed lines from the mainland.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

reply to post by RoofMonkey


I know, for a fact, that there is sufficient capacity for the entire country. We import power from France when there is planned works going on at a generating site, for example. Also, the Grid buys it's energy from the wholesale market, meaning if the French are selling it cheaper than a Power supplier here in the UK, we will buy it from them. That also works the other way, you know.

It does not mean in any shape or form that we cannot generate our own.

How do i know this? I work very closely with the National Grid.

EDITED: For detail..


[edit on 1/9/09 by stumason]

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Uniceft17

 

You have no "alternative energy" strategies in the works, so your proposals are dreams and nothing more.

"1 hour a year?" You really believe that? Even if it's 1 minute a day, is that a sign of progression or reversion? How is that an improvement?

Your words speak for themselves. Did you want to take some of them back?
jw

When you have an incentive to get something done you get it done, i'm not saying that this going to be the same case, but something will likely be done about it, we are not talking about wars etc. We are talking about power, something the people will make a great fuss about, so I have no doubt that something will be done, if it doesn't get done, then by all means flame the hell out of me when that time comes, untill then it's all what hypothetically could happen. Now there are a few more points I'd like to make but you will probably ignore that part of my post.

My words speak for themself? Dude seriously, i think my point is perfectly clear and logical.

Maybe you should take your words back, obviously you have an agenda, because you didn't address the fact at all that you DID quote me, you did exagerate the article bringing the new "stoneage' into the argument, and you did take my words out of context, but of course you left that out of your post, I wander why?

Obviously there is a bias here by the three points i listed, and my main key point for that is the fact that you are exagerating.

I have no need to debate people who take my words out of context to make it look like I said something else, who exaggerate and fear monger by bringing in a 'stoneage', and who doesn't even know the definition of quote.

Touche'

[edit on 9/1/2009 by Uniceft17]

Originally posted by ChemicalSubstance
reply to post by stumason

 

I think it boils down to money like it always does ... ., The thing is this; will the public want to pay top $ for so called "free" energy?..

What if they don't have a choice"

What if the MPs and MEPs decide that the UK is better off NOT building for the future? Or if they decide to go along with EU's Copenhagen protocols?

Are you prepared to 'make do' with what you've got, because that's all you're gonna get?

jw

[edit on 1-9-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RoofMonkey

 

I know, for a fact, that there is sufficient capacity for the entire country. We only ever import power from France when there is planned works going on at a generating site, for example.

How do i know this? I work very closely with the National Grid.

I do not doubt that there currently enough capacity. But it appears that there is a push to eliminate "spinning reserve."

Here in the US, one tactic to deal with load variations are peaking reservoirs that can be put on line to deal with load demands. Pump water up to teh top of the mountain when demand is low, draw it through the turbines when demand is high. Works great unless you forget to quit filling it.

The stone retaining wall around a huge mountaintop reservoir in the Ozark Mountains collapsed before daybreak Wednesday, releasing a billion-gallon (3.8-billion-liter)torrent of water that swept away at least two homes and several vehicles and critically injured three children, authorities said.

The V-shaped breach opened up just after 5 a.m. at a hydroelectric plant run by St. Louis-based utility AmerenUE, and within minutes the 50-acre (20-hectare) reservoir had emptied itself out with terrifying effect, turning the surrounding area into a landscape of flattened trees and clay-covered grass.

"We'll never see anything like it in our lifetime again," paramedic Chris Hoover said.

www.accessmylibrary.com...


Another thing to consider... are cascading failures. Being associated with the grid you know what I'm talking about. The last major blackout we had was due to a series of communications failures among the different grid operators and plants. I have no idea how your system works... but it might be a concern.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Uniceft17

 

You have no "alternative energy" strategies in the works, so your proposals are dreams and nothing more.

One more point I would like to make before I dip.

There are already alternative energies, they are being improved everyday, they will be expensive untill they go mainstream, and it looks like there is an incentive to get things done, and to get this alternative energy business going.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by ChemicalSubstance
reply to post by stumason


Are you prepared to 'make do' with what you've got, because that's all you're gonna get?

jw

No I'm prepared to build my own wind turbine using an old washing machine motor with a propeller stuck to the front of it

[edit on 1-9-2009 by ChemicalSubstance]

reply to post by RoofMonkey


You right, that is what this article is talking about. There will be virtually no spinning reserve come 2018 unless construction begins very soon. And it doesn't look like it will, because the Government privatised the energy (due to EU laws) sector and isn't giving them any incentive (or even helping them finance) to spend billions building new power stations.

Funny how they'll throw hundreds of billions at Banks, but won't lift a finger to help power generation. I'd like to see the banks run on no power....

The National Grid here is a single network, managed from a central control. They have an advanced teleprotection network (which is where I come in) which enables real time control of the flow of electricity. In fact, tonight due to an issue I had at work, the Grid did lose temporary control over this flow on a few of their intertrips. Lets just say I was sweating quite profusely as I tried to rectify it...

Whilst not ruling out any kind of cascade failure, we are not as exposed as say the US was back a few years ago, with multiple operators and controls.

We do have individual local distributor networks, which is where the majority of the problems come from anyway. But barring a seriously catastrophic incident, the National Grid is very resilient. Can't say the same for the local distributors though.

reply to post by stumason

I can sympathize with your frustration.

What happens to your need to expand capacity when there are no "credits" to trade for it? What do you do when you need to utilize all your available resources but don't have the "credits" to finance it?

Do you pass the costs through to the consumer? Do you avoid the costs by not participating?

Who is paying for your energy production above the "base line.?"
jw

I can't see this article being correct simply because Britain's industry has been decimated and sees no sign of ever recovering to its past hey days.

The last article I read on this said that two power stations were now no longer needed simply because 'Britain is no longer working!'

So where is this extra demand supposed to come from?
The UK is finished and over and just an Island Prison for the worlds lost and unwanted!

reply to post by Elliot


There's no use UK worrying about UK power sources, since they are part of the EU.

Gov't. will take care of everything~

jw

Originally posted by stumason
Thanks Labour and thanks EU, you've ruined our country. Whereas we have to act upon every EU directive due to Labour incorporating them into our Laws, the French can ignore them and go unpunished.

Too true.

The French still have a nationalised Power sector (along with other key sectors) and have not suffered from the fluctuations in gas/oil prices and generate alot of their power from Nuclear, whereas here in the UK, we're being forced to close down our power stations to satisfy our EU masters, even though our privatised (at the behest of the EU) power sector won't build any new plants because the Government won't stump up the money.

The fact is that it was Thatcher and her cronies who started this decline in the UK's power supply.

As an act of spite she decimated the coal industry and ripped apart whole communities.
She then sold off the family silver to those that already owned it by privatising nationalised businesses.
Normal people took their quick profit and sold their shares to corporate businesses.
Eventually the power supply has come under the control of French and German companies who are slowly bleeding this country dry.

We are where we are now due to the poicies initiated by Thatcher and the duplicity of the current Labour regime and the illegal and immoral EU.
That this transcends both political dogma and national interests I suspect that this is part of some hidden, greater agenda which is being played out.

All utility companies should be Nationalised again immediately, BUT, they should be managed professionally.
Investment should be made in clean Coal processes and a new Nuclear power plant programme should be drawn up.

Unfortunately this takes time and would not be ready in 8 years time.

It also requires people putting aside party political allegiances and putting the interests of the UK and it's citizens first and foremost.

I tell you what, power cuts and the like might be good for his country. It might make the sheeple sit up and take notice what has been going on. Shame it had to go so far first though.

Power cuts would only stoke the fears of the sheeple and result in further restrictions of civil liberties.

Time to start rolling out the Free Energy Magnetic Generators and Solar panels, OOPs sorry we're not allowed those yet until all the fuel and oil has run out then we can get charged through the nose for them by greedy power magnates.

Yeah we just gotta get used to there being not enough power in the national grid to sustain our society whilst some rich elite gets richer, and then takes over the companies building F.E.M.G's and solar panels.

Maybe when it HAS BECOME an energy crisis not before, or after a couple more wars then maybe we can be charged £10,000 for a F.E.M.G and then have to pay a rental fee monthly to power our homes and businesses.